Support for female ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter mlcampbell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mlcampbell

Guest
I realize that this topic has likely been discussed ad nauseum before in other threads. However, while doing a little web research, I discovered this website.

womensordination.org/why.html

While most of it displays the same typical stuff that every other argument supporting female ordination does–the same poor knowledge of Church history and teaching–there is one part of the article I’m having difficulty dismissing out of hand. It’s the section subtitled “Early Women Priests,” which attempts to give evidence that there was, in fact, valid female ordination within the early Church. I’m particularily concerned with the following passage:

"*So far fifteen archeological inscriptions have been found that indicate ordained women. Rome maintains these women were ordained by heretical groups.

However, it is known that all of the geographical regions where these inscriptions are found were places with only orthodox Christian communities. None of the heretical groups existed in these areas." *

Conveniently, the author of this article forgot to mention which geographical regions these were exactly…wouldn’t want an inquisitive person to actually do the research for him/herself and discover otherwise…

Nonetheless, I’m still a little unsettled. How could one counter this? Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
 
mlcampbell said:
Conveniently, the author of this article forgot to mention which geographical regions these were exactly…wouldn’t want an inquisitive person to actually do the research for him/herself and discover otherwise…

Nonetheless, I’m still a little unsettled. How could one counter this? Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Is the region relevant? Honestly, it doesn’t really matter where/when/who/how the heresy occurred. A heresy is a heresy, right?
 
How can they believe in what they claim was the authority of the Church in ancient times to confer priesthood on women and doubt the authority of the Church today who says definitive tenenda that she has no authority to confer priesthood on women.

According to their belief: either the Magisterium of the Church was wrong then or the Magisterium of the Church is wrong now.

Since neither of those is possible, either the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not what Christ promised it would be, in which case, the Church Christ founded has failed contrary to his promise, in which case, the sacrament of Holy Orders does not exist anyway or the ordination of women was never taught by the Magisterium in which case things were no different then than they are today.
 
Seeks_God said:
Is the region relevant? Honestly, it doesn’t really matter where/when/who/how the heresy occurred. A heresy is a heresy, right?
Click to expand...
Definitely, I agree with you. However, the point that this site is trying to make is that these were people who lived within the orthodox community of the time and who were never formally branded as heretics. It’s more-or-less stating that female ordination was a practice of people who were not, say, Gnostics or something.

That being said, however, I think that even though this site claims that these were orthodox (not heretical) groups ordaining women, the fact that they were ordaining women in the first place makes them heretics and de facto not part of the Catholic Church. Whether the history books have ever labeled them as such is entirely irrelavent; obviously, you don’t have to be labeled as a heretic to be one. Going over it now again in my head, it’s easy to see how poor their logic is. The fact that female ordination was going on in “non-heretical” geographical regions doesn’t really say anything at all.
 
The Church has and does ordain women…they’re called nuns.

Peace,
+N
 
mlcampbell said:
Nonetheless, I’m still a little unsettled. How could one counter this? Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Click to expand...
the easiest way to counter this argument: Authoritative source? I can say that I found a archeological records from Jesus’ own hand saying that my future son would be the second coming of Christ, but unless and until i can produce the documentation for such a source, that can’t (and shouldn’t) be trusted.
 
promethius95945 said:
the easiest way to counter this argument: Authoritative source? I can say that I found a archeological records from Jesus’ own hand saying that my future son would be the second coming of Christ, but unless and until i can produce the documentation for such a source, that can’t (and shouldn’t) be trusted.
Click to expand...
👍 Completely agree with you. When you come up with an amazing and controversial archeological finding the very least you can do is provide for at least a very small, little, tiny footnote with an authoritative source… 😃

