B
BayCityRickL
Guest
The following is an excerpt from a liberal priest who makes the point that Mary Magdalene (“Mary Mag”) was an apostle and that women can be ordained priests:
Some details about Mary Mag. Her status was widely, not universally, accepted until the early 600’s. A pope …] delivered himself of the opinion then that Mag was the prostitute in the gospels. That opinion is not scripturally or historically true. But it has been endlessly repeated, until our own day. The long Western tradition, sponsored in large part by the preaching and devotinaol practices of the friars, is of the prostitute turned saint. The Eastern Catholic churches have kept the actual history of Mag from the beginning, mostly because several of them (Syrian especially) regard Mag as their founder. Her apostolic status was simply assumed until confusion about her identity spread. Most Western Catholics don’t know this because they know almost nothing of the history of the Eastern churches. But the Easterns accept Mag not only because of her role in their founding but because of the testimony of our own scriptures. Her status as an apostle rests on exactly the same foundation as Paul’s – that is, Jesus’ appearance to her after the resurrection and his command to her to “go and tell the others.” In every other instance, the combination of these two elements establishes a person in the lifetime of Jesus as an apostle.
Besides the tradition from the Easterns – written and oral – of Mag as a church founder, and our scriptures, the rest of the evidence for Mag doesn’t come from the gnostic gospels, but chiefly from the artwork of the earliest days. In that art, Mag is dressed as a bishop, is depicted as presiding at Eucharist and over the local churches.
The Vatican dismisses all this as evidence. Their conclusion is that all of these pieces CANNOT be evidence of Mary’s status BECAUSE it’s impossible a priori for women to have that status. They read the history, in other words, through their operating assumption. Rather than adjusting their assumption to the facts, the adjust the facts to their assumption.
The other significant pieces of info about this come from local church councils of the 5th and 6th centuries which demand that women not be ordained. Most scholars read these demands as evidence of the fact that women had, in fact, been ordained. It’s a sound method. Trent demanded that priests must be in their parishes at least once a month. The reason is simple: the council was trying to correct a practice – absent priests – considered to be an abuse. Councils don’t make demands unless there’s something going on which they feel warrants them.
The really interesting historical question, then, is NOT: were women ever ordained? The question is: why did the church STOP ordaining them? It would take us very far afield to get into all the reasons. But the conclusion of all this is that it is NOT a correct reading of our tradition that a) the church has never ordained women and/or b) lacks the authority to. Thus, about ordaining women, it is cetainly apporpriate for church leaders to say: “It is inopportune,” or even “We did once but don’t want to now.” Or even “It would cause too much chaos.” What is NOT appropriate is that leaders say: “We can’t.”
—end----
Some details about Mary Mag. Her status was widely, not universally, accepted until the early 600’s. A pope …] delivered himself of the opinion then that Mag was the prostitute in the gospels. That opinion is not scripturally or historically true. But it has been endlessly repeated, until our own day. The long Western tradition, sponsored in large part by the preaching and devotinaol practices of the friars, is of the prostitute turned saint. The Eastern Catholic churches have kept the actual history of Mag from the beginning, mostly because several of them (Syrian especially) regard Mag as their founder. Her apostolic status was simply assumed until confusion about her identity spread. Most Western Catholics don’t know this because they know almost nothing of the history of the Eastern churches. But the Easterns accept Mag not only because of her role in their founding but because of the testimony of our own scriptures. Her status as an apostle rests on exactly the same foundation as Paul’s – that is, Jesus’ appearance to her after the resurrection and his command to her to “go and tell the others.” In every other instance, the combination of these two elements establishes a person in the lifetime of Jesus as an apostle.
Besides the tradition from the Easterns – written and oral – of Mag as a church founder, and our scriptures, the rest of the evidence for Mag doesn’t come from the gnostic gospels, but chiefly from the artwork of the earliest days. In that art, Mag is dressed as a bishop, is depicted as presiding at Eucharist and over the local churches.
The Vatican dismisses all this as evidence. Their conclusion is that all of these pieces CANNOT be evidence of Mary’s status BECAUSE it’s impossible a priori for women to have that status. They read the history, in other words, through their operating assumption. Rather than adjusting their assumption to the facts, the adjust the facts to their assumption.
The other significant pieces of info about this come from local church councils of the 5th and 6th centuries which demand that women not be ordained. Most scholars read these demands as evidence of the fact that women had, in fact, been ordained. It’s a sound method. Trent demanded that priests must be in their parishes at least once a month. The reason is simple: the council was trying to correct a practice – absent priests – considered to be an abuse. Councils don’t make demands unless there’s something going on which they feel warrants them.
The really interesting historical question, then, is NOT: were women ever ordained? The question is: why did the church STOP ordaining them? It would take us very far afield to get into all the reasons. But the conclusion of all this is that it is NOT a correct reading of our tradition that a) the church has never ordained women and/or b) lacks the authority to. Thus, about ordaining women, it is cetainly apporpriate for church leaders to say: “It is inopportune,” or even “We did once but don’t want to now.” Or even “It would cause too much chaos.” What is NOT appropriate is that leaders say: “We can’t.”
—end----
