Is there any evidence that Junia was not a female apostle?

[PeaceInChrist]

I am only questioning whether female ordination is a matter of faith and morals. Is it? If so, how?

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (OrdinatioSacerdotalis 4).

JPII as quoted from the article I posted. It is worth a read. No women priests or bishops.

As to deaconesses, I found this, again from the Catholic.com article I posted earlier:

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Are there any modern official Church documents on the subject of deaconesses?

 

[aemcpa]

There is nothing here that refutes my point. The ordination I talk about is to the diaconate, not to the order of presbyter or episcopate.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten that the Eastern Churches refer to the first deacons as apostles as well.

 

[fnr]

OrdinatioSacerdotalis 4

JPII as quoted from the article I posted. It is worth a read. No women priests or bishops.

As to deaconesses, I found this, again from the Catholic.com article I posted earlier:

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Are there any modern official Church documents on the subject of deaconesses?

Again, I’ll point to the time frame that’s relevant. The Novationist schism in the mid-200s brought innovations in ecclesiology in response to the enthronement of the first anti-pope and the rejection of penitential Christians who had confessed their renouncement of Christianity under Roman persecution. The heretics at the time claimed that rebaptism was required, and rejected the bishops of Carthage and Rome’s pronouncements. This is the first real centralization of magesterial authority under the Bishop of Rome.

Notably, all our manuscripts of 1 Corinthians predate this period, when the insertion of “discipline of later churches” to bar women from preaching was taken as licit.

This is not to say that there is definite evidence for women priests in the early church, though the references to women in the diaconate seems pretty compelling. ConstantineTG’s links on Xenia in particular.

Before about 250 AD, we have limited evidence of much in the church. We know Gnostics used women as clergy, and many of the extant quotes on female leadership pertain to these heretical women.

I think the bible text itself is the most challenging and far from definitive in either direction. Junia is the most compelling, but the Phoebe, and the “elect Lady” of 2 John also leave hints.

Overall, though, the question of why women cannot be ordained seems to be largely answered by the response that “women have never been ordained.” The new covenant is signified by baptism, while the old was signified by circumcision. Paul’s Galatians 3 litany of “neither servant nor free,” "neither Greek/Gentile nor Jew, " “no women and man” contrasted with a synagogue prayer highlighting these differences. To cite the Anglican N.T. Wright:

What then is he saying? Remember that he is controverting in particular those who wanted to enforce Jewish regulations, and indeed Jewish ethnicity, upon Gentile converts. Remember the synagogue prayer in which the man who prays thanks God that he has not made him a Gentile, a slave or a woman – at which point the women in the congregation that God ‘that you have made me according to your will’. I think Paul is deliberately marking out the family of Abraham reformed in the Messiah as a people who cannot pray that prayer, since within this family these distinctions are now irrelevant.

So the Christian message is not just “gender neutral,” but specifically eradicates a covenant signified by maleness.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Again, I’ll point to the time frame that’s relevant. The Novationist schism in the mid-200s brought innovations in ecclesiology in response to the enthronement of the first anti-pope and the rejection of penitential Christians who had confessed their renouncement of Christianity under Roman persecution. The heretics at the time claimed that rebaptism was required, and rejected the bishops of Carthage and Rome’s pronouncements. This is the first real centralization of magesterial authority under the Bishop of Rome.

Notably, all our manuscripts of 1 Corinthians predate this period, when the insertion of “discipline of later churches” to bar women from preaching was taken as licit.

This is not to say that there is definite evidence for women priests in the early church, though the references to women in the diaconate seems pretty compelling. ConstantineTG’s links on Xenia in particular.

Before about 250 AD, we have limited evidence of much in the church. We know Gnostics used women as clergy, and many of the extant quotes on female leadership pertain to these heretical women.

I think the bible text itself is the most challenging and far from definitive in either direction. Junia is the most compelling, but the Phoebe, and the “elect Lady” of 2 John also leave hints.

Overall, though, the question of why women cannot be ordained seems to be largely answered by the response that “women have never been ordained.” The new covenant is signified by baptism, while the old was signified by circumcision. Paul’s Galatians 3 litany of “neither servant nor free,” "neither Greek/Gentile nor Jew, " “no women and man” contrasted with a synagogue prayer highlighting these differences. To cite the Anglican N.T. Wright:

So the Christian message is not just “gender neutral,” but specifically eradicates a covenant signified by maleness.

