Women Priests in the Early Church - refutation

[EZweber]

My boss is Lutheran and we’ve occasionally engaged in short friendly arguments about faith. He has claimed that the early (Catholic) church had women priests. I know that we didn’t and that it is impossible to have women priests, but I don’t know how to historically refute that. Does anyone know a historical refutation of this? Remember that this is a Lutheran, not a Catholic.

 

[EZweber]

Also, if anyone has practical advice for personal evangelization, I would be grateful for that.

 

[Bonaventurian]

The priest acts in persona Christi.

Was Christ a woman? No. Therefore, there were not priestesses in the early Church.

 

[EZweber]

The priest acts in persona Christi.

Was Christ a woman? No. Therefore, there were not priestesses in the early Church.

My boss is not claiming that with the Catholic Church’s perspective, women can be priests. He is simply claiming that the early church did in fact at least attempt to ordain them. I know plenty of doctrinal arguments against priestesses.

 

[Bonaventurian]

Bonaventurian:

The priest acts in persona Christi.

Was Christ a woman? No. Therefore, there were not priestesses in the early Church.

My boss is not claiming that with the Catholic Church’s perspective, women can be priests. He is simply claiming that the early church did in fact at least attempt to ordain them. I know plenty of doctrinal arguments against priestesses.

Indeed. The closest thing are deaconesses in extraordinary circumstances. He needs to cite some early Church documents in order to back that claim up.

 

[EZweber]

Indeed. The closest thing are deaconesses in extraordinary circumstances. He needs to cite some early Church documents in order to back that claim up.

Deaconesses?!!! Women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders to any degree. Please clarify your position on that.

 

[Fauken]

Deaconesses?!!! Women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders to any degree. Please clarify your position on that.

These Deaconesses are not to be confused with ordained Deacons. Deaconesses would help women converts get ready for baptism, which was done in the nude, so for obvious purposes, men couldn’t assist the lady in getting ready to be baptized.

 

[EZweber]

Ok. Sorry, I kind of panicked there. I’ve heard of that, but they were referred to as consecrated virgins.

 

[Fauken]

Consecrated virgins are not the same thing as Deaconesses.

 

[EZweber]

I think that what I read was saying that consecrated virgins often filled that role.

 

[Padres1969]

He probably cites Romans 16, Phillipians 4, I Corinthians 16, Acts 16, Luke 8 and Mark 7 among other chapters.

 

[steph03]

Deaconess (women deacons) are mentionned in the NT. There is a historical debate as to what this function means (same as male deacons or not). Some Orthodox groups now have women deacons, but they are not the norm. There were no women priests in the early church founded by the apostles. And Lutberans by the way are divided on this…

Deaconesses | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

 

[EZweber]

He probably cites Romans 16, Phillipians 4, I Corinthians 16, Acts 16, Luke 8 and Mark 7 among other chapters.

He hasn’t cited anything. To prove women priests from Scripture would probably defeat both of us.

 

[CRV]

@EZweber
Some articles that may be of assistance:-
Women priests

Why Can’t Women Be Priests #4. Didn’t the early Christians ordain women?

Women and the Priesthood “The following quotations from the Church Fathers indicate that women do play an active role in the Church and that in the age of the Fathers there were orders of virgins, widows, and deaconesses, but that these women were not ordained.”

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

Why historic deaconesses will not translate to modern female deacons does mention that deaconesses did not receive Holy Orders in the early Church.

 

[po18guy]

A wild goose chase. You cannot prove that something did not occur - only that it did.

Where is your boss’s evidence?

 

[FiveLinden]

The priest acts in persona Christi.

Was Christ a woman? No. Therefore, there were not priestesses in the early Church.

Was Christ a gentile? No. Therefore gentiles cannot be priests.
Was Christ over 40? No. Therefore priests can’t be over 40.
Was Christ red-haired? No. Therefore red-heads can’t be priests.
Was Christ uncircumcised? No. Therefore you can’t be a priest with a foreskin.
Was Christ able to read English? No. Therefore literate English people can’t be a priests.
Was Christ educated in a seminary? No. Therefore seminarians can’t be priests.
Was Christ a sinner? No. Therefore sinners can’t be priests.
Was Christ an American? No. Therefore Americans can’t be priests.

 

[rightness]

Bonaventurian:

The priest acts in persona Christi.

Was Christ a woman? No. Therefore, there were not priestesses in the early Church.

Was Christ a gentile? No. Therefore gentiles cannot be priests.
Was Christ over 40? No. Therefore priests can’t be over 40.
Was Christ red-haired? No. Therefore red-heads can’t be priests.
Was Christ uncircumcised? No. Therefore you can’t be a priest with a foreskin.
Was Christ able to read English? No. Therefore literate English people can’t be a priests.
Was Christ educated in a seminary? No. Therefore seminarians can’t be priests.
Was Christ a sinner? No. Therefore sinners can’t be priests.
Was Christ an American? No. Therefore Americans can’t be priests.

I can’t speak from his argument, but the official stance of the Church by Saint John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which was posted earlier by CRV, is that Jesus handpicked 12 disciples, and they were all male. That’s why it is the divine tradition that all clergymen have to be men.

If arguments are made that Jesus was simply follow Jewish traditions, that is hardly the case because Jesus was with the gentiles all the time. Jews were more adverse of gentiles than women. If anyone charges the Church with sexism, they’d have to charge Jesus with sexism. Not only that, Paul would teach on this in 1 Timothy 2. The Church has the order of nuns for any women who seek to live the Holy Orders.

The biggest point, and the one I like to use the most, is thinking about who is the most worthy to raise up the Eucharist and say “This is my body, this is my blood”. Who is the one that the Early Church Fathers would say is the primary and first disciple of Jesus? His Mother, of course. Jesus is literally of her body and blood. There is no one more worth to elevate the host and consecrate it, yet it was not the case despite how meaningful it would be.

It is clear that God created man and woman separately for specific reasons, and each of us has a role.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I’m pretty sure Deaconesses were the wives of deacons. They were never actually ordained, but gained that title through marriage, and could help with baptism and stuff like that.

 

[steph03]

I’m pretty sure Deaconesses were the wives of deacons. They were never actually ordained, but gained that title through marriage, and could help with baptism and stuff like that.

Unlikely, as you should also then have priestesses (wives of priests) which you don’t encounter in the NT. Deaconess in the primitive church seems to be strictly a eastern church phenomenon

Note: married priests were not uncommon in the primitive church

 

[thistle]

My boss is Lutheran and we’ve occasionally engaged in short friendly arguments about faith. He has claimed that the early (Catholic) church had women priests. I know that we didn’t and that it is impossible to have women priests, but I don’t know how to historically refute that. Does anyone know a historical refutation of this? Remember that this is a Lutheran, not a Catholic.

Please be aware it is not up to us to refute baseless claims. The onus is on the person making such a claim to provide evidence to support his claim then we can discuss that. If your boss can’t do that you know it is just hot air.