Ordination: having trouble understanding the Church's Stand

[ryecroft]

For quite some time, I have had a bit of a problem with the Church’s stand on not ordaining females. I believe that the Church is saying that it has never allowed women to be ordained. I really have a hard time believing this when there are so many examples of women having had roles in the church that ranged from Deacons to Presbyters (Priest) to even Bishops. I’m not going to mentione Pope Joan as evidence because I believe that that is too much of something that has almost become a legend or myth and there is too much evidence each way to allow it to be a true source.
I guess, I’ve also always wondered why if God didn’t truely want women to be Apostles or Priests why He appeared first to the women (after rising) and then told them to take the news to the 12 Aposltes. This is not a feminist question - although I do believe that A woman who has been inspired by the Holy Spirit can be just as capable as a male who has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach, to run a Parish and to do everything a Priest should do. I also believe there are many women who feel they are being considered “not good enough” to be a Priest because of their sex organs. If we were all created in the Image of God than shouldn’t a woman have been created just as equally as a man had been created? I always belived that being created in the “image of God” meant that we had an intillect and soul.
There is a lot of evidence out there to support the fact that the Catholic Church has in the past had femal Catholic Priests, Deacons and Bishops.(And since I know that most will want to know where I got much of this information, I have tried to include some of the books, etc. that this information can be found in).

In Romans 16:7, Paul makes a note of one. " Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" Junias was a female and is being noted as an “apostle”. Even in the 4th Century, St. John Chrysostom refers to Junias as being a member of the “apostolic circle” (this can be found in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol. 1 the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom Series 1 - this is the 1956 version)

Also, at the beginning of the 16th Chaper of Romans, you will find it said "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; " I have a hard time believing that when Paul refers to Junias as an “apostle” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

There is much archaeological evidence of women Presbyters, Deacons and even Bishops up until at least the year 840 and some even past then.

I found it interesting that even Therese of Liseux wanted to be a Priest - she felt that God took her early because she could not become a Priest.
“If I were a priest, how lovingly I would carry you in my hands when you came down from heaven at my call; how lovingly I would bestow you upon people’s souls. I want to enlighten people’s minds as the prophets and doctors did. I feel the call of an Apostle. I would love to travel all over the world, making your name known and planting your cross on a heathen soil.” (Story of a Soul pg. 187) There are other quotes that make it clear what she would have prefered to do.

Atto Vercelli in the 10th century wrote that due to Church needs women were ordained to lead worship and preside over the mass - Church Historian Gary Macy also writes in the Sep. 2000 issue of Theological Studies that “For over 1200 years the question of the validity of women’s ordination remained at least an open question. Some popes, bishops and scholars accepted such ordinations as equal to those of men, others did not."

I’m not sure how to put up the Archaeological evidence-there is so much and I can’t include pictures of any - there are sarcophagi in Catholic burial grounds - one from the 4th century of Leta Presbitera that states "Of blessed memory Leta the Presbyter lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days whose husband prepared her burial she departed in peace the day before the Ides of May.” This makes no doubt that the person in this burial crypt was indeed a woman.

I guess I don’t u nderstand why the Church has never seemed to explain why there are so many examples of women that have been Deacons, Priests and even Bishops, if they have never allowed them to exist. I have never even heard an explination of why in Romans Paul mentions Junias as an Apostle - in fact, I believe this is the only time outside of the known 12 apostles that he refers to someone else, in this case a woman as an “apostle”.

Am I misunderstanding what the Church says - are they not saying that they have never allowed women to be ordained? or is it that they just no longer allow women to be ordained?

 

[laomath]

I think this is a valid question that deserves a much better answer than I can give. However, I will attempt to answer to the best of my ability.

First, Tradition has always held that there were never any female priests. That does not mean that they do not have significant roles in the Church. In addition, JPII declared, possibly infallibly, that women cannot be ordained.

The differences between men and women run much deeper than what body parts they have. The Church teaches that equality does not mean sameness. Both sexes are equal in dignity, but our roles are different.

