Towards the ordination of women in the Catholic Church

[Quahom1]

Elsewhere, Nick has raised the question of the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. I'd like to post some comments here.

My main issue is the rather absurdist and theatrical exercise to publicise the point. I recall Sinead O'Conner doing much the same thing.

There is another, and better, way.

John Wijngaards was a priest who resigned over the issue of the Church’s current position on women’s ordination. Since then he has worked to champion the cuase he obviously so passionate believes in.

"The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church" argues that the ban on a female priesthood was an import from secular culture, particularly from Roman law. This does not sufficiently answer the question in the East, but that is another matter.

Wijngaards book includes the texts of the documents he cites, in an accurate translation with all the sensitive terms (deacon, deaconess, ordination, etc.) given also in the original Greek.

For a Catholic like myself this kind of scholarship brings out important and the only valid evidence.

Example: Mary of Magdala, and other women mentioned in the gospels, are called "women deacons" in the 3rd century Didascalia.

Phoebe, mentioned in Romans 16:1, is called a deacon by St Paul.

There is a fourth-century tombstone in Jerusalem to "the woman deacon Sophia, the second Phoebe".

Origen drew a quite explicit lesson: "This text teaches at the same time two things: that there are, as we have already said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who have given assistance to so many people and who by their good works deserve to be praised by the Apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate."

St John Chrysostom (the 'golden-mouthed') had waxed eloquently about the apostle Junia (Romans 16:7), precisely because she was, according to St Paul, a woman "of note among the apostles".

+++

On the other hand, scholars have noted that the institution of a female diaconate was different from that of men, and that women did not undergo full ordination, and therefore could not proceed to the priesthood.

These and other issues remain to be ironed out ... but certainly Rome's rather outspoken reaction to the issue does not bode well for a fair hearing of the issue.

But stunts like those in America are not helping anyone, nor advancing the cause in any way meaningfully.

Thomas

Don't forget the Abbesses of Ireland who were Catholic clergy with the authority of a Bishop for 600 years (until the Synod of Kells 1152.

It began with Brigid of Kildare (452-521 A.D.), who became a nun, and founded a convent in Clara. About 470 A. D., she founded Kildare Abbey which was a monastery for men and women. As powerful as Brigid was as an Abbess, she was read the rites of consecration of a Bishop by Bishop Mel (Moel), who also gave her the veil.

Thus Brigid the Abbess had the authority of a Bishop (once read, the rites of consecration for a Bishop can't be revoked). This status continued with all succeeding Abbesses of Kildare until 1152 A.D. where The 1152 Synod of Kells-Mellifont deprived the Abbess of Kildare of her traditional precedence over its bishops when the last abbess of Kildare died in 1171.

List of abbesses of Kildare:

• Brigit ingen Dubthaig, d. 1 February either 521, 524, or 526
• Abbesses of unknown death year alleged to have followed Brigit
  • Der Lugdach, commemorated 1 February
  • Comnat, commemorated 1 January
  • Tuilclath, commemorated 6 January
• Gnáthnat (or Gnáthat), d. 690
• Sébdann ingen Cuirc, d. 732
• Affraic (or Aiffrica), d. 743
• Martha ingen maic Dubáin, d. 758
• Lerthan, d. 773
• Condál ingen Murchado, d. 797
• Fine, d. 805
• Muirenn ingen Cellaig, d. 831
• Affraic, d. 834
• Cathán, d. 855
• Tuilelaith ingen Uargalaig, d. 10 January, 885
• Cobflaith ingen Duib Dúin, d. 916
• Muirenn ingen Suairt, d. 26 May, 918
• Muirenn ingen Flannacáin meic Colmáin, d. 964
• Muirenn ingen Congalaig, d. 979
• Eithne ingen Suairt, d. 1016
• Lann ingen meic Selbacháin, d. 1047
• Dub Dil, d. 1072
• Gormlaith ingen Murchada, d. 1112
• Ingen Cerbaill meic Fáeláin, deposed 1127
• Mór ingen Domnaill Uí Chonchobair Failge, deposed 1132/d. 1167
• Sadb ingen Glúniarain Meic Murchada, d. 1171

However, there were others in the church along the way that decided women were not to be priestly, nor have athority over other priests.

"When Rome sent a council to Ireland to meet these mysterious "churchmen" (circa 650 A.D.), who so fastidiously adhered to the transcribing of sacred history, they were stunned to find "women" as priests. Several Bishops ordered the women to be put to death, only to find their own throats in sudden peril, by the very same women (priests), who carried broad swords under their cassacks larger and heavier than that which the council's guard carried...and the women priests were much faster, and much quicker to dispatch anyone who attempted to harm the "faith" as it were...even those sent from Rome..."

(Can be further investigated in "How the Irish Saved Civilization", by Robert Cahill 1995).

