Woman in priesthood

[Contarini]

Tom of Assisi (post 11) wrote: “In religions that have priestesses, don’t the priestesses have different ritual functions than the priests.”

Bill Buck, on the other hand (post 12; though the claim has been made by others as well), says that priestesses were common in the ancient world, and therefore there was no cultural reason why the Church couldn’t have ordained women.

These two claims are contradictory. I think Tom is right, and that is why Bill’s argument (which as I said is a very common one) is unconvincing. That is also why those of us who have female priests in our churches do not use the term “priestess” (except for traditionalists who oppose female priests, who use the term in an insulting way). Christian women who have been ordained as presbyters are not priestesses, because unlike ancient pagan priestesses they function exactly as male presbyters.

I believe that we “mainliners” should not have gone ahead with women’s ordination against the consensus of the Church as a whole. I hope against hope that the Catholic Church will someday see its way clear to ordain women. But I recognize that this seems extremely unlikely–and also that the cultural pressures leading toward women’s ordination often have a dubious basis. However, listening in to a discussion like this makes it harder to accept the traditional position. One would think that surely better arguments would have been found by now. But perhaps that is just the temptation of worldly reason . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Tanais]

Contarini:

These two claims are contradictory. I think Tom is right, and that is why Bill’s argument (which as I said is a very common one) is unconvincing. That is also why those of us who have female priests in our churches do not use the term “priestess” (except for traditionalists who oppose female priests, who use the term in an insulting way). Christian women who have been ordained as presbyters are not priestesses, because unlike ancient pagan priestesses they function exactly as male presbyters.

I believe that we “mainliners” should not have gone ahead with women’s ordination against the consensus of the Church as a whole. I hope against hope that the Catholic Church will someday see its way clear to ordain women. But I recognize that this seems extremely unlikely–and also that the cultural pressures leading toward women’s ordination often have a dubious basis. However, listening in to a discussion like this makes it harder to accept the traditional position. One would think that surely better arguments would have been found by now. But perhaps that is just the temptation of worldly reason . . .

I noticed you didn’t bother responding to my argument, nevertheless I will respond to yours. First, even if in Christ’s day the priestesses didn’t function like priests doesn’t change the argument. The argument that Christ didn’t ordain women because it would have been socially unacceptable denies one of the basic attributes of Christ’s character, that is he didn’t give a hoot what was socially acceptable at his time. Of all the men who have walked earth Christ is the least likely to care what the Zeitgeist thinks. Christ cared about truth, not acceptance.
To accept your argument it would be necessary to accept that there are no real ontological differences between men and women, an idea so fundamental to Christianity. Women can’t be priests, which is not a smack to them in any way, because it is ontologically impossible, just as it is ontologically impossible for a man to give birth. Once again, we confuse the words “equality” and “sameness”. Just because I am equal to another human being in dignity and the respect owed to all humans, that in no way implies that we are both equal in intelligence, physical strength, or talent. The basic point is that men and woman are different, still equal but different.
Furthermore, your hope that the Holy Mother Catholic Church will change her 2,000 year old teaching is a hope that will not be fulfilled. The Church, in her entire existence, does not change in her essence, i.e. her doctrines. Many talk about the Church changing them but time and time again it is proven that she indeed has beleived essentially the same thing for 2,000. Don’t get your hopes up because it just won’t happen. The Church is stubborn when it comes to her doctrines, no offense to her because I am glad she is.
Another thing, Your talk of concensus should be made before women is curious to me. Should a concensus also be reached with the dead? I would think if you truly want to be democratic you should not just extend the vote to, as Chesterton calls it, the arrogant oligarchy of the living but instead to extend the vote to all Christians who have ever lived, the democracy of the dead as it is called, or more properly consult Apostolic Tradition. A strong concensus could be reached that ordaining women goes clearly against the teaching of the Church and will never happen.
In closing, women are valuable, indeed they are. They are precious and give much to the Church and are necessary. They are not degraded in any way by not being priests. Women are necessary for the Church just as much as men are, each have complimentary roles.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Was there a woman deacon in the Bible?

 

[Contarini]

Tanais,

Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. Sorry that I didn’t respond to your previous post–I was jumping in on a fairly long thread and couldn’t respond to every argument. I don’t agree that we can assume that Jesus wouldn’t have cared a bit about the cultural beliefs of his day. Jesus became incarnate as a first-century Jew–he wasn’t some ahistorical channel of Eternal Truth unconditioned by time and place. We can be confident that he was not influenced by any sinful attitudes of his time and place. However, it does appear that he didn’t go out of his way to challenge all the cultural attitudes of his time which we would now consider sinful. For instance, there’s no evidence that he called slaves as apostles or otherwise spoke out against slavery. How is that not (by your logic) an argument in favor of slavery? (I pass over the question whether the Twelve were the only early followers of Jesus who can be called apostles, and whether the calling of apostles can be automatically translated into “ordination.”)