Every sacrament has to hold up to the symbols, as they point us to God. For instance, when we are cleansed from original sin in Baptism, we have to use water because that is a liquid that cleans us. We couldn’t use something like motor oil because that doesn’t clean us physically.

So it is with the Eucharist. There are many great theologians that talk about the Eucharist as the ‘marriage bed of the cross’ etc. In the Eucharist, we are taking in Christ himself in hopes that we will conceive new life within us. The analogy that Christ used more than any other is that of Bride and Bridegroom. The priest stands ‘in persona Christi’ as the groom. It must be a man that consecrates the host because he is representing the Eternal Bridegroom. As the Church, we are the bride hoping to conceive new life when we receive the Eucharist. Bride to Bride cannot conceive new life. This is also the reason why priests cannot be eunuchs.

This analogy also sheds some light on some other teachings of the Church. The Church has been consistent in her teachings about this and other similar issues such as homosexual marriage and contraception. You have to be able to conceive new life in order for a valid sacrament.

I hope someone else can explain it better, but that’s my shot at it. I would recommend Christopher West’s book ‘The Good News about Sex and Marriage’ and also John Martignoni’s talk on Marriage and the Eucharist that can be downloaded from www.biblechristiansociety.com

 

[puzzleannie]

For quite some time, I have had a bit of a problem with the Church’s stand on not ordaining females. I believe that the Church is saying that it has never allowed women to be ordained. I really have a hard time believing this when there are so many examples of women having had roles in the church that ranged from Deacons to Presbyters (Priest) to even Bishops. I’m not going to mentione Pope Joan as evidence because I believe that that is too much of something that has almost become a legend or myth and there is too much evidence each way to allow it to be a true source. ?

if there are valid arguments for ordaining women, you have not cited any of them. There is NO evidence of Pope Joan, none, nada. There is NO evidence of women ordained as priests, bishops or deacons. There are instances of women as deaconesses, a non-ordained office specifically related to the reception of female catechumens into the church. Please give your citations for you claims if you intend to have your alleged historical evidence taken seriously in this discussion

your point that is well taken, but it argues against, not for, your position, is that the women disciples who clearly demonstrated stronger faith and more wholehearted service were NOT raised to the level of priesthood when Christ clearly chose only men, and only the 12, not all the men among those who followed him, for this office.

there is no evidence Junias is a woman, and elsewhere in Paul he clearly distinguishes between the 12 apostles and those they ordained, and himself as “coming late”, vs the general designation of disciple or follower (and apostle is not the preferred translation of the word in the passage cited in any case). Phoebe is described as a servant, as are many holy and worthy women in the NT, not as a presbyter or bishop. Precisely what we see today, many worthy and holy laywomen (include professed religious in that category) in service to the church, but not in holy orders.

as there is no back up for any of your other sites from Catholic tradition I ignore them

 

[Lancer]

First…read what Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman says:

“There really is no medium,” Newman says, “between skepticism and Catholicism.” He laments: “[W]hat an awful state is that of doubt, if permitted, if acquiesced in, if habitual; considering that faith, implicit faith, is the fundamental grace of the Gospel, and condition of its benefits! The very notion of doubt is then only endurable, when a person is firmly resolved to embrace the Truth, whatever it be, at whatever cost, when once it is brought home to him, and immediately, praying the while that he may, as soon as possible, be brought to the knowledge of it.”

1848 letter of John Henry Cardinal Newman to one Mrs. FroudeSecond…do you believe the TRUTH that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals( Ex Cathedra and with Bishops/Magisterium)? If you don’t…stop here. If you do…read on.

