Women in the Priesthood

[Mark_Marilyn]

Re: Some Research

Greetings! Given all your foundation-beliefs, agreements and assumptions, most of you are mostly right…except perhaps for a few tiny details in a few places, but don’t worry about them.

It is an interesting discussion, so we’ve returned to add a wee bit to the debate as promised… It’s been busy. M&M
We hope this little bit of research may be of interest to you all.
Would you believe, it has been alleged, that there was once an obscure female pope? According to research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers (1984)*; it is alleged that:
Pope John VIII, 853 – 855, reigned between Leo IV and Benedict III (May 17, 853 to October 15, 855) …but was later censored out of some historical records. (more details + tragic story later, but left out for now for brevity.)
In the early Christian period, women had far more influence than they did in later times. During the Roman persecutions, and shortly after, meetings and conventions were secretly held in homes and often the catacombs. Household settings and homes were usually run by women, who played important roles in such meetings. Only in later centuries, did the church become modeled on Roman style structures in public, essentially male-dominated and hardened by survival of persecutions. It was said that the pre-Christian misogyny re-emerged. Some very bizarre myths and superstitions of old, simply refused to die out: menstral blood allegedly “could dim mirrors, rust iron, and make dogs rabid. No true love or even friendship could exist between man and woman, only between men [presumably spiritual love?]. The Old Testament even claimed that menstrating women had to be isolated, and anything touched by the blood was “made unclean.” Others wrote that “caused fruits to ripen and plants to die.”
Jesus went against such harsh conventions that were the norm in His time. A woman with “flow of blood for 12 years” was not ignored but made clean, though faith as well. The “longest conversation on record was with a Samaritan woman,” surprising all who returned to find them conversing on non-hostile terms with no condescension. The guilty, condemned adulteress, who would normally have been stoned to death, was defended and forgiven when it was declared that “he who is without sin can throw the first stone. The crowd dispersed.” A repenting prostitute, washing his feet with her tears, was forgiven. Jesus never treated women as inferior to men, unlike what was customary at the time. Many women became his “most ardent, faithful followers,” including several who stayed at his feet during the crucifixion, risking persecutions from authorities, when all male disciples had fled. There was no written record of how many or who all were at the Last Supper, but some “were almost certainly women.” Mary Magdeline was honoured by the first appearance of the risen Christ. St. Cecilia endured several attempted executions which failed. How can anyone say that women were “insignificant” or “secondary” during the early Christian era?
The catacombs have mosaics of female martyrs, who refused to marry unconverted men, or were killed for their courageous speaking out. “Catacombs showed a marked female presence, such as seven women celebrating eucharist on walls,” and others “showing gestures of litugical leadership,” which evidently came from an earlier period, before male dominance “and pre-Christian misgyny re-emerged.” The myths of misogyny basically blamed Eve for “all the world’s evils since her temptation,” not Adam, and stereotyped women as “temptresses,” not people in the same predicament as men.

• Research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers; other research, production, direction and publications by Margaret Wescott, Signe Johansson, Kathleen Shannon.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Mark & Marilyn:

Re: Some Research

Greetings! Given all your foundation-beliefs, agreements and assumptions, most of you are mostly right…except perhaps for a few tiny details in a few places, but don’t worry about them.

