Women Priests?
by Fr. William Most
Were there women priests in the early Church? Professor Giorgio
Otranto in his "Note sul sacerdozio femminile nell'antichita in
margine a una testimonianze di Gelasio I: in <Vetera
Christianorum> 19 (1982), 342-60 concludes,"The data gathered on
the priesthood of women in antiquity are few and meager".
The article was translated by Mary Ann Rossi, as: "Priesthood,
Precedent, and Prejudice. On Recovering the Women Priests of
Early Christianity" in <Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion>,
Spring, 1991, 7. #1, pp. 73-93. Otranto's sober and scholarly
conclusion has been magnified by feminists. The translator in an
introduction to her translation, says: "Those in favor of the
ordination of women point to <the disparagement and hatred of
women> throughout the history of the church" [italics added]. She
adds "The persistence or sexist bias among church officials from
the first through the fourth centuries C. E. has been treated by
feminist scholars." The footnote cites only one "feminist
scholar", Rosemary Reuther, hardly a neutral observer. <National
Catholic Reporter> on May 29, 1968, p. 4 quoted her as saying:
"... Catholic bishops have no monopoly on Christ, and the body of
Christ may appear just as validly, if not more so in the
Eucharist celebrated by a Negro woman around a kitchen table as
in the one celebrated by the Pope in St. Peter's." The same
writer contributed a paper to a symposium, <Consensus in
Theology?> edited by L. Swidler (Westminster, 1980). On p. 65 she
said: "A new consensus could only come about if this traditional
power [the Magisterium] could be deposed, and the church
restructured on conciliar, democratic lines accountable to the
people... . This is what Kung is really calling for: that the
academy replace the hierarchy as the teaching magisterium of the
church... . It entails the equivalent of the French Revolution in
the Church... ."
OTRANTO'S CHIEF EVIDENCE; POPE GELASIUS' EPISTLE
The chief document brought forth by Otranto is an
<Epistle> 14: 26 of Pope Gelasius, dated March 11, 494. The
essential part as translated by Rossi (p. 81) is this:
"Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs
have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to
officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters
imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not
belong." Otranto thinks this means some bishops had ordained
women as priests.
In spite of the modest scholarly conclusion cited above that the
favorable data are "few and meager", Otranto earlier speaks much
more strongly than the evidence warrants. He notes that the
Epistle was addressed" to all episcopates established in Lucania,
Bruttium, and Sicilia." Now when the Vatican addresses a
directive to a specified area, it has no force outside that area.
Yet Otranto tries to make it refer widely (p. 83): "Gelasius
probably intended to address problems that were not exclusive to
the regions mentioned." That is a strange assumption. The evils
mentioned are so serious that a Pope really ought to send a
directive to all areas affected, not just to a relatively small
region. Otranto tries to extend it by saying that earlier, Bishop
John of Ravenna in the north had sent him to restore order in
churches in various parts of Italy where there was an upheaval
"caused by famine and by the war between Odoacre and Teodericus".
But such evils as of a quite different kind from those of
attempting to ordain women as priests. So Otranto seems to show
bias here. He adds (p. 84) that "southern Italy was culturally
connected with Greek and Byzantine areas where, from the third
century, women exercised the diaconate... ." Even if that be
true, a diaconate - the nature of which is far from clear, as we
shall see later - is quite different from an attempted ordination
of women as priests.
Otranto adds (p. 85) that we have evidence from St. Irenaeus of
heretical Gnostic women priests and also of some in other
erroneous sects, as shown by Firmilian of Caesarea and St.
Epiphanius of Salamis. But they are called heretical sects by
Irenaeus and Firmilian.
Private judgment or Magisterium?
