Women priests for first 1200 years?

[MartyrForJesus]

A lot of the ‘women priests’ from the ‘Roman Catholic Women Priests’ movement claim that women were deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1200 years of the Church. Where do they get this information? It is my understanding that the Church has infallibly stated that women can not be priests. How would you respond?

 

[DarrenOglesby]

I am not so sure that claim is true. I’d hate to claim that someone who wants to be a priest is a liar. Perhaps they are just mis-informed.

The word priest only refers to one gender. Just as the word priestess refers to one gender. Women can’t be priest’s, it would be impossible. And there is no such thing as a priestess in the Church of the Bible- The Roman Catholic Church. There were deaconess, but they only baptized people. Because Baptism’s use to be in the nude. And back then alot of Adult Jews were coming into the church. And to avoid scandal we had Deaconess’s to Baptize the Adult females. However since we don’t do things in the nude anymore, there is no need.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Thanks for the quick response. I will pray for you as you asked, please pray for me in return!

 

[Lourdhu_Robin]

I hate womens to be priest
But they also got vocation of being NUNs

 

[George_Stegmeir]

We live in curious times. When I was in College in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s Professors stressed that when studying and writing about history one had to be scrupulously objective.
Since the late 1960’s all that has changed. With the “lefties” in control of academia, it has become morally acceptable and fashionable for history to be revised and slanted to justify the writers political and social beliefs. Thus one gets stories about women priests in the first 1200 years of Mother Church.
As a reader of history, and having an advanced degree in the subject, I have never read or heard of such nonsense and would seriously question the source and credentials of the publisher of such blather.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I took a religion class back in college and several students made the same claim, although I don’t remember if they said 1200 years or some other figure. They claimed it as fact and insisted that “everybody” knew this. I believe I was the only person who identified themselves as Catholic, and was seemingly the only person in the class who hadn’t at least heard this “fact.” This came up in a discussion about women priests, though, and the first one to bring up the “fact” was very anti-Catholic. I told them that in 12 years of Catholic school I’d never heard or read such a thing, to which someone replied that that was just what they’d expect me to say. It didn’t seem like a very productive discussion, so I plead ignorance just to put an end to it.

 

[Trishie]

There is no evidence, just hearsay by those who wish to establish a precedent, which doesn’t in fact exist in the Roman Catholic Church. There are those who suggest there were female deaconesses, but I have found no instances, and deacons are not priests

 

[Julia_Mae]

A lot of the ‘women priests’ from the ‘Roman Catholic Women Priests’ movement claim that women were deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1200 years of the Church. Where do they get this information? It is my understanding that the Church has infallibly stated that women can not be priests. How would you respond?

Maybe you should ask them for sources. This is my understanding also. (And “priest” and “priestess” are English words.) I can tell you there is a letter form a Pope to some of the churches in southern Italy insisting they get rid of their women priests. They essentially told him to go pound salt. In some places priests were elected by the locals. Things were…interesting in days gone by. Cardinals, as I understand it, didn’t have to be priests at all. Not sure they do now.

 

[SecretGarden]

I hate womens to be priest
But they also got vocation of being NUNs

Women’s vocations are much greater than you take for granted. I believe they can and are great preachers (which can include homilies but not exclusive to it because to preach doesn’t mean it has to be at mass but also at other events. They are amazing spiritual directors as well. They are mothers, teachers and more. Giving them only the vocation for the religious just means that some people have very small minds and don’t totally understand what they are capable of in the first place.

 

[Trishie]

Does anyone know if this is a trustworthy link?
I women were at one time allowed to be deacons, they have never been validly ordained as priests.