 

[Thomas]

Don't forget the Abbesses of Ireland who were Catholic clergy with the authority of a Bishop for 600 years (until the Synod of Kells 1152.

Thanks Q, I never knew the detail, more grist to the mill...

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Acts of the Apostles ... St Paul ... I suppose it's a case of what you bring to the text.

Sure is. What I see is Paul insisting that his own personal visions give him authority regardless of what "those who think they are somebody" might say.

Christ said He would found a Church — an ekklesia

The "P" material in Matthew is particularly late (I would date it to the 160's) and not a reliable source for anything Jesus actually said.

To understand the office of 'priest' in its Christian context, the best place to start would be the Letter to the Hebrews.

Which insists that the office of "priest" is precisely what is DEAD now, its purpose having been completely fulfilled by Jesus.

We have the election of deacons in Acts of the Apostles.

My contention, you will recall, is that the diakonoi were the only people to conduct "masses" in that period.

We have the office of the diaconate spoken of in Paul's letter to Titus.

A very late forgery.

And I tend to think that the community would have regarded the person who led the Mysteries... the meal would be regarded as a Liturgical Rite and a Mystery... they had a reference of robed figures leading mystery rites...

"Mysteries" is precisely the kind of concept they scorned as heathenish.

 

[Thomas]

What I see is Paul insisting that his own personal visions give him authority regardless of what "those who think they are somebody" might say.

OK. Your opinion.

The "P" material in Matthew is particularly late (I would date it to the 160's) and not a reliable source for anything Jesus actually said.

Another opinion.

My contention, you will recall, is that the diakonoi were the only people to conduct "masses" in that period.

Again. I happen to think you're wrong ... but that's my opinion.

"Mysteries" is precisely the kind of concept they scorned as heathenish.

Who are 'they'? That Latin word 'sacramentum' is the translation of the Greek 'Musterion'. The term 'mysteries' has always been used, and still continues to be used.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

The term 'mysteries' has always been used, and still continues to be used.

Not in the period when the New Testament was written.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bobx —

Not in the period when the New Testament was written.

The word musterion, translated as 'mystery' or 'mysteries', appears 26 times in the New Testament.

In common English usage "mystery" means something that is incomprehensible, beyond understanding, something unknowable. The Greek word musterion does not carry this modern understanding. Rather it refers to a "secret" or "knowledge" of the sacred that is made known by God.

In the NT the term denotes the data of divine revelation.

The Orthodox Patriarchates continue to use the term 'musterion', whereas the Latin Church translates the term by Sacramentum.

In the non-Christian (especially Greek) Mysteries, the initiate seeks what is most often described as an order of 'divine intoxication' by which he or she is carried out of or beyond the self into some order of union with the divine. Thus there was often an erotic dimension attached to the rite (not necessarily in act).

In the Christian Mysteries, the process is not one of intoxication, and the eros element is replaced by agape.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

The word musterion, translated as 'mystery' or 'mysteries', appears 26 times in the New Testament.

Never in the sense of "ritual, with sacred power" which you want. The communion supper is never described, nor is baptism, and there is no hint of any ordination rite. The concept that divine grace is channeled through rituals performed by specially-marked persons would be perceived by early Christians not only as alien, but as repugnant.

 

[Thomas]

Never in the sense of "ritual, with sacred power" which you want.

I tend to disagree. The communion supper is described in the Synoptics and St Paul, its 'musterion' in Paul, and also in John and in Hebrews. John the Baptist was baptising. Hebrews, again, is widely regarded as a commentary on the priesthood.

In the Synoptic accounts, the references to the Passover are clearly evident, meaning the scribe was aware of, and bring out, the deeper meaning of the Paschal Supper.

The Christians Mysteries focus on "presence" rather than "power", and that's clearly evident in Scripture — the 'memra / logos' idea speaks volumes on that. Throughout the New Testament the emphasis (especially in the parables) is on what the presence of Jesus signifies, whereas many tend to focus on the powers He displayed.

The miracle accounts are, after all, signs of sacred power. Of course, the obvious and most convenient response is to dismiss them as inventions.

The fundamental Christian Mystery is the Incarnation. It reveals another Mystery, the Blessed Trinity ... all Christianity is, in effect, strung between these two Mysteries.

The first Christians were Jewish converts and surely their spiritual sensibility would be steeped in liturgical rites and the simple rituals of washing, eating, etc?

What they saw was the Liturgy of the Eucharist was a sign of the horizontal communion of the faithful embracing all (thus the bread was taken to those who could not attend the meal) and a vertical communion of the faithful in and with the Risen Christ ...