Much more seriously, on p. 82, Otranto says that Pope Gelasius
"does all this without ever entering into the merit of the
question." This sentence is very revealing indeed. It seems to
imply: If he had looked at the merits, he would have decided
differently. But there are two ways to decide a theological
question: 1) use private judgment. Then "the merits" are
decisive. 2) Use the sources of revelation, as interpreted by the
Church, which is the Catholic way. Otranto seems not to trust the
divine protection given the Church. This attitude on his part
fits well with what Rosemary Reuther said as cited by the
translator of this article: the academy should replace the
Magisterium. We need the equivalent of a French Revolution in the
Vatican. To say that, entails lack of belief in the promises of
Christ to protect the teaching of the Church. The authorities
should look at merits, yes. But when that has been done, or even
if it has not been done, the essential thing is the divine
protection promised to the Church. It is on this that we should
rely, not on unaided human reason. In our day many are making
precisely such claims that the Pope ought to change doctrinal
decisions because allegedly he did not sufficiently examine the
merits of a case. We doubt if the Pope really failed to examine.
But even if he did, <the divine protection of his teaching
promised by Christ is the essential thing, it guarantees the
correctness of the Pope's decision.> Assent is required even when
he is not defining if he deliberately publishes a decision on a
matter then being debated among theologians, as we see in Vatican
II (<On the Church>, #25 and in the <Humani generis> of Pius XII
(DS 3885).
Many others today also want to shift to the basis of arguments
instead of following the teaching authority of the church. E. g.
, in speaking of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, many are
saying, after the finds of the Nag-haamadi documents in l946-47,
that there really were several kinds of orthodoxy in the early
Church: the Bishops, being better politicians, won out. This is
to show a sad lack of faith in the fact that Christ promised
teaching authority to the Church, protected by His Holy Spirit.
Vatican II strongly reaffirmed this, in the <Constitution on
Divine revelation> #10: "The task of authoritatively interpreting
the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or
Tradition] has been entrusted <exclusively> to the living
Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the
name of Jesus Christ" [italics added].
<So, Otranto and the feminists have really shown their hand: at
least in this instance, they do not believe something simply
because the Church so teaches. They want to argue with the
Church>. Really, the evidences they offer for the existence of
women priests are "few and meager" as even Otranto admitted. <But
no matter how many instances they could allege - actually,"few
and meager" - they could not overthrown the consistent teaching
of the Church on this matter, which we shall document>. There is
no official document whatever from the Holy See or even a local
council or from even one of the Fathers of the Church, that
approves of the ordination of women as priests. Rather, that
notion is constantly rejected. To say as Rossi does that it is
just a matter of "disparagement and hatred of women" is beside
the point. The reason for exclusion of women as priests is not at
all hatred - it is doctrine, not hatred. This is why Pope
Gelasius spoke so strongly, as Otranto put it (p. 82) "The harsh,
insistent wording of the decree" which called the actions of
bishops who seem to have attempted to ordain women "such
disrespect for divine affairs(p. 82)". As Otranto continues,
summarizing the Epistle, the Pope said this evil "seems to
threaten not only their [the bishops'] own downfall, but also the
tragic downfall of the whole church, if they do not come to their
senses." Further, the Pope referred to previous canons of
Councils, as Otranto reports on p. 83: "The canons to which
Gelasius was probably referring were [canon] 19 of the Council of
Nicea, 11 and 44 of the Council of Laodicea (second half of the
fourth century), 2 of the Council of Nimes (394 or 396), 25 of
the First Council of Orange (441), which prohibit women from
participation in the liturgical service in any way or from being
a member of the clergy." <So it is clearly a matter of doctrine,
not just discipline, and a matter of continuous repeated
teaching. Whatever cases may be found of violations are just
that, violations, never approved by the authority of the Church
as such>. As we said, in saying that Pope Gelasius had not
examined the merits of the case, Otranto and the feminists reveal
their thinking: It is not divine protection that is decisive, it
is just human reasonings, supported by disobedience.