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2778

 

[Rolltide]

What might be going on here is the mixing up of some facts. It IS true that before the Cluny Reform Movement, well up into the 1100s, married men that were not in religious orders COULD be ordained as priests. This was eventually changed as a reform for several reasons. First, there was a certain amount of simony going on, where the sons of priests would be set up with cushy church jobs. Second, some families of priests were living high lifestyles by taking from the collection plate, and on occasion could be almost as wealthy as lords. Finally, priests had to travel a LOT to visit many small manors and estates without their own priests, and so they were seldom home. This hardly made for a good family environment.

While the Catholic Church did have deaconesses for a short time, as mentioned above, they were never elevated beyond that role. I think that the people that were stating that there were women priests were thinking of the information surrounding married priests, and got their facts mixed up and wrong.

 

[Aeolian]

Women’s vocations are much greater than you take for granted. I believe they can and are great preachers (which can include homilies but not exclusive to it because to preach doesn’t mean it has to be at mass but also at other events. They are amazing spiritual directors as well. They are mothers, teachers and more. Giving them only the vocation for the religious just means that some people have very small minds and don’t totally understand what they are capable of in the first place.

No female may preach a homily within the context of a Mass. It’s strictly forbidden.

 

[Aeolian]

A lot of the ‘women priests’ from the ‘Roman Catholic Women Priests’ movement claim that women were deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1200 years of the Church. Where do they get this information? It is my understanding that the Church has infallibly stated that women can not be priests. How would you respond?

Those poor women are whack-jobs

 

[vsedriver]

Women’s vocations are much greater than you take for granted. I believe they can and are great preachers (which can include homilies but not exclusive to it because to preach doesn’t mean it has to be at mass but also at other events.

Although women can preach the gospel outside of Mass they can’t give a Homily as that is reserved for the Deacon and the Priest.

They are amazing spiritual directors as well. They are mothers, teachers and more.

yes women have a key role in the Church.

Giving them only the vocation for the religious just means that some people have very small minds and don’t totally understand what they are capable of in the first place.

I don’t know what you mean by this. All vocations have equal value, The married couple is equal to the priest who is equal to the single person who is equal to the religious. All have important roles to play. The prohibition against women priestesses is from Jesus himself. I’m sure he didn’t have a small mind.

 

[GwenL]

No female may preach a homily within the context of a Mass. It’s strictly forbidden.

The more complete way to say this is “no non-ordained person may preach a homily within the context of a Mass.”

 

[puzzleannie]

A lot of the ‘women priests’ from the ‘Roman Catholic Women Priests’ movement claim that women were deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1200 years of the Church. Where do they get this information? It?

the made it up from a few fragments of mis-interpreted snippets of historical fact in widely separated times and places, wove in a few instances of liturgical abuse and disobedience, and twisted the whole thing, inflated it with helium, to support their stance.

Yes in some limited times and places, some women leaders of some religious communities had status and authority that in some areas was equal to that of bishop. over the members of their own communities, not over any local church, but were never in any sense of the word ordained priests or ministers. they could lead prayer services, as lay people can do today, but never legitimately consecrated Eucharist or presided at Mass.

Yes there was an office of deaconess in the early Church, and their primary role was assisting female catechumens during baptism, and some aspects of social service, teaching children etc. we still associate with religious sisters and “church ladies” today, and they were blessed and commissioned for that office, much as catechists and lay ministers in service of liturgy are today, but in no way, shape or form did that resemble or connote ordination to any level of priestly orders.

People with an agenda are adept at translating historical sources and twisting the results to support their agenda, in fact, the modern profession of history as it as practiced today consists almost entirely of such misrepresentation (ie, the current fad of using history to prove almost any historical figure you can name was actually gay).

 

[jimrob]

Our concept of what is meant by the term “Catholic priest” derives from Paul’s writings. One cannot imagine Paul ever contemplating the idea of women priests.

It took many centuries for the Church hierarchy to settle into its current state. In the early days of the Church, we had deacons, prophets and teachers - many of whom were women. We had women who presided at the Eucharist. However, we have never had women priests or women bishops. The rules about deacons being part of the all-male ordained clergy, and only priests and bishops being allowed to preside at Mass are more recent. The Church has used the authority granted to us by Jesus to bind on Earth.

