Early Church Fathers Women's Ordination

[jinc1019]

The “why” has to do with personna Christi. Christ, a man, is our High priest. That’s why priests are men. See particularly the red highlights with respect to what you ask. The OT priests were men, as are for 2000 years the NT priests, and will be forever.

333. Who can receive this sacrament?
1577, 1578 , 1598
This sacrament can only be validly received by a baptized man. The Church recognizes herself as bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. No one can demand to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, but must be judged suitable for the ministry by the authorities of the Church.
334. Is it necessary to be celibate to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders?
1579, 1580 , 1599
It is always necessary to be celibate for the episcopacy. For the priesthood in the Latin Church men who are practicing Catholics and celibate are chosen, men who intend to continue to live a celibate life “for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). In the Eastern Churches marriage is not permitted after one has been ordained. Married men can be ordained to the permanent diaconate.
335. What are the effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders?
1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589
This sacrament yields a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit which configures the recipient to Christ in his triple office as Priest, Prophet, and King, according to the respective degrees of the sacrament. Ordination confers an indelible spiritual character and therefore cannot be repeated or conferred for a limited time.
336. With what authority is the priestly ministry exercised?
1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1592
Ordained priests in the exercise of their sacred ministry speak and act not on their own authority, nor even by mandate or delegation of the community, but rather in the Person of Christ the Head and in the name of the Church. Therefore, the ministerial priesthood differs essentially and not just in degree from the priesthood common to all the faithful for whose service Christ instituted it.

Once again Steve, thanks for this, but it doesn’t address the question. The questions is about evidence from the early church explaining why, not actual explanations from you or later sources. I’m looking for evidence from the early church, that’s all.

 

[jinc1019]

based on available evidence it appears that every one of the early Church fathers believed Jesus designated males alone to be priests. however, the subject never became an issue of contention in the early Church and thus there was no need for any of the early fathers to mention it in writing. it was never an issue or a question. there is no reason it would be addressed in writing. so far as i am aware, it is not addressed in writing. i would stop looking for it in the writings of the early fathers because it is highly unlike they wasted time addressing a non-issue. all that was needed to write documents in that era was also difficult to come by. they did not waste time or money or resources writing about non-issues that most likely never even occurred as issues to them.

but, there is no harm in keeping looking for something, unless it causes you to neglect other responsibilities.

Hi Eddie. You seem to give conflicting accounts here. First you say “based on available evidence” the early church says only men can be priests. Then you say there is no mention of it anywhere. Confused by that.

 

[jinc1019]

There are numerous references in the epistles as to who can lead the church, and what the requirements for deacons, priests and Bishops are. No where are women allowed to lead. St. Paul goes so far in one epistle, 1 Corinthians i think, to state that women are to remain silent in church. I know this does not go over well in the modern age, but it is there in the canon of scripture. I believe that the women priest argument lessens all of the contributions that women have made both in the old testament and in the Christian era.

Again, I’m looking for evidence from the early church. Many good explanations have been given to explain away those passages as specific, limited instructions not meant to be taken for all-time. The texts say women should be silent in church, but virtually no one holds to that anymore. They also say women she keep their heads covered, another cultural-specific command. This is why I’m looking for evidence in the early church.

 

[jinc1019]

Dogmas tend to be explained mainly in response to a contemporary challenge. Certain aspects of the Eucharist weren’t defined until 1000 years after Christ - because they were taken for granted, didn’t need to be explained explicitly until the challenge came. That didn’t mean the Eucharist was not believed long before. Of course it was. The Early Church Fathers were writing mainly to counter or defend or respond to questions that were then coming up.

The OP has made a distinction between early church fathers, and heretics. That is a useful distinction, but that’s the Magisterium’s distinction, which you are (prudently) recognizing. This guy was deemed an Early Church Father, and that guy was deemed a heretic. For that matter, this book was accepted by the Magisterium as a canonical gospel, and that book was rejected as not canonical - by the Magisterium.
Some other authority might put all the Magisterium’s ECFs on the “heretic” list, and the Magisterium’s heretics on the list of the *real * ECFs. That process is sort of happening now actually, with the New Testament canon, also.