It is an interesting discussion, so we’ve returned to add a wee bit to the debate as promised… It’s been busy. M&M
We hope this little bit of research may be of interest to you all.
Would you believe, it has been alleged, that there was once an obscure female pope? According to research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers (1984)*; it is alleged that:
Pope John VIII, 853 – 855, reigned between Leo IV and Benedict III (May 17, 853 to October 15, 855) …but was later censored out of some historical records. (more details + tragic story later, but left out for now for brevity.)
In the early Christian period, women had far more influence than they did in later times. During the Roman persecutions, and shortly after, meetings and conventions were secretly held in homes and often the catacombs. Household settings and homes were usually run by women, who played important roles in such meetings. Only in later centuries, did the church become modeled on Roman style structures in public, essentially male-dominated and hardened by survival of persecutions. It was said that the pre-Christian misogyny re-emerged. Some very bizarre myths and superstitions of old, simply refused to die out: menstral blood allegedly “could dim mirrors, rust iron, and make dogs rabid. No true love or even friendship could exist between man and woman, only between men [presumably spiritual love?]. The Old Testament even claimed that menstrating women had to be isolated, and anything touched by the blood was “made unclean.” Others wrote that “caused fruits to ripen and plants to die.”
Jesus went against such harsh conventions that were the norm in His time. A woman with “flow of blood for 12 years” was not ignored but made clean, though faith as well. The “longest conversation on record was with a Samaritan woman,” surprising all who returned to find them conversing on non-hostile terms with no condescension. The guilty, condemned adulteress, who would normally have been stoned to death, was defended and forgiven when it was declared that “he who is without sin can throw the first stone. The crowd dispersed.” A repenting prostitute, washing his feet with her tears, was forgiven. Jesus never treated women as inferior to men, unlike what was customary at the time. Many women became his “most ardent, faithful followers,” including several who stayed at his feet during the crucifixion, risking persecutions from authorities, when all male disciples had fled. There was no written record of how many or who all were at the Last Supper, but some “were almost certainly women.” Mary Magdeline was honoured by the first appearance of the risen Christ. St. Cecilia endured several attempted executions which failed. How can anyone say that women were “insignificant” or “secondary” during the early Christian era?
The catacombs have mosaics of female martyrs, who refused to marry unconverted men, or were killed for their courageous speaking out. “Catacombs showed a marked female presence, such as seven women celebrating eucharist on walls,” and others “showing gestures of litugical leadership,” which evidently came from an earlier period, before male dominance “and pre-Christian misgyny re-emerged.” The myths of misogyny basically blamed Eve for “all the world’s evils since her temptation,” not Adam, and stereotyped women as “temptresses,” not people in the same predicament as men.

• Research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers; other research, production, direction and publications by Margaret Wescott, Signe Johansson, Kathleen Shannon.

Peace be with you!

This thread is MUCH too long for me to read all the posts, so forgive me if someone has already stated some of what I am about to say in response to this post of yours.

Yes, I am aware that some people have said that John VIII was actually “Joan VIII” but those people I regard as conspiracy theorists and most of the evidence of theirs I have read is based on a portrait of John VIII in which they allege he looks feminine.

It is true that Jesus never treated women as inferior to men and the Catholic Church does not and has never taught that women are inferior to men. To quote Pope John Paul II, “Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them.”

(continued below)

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

(continued)

I am getting tired of the “sexism” and discrimination argument that I keep hearing. Most people (and I’m not saying that you are like them, M&M) that make this claim are simply looking at the priesthood from the outside and making the claim without even bothering to find out why women cannot be priests. The fact is that there are simply some things that only men can do and some things that only women can do. But the argument I always hear is “You deny based on gender; that’s sexist.”

Let’s say, for example, I applied for a job as a wet nurse or a surogate mother. I would be denied the job based on my gender and, likely, laughed out of town. Well, look at that! They denied me based on my gender–that’s sexist! But for me to think that I could physically do those things is absolutely ridiculous. I am not physically capable of performing those things.

It’s the same thing for the priesthood. Because the priest stands in for Christ at the altar and recreates the sacrifice from Calvary (the same sacrifice, not another one in memory, but the very same one) and that sacrifice was the sacrifice of the bridegroom for his bride, a woman is not physically capable of administering that sacrifice. No matter what some liberal secular court may decide, a woman cannot be a bridegroom and cannot marry their bride. Also, when the Father sent the Son, He incarnated him as male. Since Christ is our high priest, it makes sense that God intended for all His other priests to male as well.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[LittleDeb]

Mark & Marilyn:

Re: Some Research

Greetings! Given all your foundation-beliefs, agreements and assumptions, most of you are mostly right…except perhaps for a few tiny details in a few places, but don’t worry about them.

…

The “Pope Joan Myth” has been flying around for centuries. It is not new information to old Catholics. Even had there been a female pope (which there wasn’t) she would have been ordained under false pretenses and would not have been valid. So it doesn’t matter either way.

All of the beautiful quotes on Jesus’ treatment of women and how He elevated us to equal status are well known Church and Scriptural history. They are also many examples of why I am a Christian. I fail to see where in any of these beautiful stories that Jesus is offering the priesthood to these women. Now if you could point out a story where He changed the gender of a woman to a man, then I might take notice.

