women's ordination

[vern_humphrey]

I do not agree. The Church has the power to ordain who it wishes.

More importantly, the Church does not have a mandate to ordain women and therefore can never do it.

There is a huge difference.

No, that’s a distinction without a difference. The Church can only do what it has been empowered to do. It has not been empowered to ordain women.

 

[Fergal]

No, that’s a distinction without a difference. The Church can only do what it has been empowered to do. It has not been empowered to ordain women.

Well then why are the ceremonies involving the ordination of women by validly ordained rebel bishops described as “valid but illicit”?

See the terrible story of the Danube seven.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well then why are the ceremonies involving the ordination of women by validly ordained rebel bishops described as “valid but illicit”?

See the terrible story of the Danube seven.

Declared “vaild but illicit” by who? And under what authority?

Here is the definitive statement from

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

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

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,
* * *
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, **in order that all doubt may be removed **regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

(My emphasis)

 

[CRW]

The pope has not spoken to this ex cathedra, there for it is not dogma and can be falible. Just because it has been tradition, does not mean it is right.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate. John Paul II

---

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate. John Paul II

---

To all who say the Pope has not spoken definitively in this matter, I offer a free lifetime membership in the Flat Earth Society. As a token of their membership, they will receive the coveted Stuffed Bull’s Head with the Winking Eye.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

1. The lack of historical precedent
   There’s a huge volume of material on this. I’ll give a brief summary, but there’s much more detail on the web and in a fantastic book I have lent to someone, and can’t remember the name of!

• Acts. Philip had three daughters who were preachers (and it seems this role involved leading local fellowships, therefore would have included breaking of bread).

No, women were not involved either in leadership or preaching – or the Breaking of the Bread. The daughters of St. Philip, e.g., were “gifted with prophecy,” not preachers. St. Luke himself, St. Paul’s own disciple, describes them this way in Acts 21:9, contrasting them in the very next verse (v. 10) with the “prophet” Agabus, who apparently had an authoritative role as “prophet,” whereas Philip’s daughters did not. This same St. Paul (whose doctrines St. Luke promoted) wrote 1 Cor. 14:32-40, where it is admitted that women have the gift of prophecy, but these same female prophets are not permitted to speak in the church assembly, i.e., they are not to preach publicly or be ministerial leaders. Try as you might, you cannot get around this. Nor can you get around 1 Tim. 2:11-12, where it is made clear that a woman cannot have authority over a man in the assembly; ergo, no female leaders.

Romans, the last chapter, verse 7, two people, Andronicus and Junia (Junia is a woman - but you need to go to the Greek - some translators have changed her name - particularly evangelical Protestant translations) are referred to as “fellow apostles,” which in the life of the early church referred to obvious leadership of a church.

Regarding “Junia”, some ancient codices read “Junias” rather than “Junia.” So, it is a matter of debate whether this person is a man or a woman. It could easily be either one. But, even if it is a woman, so what? She is not called a “fellow apostle”. What we know from the text (Romans 16:7) is that this “Junia” is paired with “Andronicus,” who is listed before “her”. We are also told that Andronicus and “Junia” are St. Paul’s “relatives” and that they were Christians before St. Paul was. The natural conclusion here is that “Junia” (if it is “Junia”) was Andronicus’ wife, and they were “prominent among (or before) the apostles” in one of two senses: 1) Either they were regarded as a “husband and wife team” (with Andronicus being the primary figure as an evangelist – .e., women were not permitted to preach publicly or have authority over a man). In this, they would have been no different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers”; and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach; or, 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul. This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned). Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Early Church - there are numerous deacons referred to in church history until the 9th century. Diaconate was an ordained and sacramental position - though not, I accept necessarily Eucharistic. However women were being ordained for roles including teaching, which contradicts the argument that there is no precedent for ordination of women - at least to the diaconate.

The term “deacon” (“diakonon” in Greek) is a common word, which just means “servant.” The New Testament uses the word organically, as well as Sacramentally. While there were women “deacons” (that is, “servants”) in the early Church, these were not ordained ministers, but - for lack of a better word - a type of “lay minister,” or even proto-nuns. They were typically elderly women (usually widows) or they were young, consecrated virgins (like St. Philip’s daughters), a position in the Church which would develop into a nun.