Pope John Paul II’s Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone,” is the definitive judgment by Pope John Paul II that, based on the witness of Scripture and Constant Tradition, the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. Pope John Paul II intends this to be the last word on the subject of women priests and the ordination of women.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/265/Ordinatio_Sacerdotalis__John_Paul_II__on_Male_Priesthood.html
Third, read about when Peter speaks through the (sitting) pope…this is from a weekly audience by Pope Benedict XVI:

The Pope asserted this faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man, in an important doctrinal text addressed to the Bishop of Constantinople, the so-called*Tome to Flavian *which, read at Chalcedon, was received by the Bishops present with an eloquent acclamation. Information on it has been preserved in the proceedings of the Council: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo”, the Council Fathers announced in unison. From this intervention in particular, but also from others made during the Christological controversy in those years, it is clear that the Pope felt with special urgency his responsibilities as Successor of Peter, whose role in the Church is unique since “to one Apostle alone was entrusted what was communicated to all the Apostles”, as Leo said in one of his sermons for the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul (83, 2). And the Pontiff was able to exercise these responsibilities, in the West as in the East, intervening in various circumstances with caution, firmness and lucidity through his writings and legates. In this manner he showed how exercising the Roman Primacy was as necessary then as it is today to effectively serve communion, a characteristic of Christ’s one Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080305_en.html
Lastly, I understand what you are saying…but you are “parsing” words from long ago "historical times "…to make your case…unfortunately, the Church, and especially the Successors of Peter (esp. JP-II most clearly/most recently)…don’t see or accept your “definitions” or your “understanding of historical facts” in the Church’s history. What is clear is the Church’s dogmatic teaching on the ordination of women today…in our current time…Peter has spoken…the case is (truely) closed. Our only response is obedience…and I promise you that obedience is the most holy and pleasing thing that we can do in the eyes of God…especially when we find it difficult.

In sum, your questions on this issue are a great example of the love and wisdom of Our Lord Jesus…to leave us the** four marks that will always define his Church until the end of times:

​

…One…Holy…Catholic … Apostolic**
​

so that we could really know the Truth on this (and all faith and moral issues)…always remembering that Truth is not something…it is someone…a person …Our Lord Jesus Christ himself:John 14: 6*
**Jesus said *to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Pax Christi

 

[mapleoak]

For quite some time, I have had a bit of a problem with the Church’s stand on not ordaining females. I believe that the Church is saying that it has never allowed women to be ordained.

It is not a matter of the Church ‘allowing’ women to be ordained. The Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is beyond its authority to do so, as emphatically and infallibly proclaimed by the late Pope John Paul II.
Women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders and not capable of the office of priesthood. End point.
Men and women are each uniquely created by God with differing purposes in the role of the salvation of mankind. A few select men are called by God to the humble service of mankind through the role of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This sacrament imparts an indelible mark (lasting forever) on the soul of the ordained. Man has not the capability of changing the criteria set by God that by which this sacrament may be conferred on man. Further, God alone chooses individually those of whom he wishes to place in that service.

 

[ryecroft]

laomath <>

How can you say that the Church has been consistent in its teaching when it’s clear even just from the Biblical references that indeed there were femal apostles and presbyters?

 

[ryecroft]

puzzleannie<>

actually, there is evidence that Junias was a woman, as the fellow that is mentioned in that text was HER husband.

 

[puzzleannie]

yes and there is no evidence apostle used in this sense in this passage means anything other than a disciple, or that this is even the correct translation of the term used.

I am responding btw as a historian on this thread, since the claims made are mis-uses, misinterpretations, and improper citations of alleged historical sources

 

[Texas_Roofer]

APOSTOLIC LETTER MULIERIS DIGNITATEM OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II ON THE DIGNITY AND VOCATION OF WOMEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARIAN YEAR

…Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood.50
…Thus a careful reading of the biblical exemplar of the Woman - from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation - confirms that which constitutes women’s dignity and vocation, as well as that which is unchangeable and ever relevant in them, because it has its “ultimate foundation in Christ, who is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever”.61 …vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

unfortunately the references for the “50” & “61” are missing from the site.

But in summary it is simple the bible tells of woman given to man, her vocation defined.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

yes and there is no evidence apostle used in this sense in this passage means anything other than a disciple, or that this is even the correct translation of the term used.

I am responding btw as a historian on this thread, since the claims made are mis-uses, misinterpretations, and improper citations of alleged historical sources

just to add some references

*However, recent analysis of the grammar of this text (see M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junias Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 47 [2001]:76-91) has demonstrated that this particular construction should be rendered “well known to the apostles.” There is, therefore, no support for the idea that Junias, whether male or female, was herself/himself(?) an apostle.