I am deeply saddened to see that your title of this particular post uses the words “equal rights.” If in any of the things you are trying to share are to say that everyone has a “right” to the priesthood, I will vehemently disagree. If you are only trying to say that women have equal rights in dignity as men, then I will agree with you. For in the wonderful words of Father John Coropi, “Men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same.”

I would recommend studying his teachings to come to a genuine understanding of this doctrine.

 

[Breton]

Mark & Marilyn:

Wonderful! …it is such a treat, intellectually,
but we’re reading – studying – each response and every word patiently and doggedly – that takes time. Please wait and try to be patient a little longer. 90+ responses to study, as you know…
We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse. There are many. Time and diligence are called for…
Truly yours, and may God bless and keep you all… Marilyn

Mark & Marilyn,

I can appreciate someone questioning the validity of an all-male preisthood if that someone approaches the subject with an open heart and the desire to truly understand the Catholic teaching.

As you state, you have been provided some great and specific resources in this thread as to the Church’s teaching on this matter but you appear to have not availed yourself of these resources.

To understand AUTHENTIC Catholic teaching you must set aside the Ruethers and Demers of the world. “Intellectually” speaking, Ruether and Demer have nothing to offer an intelligent discussion on the role of women as taught by the Catholic Church.

To bring these in as evidence after all the information provided you here leads me to believe that puerile agitation is you primary purpose rather than a search for truth.

The Church has plenty of patience though, so please do “doggedly and patiently” read these posts and “check EVERY Biblical reference and verse.” As you said “Time and diligence are called for”, this is true. I would add that humility and sincerity are also called for.

Peace.

 

[CatQuilt]

Mark & Marilyn:

Wonderful! …it is such a treat, intellectually, to have such a tsunami of 90+ responses of such length, complexity, and perhaps some rationalizations as complex and subtle as can be…?
Alas! We have fulltime jobs and family matters to attend to, but we’re reading – studying – each response and every word patiently and doggedly – that takes time. Please wait and try to be patient a little longer. 90+ responses to study, as you know…
Sorry you didn’t have a more positive image of poor old Rosemary. I didn’t realize she touched so many painful lesions in so many critics. Perhaps if I quoted others, such as Father Thomas Merton…? He would be more welcome if invoked, we trust? We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse. There are many. Time and diligence are called for…
Truly yours, and may God bless and keep you all… Marilyn

You’re new here. Perhaps you weren’t aware that is common courtesy that, if you open a thread, you’re going to have the time to monitor it and respond in a timely fashion. Most internet discussion forums work that way…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

As this thread grows, it is emerging that there are two distinct, and ultimately incompatible and irreconcilable approaches being taken to the consideration of the question of women priests.

One is clearly Protestant, although it is one that has plagued the Catholic Church over the past decades. It is a reliance on a combination of a secular academic approach to questions of faith, including the issue at hand. It employs secular techniques, including an incredible reliance on secular academic methods which are not appropriate for the purpose to which they are being put (it smacks of that horrible phenomenon of the late 19th century called “higher criticism”), and secular political and pop psychological considerations that have ravaged Western culture. It guarantees that nothing that human beings cannot fully comprehend (as distinct from apprehending and accepting) will ever be accepted as valid.

The other is Catholic, which acknowledges that there exists the Deposit of the Faith, a Magisterium protected from error by God the Holy Spirit, and an acknowledgement that even though the efforts of human reason may not lead to the same conclusions that derive from the contents of the Deposit of the Faith, there is, in fact, more to the faith than human reason itself can fully span. That is not to say that human reason is offended by the conclusions derived from the Deposit of the Faith, but that they may prove perhaps counter-intuitive when one discards the supernatural, and uses fallen human reason alone to consider questions arising from the faith.

In that context, the whole question of “women in the priesthood” becomes merely a presenting issue of a much greater problem – and threat to the Faith. God Himself becomes a construct of human reason, at least to the point that he must, to be accepted, present his people with nothing that they cannot comprehend fully with their fallen intellects. Instead of humanity being measured against the image of God, God is perceived according to the measure of humanity, and revealed truth, from a revealed God, is denied as a concept. There are other presenting issues, too: “gay marriage”, the sanctity of life and “free choice” on questions involving it, the authority of the Church’s Magisterium, and the supremacy of conscience with an utter disregard for the duty that conscience be properly formed among them, among others.