If you see that the Magisterium is authoritative on some things (accepting Jerome as an ECF, rejecting the Gospel of Thomas as non-canonical), you might also see St JP II Magisterial teaching on the topic of ordination as also authoritative. It’s the same Holy Spirit.

A person who rejects the mahisterium would reject this argument, which is kind of the point of the thread. A devout Catholic would probably accept this reasoning though.

 

[jinc1019]

Deaconesses were ordained, however Holy Orders were clarified more recently in the Latin Church.

From the end of the third century onwards, in certain regions of the Church60 (and not all of them), a specific ecclesial ministry is attested to on the part of women called deaconesses.61 This was in Eastern Syria and Constantinople. Towards 240 there appeared a singular canonico-liturgical compilation, the *Didascalia Apostolorum *(DA), which was not official in character. It attributed to the bishop the features of an omnipotent biblical patriarch (cf. *DA *2, 33-35, 3). He was at the head of a little community which he governed mainly with the help of deacons and deaconesses. This was the first time that deaconesses appeared in an ecclesiastical document.
…
[Syria 380 A.D.] Deaconesses took up their functions through an *epithesis cheirôn *or imposition of hands that conferred the Holy Spirit,65 as did the lectors (*CA *8, 20, 22). The bishop pronounced the following prayer: "Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, creator of man and woman, who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne and Hulda with your spirit; who did not deem it unworthy for your Son, the Only-Begotten, to be born of a woman; who in the tent of witness and in the temple did institute women as guardians of your sacred doors, look now upon your servant before you, proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of the office which has been entrusted to her, for your glory and to the praise of your Christ, through whom be glory and adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen."66

…

At Constantinople the best-known of the fourth-century deaconesses was Olympias, the superior of a monastery of women, who was a protegee of Saint John Chrysostom and had put her property at the service of the Church. She was “ordained” (cheirotonein) deaconess with three of her companions by the patriarch. Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) seems to confirm the fact that deaconesses really were “ordained” by the imposition of hands (cheirotonia). Their ministry was called *leitourgia *and after ordination they were not allowed to marry.
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…conate_en.html

Interesting. Thanks for addressing the question directly!

 

[jinc1019]

By that definition of patriarchy, I don’t think Catholicism is patriarchal at all. Rather, I think it has been instrumental in bringing legal and political equality to women.

• The Catholic Roman Empire’s laws explicitly recognized female equality in 565 A.D.
• Catholic Spain’s laws gave equal property rights to women in 643 A.D.
• Catholic France’s laws explicitly recognized female equality in 650 A.D.
• Italy’s laws gave equal property rights to women in 650 A.D.
• Catholic Ireland’s laws gave equal property rights to women sometime before 704 A.D., at the urging of St. Adamnan, who fasted for eight years and stood before eight different kings demanding equal treatment for women.

Women acquired seats at the western imperial courts, and an accompanying right to vote on legal matters, in the 900s A.D.

Catholic thinkers of the Scholastic period, like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Peter Lombard, wrote about the spiritual basis of female equality and cited Adam and Eve (before the Fall) as an example.

~1150 A.D. - Peter Lombard - “[A]lthough woman was made from man…she was formed not from just any part of his body, but from his side, so that it should be shown that she was created for the partnership of love, lest, if perhaps she had been made from his head, she should be perceived as set over man in domination; or if from his feet, as if subject to him in servitude. Therefore, since she was made neither to dominate, nor to serve the man, but as his partner, she had to be produced neither from his head, nor from his feet, but from his side, so that he would know that she was to be placed beside himself whom he had learned had been taken from his side.” (Sentences Book 2 Distinction 18)

Catholics were also early leaders in creating schools for girls, in upholding the literary and spiritual contributions of female Catholic authors and saints, and in university education for women.

Catholicism has a history of helping women acquire civic and spiritual equality with men. Many of the laws mentioned above explicitly cite religious reasons as the basis for male and female equality. By the definition of patriarchy you gave, Catholicism seems very big on equality, not patriarchy.

Source:

Catholic History & Women’s Equality: A Timeline
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/catholic-history-womens-equality.html

Nice response. I’m sure there were abuses too. Neither is the point. The thread is about evidence for or against the practice, not about women’s rights. The other poster is derailing the thread.