If you read the authentic early patristic literature (e.g. the Didache), the positions of these women are spelled out in detail. One of their primary functions, for example, was to assist in the Baptism of women because, in the early days, it was very common to be Baptized in the nude, or almost nude, and so it was considered inappropriate for the bishop to personally immerse the candidate in the body of water. Thus, these women “deacons” (“servants”) would do it, while the bishop stood at a distance and recited the Baptismal formula. This was the type of thing these female “deacons” were used for. They also assisted in alms giving and taking care of the sick and orphaned children. In other words, they were “servants” who were under the jurisdiction of the ordained (male) deacon, and helped to carry out his duties. They were also occasionally the male deacons’ wives. But, for all intents and purposes, they did what nuns and other helpful lay women do today. For, we can call nuns and other helpful women “servants” to the Church as well. That’s all the term signified to the ancients. Women were never ordained.

In terms of the official title ‘Presbyter’ - which, in the Early Church documentation is the one who conducted Eucharist - there are women referred to in this way - I’ve seen photographs of inscriptions from graves in the 4th century, from Southern Italy and Turkey which refer to women and use the female form of Presbyter.

This has long been dispelled. The so-called “presbuterai” are the wives of the priests - the “presbyteroi.” If you go and look at these grave sites the markers of the “presbuterai” are right next to that of their husbands and, more often than not, these women are directly identified as the priest’s wife.

In ancient and medieval times, it was a cultural convention to identify a wife with the occupation of her husband. Thus, the wife of a butcher was called the “butcheress” and the wife of a doctor was called the “doctoressa,” etc. That’s all that is at play here. These women were not ordained priests in their own right, but merely the wives of the priests/presbyters. Indeed, the custom of calling the priest’s wife a “priestess” is still common in parts of Greece and the Middle-East today. It does not mean that these women conduct the Liturgy or hear Confessions, however. So, you are being highly ill-informed by your reading which presents distortions of historical and cultural reality in order to fit certain predilections.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

However women were being ordained for roles including teaching, which contradicts the argument that there is no precedent for ordination of women - at least to the diaconate.

This is not true. I give you 1 Tim 2:11-12 and 1 Cor. 14:33-38. Please take special note that 1 Cor. 14:33 indentifies this rule as applying to “all the churches of the holy ones.” You have succumbed to unsubstantiated claims.

A few examples - Olympias, ordained by Bishop Nektarios or Theodora of Gaul whose tomb was inscribed “Here rests in peace and of good remembrance Theodora the deaconess who lived about 48 years and died on 22 July 539.”

Where does it say that Theodora (or Olympias) were ordained? You are seeing what you want to see. Again, the term “deaconness” is a generic one, and means “servant.” Such women were not ordained.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

There are dozens more - check the web for records.

No, there are not. It’s a sheer fantasy powered by a feminist agenda.

Artwork from the Catacombs also shows women in the celebration of Eucharist.

No, it does not. What is depicted is one image of the celebration of a lay “agape,” which did not involve the Eucharist unless the bishop or presbyter were present. They often were not.

Yours is a very old feminist argument. However, a little knowledge of a Christian history dispels the myth and misinterpretation. The painting depicts a love feast (a “Lord’s supper” or “agape”), which was not the Eucharist. Contrary to popular belief, there were all manner of Christian love feasts -some included the Eucharist, but most did not. As Dom Gregory Dix explains in his The Shape of the Liturgy (which explores the ancient liturgies of the Church in minute detail):

"We have said that the ‘Lord’s supper’ or agape (love feast) in the second century presents us with a religious meal retaining all the features of a [Jewish] chaburah supper, from which the Christian Eucharist had been removed. The Western rules for its celebration in the second century are best known to us from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus; Tertullian also informs us concerning some details of the African observance. Hippolytus introduces the subject by insisting on the obligation upon all of fasting frequently, especially the presbyters, virgins, and widows. But ’ …the bishop cannot fast except when all the laity fast. For there will be times when someone wishes to offer to the church, and he cannot be denied.
'(a) And having broken the bread must on all occassions taste of it, and eat with such of the faithful as are present. And they shall take from the hand of the bishop one fragment (klasma) of a loaf before each takes his own bread, for this is the “blessed bread” (eulogion). But it is not the Eucharist, as is the Body of the Lord.
'(b) And before they drink, let each of those who are present take a cup and give thanks and drink; and so let the baptized take their meal.
'(c) But to the catechumens let exorcized bread be given, and they shall each for themselves offer a cup. A catechumen shall not sit at table at the Lord’s supper.
'(d) And throughout the meal, let him who eats remember (i.e., pray for) him who invited him, for to this end he (i.e., the host) petitioned that they might come under his roof…
'(e) If you are all assembled and offer something to be taken away, accept it from the giver and depart, and eat thy portion alone
’ (f) But if you are invited all to eat together, eat sufficiently, but so that there may remain something left over, that your host may send to whomever he wills as the superfluity of the saints, and he may rejoice with what is left over.
'(g) And let the guests, when they eat, partake in silence without arguing. But any exhortation that the bishop may make, and if one asks him a question, let an answer be given him. …
‘(h) And if the faithful should be present at a Lord’s supper without the bishop, but with a presbyter or deacon, let them similarly partake in orderly fashion. But let them be careful to receive the blessed bread (i.e., not the Eucharist) from the hand of the presbyter or deacon. …If laymen only are present without a cleric, let them eat with understanding. For a laymen cannot make the blessed bread. Let each, having given thanks for himself, eat in the Name of the Lord.’
'(i) If at any time any one wishes to invite the widows, let him feed them and send them away before sunset, even though they are advanced in years. But if he cannot < entertain them in his house > because of circumstances, let him give them food and wine and send them away, and they shall partake of it at their homes as they please. ’ "