But there is good news. Those who would corrode the faith, those who labelled faithfulness to the teachings of the Church as sclerotic and passe, have, at an ever increasing rate, become a dying breed. Hans Kung, Matthew Fox, and the rest of them, are reduced to the point today that the only way they can get attention is to bad-mouth members of the Magisterium who have held to the truth once delivered to the saints. Oh yes, there is still a forum for them in universities, but universities have been for years, and remain today, the last refuge of lost causes. (One is reminded of the line that marks the cold war and post-cold war eras. During the cold war, there were more communists in Russia than in Western universities. After the cold war, the opposite situation prevailed.) As the Magisterium proclaims the truth in response to the poison injected into the faith, the pronouncements of these self-called dissidents (they don’t like “heretic,” though it fits perfectly), become more and more shrill, less and less spiritual, and move rapidly to irrelevance.

Let there be no doubt that there will never be, because there can never be, women in Holy Orders, because the Sacrament as given to (not invented by) the Church is not configured to admit them. Faithful Catholics who read some of the incredible distortions and attacks in this thread can take heart that the Church has endured much worse than is being foisted upon her here.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[BlindSheep]

Gnosis:

I think the Church is afraid. Afraid of the power of women. Afraid of even indirectly blurring the lines between male and female. Afraid of change. Afraid of possibly being wrong. Afraid of looking stupid.

Afraid of the power of women. I think this one sentance reveals the heart of the movement for women’s ordination; it is about power. Those who push for women’s ordination do so because they believe that female priests (and eventually bishops, cardinals, and popes) will use this “power” to change the Church teachings the liberals find unacceptable; contraception, premarital sex, divorce etc. Just as the MSM, NOW and liberals in general assume that all women are pro-legal-abortion (except maybe a few brainwashed, illiterate cult members like me ). I find it insulting to women that we are stereotyped in this way. It would serve these liberals right if women *did *get ordained (not that they can), and the women priests turned out to be more “conservative” than the male ones. This reminds me of the impatience they had for JPII to die, assuming the next pope would be more to their liking…and we all know what became of that!
I wonder if they will ever learn that their attempts to take over the Church cannot succeed…

 

[masterjedi747]

Mark & Marilyn:

Would you believe, it has been alleged, that there was once an obscure female pope?

Would I believe that it has been alleged? Yes.
But do I believe that it ever really happened? Absolutely not.

I’ll summarize the rest here: *Though the Catholic Church forbids women to enter the priesthood, rumor claims that a woman, Pope Joan, once reigned as the Bishop of Rome. The dates and names of the supposed female Pope vary, but the most popular version has it that Joan dressed as a man and due to her talents and learning rose through the Church hierarchy to eventually become Pope sometime about 1100. Pope Joan was discovered when she gave birth during a church procession. Again, versions differ as to her death, she dies during childbirth or is murdered by an angry mob. To expunge the scandal, the Roman Catholic Church has eradicated all record of Pope Joan’s rule.

Unfortunately, contemporary chronicles make no mention of Joan or her scandalous unmasking. Tales of a female Pope began circulating hundreds of years later after the claimed rule of Joan. Furthermore, the succession of Popes for this period of time is well documented. There are no gaps in which Pope Joan could have reigned.*

 

[jegow]

Mark & Marilyn:

We hope this little bit of research may be of interest to you all.

Mark & Marilyn:

Would you believe, it has been alleged, that there was once an obscure female pope?

Nope!
Mark & Marilyn:

According to research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers (1984)*; it is alleged that:

Pope John VIII, 853 – 855, reigned between Leo IV and Benedict III (May 17, 853 to October 15, 855) …but was later censored out of some historical records. (more details + tragic story later, but left out for now for brevity.)Here’s some details the readers may like to see (if they didn’t know them already). Here are some of the details M&M spared you in their moment of brevity. Leaving out the tragedy of pope Joan only going down in history as a legendary non-historical character with no proof of existence. (Which I am sure they were going to share with us after 200+ or more posts were written debunking it).