 

[jinc1019]

Your first quote refers to the eighth century. In the east in the fourth century and later: “Ordained abbesses of the monasteries of women, the deaconesses wore the * maforion*, or veil of perfection. Until the sixth century they still attended women in the baptismal pool and for the anointing. Although they did not serve at the altar, they could distribute communion to sick women.”

One reason for a deaconess not teaching can be seen it the writings of st. Paul and St. John Chrysostom:

New American Bible (NABRE)1 Timothy 2:11-14 11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
St. John Chrysostom writes that Eve mad bad use of her equality with Adam and therefore God made her subject to her husband: If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Your desire shall be to your husband?” Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before.

But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.

newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm

Thanks for this. It is on-topic but a bit too late. I’m looking for evidence much closer to Nicea or earlier. This is so far after than it could easily be argued it was just an innovation.

 

[jinc1019]

Then how do you explain this?

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-again-rejects-women-heads-vatican-offices

Surely not all leadership positions in the Vatican bureaucracy require ordination and could also be done by women?

Hi, I understand your point, but it’s off-topic completely. The point here is to find evidence for or against women’s ordination in the early church.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for this. It is on-topic but a bit too late. I’m looking for evidence much closer to Nicea or earlier. This is so far after than it could easily be argued it was just an innovation.

Notice that in the previously posted source, deaconess (representing the Holy Spirit) was unofficially attested to in the second century in Eastern Syria and Constantinople:At the beginning of the second century a letter from Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, mentioned two women who were described by the Christians as * ministrae*, the probable equivalent of the Greek *diakonoi *(10, 96-97). It was not until the third century that the specific Christian terms * diaconissa *or *diacona *appeared.

From the end of the third century onwards, in certain regions of the Church60 (and not all of them), a specific ecclesial ministry is attested to on the part of women called deaconesses.61 This was in Eastern Syria and Constantinople. Towards 240 there appeared a singular canonico-liturgical compilation, the *Didascalia Apostolorum *(DA), which was not official in character. It attributed to the bishop the features of an omnipotent biblical patriarch (cf. *DA *2, 33-35, 3). He was at the head of a little community which he governed mainly with the help of deacons and deaconesses. This was the first time that deaconesses appeared in an ecclesiastical document. In a typology borrowed from Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop held the place of God the Father, the deacon the place of Christ, and the deaconess that of the Holy Spirit (the word for “Spirit” is feminine in Semitic languages), while the priests (who are seldom mentioned) represented the Apostles, and the widows, the altar *(DA *2, 26, 4-7). There is no reference to the ordination of these ministers. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html

 

[commenter]

A person who rejects the mahisterium would reject this argument, which is kind of the point of the thread. A devout Catholic would probably accept this reasoning though.

If you accept the Magisterium’s canon, and the Magisterium’s designation of ECFs as authoritative - which you have in this thread - you are conceding at least some authority to the Magisterium, which includes St. JP II. Others besides devout Catholics would also accept this at least part way.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Deaconesses were ordained, however Holy Orders were clarified more recently in the Latin Church.

[Syria 380 A.D.] Deaconesses took up their functions through an *epithesis cheirôn *or imposition of hands that conferred the Holy Spirit

It is apparent that the above laying on of hands was not “ordination” in the sense of Holy Orders even in the ancient Church, not just “more recently.” Even today, the imposition of hands is involved in baptism or even confirmation, but that does not equate to Holy Orders automatically. In the early Church, sometimes the laying on of hands in question referred to Holy Orders, and sometimes not.