I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at with this post. All I did was post JPII’s statement that shows priestly ordination is definitively reserved for men, and Catholics are required to believe it. As you said, heretics may have ordained women as priests, but the Magisterium seems to believe there have never been validly ordained women priests, and as Catholics, that’s all that matters

I’d still like to see if there are any current Church documents addressing deaconesses, just for my own reference.

 

[edwest2]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIACO.HTM

Peace,
Ed

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fnr,

I think Thistle gave an excellent response.

Ultimately, we must look to Scriptue AND Apostolic Tradition AND the Teaching Authority of the Church before moving in a particular direction.

A female name… OK. Now, take a look at the controversy of a writer in Greek calling Peter a Petra - that was cause for some concern, too. The snag, I think, comes from going from one language to another - and not only running the risk of losing the meaning but also losing the context. As I see it, much (if not all of Protestantism) has condemned itself to endless wanderings through Scripture because they only look to Scripture and their own personal interpretation of what it means.

Looking only to Scripture for a unique interpretation to allow for female clergy does not pt you on firm ground - at least not in my opinion.

God bless

There really isn’t a historical evidence for a female priest much less bishop. Considering the familiarity the Early Church had with Apostolic Tradition - I think it is prudent to

In Romans 16:7, Paul writes:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me. "

Junia is a woman’s name. I don’t think there’s any serious scholarly debate about that. Some translators over time have translated it as “Junias” to make it a man’s name, but that’s not what the original Greek said, as far as I understand the scholarship on the subject.

The quote gives us an important hint of when Junia became a Christian. Paul’s Damascus Road experience took place somewhere between 36 and 42 AD/CE. If Junia was “in Christ before me,” she was a very early Christian, at a time before Christianity had spread much beyond the Jewish community. That would corroborate why he describes her, with Andronicus, as “prominent among the apostles.”

In the list of greetings in Chapter 16, Paul doesn’t mention Peter, so he clearly wasn’t in Rome as far as Paul knew it. That makes sense, since the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the flight of the Church there to Pella didn’t start until after 62 AD/CE, and Peter was likely there. There were two apostles (bishops) at Rome when Paul wrote the letter. The letter was written around 55-58 AD/CE. That means that sometime between 36 and 55 AD/CE, Junia (with Andronicus) was made an apostle, presumably through apostolic succession, which would make her a bishop in today’s parlance.

Are there holes in my reasoning? Is there evidence Junia was not a female bishop?

 

[fnr]

I have started a new thread to address how Mary of Bethany fits into the Biblical issues of women:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10060766#post10060766

 

[fnr]

I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at with this post.

Sorry, should have been clearer. You quoted a document from the 4th century. The earliest of the manuscripts of 1 Corinthians all predate that document, to around 200-300 AD. They all include some version of 14:33ff, which most scholars think is an interpolation from later churches. This means that if women were more involved in any form of ordination, it likely predates 200-300 AD. Records are spotty prior to that.

As you said, heretics may have ordained women as priests, but the Magisterium seems to believe there have never been validly ordained women priests, and as Catholics, that’s all that matters

I believe that this falls under the ordinary magisterium, though not the ordinary and universal magisterium. I don’t believe this has been taught infallibly.

I’m not trying to fight the Magesterium on a matter of whether women should be ordained. I’m only asking whether women have ever been ordained, which seems to be an empirical question. The Magesterium speaks to faith and morals, not history and science.

I’d still like to see if there are any current Church documents addressing deaconesses, just for my own reference.

Likewise!

I do want to thank everyone for a very civil conversation on a tricky topic!

 

[inkaneer]

I’m not trying to fight the Magesterium on a matter of whether women should be ordained. I’m only asking whether women have ever been ordained, which seems to be an empirical question. The Magesterium speaks to faith and morals, not history and science. stated the church has no authority to ordain women.

Pope JPII stated that the church has no authority to ordain women. Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] stated at the time that JPII’s statement was an infallible teaching. That being the case, it is a statement of absolute truth that transcends time. Therefore Junia was not ordained. Case closed.

 

[fnr]

Pope JPII stated that the church has no authority to ordain women. Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] stated at the time that JPII’s statement was an infallible teaching. That being the case, it is a statement of absolute truth that transcends time. Therefore Junia was not ordained. Case closed.

ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/infallibility-womens-ordination-question

 

[inkaneer]

ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/infallibility-womens-ordination-question

The article is wrong. The article refers to Canon 749.3 and states:

"But canon 749.3 stipulates that if there is any doubt about the infallible nature of a teaching, it is not infallible. The canon reads: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.” [Infallibility on women’s ordination in question by Richard McBrien (Fr.)

But that is not what canon 749.3 states. Canon 749.3 states the following:

“§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” [Code of Canon Law]

“Manifestly demonstrated” does not mean that everyone agrees with it as Fr. Obrien thinks. If so there would be no infallible doctrines as no infallibly defined doctrine ever enjoyed unanamous support. The doctrine on the prohibition of women to the priesthood was manifestly demonstrated when Cardinal Ratzinger declared it to be an infallible teaching. The term, “manifestly demonstrated,” means that the teaching meets the set criteria for an infallibly defined doctrine. So at the risk of being redundant, this case is closed. Get over it.

 

[mercytruth]

ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/infallibility-womens-ordination-question

To answer you OP question more directly, Junia may have been an ‘apostle’, but not one who was ‘sent’ to teach, but one who was sent to either deliver a written apostolic epistle as Phoebe was sent out to the church of Rome, or she was sent out to collect or deliver aid to other churches.

Titus and others were sent ‘as apostles’ to collect alms from other churches. (2 Corinth. 8:23) on the behalf of other churches in need, most notably, the church of Jerusalem.

In this capacity, Phoebe and Junia may have been ordained as ‘deaconesses’ who were ‘sent out’ under the authority of the teaching apostles in delivering written epistles, or to collect and/or deliver alms, or other types of aid on behalf of other churches. This supportive role would be in keeping with the supportive role that women were ministering to Jesus Christ while he was serving God on earth.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[fnr]

The article is wrong.

…

Canon 749.3 states the following:

“§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” [Code of Canon Law]

“Manifestly demonstrated” does not mean that everyone agrees with it as Fr. Obrien thinks. If so there would be no infallible doctrines as no infallibly defined doctrine ever enjoyed unanamous support. The doctrine on the prohibition of women to the priesthood was manifestly demonstrated when Cardinal Ratzinger declared it to be an infallible teaching. The term, “manifestly demonstrated,” means that the teaching meets the set criteria for an infallibly defined doctrine. So at the risk of being redundant, this case is closed. Get over it.

I understand your desire to declare case closed. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can the Holy Office declare that an encyclical is infallible if it the encyclical itself didn’t? Without an *ex cathedra *statement, can something be called infallible without the unanimity of the bishops or conciliar statement? Otherwise, ordinary (and not universal) magisterium applies, I believe.

“Get over it” sounds like an insult, which I hope not to do. I’m not trying to fight you, I’m trying to have a discussion. I’m trying to use evidence, as I do in other discussions (look at my threads on other stuff).

 

[fnr]

Another issue that I think is relevant here, which I’m cross-posting on my thread about Mary of Bethany: what is the meaning of “messiah?”

“Mashiah” (messiah) in Hebrew and “Christos” in Greek both mean “anointed one.”

Who does the anointing? In 1 Samuel 16, it is the prophet Samuel who anoints David. In baptism, it is the priest or deacon, using oil blessed by the local bishop. In the Gospels, it is a woman that anoints Jesus.

In John 12, it is Mary of Bethany who anoints Jesus’ feet and wipes them with her hair. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14 it is a woman (unnamed) that anoints his head, of whom Jesus says, “Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Odd that the woman who will be proclaimed throughout the world is missing a name in Matthew and Mark. In Luke 7, the anointing story is told differently, with a “sinful woman” bathing his feet in her tears, wiping them with her hair, then applying ointment to them (“Your faith has saved you; go in peace,” Jesus tells her).

Does anyone else see any significance in the fact that the person who anointed Jesus in all four Gospels is a woman?

 

[inkaneer]

I understand your desire to declare case closed. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can the Holy Office declare that an encyclical is infallible if it the encyclical itself didn’t? Without an *ex cathedra *statement, can something be called infallible without the unanimity of the bishops or conciliar statement? Otherwise, ordinary (and not universal) magisterium applies, I believe.

“Get over it” sounds like an insult, which I hope not to do. I’m not trying to fight you, I’m trying to have a discussion. I’m trying to use evidence, as I do in other discussions (look at my threads on other stuff).