What Jesus’ calling of twelve men (and it would appear, twelve freemen) does show is that he did not make overturning of the social hierarchies of his day a top priority. In other words, he was not a modern liberal who considers social change the primary function of the Church. (That does not, IMHO, mean that social change is unimportant or that the Church should not work for it, only that it isn’t as fundamental to human dignity as modern liberals think.) With regard to gender specifically, I actually believe that men and women are ontologically different and that there is nothing unjust about men and women having different roles prescribed by society. I do believe that far too often these roles have been prescribed by men in a way that has oppressed women, and that generally it’s better to have a fairly loose set of prescribed roles to leave room for individual gifts and callings. But I freely confess that that is a culturally conditioned opinion and not an essential part of the Gospel.

So the fact that the Church has not historically ordained women is not some monstrous injustice, and it makes sense that early Christians would not choose women as presbyters or bishops, given that these (unlike pagan priestesses) were positions of authority and not just ritual roles. The problem is that if we say, in the face of changes in our attitudes toward women’s roles generally, that women cannot be ordained, then we are saying that women’s ontological difference from men (which I don’t deny) is relevant for how men and women share in the priesthood of Christ. And that is the troubling claim. I’ve come to believe that the underlying issue really is how the universal priesthood of all believers relates to the ministerial priesthood. While I reject the traditional Protestant understanding (i.e., there is no special priestly character and ordination is purely a matter of proper order within the Body), it does seem clear to me from the New Testament that the universal priesthood is primary–i.e., that all Christians share in Christ’s eternal priesthood, and that the ministerial priesthood is a special subsection of the priestly Body. The ministerial priesthood activates one particular aspect of the universal priesthood–it would be impossible to ordain someone as a priest if they were not already full participants (intrinsically and potentially) in the priesthood of Christ through baptism. That being the case, it seems to me that saying that any baptized person is ontologically incapable of receiving ordination is a denial of that person’s full membership in the Body of Christ. This is my own theological opinion, and I could well be wrong. But I’m not going to just shut up about it, because it’s also possible (even if highly unlikely) that I have an insight here that will ultimately be accepted by the Church as a whole.

 

[Contarini]

You and I have different understandings of just how much the Church can change and has changed its position. We will have to agree to differ on this. Again, I recognize that it’s unlikely that the Church as a whole will ever come to agree with me. But it is my function within the Body of Christ to voice my opinions and let the Church judge. And you are right–the Church includes all those who have been and will be members of the Body of Christ. Any consensus in favor of women’s ordination would have to involve some way of dealing with the past tradition, perhaps along the lines I’ve sketched out above. And it would have to have the consent of the bishops throughout the world, in communion with the See of Peter. Without that, it was arrogant and foolish for Anglicans and other “mainliners” to charge ahead just because the zeitgeist said it was OK.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PrayingTwice:

I would like some suggestions of resources (books and internet sites) explaining the exclusion of women in the priesthood. This is a tough issue with a lot of catholics and non-catholics alike.

This book contains a very detailed discussion of the subject.

One of its virtues is, that it is not polemical in tone. And he quotes what those in favour of the ordination of women say. He does not treat people as mindless parrots who could not possibly have even the ghost of a good reason for thinking as they do. It’s very wide-ranging, and serene in tone. I wish there were more books like it. ##

 

[moira]

I think the reason women can’t be priests is because Holy Orders is a sacrament and you need the correct matter for a sacrament to be valid. You couldn’t validly consecrate coca-cola and cookies for communion, only wine and unleavened wheat bread. You wouldn’t confirm someone by hitting him over the head with a stick, only by the words of the bishop and laying on of hands. The holy oils of Extreme Unction would be needed, not syrup, for the sacrament of the sick. Marriage needs a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Well, I think you get the idea. It’s a question of matter and form. And the priest is the bridegroom of his Bride, the Church. Only a man can be a groom. Jesus surely would have had women priests if He wanted them. He had women around Him all the time…His Mother, Mary & Martha, Mary Magdeline, for example. So I think this is the way He wanted it.

 

[deogratias]

Good thoughtful answer, Moria.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Was there a woman deacon in the Bible?