St. Hippolytus even says imposition of holy orders as of clergy was not conferred in the below example on appointed widows:When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained but she shall be appointed by the name. If her husband has been long dead, she may be appointed [without delay]. But if her husband has died recently, she shall not be trusted; even if she is aged she must be tested by time, for often the passions grow old in those who yield to them. The widow shall be appointed by the word alone, and [so] she shall be associated with the other widows; hands shall not be laid upon her because she does not offer the oblation nor has she a sacred ministry. Ordination is for the clergy on account of their ministry, but the widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all. (St. Hippolytus (Apostolic Tradition 11.3, ca 170 AD))See also:Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. (Council of Nicea, canon XIX, 325 A.D.)
St. Epiphanius, a contemporary of the above quote, likewise tells us that deaconesses were not ordained as clergy, but were appointed as a means of modesty:It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess*, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess. (Epiphanius, Against Heresies, ca 380 AD)*The Apostolic Constitutions, ca 380, also elude to the laity represented by the “bride,” as Scripture also says:*Hear this, you of the laity also, the elect Church of God. For the people were formerly called “the people of God,” Exodus 19:5-6 and “an holy nation.” Hebrews 12:23 You, therefore, are the holy and sacred “Church of God, enrolled in heaven, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,” a bride adorned for the Lord God, a great Church, a faithful Church.*Even earlier, the Church as a whole is identified as “bride”:*Thus we see the Church, the bride, to present an analogy to the moon and stars, and the disciples have a light, which is their own or borrowed from the true sun, so that they are able to illuminate those who have no command of any spring of light in themselves. (Origen, Commentary on John, book I, ca 200 AD)*You see in the above quote how the Church’s light is like the moon’s, i.e. something “received” from the bridegroom. This figure is in the conjugal relation as well where the bride receives from the bridegroom.*For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man. (Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, ca 200 AD)*Clement associates the priesthood as a type of the Levitical priesthood, which passed through male descendants:Now the offering and the ministrations leitourgias He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by his supreme will: that all things be done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to his will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed␣ for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high-priest arcierei his proper services idiai leitourgai have been assigned, and to the priests iereusin their proper office idios topos is appointed, and upon the Levites ; ; leuitais their proper ministrations idiai diakoniai are laid. The layman are bound by the layman’s ordinances. (Clement to the Corinthians , ca 90 AD)

 

[Vico]

It is apparent that the above laying on of hands was not “ordination” in the sense of Holy Orders even in the ancient Church, not just “more recently.” …

More recently refers to canon law, Omnium en mentem, 2009:"… the minister constituted into the Order of the episcopate or the priesthood receives the mission and power to act in the person of Christ the Head, while deacons receive the faculty to serve the People of God in the diaconates of the liturgy, of the Word and of charity."
and Vatican II Ad Gentes 16 which states:Where episcopal conferences deem it opportune, the order of the diaconate should be restored as a permanent state of life according to the norms of the Constitution “De Ecclesia.”(23) For there are men who actually carry out the functions of the deacon’s office, either preaching the word of God as catechists, or presiding over scattered Christian communities in the name of the pastor and the bishop, or practicing charity in social or relief work. It is only right to strengthen them by the imposition of hands which has come down from the Apostles, and to bind them more closely to the altar, that they may carry out their ministry more effectively because of the sacramental grace of the diaconate.

The second century women * ministrae of *Bithynia were not ordained. Some women in Syria in 380 A.D. were given an office of diaconate by the bishop, with the reception of the Holy Spirit. What we call Holy Orders today is not the same.
“Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, creator of man and woman, who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne and Hulda with your spirit; who did not deem it unworthy for your Son, the Only-Begotten, to be born of a woman; who in the tent of witness and in the temple did institute women as guardians of your sacred doors, look now upon your servant before you, proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of the office which has been entrusted to her, for your glory and to the praise of your Christ, through whom be glory and adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

More recently refers to canon law, Omnium en mentem, 2009:"… the minister constituted into the Order of the episcopate or the priesthood receives the mission and power to act in the person of Christ the Head, while deacons receive the faculty to serve the People of God in the diaconates of the liturgy, of the Word and of charity."
and Vatican II Ad Gentes 16 which states:Where episcopal conferences deem it opportune, the order of the diaconate should be restored as a permanent state of life according to the norms of the Constitution “De Ecclesia.”(23) For there are men who actually carry out the functions of the deacon’s office, either preaching the word of God as catechists, or presiding over scattered Christian communities in the name of the pastor and the bishop, or practicing charity in social or relief work. It is only right to strengthen them by the imposition of hands which has come down from the Apostles, and to bind them more closely to the altar, that they may carry out their ministry more effectively because of the sacramental grace of the diaconate.