Third, we must take into consideration how the word “apostle” is used in the NT. It is actually used in four senses: 1) of Jesus as The Apostle; 2) of the original twelve (with Matthias having replaced Judas Iscariot); 3) of Paul and perhaps 5 or 6 others (Silas, Barnabas, James; cf. 1 Thess. 2:6; Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7; Acts 14:4,14); a technical use of a restricted group; and 4) a general use of many individuals who were “sent out” by a church as a delegated representative or messenger (cf. 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). If it can be demonstrated that Andronicus and (his wife?) Junias were “apostles”, and given the nature of the grammar this is highly unlikely, it would likely be only in this fourth sense.

Thus I find no support in this passage for the suggestion that women held the apostolic office in the NT and thus exercised spiritual authority over the entire church body*. enjoyinggodministries.com/article/men-and-women-in-ministry-was-junias-a-female-apostle/

 

[ryecroft]

I am just amazed at how much historical evidence seems to mean absolutely nothing to many of you. Some are saying that women CAN NOT be ordained, but clearly the evidence seems to shows that they have.

It seems that some may have eyes but they can not see! Obviously, there have been female Priests - even well known Saints like John of Chrsostom have noted it. Even Pope Hyppolitus (170-236 A.D.) noted the role of women and notes that Christ first appeared to women e.g. Mary Magdelene and "“sends them out on the apostolic mission as the first gospel messengers.” He also said ""Lest the female apostles doubt the angels, Christ himself came to them so that the women would be apostles of Christ and by their obedience rectify the sin of the ancient Eve . . . Christ showed himself to the (male) apostles and said to them: . . …’It is I who appeared to the women and I who wanted to send them to you as apostles.’ (From CSCO or Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium ed.264 pg.24-26 as well as Brock’s book on Mary Magdelene)

Now if that isn’t a Pope talking about females being apostles, I don’t know what is. So far I’m getting “the Church says it didn’t happen so it didn’t and it won’t” - but very clearly, the Church has, according to Pope Hyppolitus, right back to the time when Jesus was ressurected.

 

[ryecroft]

Wow, it really does seem with what I’m getting from on here and from PM’s is that since the Church has said women will not be ordained period that I should just shut up and accept it without question or thought. That may be alright for some of you, but when I see logical proof that there have been women Priests, Deacons and even Bishops, I’m going to consider it and try to understand why the church would try to cover up certain things such as the reference in Romans - I have found that there was a time in the 10th and 13th century when certain Popes had the reference of Junia made into a foot note or just tried to block it out completely - some note “Archbishop Giles, for erasing Junia from the New Testament. The archbishop’s mistranslation of Junia’s name, she says, appeared to flow from Pope Boniface’s “prejudice that women were to be kept in their place.” (Pederson The Lost Apostle) Historian Gary Willis believes that some attempted to get rid of the reference of Junias because it " offended the monopoly of church offices and honours” enjoyed by males."

puzzleannie -
I have to ask, if Junia, you are so sure was a male, then why can no one find another reference of a male with the name Junias (the male form) but there are multiple references to Junia being a well known female name? There are arguments for both sides and we could debate it all day, but the majority of sources believe that Junia was indeed female - even St. John Chrsostrom believed it!

 

[laomath]

Be careful. Both myself and others have given you theological reasons that this dogma has been defined. We are not blindly accepting “Because the Chruch said so” but have theological reasons. Again, I urge you to look into some of the resources I mentioned. Understanding the marriage act and the Eucharist makes it seem pretty clear that women cannot be priests.

 

[Newbie2]

I am just amazed at how much historical evidence seems to mean absolutely nothing to many of you. Some are saying that women CAN NOT be ordained, but clearly the evidence seems to shows that they have.