Fiction starts here* -->** John Anglicus was a ninth century Englishman. He traveled to Athens where he gained a reputation for his knowledge of the sciences. Eventually he came to lecture at the Trivium in Rome where his fame grew even larger. He became a Cardinal, and when Pope Leo IV died in 853 A.D., he was unanimously elected pope.**

As Pope John VIII he ruled for two years, until 855 A.D. However, while riding one day from St. Peter’s to the Lateran, he had to stop by the side of the road and, to the astonishment of everyone, gave birth to a child. It turned out that Pope John VIII was really a woman. In other words, Pope John was really Pope Joan.*

According to legend, upon discovering the Pope’s true gender, the people of Rome tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until she died. Another legend has it that she was sent to a faraway convent to repent her sins and that the child she bore grew up to become the Bishop of Ostia.*

**It is not known *whether the story of Pope Joan is true. The first known reference to her occurs in the thirteenth century, 350 years after her supposed reign. Around this time her image also began to appear as the High Priestess card in the Tarot deck. Fiction stops here ←
CLICK HERE FOR A FULLER STORY

museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html
Mark & Marilyn:

Only in later centuries, did the church become modeled on Roman style structures in public, essentially male-dominated and hardened by survival of persecutions.

There are things that we adopted from the Romans (priests wear (or wore) cassocks - the garb worn by Roman judges, the forming of Church law - Latin, Canon Law) but to say that we decided to be male-dominated because of persecutions is a weak statement. The Church never has had the need for a world of male-domination to survive. Nor has it ever resorted to anything like it.
Christ - from Matt16:18:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates

of Hades will not overcome it.Christ never said that the gates of Hades would overcome them unless they grew in a spirit of male -domination. As for the other stuff you mention - what is your point? It is not very clear. Are you trying to make an argument for something or just bewilder us with jumbled up historical references that have nothing to do with the original thread title?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Mark & Marilyn:

Re: Some Research

• Research by Holly Dressel; documents written by Gloria Demers; other research, production, direction and publications by Margaret Wescott, Signe Johansson, Kathleen Shannon.

Well folks, time for a bit more truth in advertizing. I’m sure these folks did do the “research” cited. They also happen to be a collection of eco-feminists, lesbian activists, and anti-Catholic propagandists from that hotbed of atheistic humanism, the National Film Board of Canada. No wonder they came up with what has been discredited for many, many years. One might as well look to Bobby Jones University, or Jack Chick, or Jimmy Swaggert for “research” into the Catholic Church.

Why a Catholic would look to any of them for guidance in the faith, let alone historical analysis, is indeed a mystery.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jegow]

M & M, I am trying to figure out your original thread post.
The Conservatives allege (or imply) that #1 - The difference between men and women is absolute! Which I might add has some truth but is also missing some. You also say that allege or imply 2. That women simply have no place in the clergy. If you are referring to the ‘group’ that follows Church teaching on the ordination of women and accept it then yes that is true. They know what the Church has said and understand that women have no place in the clergy (priesthood). Your second part ‘in such a vital role in the Church, they have nothing to contribute’ where I would like to say that you are wrong. If the only way to contribute in the Church is to be priest then there is something wrong. Secondly, the priesthood is more than a role or an occupation, or the right to vote etc., it is a vocation from God, it is a calling. It may be that God made woman to be the servant of man. Well, it is more than a possibility – He did. But he also called men to lay down their lives for their wives like Christ did for the Church so the amount of service should be mutually expected. But about those women who feel they have a “calling,” or seriously believe that women have a right to become priests, are simply being mislead. I agree, there are women out there who I have met who seem a bit misled. It is unfortunate that they have never had the chance or desire to learn Church teaching.

Then we move to what you call progressives – who were supposed to disagree on all points but look here at #1. #1 - Men and women are essentially made of the same material, spirit, basic human nature, etc., but have differences determined by DNA and hormones, etc (agreeing with conservative view #1). I thought they weren’t supposed to??? This was not well understood in ancient times. Fact: women have souls, too. That is true, however, a soul is just one of many requirements for the priesthood. In #2 - In many modern, “progressive,” philosophies and policies, equal rights, and equal treatment under the law, are desirable. But did you know that the equal treatment under the law comes from civil authority and that the Church receives it authority from God – thus equality has to be seen in different lights. Again, having the right to be a priest is not the same thing as having the right to vote. And you say that in point 3 that all women have been excluded from all religion. Is this the view of progressives or just your opinion? Not a whole lot to back that up. I have never seen women being told to get away from church because they don’t belong there.