To answer your question, “Can the Holy Office declare that an encyclical is infallible if it the encyclical itself didn’t?” The answer is a definite, YES. The pope does not need the consent of a council of cardinals, bishops, theologians or anyone else. He may consult with them or ask for their advice but that is not a requirement. Also the infallible statement need not proclaim its infallibility. All that is needed is that the requirements for infallibility are present and met. Then once defined the debate is over, case closed, or as the great Augustine stated concerning a question of his day:

“two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Note: a “rescript”, according to Webster’s dictionary, is:

“1. a written answer of a pope to a legal inquiry or petition
2: an official or authoritative order, decree, edict, or announcement…”

 

[PJM]

=fnr;10043587]In Romans 16:7, Paul writes:
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me. "

Junia is a woman’s name. I don’t think there’s any serious scholarly debate about that. Some translators over time have translated it as “Junias” to make it a man’s name, but that’s not what the original Greek said, as far as I understand the scholarship on the subject.

The quote gives us an important hint of when Junia became a Christian. Paul’s Damascus Road experience took place somewhere between 36 and 42 AD/CE. If Junia was “in Christ before me,” she was a very early Christian, at a time before Christianity had spread much beyond the Jewish community. That would corroborate why he describes her, with Andronicus, as “prominent among the apostles.”

In the list of greetings in Chapter 16, Paul doesn’t mention Peter, so he clearly wasn’t in Rome as far as Paul knew it. That makes sense, since the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the flight of the Church there to Pella didn’t start until after 62 AD/CE, and Peter was likely there. There were two apostles (bishops) at Rome when Paul wrote the letter. The letter was written around 55-58 AD/CE. That means that sometime between 36 and 55 AD/CE, Junia (with Andronicus) was made an apostle, presumably through apostolic succession, which would make her a bishop in today’s parlance.

Are there holes in my reasoning? Is there evidence Junia was not a female bishop?

BY FOLLOWING THE ONE INFALLIBLE RULE FOR RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE; WE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE ONLY CHRIST CHOOSE “APOSTLES”

Never Ever, can. may or does one part of the Bible make void, invalidate, or overrule another portion. such would render the entire bible as worthless; USELESS FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING THE FAITH."

Mt. 10:1-8
*Christ sends out his twelve apostles, with the power of miracles. The lessons he gives them. *

“And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And ***the names of the twelve apostles are these: ***The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

SHE WAS A DEACONESS

Concerned about possible impriorities with “mixed gender” instruction; she and other wpmen were charged with Instruction to WOMEN ONLY. This postion has NOT existed for a very long time.

I pray this answers your question.

Pat /PJM

 

[fnr]

BY FOLLOWING THE ONE INFALLIBLE RULE FOR RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE; WE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE ONLY CHRIST CHOOSE “APOSTLES”

Never Ever, can. may or does one part of the Bible make void, invalidate, or overrule another portion. such would render the entire bible as worthless; USELESS FOR TEACHING OR LEARNING THE FAITH."

Agreed. However, I think it’s important to point out that there are differences in theological emphasis between different parts of the Bible, including the New Testament. Paul, for instance, talks about the Atonement but very little about the Incarnation (e.g., the life of Jesus). The Gospels go into quite a bit of detail about the life of Jesus. The Gospel of John and 1-3 John focus on a different type of representation than the synoptic Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk). The “pastoral epistles” seem to be responding to Gnostics. Revelation is apocalyptic literature.

Mt. 10:1-8
*Christ sends out his twelve apostles, with the power of miracles. The lessons he gives them. *

“And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And ***the names of the twelve apostles are these: ***The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

Agreed. That Christ selected 12 apostles does not mean that he only intended that men ever be in ministry. Notably, Jesus brought women into his circle, breaking extreme social conventions of gender separation in the ancient world (e.g., Mary of Bethany at his feet in Luke and John; appearing first to women post-Resurrection when they legally could bear no witness).

SHE WAS A DEACONESS

Concerned about possible impriorities with “mixed gender” instruction; she and other wpmen were charged with Instruction to WOMEN ONLY. This postion has NOT existed for a very long time.

No, the position of deaconess certainly hasn’t existed for a long time. There’s quite a bit of evidence of their ordination in some locations. You’re right that in some locations they were used for ministering to women in socially-awkward situations for men (e.g., baptizing women). However, Paul doesn’t say “deaconess” in reference to Junia.