... The significant difference between the Christian Liturgy as a Mystery, and the Greek Mysteries, for example, is that in the latter there is an element of going out, of body, of place, of time, and being drawn into the transcendent. In the Christian rite the process this almost reversed, signifying the 'descent' of the divine into the world and history, in the Person of the Incarnate Son, and in the Person of the Holy Spirit, which is mysteriously continued in the Eucharistic Meal. There is not then, the immediate sense of the parousia that was actively sought in the Greek mysteries.

The introduction of the Greek term 'agape', which is rarely used in contemporary philosophical language, marks it out as significant.

Certainly the Christians would have found the erotic element of the pagan rites as repugnant as I am sure the Jews did.

The concept that divine grace is channeled through rituals performed by specially-marked persons would be perceived by early Christians not only as alien, but as repugnant.

Really? Is not Jewish Temple observance divine grace channeled through rites performed by specially-marked persons ... so why would Christians view it as repugnant? Where is your evidence for this? Bearing in mind the early Christians saw Temple observance as part of their life?

Again, the concept of the divine working through 'specially-marked persons' is fundamentally Jewish, surely ... that's a working description of Israel's prophetic heritage, not to mention its patriarchy and its priesthood?

If you argue that such has changed, that the Christian sensibility was different toa Jewish sensibility, then you have to present the terms on how that was taught to have changed ... the rending of the veil of the temple, for instance ... which necessarily assumes the orthodox understanding of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

We have Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) and Justin Martyr (100-165) talking of the Eucharist in a fully Trinitarian manner, including the idea later codified as Transubstantiation.

We have Justin speaking of baptism as a necessary prerequisite to the induction into the Christian Mysteries. Justin talks of the 'president of the brethren' as leading the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and furthermore the president distributes the Eucharist through the deacons (1 Apology, ch65).

We have Ignatius speaking of a Bishop and a presbytery (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch20), of one mind, echoing St Paul's "one bread".

The 'power' of eternal life — which is in fact a gift — in the Persence of He who is the source of life itself. That's what Scripture is all about.

I think the early Christians — the Catholic Church — had a far greater spiritual sensibility than perhaps you see, or are willing to allow?

I am quite happy with the idea that the Church changed as it grew, how could it not do otherwise?

As time goes on however, man seeks to 'demythologise' Christianity and render it something devoid of its deeper dimension and reduce it to a manageable and self-affirming ideology — modern interpretations of Christianity is largely a humanist ethic with the notion of Jesus tagged on.

Thus the argument for the ordination of women is put forward on the idea of equality and egalitarianism, a sociopolitical context, rather than the psychospiritual or metaphysical/symbolic ... which is perhaps the prior and more relevant argument.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Wasn't John the Baptist baptizing prior to Jesus being on the scene as a teacher in his area?

Wasn't, isn't the passover tradition, and shabat tradition sharing wine and bread normal...prior to Jesus?

 

[Thomas]

Wasn't John the Baptist baptizing prior to Jesus being on the scene as a teacher in his area?

Wasn't, isn't the passover tradition, and shabat tradition sharing wine and bread normal...prior to Jesus?

Precisely ... that's my point.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Ok, so these are not new Christian Traditions, but traditions of Judaism or sects of Judaism, that we have modified/modernized.

 

[Thomas]

Ok, so these are not new Christian Traditions, but traditions of Judaism or sects of Judaism, that we have modified/modernized.

I would say pneumatised ...

... the point however, is that they would not have been 'alien' to the Christian community.

The Christians were a liturgical community ... lose the liturgy, and you've lost the heart and soul of Christianity.

Thomas

 

[wil]

pumped full of air?

Thou shall not commit adultery...lol


But 'christian community'?? Weren't they just a sect of Judaism at the time?

 

[Thomas]

pumped full of air?
Thou shall not commit adultery...lol

But 'christian community'?? Weren't they just a sect of Judaism at the time?

Well, had the Jews accepted Christ en masse, then we would be called Jews.

The Jews are a liturgical community, and so were the followers of Christ ... James was supposed to have spent so long at prayer at the temple in Jerusalem that he was said to have developed the knees of a donkey ...

... the New Testament Scriptures emerge in the wake of the Christian Liturgies; Baptism and the Eucharist are liturgical rites and a very real engagement with the Mysteries.

Thomas

 

[wil]

So what is the definition? I could only find pumped full of air.

 

[bob x]

I tend to disagree. The communion supper is described in the Synoptics and St Paul, its 'musterion' in Paul, and also in John and in Hebrews.

It is NEVER described as musterion.

Hebrews, again, is widely regarded as a commentary on the priesthood.

It is a commentary on why the priesthood has been ABOLISHED. The person distributing the bread is not a "priest"; the bread itself is the ONE AND ONLY priest.

Really? Is not Jewish Temple observance divine grace channeled through rites performed by specially-marked persons ... so why would Christians view it as repugnant?