In this text there is not a single source… and no footnotes at all. In the section you mentioned (“Early women priests”) two professors are named, but no written source! I found very little about the first one, Otranto. Yet the logic attributed to his reasonings (without source…) is ludicrous to say the least. The evidence that the professor is said to propose is a quote by an epistle of Pope Gelasius I. In this quote the Pope strongly speaks out against those who encourage women to engage in priestly ministeries:
“Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong.”
Click to expand...
Now, by a magical turn of mind this is invoqued as proof FOR women’s ordination. :eek: :eek:
“If the church councils banned the ordination of women as priests or deacons that must imply that they really were ordained.”
Click to expand...
You see the distorted logic? So, the fact that the pope is against it doesn’t mean anything?? It is proof that women’s ordination is OK? :eek: :banghead: As one American Bishop said: “never be so open-minded that your brains drop out!”

The second professor, Dorothy Irvin, is a well-know radical feminist theologian and activist for women’s ordination. Strangely, this simple fact is not mentioned in the text. So we have just some very neutral professor :hmmm: : “Dorothy Irvin, a theology professor with a doctorate in Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern archaeology, believes she also has found evidence that… (bold is mine)” So, even about this radical feminist they cannot speak with certainty and give hard evidence. :whistle: What is more: apparently her peers in the scientific community do not seem to think as “she believes” otherwise they would certainly have quoted that support or even an article by herself about the subject that had been accepted for publication in a serious scientific magazine.

The authors of “womens ordination why?” would greatly improve their text by deleting it.
 
mlcampbell said:
"*So far fifteen archeological inscriptions have been found that indicate ordained women. Rome maintains these women were ordained by heretical groups.

However, it is known that all of the geographical regions where these inscriptions are found were places with only orthodox Christian communities. None of the heretical groups existed in these areas." *

Conveniently, the author of this article forgot to mention which geographical regions these were exactly…wouldn’t want an inquisitive person to actually do the research for him/herself and discover otherwise…

Nonetheless, I’m still a little unsettled. How could one counter this? Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Click to expand...
So some early bishop made a mistake and ordained a few women. However the practise never spread, and the next bishop didn’t ordain any more.
What of it? It is of no more relevance than the women preaching in the church of Corinth, except that we’ve heard of this matter because it came to St Paul’s attention and he decided to take action rather than turn a blind eye to it.

However in fact the assertion may not be true. The so called oradined women might turn out to be domestic servants of the bishop’s household or similar.
 
bilop said:
They’re not ordained. They take vows. Just like brothers. Only Priests and Deacons are ordained.
God Bless
Click to expand...
I was using the term in a broader sense. There is also evidence that indicates that a great many of the ancient “ordinations” of women were simply monastics taking vows, e.g. St. Brigid. In the days which the OP was speaking, the terms were not so closely defined as they are now. Some Orthodox still use the term “ordained” when referring to nuns. You KNOW they’re not talking about Holy Orders.

Peace,
+N
 
This quote kills me:
This Pope condemns very harshly the conduct of bishops who went against certain church canons by conferring priestly ordination on some women. He is probably referring to canons from four councils which took place within a 100 year span starting in the second half of the 4th century; the councils of Nicaea, Laodicea, Nimes and the first council of Orange (441). These church councils prohibited women from participating in the liturgical service in any way, or from being members of the clergy.
Professor Otranto thinks these prohibitions prove just the opposite. “If the church councils banned the ordination of women as priests or deacons that must imply that they really were ordained.” Otherwise, why ban them? As Otranto says,* “A law is only created to prohibit a practice if that practice is actually taking place - if only in a few communities.”*
Click to expand...
…and the Pope is admonishing these people that what they are doing is wrong! And that grants legitimacy to female ordination how? I hope that Benedict never has to write a letter to admonish people for breakdancing on altars. Apparently then someone will come along at a later date and say “See, at one time people were breakdancing on the altar! That means it was once common practice and we can do it, too!”🤷
 
Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon seems to indicate that women were ordained as deaconesses.
15
Click to expand...
No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny. If after receiving ordination and spending some time in the ministry she despises God’s grace and gets married, such a person is to be anathematised along with her spouse.
Click to expand...
piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#CANONS