The second century women * ministrae of *Bithynia were not ordained. Some women in Syria in 380 A.D. were given an office of diaconate by the bishop, with the reception of the Holy Spirit. What we call Holy Orders today is not the same.
“Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, creator of man and woman, who filled Myriam, Deborah, Anne and Hulda with your spirit; who did not deem it unworthy for your Son, the Only-Begotten, to be born of a woman; who in the tent of witness and in the temple did institute women as guardians of your sacred doors, look now upon your servant before you, proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of the office which has been entrusted to her, for your glory and to the praise of your Christ, through whom be glory and adoration to you, in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.”

 

[commenter]

If a future historian were to look at the first 200 years of the US, they might conclude that Christians were indifferent as to whether Marriage should be only heterosexual couples, or if gay marriage is also ok. They’d conclude that some fanatic group broke with tradition, and urge only heterosexual marriage, after the country had both kinds of marriage for 200 years, because that’s the flurry of citations suddenly appear after 1976. That is something like the early Church Fathers, who were responding to controversies of their own time. Things taken for granted didn’t get defended, like the male priesthood.

But anyone, not just Catholics, who refers to the ECF’s as “authoritative” at all, is conceding incredible authority to the Magisterium that created the “Early Church Fathers”, described what their role is for the Church, put some on that list, excluded others. The ECFs are a crucial source of info, but not comprehensive, and not a magisterium in themselves.

 

[jinc1019]

If you accept the Magisterium’s canon, and the Magisterium’s designation of ECFs as authoritative - which you have in this thread - you are conceding at least some authority to the Magisterium, which includes St. JP II. Others besides devout Catholics would also accept this at least part way.

First of all, I do not accept the Magisterium’s definition of the ECFs as authoritative in the way the Magisterium lays it out, nor did I say anywhere here that I do.

Second, the whole point of this post is to provide evidence to those who would not hold the Magisterium as authoritative, including the pope.

Thanks for posting though!

 

[jinc1019]

It is apparent that the above laying on of hands was not “ordination” in the sense of Holy Orders even in the ancient Church, not just “more recently.” Even today, the imposition of hands is involved in baptism or even confirmation, but that does not equate to Holy Orders automatically. In the early Church, sometimes the laying on of hands in question referred to Holy Orders, and sometimes not.

St. Hippolytus even says imposition of holy orders as of clergy was not conferred in the below example on appointed widows:When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained but she shall be appointed by the name. If her husband has been long dead, she may be appointed [without delay]. But if her husband has died recently, she shall not be trusted; even if she is aged she must be tested by time, for often the passions grow old in those who yield to them. The widow shall be appointed by the word alone, and [so] she shall be associated with the other widows; hands shall not be laid upon her because she does not offer the oblation nor has she a sacred ministry. Ordination is for the clergy on account of their ministry, but the widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all. (St. Hippolytus (Apostolic Tradition 11.3, ca 170 AD))See also:Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. (Council of Nicea, canon XIX, 325 A.D.)
St. Epiphanius, a contemporary of the above quote, likewise tells us that deaconesses were not ordained as clergy, but were appointed as a means of modesty:It is true that in the Church* there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess***, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess. (Epiphanius, Against Heresies, ca 380 AD)The Apostolic Constitutions, ca 380, also elude to the laity represented by the “bride,” as Scripture also says:Hear this, you of the laity also, the elect Church of God. For the people were formerly called “the people of God,” Exodus 19:5-6 and “an holy nation.” Hebrews 12:23 You, therefore, are the holy and sacred “Church of God, enrolled in heaven, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,” a bride adorned for the Lord God, a great Church, a faithful Church.Even earlier, the Church as a whole is identified as “bride”:Thus we see the Church, the bride, to present an analogy to the moon and stars, and the disciples have a light, which is their own or borrowed from the true sun, so that they are able to illuminate those who have no command of any spring of light in themselves. (Origen, Commentary on John, book I, ca 200 AD)You see in the above quote how the Church’s light is like the moon’s, i.e. something “received” from the bridegroom. This figure is in the conjugal relation as well where the bride receives from the bridegroom.For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man. (Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, ca 200 AD)Clement associates the priesthood as a type of the Levitical priesthood, which passed through male descendants:Now the offering and the ministrations leitourgias He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by his supreme will: that all things be done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to his will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed␣ for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high-priest arcierei his proper services idiai leitourgai have been assigned, and to the priests iereusin their proper office idios topos is appointed, and upon the Levites ; ; leuitais their proper ministrations idiai diakoniai are laid. The layman are bound by the layman’s ordinances. (Clement to the Corinthians , ca 90 AD)