 

[jegow]

Gerry Hunter:

Well folks, time for a bit more truth in advertizing. I’m sure these folks did do the “research” cited. They also happen to be a collection of eco-feminists, lesbian activists, and anti-Catholic propagandists from that hotbed of atheistic humanism, the National Film Board of Canada. No wonder they came up with what has been discredited for many, many years. One might as well look to Bobby Jones University, or Jack Chick, or Jimmy Swaggert for “research” into the Catholic Church.

Why a Catholic would look to any of them for guidance in the faith, let alone historical analysis, is indeed a mystery.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Gerry Hunter:

Well folks, time for a bit more truth in advertizing. I’m sure these folks did do the “research” cited. They also happen to be a collection of eco-feminists, lesbian activists, and anti-Catholic propagandists from that hotbed of atheistic humanism, the National Film Board of Canada. No wonder they came up with what has been discredited for many, many years. One might as well look to Bobby Jones University, or Jack Chick, or Jimmy Swaggert for “research” into the Catholic Church.

Why a Catholic would look to any of them for guidance in the faith, let alone historical analysis, is indeed a mystery.

Blessings,

Gerry

Peace be with you!



You know, I just looked them up myself. Those last three women made a movie about nuns where they blame the Catholic Church for doing away with the matriarchial Celtic goddesses. Boo-hoo. Those goddesses didn’t exist, so of course the Church was not going to give them power. They also allege that the Church voted to decide if women had souls. What a pile of rubbish. I’m curious, from where did these women obtain their degrees in history? And if they don’t have a degree, why should we even entertain their claims? It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants will consort every anti-Catholic source in the world, and yet they will refuse to read a real Church source.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Gerrygarvin]

i get a little confused about this sometimes. When i read the letters of Pliny it seemed to imply that back in the old days there were women priests, or at least deacons. Every rebuttal to this i’ve ever heard has been based on conjecture and historical hypothesizing rather than actual primary sources. Like the theory that maybe there were women “deacons” but they were just there because baptisms were performed in the nude and male priests/deacons couldn’t do that. I’ve never seen a document from the time supporting that, just contrived arguements stemming from the premise that women couldn’t have been priests at any time to interpret history in such a way to believe that they never were priests (or at least deacons equal to male deacons). Does anyone have some good historical sources on this? And i mean primary sources, not some dubious historical analysis done by a priest/bishop/cardinal with a PHD in theology?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Interesting about Pliny. Good Christian, was he? Member of the Church? Knowledgable of its teachings, or perhaps just up-to-date on the accusations and rumours in circulation about this strange sect?

Contemporary does not mean reliable. If it did, Lorraine Boettner’s documentation of the Church in his “Roman Catholicism”, full of trash, would serve, in time, as a reliable, since contemporaneous, account of the Church today (since the book’s still being printed).

As for the theologians, do they, or do they not, exercise the Magisterium of the Church? That, not their degrees, makes all the difference.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Breton]

Mark & Marilyn:

Re: Some Research

Greetings! Given all your foundation-beliefs, agreements and assumptions, most of you are mostly right…except perhaps for a few tiny details in a few places, but don’t worry about them.

Actually M&M maybe we should worry about details.

 

[SummaTheo]

Reasons why the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination is infallible: ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

 

[Gerrygarvin]

Hmm, It’s been a few years since Latin class and Roman history for me, but if i remember correctly, Pliny wasn’t trying to describe the structure of the church, he was just asking an administrative question… “What do I do with these deaconesses?” Of course he could still be wrong. But I think one should be able to point to something a bit more substantial in the historical records than, “This is what the magesterium says.” Make no mistake, I obey the magisterium and accept their authority, I’m just not always entirely convinced they are right about details such as this.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

If the Church Fathers fill your bill, try this link:

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Blessings,

Gerry