 

[JimG]

I think that Moira’s post accurately describes the situation: You have to have the correct matter for the sacrament. Ontologically, sacramentally, Jesus cannot become a woman.

 

[JimG]

Phoebe is a Deaconess who is mentioned in the Bible (Romans 16) and I believe that there were some orders of deaconesses in the early church, but it was not an ordained ministry.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

JimG:

Phoebe is a Deaconess who is mentioned in the Bible (Romans 16) and I believe that there were some orders of deaconesses in the early church, but it was not an ordained ministry.

Does that mean she wasn’t a valid deacon?

Were priests and bishops ordained at that time?

What role do we have now that would be equivalent to the role of deacon(ess) at that time?

Greg

 

[JimG]

Deaconness was an order of service, somewhat like we have orders of women religious in the present day. But I’m no expert on this. Deaconesses are mentioned in the Catholic Answers article about women and the priesthood ( catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp ) but there is probably other information available as well.

JimG

 

[mercygate]

redkim:

Tanais:
I also really, really dislike when folks say that Christ didn’t ordain women because of the times He lived in. IMO, this borders almost on blasphemy because Christ can do anything He wants, and as you point out, He broke taboos all over the place…

Indeed, there seems to be no respect for the “Eusebius principle” that Christ came into the world in the ideal time for its dissemination: the confluence of Hebrew relgion, Greek philosophy and Roman order. Feminist “hertory” posits this confluence, not as an affirmation of certain cultural principles, but as a negation of them. :whacky: Go figure.

 

[Catholic2003]

Back in 1907, before there was any serious talk of women priests, the old Catholic Encyclopedia had no trouble in coming right out and saying that deaconesses were ordained:

Further it is certain that a ritual was in use for the ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands which was closely modeled on the ritual for the ordination of a deacon.

Now, however, that the Church is having to deal with the issue of the priestly ordination of women, it seems that history has somehow changed. Currently, scholars seem to agree on the historical evidence, but disagree on the interpretation of that evidence. The two sides are argued in The Ministry of Women in the Early Church by Roger Gryson, and Deaconesses: An Historical Study by Aime Georges Martimort.

Note that in assessing historical evidence, it is important to consider East versus West separately in the early Church.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Catholic2003:

Back in 1907, before there was any serious talk of women priests, the old Catholic Encyclopedia had no trouble in coming right out and saying that deaconesses were ordained:

That is interesting:

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

There can again be no question that the deaconesses in the fourth and fifth centuries had a distinct ecclesiastical standing

…who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess…

Could this office be re-instituted today?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Greg_McPherran:

That is interesting:

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

There can again be no question that the deaconesses in the fourth and fifth centuries had a distinct ecclesiastical standing

…who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess…

Could this office be re-instituted today?

Greg,
We have had this discussion extensively on a Byzantine Forum I belong to.

First, I do not think the Western Church ever had deaconesses. In the Eastern Church, they filled the role of assisting the priest in baptizing women as the baptisms were done by full immersion in the nude. So the deaconesses would be there to help the woman.

The deaconess also played some sort of role in the female monastery, helping the priest during the liturgy but…

The deaconess had no liturgical function, that is she did not play the same role as a deacon does in the Divine Liturgy.

The office of deaconess disappeared before the Church made it to the Slavs, as the Slavic Byzantine Churches have never had deaconesses as far as I can tell, so that would mean that the office went away sometime around the 7th century.

There is evidence that the rite of “ordianation” for the deaconess resembles that of the deacon and some evidence that the deaconess recieved the Eucharist along with the deacon but…

With the baggage of today, I do not see any good coming from a restoration of this.

Lets get more deacons and have them doing what they should before we restore something else.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello David,

ByzCath:

There is evidence that the rite of “ordianation” for the deaconess resembles that of the deacon and some evidence that the deaconess recieved the Eucharist along with the deacon but…

By the way, I’m not arguing for the ordination of women, I just like to explore things objectively.

Well, here’s my point. The Church gave as a reason for not ordaining women, that Jesus chose men.

Now, if women were indeed ordained, then would that invalidate the argument used today that Jesus only chose men?

All welcome to comment.

Greg

 

[patg]

Greg_McPherran:

Hello David,

By the way, I’m not arguing for the ordination of women, I just like to explore things objectively.

Well, here’s my point. The Church gave as a reason for not ordaining women, that Jesus chose men.

Now, if women were indeed ordained, then would that invalidate the argument used today that Jesus only chose men?

All welcome to comment.

Greg

 

[deogratias]

patg, did you mean to post only a quote from Greg or is there more?