Most of the quotes here dealing with the issue are much later Nicea and the ones that are earlier don’t say anything about why women are not ordained. Also, your date for the first quote from St. Hippolytus seems incredibly low. Much lower than I’ve ever seen it listed. The most commonly held date is 215 AD, about 45 years after you have it listed. Most people believe Hippolytus wasn’t even born until about 170 AD. Perhaps that’s where you got that date, but it’s very wrong.

Thanks for contributing though. The quote from Clement is interesting, but I think you’re picking in choosing which attributes of the Levite priesthood to apply to the modern priesthood and which ones you should not. There were many guidelines for who should be a priest that are not being followed any longer.

-J

 

[jinc1019]

If a future historian were to look at the first 200 years of the US, they might conclude that Christians were indifferent as to whether Marriage should be only heterosexual couples, or if gay marriage is also ok. They’d conclude that some fanatic group broke with tradition, and urge only heterosexual marriage, after the country had both kinds of marriage for 200 years, because that’s the flurry of citations suddenly appear after 1976. That is something like the early Church Fathers, who were responding to controversies of their own time. Things taken for granted didn’t get defended, like the male priesthood.

But anyone, not just Catholics, who refers to the ECF’s as “authoritative” at all, is conceding incredible authority to the Magisterium that created the “Early Church Fathers”, described what their role is for the Church, put some on that list, excluded others. The ECFs are a crucial source of info, but not comprehensive, and not a magisterium in themselves.

I never said the ECFs were. I was simply asking what they said about the matter, and it appears they didn’t say much. You may very well be correct that this is because they took it for granted that women could never be pastors, but that’s an assumption on your part (not an illogical one) that hasn’t been proven. The ECFs believed many things that were clearly NOT apostolic, so I only am really concerned with what the unanimously held.

 

[rbethea]

Have you looked in Jimmy Aken’s “The Fathers Know Best”?

If the Council of Nicaea is 325 AD, Jimmy quotes the following prior to that:

St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies 1:13:2 (ca. 189 AD)
Tertullian of Carthage - Prescription Against Heretics 41 (ca. 200 AD), Baptism I (ca. 203 AD), and Veiling of Virgins 9 (ca. 209 AD)
St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition II (ca. 215 AD)
Didascalia - Didascalia 3:6:1-2 (ca. 225 AD)
Firmilian of Caesarea - in Cyprian’s Letters 74:10 (ca. 255 AD)

and of course the Council of Nicaea itself.

I’d start there…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Most of the quotes here dealing with the issue are much later Nicea and the ones that are earlier don’t say anything about why women are not ordained.

Sorry, you see I had 200 for the second quote for Hippolytus - I meant the latter.
But why do you require a pre-Nicene quote on the matter so explicit you will not accept pre-Nicene quotes identifying the Church as the bride? Also, what do you mean “picking and choosing” Levitical characteristics? What characteristics of the Levitical priesthood should the Church have typologically kept that they did not?

Have you studied the Levitical priesthood and even pre-Levitical priestly types in the idea of first-born son? It was of no small consequence that the NT writers emphasize Jesus as Mary’s “first-born,” because that associated the child Jesus with a priestly function even at his birth, i.e. he would make sacrifice. I could get you resources on this concept permeating OT and NT.

 

[phil19034]

Then how do you explain this?

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-again-rejects-women-heads-vatican-offices

Surely not all leadership positions in the Vatican bureaucracy require ordination and could also be done by women?

We really don’t need Lay people at the Vatican. We need lay people in their parishes and dioceses, and communities; focused on the New Evangelization.

We need lay people bringing back Catholic identy in our schools and colleges; working in hospitals and with the poor; catachizing the young and old; praying for our leaders and society; etc.

We don’t need Lay people pretending to be Bishops.

God Bless