I often have to explain to Protestants what we mean by our lack of authority to ordain women to the priesthood. I point out that they have women who are ministers of the Gospel - so do we. I point out that they have women who are ministers of the Eucharist - so do we. I point out that they don’t have any female priests, nor do we. The difference is that don’t have male priests and we do.

The problems now faced by the Anglican Communion is that they have long considered themselves both catholic and reformed and they regard their priests as being part of the universal priesthood. Introducing women to the Anglican priesthood and episcopacy when the Catholic, Orthodox and Armenian communions exclude them, suggests that Anglicans are a Protestant sect. That suits some Anglicans, but it explains why the trickle of converts from Anglicanism to Catholicism is becoming a stampede.

 

[dochawk]

There have never been female priests in either the Eastern or Western Churches.

Nor have there been female deacons in either.

There have, however been deaconesses… A deaconess is not a female deacon, although they share some ministries–but not in the liturgical role!

As mentioned above, nude baptisms created a need for a female to preside. Also, there were issues under roman law with a male ending the home of an unmarried/widowed woman.

Detouring, there is a difference between minor orders in the east & west–in the east, these a regular Holy Orders, while the west, at lest today, does not consider them to be so and has in fact abolished them.

There seems to be a split in the churches that did use deaconesses–not only in role, but in how they were “ordained.”. At least one church appears to have used Holy Orders in a manner similar to that of Deacons.

If memory serves, two Churches today still, at let sporadically, have deaconesses today, with another couple considering the reinstitution.

In the East, women do not enter the sanctuary, at least during Litugy. The only exceptions are,

1. cloistered monasteries–the priest who serves at the liturgy is the only male, so a couple of nuns are designated to serve,
2. at baptism, the priest may enter the Holy Doors with the infant and process around the Holy Table,
3. at Crowning (matrimony), the priest may lead the freshly crowned couple and process.

(the latter two are far from universal, with some others aghast at the practice).

For that matter, lay men don’t enter, either, unless filling in for the subdeacons that are nearly impossible to find these days (I’m not a subdeacon, but I play one on Sunday ).

That said, clergy not serving also enter the sanctuary for Communion–and in at least one church, the deaconesses entered the sanctuary at this time (apparently the only circumstance in which they did so).

The bottom line is that you’ll find real authority that deaconesses existed (and still exist), and authority both ways on whether or not they had Orders. You will not find, though, evidence that they had a liturgical role other than nude female baptism, that they were female deacons, or that they were priests.

This has been thrashed to death a couple of times on an eastern forum, but i don’t know if practice here allows a link.

hawk

 

[blackrobe]

Detouring, there is a difference between minor orders in the east & west–in the east, these a regular Holy Orders, while the west, at lest today, does not consider them to be so and has in fact abolished them.

Not quite. The Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest [An Apostolic Society of Pontifical Right] retains minor orders. I’m not sure whether other examples exist, perhaps the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. . .

AMDG
blackrobe

 

[Julia_Mae]

There have never been female priests in either the Eastern or Western Churches.

Nor have there been female deacons in either.

I think Saint Paul said there was. Anyway, I got this from an article linked in another post:

Over 40 years ago Cardinal Jean Daniélou, a French Jesuit, noted four ministerial areas of women deacons: 1) evangelization, catechesis and spiritual direction, 2) liturgical roles equivalent to porter, acolyte, lector and deacon, 3) care of the sick, including anointing and 4) liturgical prayer. Daniélou actually argued that women sacramentally anointed the sick, citing Epiphanius: “the woman deacon is delegated by the priest to perform his ministry for him.” …

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: “O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery.” Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

Here’s the original link. americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2778 I’m not an historian of course, so I can’t confirm this research.

I wonder if that reference to Nicea is online at the Vatican website?