It seems that some may have eyes but they can not see! Obviously, there have been female Priests - even well known Saints like John of Chrsostom have noted it. Even Pope Hyppolitus (170-236 A.D.) noted the role of women and notes that Christ first appeared to women e.g. Mary Magdelene and "“sends them out on the apostolic mission as the first gospel messengers.” He also said ""Lest the female apostles doubt the angels, Christ himself came to them so that the women would be apostles of Christ and by their obedience rectify the sin of the ancient Eve . . . Christ showed himself to the (male) apostles and said to them: . . …’It is I who appeared to the women and I who wanted to send them to you as apostles.’ (From CSCO or Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium ed.264 pg.24-26 as well as Brock’s book on Mary Magdelene)

Now if that isn’t a Pope talking about females being apostles, I don’t know what is. So far I’m getting “the Church says it didn’t happen so it didn’t and it won’t” - but very clearly, the Church has, according to Pope Hyppolitus, right back to the time when Jesus was ressurected.

I think you’re confusing the meaning of “Apostles” and the ordained positions of Priest, Bishop and Deacon. They are not necessarily the same.

 

[JimG]

It is not a matter of the Church ‘allowing’ women to be ordained. The Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is beyond its authority to do so, as emphatically and infallibly proclaimed by the late Pope John Paul II.
Women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders and not capable of the office of priesthood. End point.

This is correct. There have in recent years been a lot of words spilled arguing over something that is just not going to happen, ever, because it can’t.

 

[Erich]

I am just amazed at how much historical evidence seems to mean absolutely nothing to many of you.

Didn’t someone just quote a grammatical analysis of the text demonstrating that the correct translation is that Junias was “well known to the apostles”?

Just curious as to how you get from that to “clear historical evidence of ordination”?

 

[Erich]

How can you say that the Church has been consistent in its teaching when it’s clear even just from the Biblical references that indeed there were femal apostles and presbyters?

Here’s an article by Daniel B. Wallace, who has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary (evangelical) and who has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979, which concludes:

In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles. To be sure, our conclusion is tentative. But it is always safer to stand on the side of some evidence than on the side of none at all.

 

[Ender]

It is not a matter of the Church ‘allowing’ women to be ordained. The Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is beyond its authority to do so, as emphatically and infallibly proclaimed by the late Pope John Paul II.
Women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders and not capable of the office of priesthood. End point.

I don’t think this point has sunk in for most people. As you said, it is not the Church who has decided that women cannot be priests for, as JPII said, the Church has no authority to decide the issue. Those who support the ordination of women are not objecting to what the Church has done but to what Christ has done. I guess if that distinction isn’t sufficient then the point about this being taught infallibly won’t be convincing either.

The arguments over Pope Joan, Junias, women deacons, etc are also irrelevant: it doesn’t matter whether these claims are true or not. The fact that they may have happened says nothing about whether they were valid. That something invalid has been done in the past is no argument that this somehow makes it valid now.

Can. 1024 *A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

*Ender

 

[Gem]

Mary (Jesus’ mother) and Mary Magdelene were obviously two of the most important people (let alone women) in the bible, yet they did not found churches or designate successors anywhere. If any woman were going to be a bishop, wouldn’t you think Jesus’ mother would be first?

Jesus did not hesitate to break convention: picking grain and healing on the Sabbath, speaking to people of scandalous status in public, chasing out the moneychangers, etc. He would have thought nothing of making women as Apostles if he so chose. If early churches were established or perpetuated by women, the historical record would be overflowing with letters, communications and notes of succession. You wouldn’t have to grasp at fleeting references of dubious provenance.

This is not a civil rights issue. It’s not a question of fairness, or the ability of women or of men “lording” power (what power?) over women (IMO, being a priest is a very difficult, not enviable, job.) Jesus was a man. Priests represent Jesus. That’s it.

 

[po18guy]

As a purely practical matter, examine the faiths that are ordaining women as priests and bishops. They are dissolving and rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Consider that each gender has its own specific, God-given gifts. Christ spoke to and addressed those gifts in scripture. To overturn this plan is to subvert the Lord’s will, is it not? A mother’s love imitates that of Mary. A man can never experience the fulfillment of carrying a life within him. Is that “fair”? Our culture is infested with this concept of fairness. Who defines fairness, and by whose standards?