I pray this answers your question.

Thank you for the reply, but I still have questions… as I keep looking, I just get more. Many of them center around the mid-3rd century, right around 250 AD… notably, a bishop named Firmilian was involved in the schisms following the persecution by Decius and he is the one writer who actually describes a woman celebrating the Eucharist who “appeared to deviate in no particular from ecclesiastical discipline.” Yet, she is described as a demon, seemingly just because she was a woman:
*“Suddenly, a certain woman started up in our midst: she presented herself as a prophetess, being in a state of ecstasy and acting as if she were filled with the Holy Spirit. But she was so deeply under the sway of the principal demons that she managed to disturb and deceive the brethren for a long time by performing astonishing and preternatural feats…And the woman, through the ilusions and trickeries of the devil, had devised a number of ways for deceiving the faithful. Among other practices by which she deceived many, she frequently dared even to use this one: employing a by no means despicable form of invocation, she would pretend to sanctify the bread and celebrate the Eucharist, and she would offer the sacrifice to the Lord not without the sacred recitation of the wonted formula. And she would baptize many also, adopting the customary and legitimate wording of the baptismal interrogation. And all this she did in such a way that she appeared to deviate in no particular from ecclesiastical discipline. What, then, are we to say about such a baptism, where an evil demon baptized through the agency of a woman? Can it be that Stephen and his adherents extend their approval even to this baptism, especially as it came complete with Trinitarian credal formula and the legitimate invocation of the Church? Is it credible that forgiveness of sins was granted or that the rebirth of the saving waters was duly accomplished in a case where everything may have been done in semblance of the truth but was in fact done though (sic) the agency of the demon?”
*

This text is interesting, because Firmilian seems to think that Pope Stephen I might actually approve of this rite. Firmilian was excommunicated by Pope Stephen I for his holding that Christians who lapsed during the persecutions of Emperor Decius required rebaptism for re-entry to the Church. There was a lot going on around that time. Stephen I was also the first pope to invoke Matthew 16:16-18 as the basis of papal supremacy, and it’s from Firmilian that we have documentation of that!

 

[inkaneer]

Another issue that I think is relevant here, which I’m cross-posting on my thread about Mary of Bethany: what is the meaning of “messiah?”

“Mashiah” (messiah) in Hebrew and “Christos” in Greek both mean “anointed one.”

Who does the anointing? In 1 Samuel 16, it is the prophet Samuel who anoints David. In baptism, it is the priest or deacon, using oil blessed by the local bishop. In the Gospels, it is a woman that anoints Jesus.

In John 12, it is Mary of Bethany who anoints Jesus’ feet and wipes them with her hair. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14 it is a woman (unnamed) that anoints his head, of whom Jesus says, “Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Odd that the woman who will be proclaimed throughout the world is missing a name in Matthew and Mark. In Luke 7, the anointing story is told differently, with a “sinful woman” bathing his feet in her tears, wiping them with her hair, then applying ointment to them (“Your faith has saved you; go in peace,” Jesus tells her).

Does anyone else see any significance in the fact that the person who anointed Jesus in all four Gospels is a woman?

No significance whatsoever because Jesus was not 'annointed by any woman. Technically the term is applied to a person chosen to be the chief priest who was ‘annointed’ with special oils. Jesus is, of course our chief priest but His 'annointing was not done by any human. Jesus first publicly announced Himself as the divine Messiah in Luke 4:18 saying:

""The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
" [Luke 4:18 RSV]

In doing so Jesus was quoting Isaiah 61:1: “The Spirit of Adonai ELOHIM is upon me, because ADONAI has anointed me…”

So Jesus is saying His annointing was by God the Father and not by any man or woman. So your premise is in error.

 

[inkaneer]

Agreed. That Christ selected 12 apostles does not mean that he only intended that men ever be in ministry. Notably, Jesus brought women into his circle, breaking extreme social conventions of gender separation in the ancient world (e.g., Mary of Bethany at his feet in Luke and John; appearing first to women post-Resurrection when they legally could bear no witness).

This is your opinion and let us recognize that your opinion is just that, your opinion. Now your opinion wpould be fortified if there was some concrete evidence from the Written or Oral Tradition. But there is none. All you have is an ambiguous verse which you choose to interpret to suit your opinion and in doing so fly in the face of infallibly defined doctrine of the church.