While this refers only to deaconesses, it would appear that the Church at one time admitted women to Holy Orders, otherwise why specify an age for qualification?
 
mlcampbell said:
IWhile most of it displays the same typical stuff that every other argument supporting female ordination does–the same poor knowledge of Church history and teaching–there is one part of the article I’m having difficulty dismissing out of hand. It’s the section subtitled “Early Women Priests,” which attempts to give evidence that there was, in fact, valid female ordination within the early Church.
Click to expand...
A great article countering this very argument is available on EWTN’s website and was written by Fr. Most:

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OTRANTO.TXT

It’s well worth reading. Hope it helps! 🙂
 
SyCarl said:
Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon seems to indicate that women were ordained as deaconesses.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#CANONS

While this refers only to deaconesses, it would appear that the Church at one time admitted women to Holy Orders, otherwise why specify an age for qualification?
Click to expand...
There is actually a fair amount of debate surrounding this particular issue–that of females entering the deaconate in the earlier days of the Church:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Deaconesses_and_Female_Deacons

I would argue, even if it were discovered that women were in fact once formally ordained as deaconesses (and this is doubtful, I think), that the Church in those times had a more primative, underdeveloped theology of the sacraments than it does now. It is possible, in other words, that the Church’s past understanding of the unity of the different levels within the sacrament of Holy Orders was not as defined as it is now, and that, as the Church matured over the centuries, it gradually abrogated the practice, knowing expressly that this was no longer permissible. Only a hypothesis, but one, I think, that is not inconsistent with the notion that doctrine does indeed develop over time…
 
SyCarl said:
Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon seems to indicate that women were ordained as deaconesses.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#CANONS

While this refers only to deaconesses, it would appear that the Church at one time admitted women to Holy Orders, otherwise why specify an age for qualification?
Click to expand...
The word ordained is used and it was the practice in the Eastern Church, but you will find that “ordained” deaconesses were the parallel of today’s un-cloistered nuns with similar duties. It may well have been a form of ordination but there is no evidence of deaconesses going on to the priesthood.

A little off topic comment is that if one looks at a church today which ordains female ministers/priests/bishops one finds a church in trouble. Their system of faith and morals is usually adrift or controverted in many ways. Membership is dropping. Female ministers, as good as some of them are, do not seem to be bringing back the vitality they once had; Anglicans being a promonent example. 🤷
 
Even in the original web article, it points to the fact that women were made deaconesses to help with the large number of adult baptisms. What the author is trying to do is use that in conjunction with the papal letter and imply there was deaconess ordination that was accepted AND priestly ordination that was accepted. That’s taking 2+2 and getting 73.457.
 
Brian_C said:
Even in the original web article, it points to the fact that women were made deaconesses to help with the large number of adult baptisms. What the author is trying to do is use that in conjunction with the papal letter and imply there was deaconess ordination that was accepted AND priestly ordination that was accepted. That’s taking 2+2 and getting 73.457.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
 
SyCarl said:
Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon seems to indicate that women were ordained as deaconesses.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#CANONS

While this refers only to deaconesses, it would appear that the Church at one time admitted women to Holy Orders, otherwise why specify an age for qualification?
Click to expand...
Oftentimes difficulties arise because of differring uses of words or terms in two different time periods.

The problem with this interpretation is that it assumes, “ordination” is equal to, “Holy Orders” in this case. The Church’s view of ordination hadn’t developed as much at that point, so ordination could easily be used in a broader sense. Indeed, the many, “minor orders” were considered to have been ordained, and yet it is dubious at best in what sense these minor orders share in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is also interesting to note that PJPII’s letter, Ordinatio Sacredotalis says that women cannot receive, “priestly orders.” He thereby leaves open the question of deaconesses. Deacons, after all, are not priests. However, I’m inclined to believe that ordination as it referred to deaconesses was not the same as ordination as it referred to deacons.

-Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top