Woman in priesthood

[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

Actually, Jesus only chose Jewish men - I think the church is in big trouble!

Such arguments show how ridiculous it is to base the refusal to ordain women on whom Jesus chose.

Pat

 

[mercygate]

patg:

Actually, Jesus only chose Jewish men - I think the church is in big trouble!

Such arguments show how ridiculous it is to base the refusal to ordain women on whom Jesus chose.

Pat

In Christ we ARE all Jews, are we not?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

mercygate:

In Christ we ARE all Jews, are we not?

St. Paul also said we are no longer slave or free, male or female.

Does the ordination of deaconesses in the early Church invalidate the argument used today that Jesus chose only men? Pat seems to think that it does.

Greg

 

[JimG]

Greg_McPherran:

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?

There is the question of whether the rite which was used to install deaconesses was equivalent to what we would call “ordination” today. Even today we have installation rites for various ministries which include women and men, but which are not “ordination.”

Also, as ByzCath mentioned above, the deaconesses had no liturgical functions. So despite the similarity in name they seem not to have been a part of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

JimG:

There is the question of whether the rite which was used to install deaconesses was equivalent to what we would call “ordination” today. Even today we have installation rites for various ministries which include women and men, but which are not “ordination.”

Also, as ByzCath mentioned above, the deaconesses had no liturgical functions. So despite the similarity in name they seem not to have been a part of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

…O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her…

Nonetheless, my question is not concerning distinctions of “ordination”, but rather whether the early office of deaconess bears on the argument that Jesus did not choose women.

Greg

 

[Catholic2003]

JimG:

There is the question of whether the rite which was used to install deaconesses was equivalent to what we would call “ordination” today. Even today we have installation rites for various ministries which include women and men, but which are not “ordination.”

This distinction has been present in the Church since at least the beginning of the fifth century, and in referring to deaconesses, the Greek word cheirotoneim (to ordain) is used instead of kathistasthai (to appoint or establish).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Catholic2003:

in referring to deaconesses, the Greek word cheirotoneim (to ordain) is used instead of kathistasthai (to appoint or establish).

So deaconesses were in fact ordained?

 

[Catholic2003]

patg:

Such arguments show how ridiculous it is to base the refusal to ordain women on whom Jesus chose.

Only the conclusion of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”) is infallible; the arguments may indeed be faulty.

This is how all Church teaching works. For example, the Second Epistle of St. Peter will always be a part of the New Testament canon, even if it one day turns out that St. Peter did not write it.

 

[Catholic2003]

Greg_McPherran:

So deaconesses were in fact ordained?

Here is what the Canon Law Society of America’s report The Canonical Implications of Ordaining Women to the Permanent Diaconate has to say:

In summary, while Martimort and Gryson agree on the extant data, their interpretation of the evidence leads them to contradictory conclusions. Martimort concludes that there actually were no truly ordained church women. On the other hand, in light of the weight of historical evidence a majority of scholars conclude that women were in fact ordained; see, for example, Vagaggini, Theodorou, and Gryson.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Catholic2003:

…"the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer…

Then why are people always talking about how Jesus gave authority to bind and loose to the Church?

Greg

 

[Catholic2003]

Greg_McPherran:

Then why are people always talking about how Jesus gave authority to bind and loose to the Church?

Greg

The Church’s authority to bind and loose is not unrestricted. For example, the Church cannot dissolve a valid, sacramental, and consummated marriage. Nor could the Church ever declare that homosexual sex is not gravely sinful.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

Divine Law is immutable. Ecclesiastical Law, while also binding, is not immutable.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does the ordination of deaconesses in the early Church invalidate the argument used today that Jesus chose only men?

I don’t recall that Jesus ever chose deacons, male or female, did he?

 

[deogratias]

**
Binding and Loosing

The power promised by Christ to the rulers of His Church when He said to the Apostles: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 18; cf. 16). Whatever be the primary signification of this metaphor in the Aramaic language, these words as used by Christ, as is evident from the context and from Christian tradition, meant that He was to confer upon the rulers of His Church the power to bind the faithful to the observance of laws and to loose them from impediments to eternal happiness, especially from sin and its consequent debt of punishment.

New Catholic Dictionary - Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, v3, p9-11, Saint Louis, 1924. (F.J.C.)​

---

**Binding us to the law does not mean changing it. **

---

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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:

Yes, but that same article also implies* it was an abuse* that was corrected by canon 19 of the First Council of Nicea. The article states:

The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression in certain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11th canon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, “Deaconesses” 1908, newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm]

Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea:

“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]).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Well, Phoebe had a special role of deaconess in Scripture. We have eliminated any such role and I don’t know why. St. Paul seemed to consider them co-workers:

Romans 16:1-3 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is (also) a minister of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the holy ones, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a benefactor to many and to me as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus,

Apparently, women were ministers of the Church - “ordained” or not. They seemed to play a different role in the life of the Church than they do today. There seemed to be much more working in common with men and women even at Paul’s level than the isolation of roles today.

Greg

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but that same article also implies* it was an abuse* that was corrected by canon 19 of the First Council of Nicea.

I think that may be reading a little too much into the text. It does seem like there were abuses relating to the proper functions of deaconesses, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the very existence of deaconesses was an abuse.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Apparently, women were ministers of the Church

How are they not ministers today? Every baptized Catholic is annointed priest, prophet, and king, but in a mode distinct from that of ordained clergy. Every baptized Catholic is rightly understood to be a minister.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

that doesn’t necessarily mean that the very existence of deaconesses was an abuse.

That’s not what I meant. Before Nicea, there were likely to be actual ordinations of deaconesses, as the Catholic Encyclopedia article states. The article describes such as regional abuse, not as a norm of the Church, comparable to some who assert deacons had the authority to consecrate the Eucharist (equally, an abuse, yet there’s evidence of it occuring). It was the ordination (as well as the invalid consecration by deacons) that was an abuse according to that article. The title deaconess and the role of deaconess was perfectly acceptable even after Nicea. The abuse that was corrected by Nicea canon 19 regarded the abuse of ordination of deaconesses.

If I remember correctly, William A. Jurgen’s, in his *Faith of the Early Fathers, *asserts that the title “widow” and “deaconesses” were often synonomous within the Church. Just because the Church prohibited ordination of women didn’t mean they did not have a legitamite ministerial role as Christian lay persons. That was true even before and after the Council of Nicea, as it is true today, even if today the titles have changed to EMHC, altar server, reader, or sacristan, etc.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Even though deaconesses were ordained they were never considered part of Holy Orders.

As the Bishop is seen as the successor of the Apostles. The priest and deacon fulfill roles of the bishops office. They derive their “power” from the office of the bishop.