Quote:
SHE WAS A DEACONESS

Concerned about possible impriorities with “mixed gender” instruction; she and other wpmen were charged with Instruction to WOMEN ONLY. This postion has NOT existed for a very long time.

No, the position of deaconess certainly hasn’t existed for a long time. There’s quite a bit of evidence of their ordination in some locations. You’re right that in some locations they were used for ministering to women in socially-awkward situations for men (e.g., baptizing women). However, Paul doesn’t say “deaconess” in reference to Junia.

Deaconess were more prevalent in the East than in the West and though we have none today we do still have the residual role for women in the religious orders of nuns and sisters. Early on the deaconesses were involved in the ministry to women where the presence of a male deacon would give rise to rumors of wantoness. Such would be the case during the sacrament of baptism as the person would be clothed in a white tunic type garment and fully immersed in water. The white garment would then cling to the woman’s body and become very sheer. In some places they did have minor liturgical duties such as the choir. Nowhere, however, did such women ever perform duties such as those of a priest or bishop. Now to add to this discussion let us review Canon Law. Canon 1024 states the following:

“Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.”

In 1994 John Paul II stated thusly in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS:

" Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Notice the emboldened part.

In 2007, the Holy See issued a decree saying that the attempted ordination of women would result in automatic excommunication for the women and priests trying to ordain them.[111] In 2010, the Holy See stated that the ordination of women is a “grave delict”.

Continued next post

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
I pray this answers your question.

Thank you for the reply, but I still have questions… as I keep looking, I just get more. Many of them center around the mid-3rd century, right around 250 AD… notably, a bishop named Firmilian was involved in the schisms following the persecution by Decius and he is the one writer who actually describes a woman celebrating the Eucharist who “appeared to deviate in no particular from ecclesiastical discipline.” Yet, she is described as a demon, seemingly just because she was a woman:

“Suddenly, a certain woman started up in our midst: she presented herself as a prophetess, being in a state of ecstasy and acting as if she were filled with the Holy Spirit. But she was so deeply under the sway of the principal demons that she managed to disturb and deceive the brethren for a long time by performing astonishing and preternatural feats…And the woman, through the ilusions and trickeries of the devil, had devised a number of ways for deceiving the faithful. Among other practices by which she deceived many, she frequently dared even to use this one: employing a by no means despicable form of invocation, she would pretend to sanctify the bread and celebrate the Eucharist, and she would offer the sacrifice to the Lord not without the sacred recitation of the wonted formula. And she would baptize many also, adopting the customary and legitimate wording of the baptismal interrogation. And all this she did in such a way that she appeared to deviate in no particular from ecclesiastical discipline. What, then, are we to say about such a baptism, where an evil demon baptized through the agency of a woman? Can it be that Stephen and his adherents extend their approval even to this baptism, especially as it came complete with Trinitarian credal formula and the legitimate invocation of the Church? Is it credible that forgiveness of sins was granted or that the rebirth of the saving waters was duly accomplished in a case where everything may have been done in semblance of the truth but was in fact done though (sic) the agency of the demon?”

This text is interesting, because Firmilian seems to think that Pope Stephen I might actually approve of this rite. Firmilian was excommunicated by Pope Stephen I for his holding that Christians who lapsed during the persecutions of Emperor Decius required rebaptism for re-entry to the Church. There was a lot going on around that time. Stephen I was also the first pope to invoke Matthew 16:16-18 as the basis of papal supremacy, and it’s from Firmilian that we have documentation of that!

Are you kidding me??? You ask, “Is it credible that forgiveness of sins was granted or that the rebirth of the saving waters was duly accomplished in a case where everything may have been done in semblance of the truth but was in fact done though (sic) the agency of the demon?” Here is you answer, NO, it is not at all credible. Demons mock God and by their very nature are incapable of any salvific acts

Now I stated before this case is closed and I know you did not like my choice of words especially when I said to “get over it.” But the fact remains that the Pope has infallibly declared that the church has no authority to ordain women as priests and has imposed penalties of excommunication to any woman who undergoes such an ordination ritual as well as the person who officiates. This excommunication can only be lifted by the pope. So again I say, the case is closed for all eternity and we should all “get over it” and if that upsets your sensibilities then I think you got bigger problems than you would like to admit.