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

So, what we see here is that the early Church celebrated communal meals that did not necessarily involve the Eucharist, but a similar ceremony of “the blessed bread” (which the Eastern Orthodox still offer to the faithful to this day). We also see that these communal meals did not necessarily involve the clerics, but could be offered and celebrated by the laity alone; and, at these meals, it was the obligation of the host (who could be either male or female (the early Church had a lot of rich, female patrons who would play hostess to such meals) to offer something to the poor and to widows, etc., that would be taken away by them and eaten in their homes. Now, if you take a very good look at the catacomb painting, what it seems to be depicting is a Christian woman (a hostess? …if the figure even is a woman; that’s not clear at all) giving something to other women (for if the giver is a woman, then the others are women too), and these other “women” seem to be leaving - moving away from the giver. Are they the “widows” referred to by Hippolytus in Dix’s quote above?

But, even if this is not a correct interpretation of the painting, the fact remains that this painting does not depict the Eucharist, or a woman in the role of a priest. The love feasts/agapes/Lord’s Suppers were not limited to the celebration of the Eucharist, and it is a huge leap on the part of the feminists/liberals to suggest that we are seeing a Eucharistic service in the painting. There is no indication of that at all. There is no cup; and what is visible on the table does not look like bread, but something else (meat dishes?) in large platters. The feminists/liberals count on the assumption that most people are ignorant of how early Christian love feasts operated, and that this image will be seen as a Eucharist, and nothing more. In other words, they are distorting history and using deception to impose their agenda on people.

It seems to have been relatively common practice until the 5th century at least, at which point there are a number of letters from various bishops condemning it.

A fairy tale. You have no evidence to support this statement. Where is it ever mentioned that women celebrated the Eucharist?

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

But, it seems, they wouldn’t have been written, had it not been practice until that point. On whether the bishops were right, we’ll have to agree to disagree! But that women were preaching and acting as ordained deacons has extremely strong historical evidence.

Catholic Christianity is a historical faith rooted in the truth, and that Truth is Jesus Christ. Feminists, otoh, do not follow the Truth, but create fairytales to promote their own agendas.

For them, symbols are not very real, but may be altered according to present popular sentiment or their own wonts. But for God symbols are the chief means of causing grace through the Sacraments by His free choice. And if we relate one choice of His (12 men) back to an earlier choice of His (man and woman in Creation) we must suppose a non-contradiction, so that the Incarnation reveals something important about creation of Mankind (otherwise God is arbitrary and not wise). And while we have no evidence of absolute agreement or proof in terms of science or philosophy, we do see a fittingness between the two orders of Creation and Redemption, with Creation leading to Redemption.

Why couldn’t the ancient Church have priestesses when every other religion in the world had them? The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchal as the Jews and Christians were. What this all boils down to is a two-fold denial of something intrinsic to the Catholic Covenant. Either. . .

1. The Church should discard its Bridegroom-Bride theology (given to us by Christ Himself), or …
2. It should redefine what a “Bridegroom” is, allowing both male and female to play this role (after all, lesbians do it) and thus eliminate all natural distinction between male and female in the human race - that is, to accept “maleness” and “femaleness” as something incidental to the human person (an “accident”), and not as a dimension of nature itself.

And where does all this lead? Well, not only does it undermine the very historicity of Jesus, Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature that He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.