Because this is precisely, precisely, precisely, the form of Judaism which Jesus VIOLENTLY REPUDIATED, an act for which he was put to death? Yes, of course the early Christians were "familiar" with it, just as Republicans are "familiar" with Marxist-style class-warfare rhetoric: it was their ARCH-ENEMY.

... the rending of the veil of the temple, for instance ... which necessarily assumes the orthodox understanding of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It necessarily assumes the abolition of the priesthood.

 

[Thomas]

So what is the definition? I could only find pumped full of air.

Sorry, Wil! Misunderstood ...

By pneumatised, I meant spiritualised (as in pneuma, Greek for spirit).

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

It is NEVER described as musterion.

Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery (musterion) of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables"

Romans 11:25
"For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (musterion)"

The term mystery is used throughout, and is understood in the contemporary sense of something hidden or secret, confided only to the initiate.

Throughout, the 'mysteries' refer to the secret of God's will made known to man through Jesus Christ (eg 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 1:9, 3:3 et seq. Colossians 1:26 et seq.)

It is a commentary on why the priesthood has been ABOLISHED. The person distributing the bread is not a "priest"; the bread itself is the ONE AND ONLY priest.

Distributed by the leader of the rite, in persona Christi.

Because this is precisely, precisely, precisely, the form of Judaism which Jesus VIOLENTLY REPUDIATED...

Then why call the twelve specifically, and why three among the twelve? He established the new form by His commission to His disciples.

an act for which he was put to death?

No, He was put to death for blasphemy, for declaring His divinity.

It necessarily assumes the abolition of the priesthood.

No it doesn't.

It asserts that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit extends to the far reaches of the earth, and is not confined within the Holy of Holies ... as Christianity preaches, the Holy Spirit indwells in all, it is the Holy Spirit who prays in us ... but that does not invalidate a priesthood as a function within the community.

One could posit that the veil of the temple, which was wrought with designs signifying the totality of the cosmos, marked the separation between the cosmic and the metacosmic ... the rending of the veil then signifies the removal of this 'barrier' and the beginning of the pneumatisation of the cosmos by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a 'mystery' revealed by and in Christ ...

In fact one could argue that a priesthood is an even greater necessity to assure the correct transmission of the message of salvation ... as contemporary evidence shows, once one breaks with a living tradition, then, in effect 'anything goes' and the first thing to be lost is the essential core ...

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery (musterion) of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables"

Romans 11:25
"For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (musterion)"

The term mystery is used throughout, and is understood in the contemporary sense of something hidden or secret, confided only to the initiate.

Throughout, the 'mysteries' refer to the secret of God's will made known to man through Jesus Christ (eg 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 1:9, 3:3 et seq. Colossians 1:26 et seq.)

As I said, and as you keep confirming, AT NO TIME is any ritual referred to as a "mystery"; that is not how the word is ever used in the text.

Distributed by the leader of the rite, in persona Christi.

They would have regarded it as UTTER BLASPHEMY to speak of the "waiter" as impersonating Christ.

Then why call the twelve specifically, and why three among the twelve? He established the new form by His commission to His disciples.

The new form had nothing in common with the old.

No, He was put to death for blasphemy, for declaring His divinity.

The text says it was after his violent assault on the priestly rituals that they began to seek excuses to kill him; and "declaring divinity" is not a reasonable reading of any of the texts.

In fact one could argue that a priesthood is an even greater necessity to assure the correct transmission of the message of salvation

It is the absolute destruction of the message, replacing it with an enslavement of most to an elite few.

 

[Thomas]

As I said, and as you keep confirming, AT NO TIME is any ritual referred to as a "mystery"; that is not how the word is ever used in the text.

The term "mystery" as used in Scripture refers to the Person and Preaching of Christ ... and the liturgical rites were seen as a means of drawing close to that sacred reality made known.

They would have regarded it as UTTER BLASPHEMY to speak of the "waiter" as impersonating Christ.

That's why I didn't say it like that. No-one is impersonating anyone.

The new form had nothing in common with the old.

Oh, c'mon Bob! Scripture in the testimony of witnesses, not the biography of Christ Himself. The only evidence we have is the 'old form' and for the 'new form' to dispose of the 'old form' would require Scripture — and the scribe — to declare itself void.

The text says it was after his violent assault on the priestly rituals that they began to seek excuses to kill him; and "declaring divinity" is not a reasonable reading of any of the texts.

I'm sorry Bob, but I think you're got that completely the wrong way round.

In every occasion when they tried to stone Jesus was because what He said implied His own divinity. When he was condemned by the Sanhedrin, it was exactly on this point. His very existence was seen as an assault on their empty rituals.

Note also that He validates the 'rituals' — paying tithes, liturgical action, prayer — when the heart is in the right place.

Thomas