What’s more, to go in the direction that the feminists wish us to go must necessitate a total rejection of Genesis 2 & 3 as anything more than an imperfect “parable,” since we must draw no distinction between the sin of Eve and that of Adam; and by no means regard Adam as an exclusive head of the human family with particular responsibilities (contra Gen 2:15) beyond those of his mate. And, with all this being the case, then Jesus does not come (as a man) to atone for the sin of Adam especially (despite what St. Paul has to say), but rather He comes to atone for some general, unspecified sin of Adam and Eve (humanity) collectively, since Adam’s choice to join his wife in sin (thereby breaking the final link in the Covenant between humanity and God) has no special significance. Therefore, Jesus did not have to be a man to mirror the type of Adam (again, despite St. Paul), but could have as easily had been a woman, being only incidentally a man (an “accident” to His ultra-sexual human nature).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Further, if Jesus did not need to be a man so as to atone for the exclusive sin of Adam, and repair the broken unity between man and God caused by the exclusive sin of Adam, then Mary cannot possibly be the New Eve (as all those male chauvinist Church fathers called her) because this would imply that the first Eve was not wholly culpable for her sin - that her sin did not directly plunge humanity as a whole into sin - and so God could not possibly have preserved another woman (an antitype: Mary) from sin because of this “victimization” of Eve and the mercy accorded to that victimization of the serpent upon His final and greatest creation (the woman).

So, Catholicism’s 2,000-year old understanding of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve must fly completely out the window; and with it the Immaculate Conception and even the sinlessness of Jesus Himself. For without them being the New Adam and New Eve, their sinlessness is completely meaninglessness. Ah! Unless, of course, our feminist sisters wish to rescue us from this by proposing that Jesus and Mary are New Adam and New Eve interchangeably! Yes, that would work just fine! So, Jesus is not only the New Adam, but He is also the New Eve, the Mother of us all. And, if this is the case, then Jesus and His Church are interchangeable as well! Yes, both Jesus and the Church are our Mother! And, if that’s the case, then we the Church are also Christ! And since Christ is God, then the Church is God! Thus, each of us are Gods, and the serpent was RIGHT in Genesis 3:5! Alleluia! If we had only listened to him from the start! But, wait! That is what we did, isn’t it? And here we are in a sinful and confused world - the perfect setting for a feminist religion.

Thousands upon thousands of years ago, a deceived and prideful woman told us that we are to be gods. Now, thousands of years later, more deceived and prideful women (and women seeking to be faithful, but who have succumbed to their theological blandishments) are still telling the very same story - a story that would, if they got their way, only lead to the Church declaring itself to be God, and giving the real God His walking papers. This is what the feminists actually want anyway - even if they don’t know it yet.

 

[Eddy]

Feminists, otoh, do not follow the Truth, but create fairytales to promote their own agendas. .

I’m not sure how, quoting Scripture or historical evidence (letters, images, inscriptions from tombstones) can be described as ‘creating fairytales’. The Bible shows women clearly in leadership roles in the early church, there are numerous written references.

Why couldn’t the ancient Church have priestesses when every other religion in the world had them? The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchal as the Jews and Christians were…

I disagree that the Christians were patriarchal! At least not to the extent that you suggest. Women were there in early church leadership, and Paul’s ‘there is neither male nor female’ suggests a radical departure from surrounding culture. However Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophecy (see my other post in ‘ordination of women’). But he also, by his death, created a whole new system.

I understand your symbolism argument. But it implies that priesthood is primarly symbolic, and I’m not sure I agree with that interpretation. Also, I’m not sure that maleness was the primary mode of identification of Jesus. He was male, but was he male first and foremost? But we’ve already discussed the nature of essentialism, so I won’t bore you with repetition

Thousands upon thousands of years ago, a deceived and prideful woman told us that we are to be gods. Now, thousands of years later, more deceived and prideful women (and women seeking to be faithful, but who have succumbed to their theological blandishments) are still telling the very same story

Let’s just clarify that not all feminists are women. Also, not all who argue for the ordination of women would describe themselves as feminist - many would simply say they argue for what the believe to be the will of God. I do not believe, in arguing this, that I am telling anyone that we can be gods. We can’t. God is God. I also believe, firmly, that God does not have many of the hang ups that human beings have. I may believe that those who impose a false Patriarchy on God’s church may well be deceived and prideful, but I believe they love God and so will attempt to believe the best of them . I think the essence of our disagreement is that you believe ‘the church says it = truth’. I simply doesn’t believe that - you may think that’s pride - but I simply can’t ignore what my own reading of Scripture and sense and experience of God tells me - and I think if I did it would be a sin.

I guess, in all these arguments, I want to keep an eye on the bigger picture. I love God. You love God. I disagree with you on the details, but not on the essentials.