Objection: The Pope did not define
Should someone object that the Epistle of Pope Gelasius is not a
solemn definition?. It is not, but it is an accepted theological
principle that if something is taught repeatedly on the ordinary
magisterium level, that too is infallible. The reason is that the
repetition shows the intention to make the doctrine <definitive>.
Then as is clear from Vatican II, <On Church>, #25 even internal
assent is required. Now the teaching of Pope Gelasius is not
isolated at all - it is in continuity with the teachings of four
councils, including the first General Council, Nicea, which, as
cited by Otranto,"prohibit women from participation in the
liturgical service in any way, or from being a member of the
clergy." These texts are in continuity with present statements of
the Magisterium. The Doctrinal Congregation, on Oct. 15, 1976,
said: "The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm
in the course of centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the
need to intervene [with a definition] to formulate a principle
which was not attacked." Pope Paul VI, on November 30, 1975, in a
letter to Archbishop Coggan of Canterbury said: "Your Grace is of
course well aware of the Catholic Church's position on this
question. She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to
the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons
include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ
choosing His Apostles only from among men; the constant practice
of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men;
and her living teaching authority which has consistently held
that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance
with God's plan for His Church." As the Doctrinal Congregation
said, over the centuries there was no attack - the disobedience
of a few Bishops, reproved by the Pope, does not constitute an
attack by way of teaching, only by way of disobedience.
Besides, as we indicated above, Pius XII, in <Humani generis> (DS
3885), said that if a Pope deliberately publishes in his Acta a
decision on something currently debated, it is removed from
debate, and falls under the promise of Christ: "He who hears you,
hears me." A promise of Christ cannot fail. Ergo.
OTRANTO'S ADDED DATA: SOME TOMBS
Normally, as even Otranto implies, the word <presbytera> was used
for the wife of a presbyter, as episcopa was used for the wife of
a bishop, and deaconissa for the wife of a deacon. Hence,
<Gregory the Great, Dialogues> 4. 11, told of a priest,
Nursinus,"who from the time of his ordination, loved his
presbytera as a sister, but avoided her as if any enemy, never
allowed her to come to him." The <Council of Laodicea> in Canon
19 said: "those who are called presbyteresses or presidentesses
should not be established [the word used is <kathistemi> -- cold
also be translated as <ordained>] in the church." <The Council of
Tours> in 567 wrote:"If a presbyter be found with his presbytera
or a deacon with his deaconissa or a subdeacon with his
subdeaconissa, he must be considered excommunicated for a full
year and removed from every clerical office." And Canon 13 of
Tours said; "If an Episcopus does not have an episcopa, let no
throng of women follow him."
To go against all this, Otranto offers a few bits, none of which
are conclusive even in proving abuses. As he said
"The data... are few and meager". He found a tomb inscription in
Tropea (South Italy - the place where Pope Gelasius complained of
violations), of probably mid-fifth century, which said: "Sacred
to her memory. Leta the presbytera lived 40 years, 8 months, 9
days, for whom her husband set up this tomb. She preceded him in
peace on the day before the Ides of May." Otranto argues (pp. 86-
87) that the husband may not have been a presbyter himself, for
he does not call himself that, so the term presbytera here might
not mean - as it often does even according to Otranto - merely
the wife of a presbyter. Otranto adds that when a presbyter
prepares a tomb for a wife the word for her is usually <coniux
"wife">.
So he has found one isolated gravestone calling a woman a
presbytera, who may not have been merely the wife of a presbyter,
thought that point is not certain. The stone was found in the
very territory in which Pope Gelasius complained of abuses. So
this really does not add anything to the evidence from the
Epistle of Pope Gelasius.
Otranto adds another sarcophagus from Salona in Dalmatia, dated
from 425, which reports that one Theodosius bought a cemetery
plot from a presbytera Flavia Vitalia. But such a function as
selling grave lots does not imply an attempt at priestly
ordination even if the word used is presbytera. Hence this
evidence is worth nothing.
Otranto also says, on p. 88, that there is a fragment of the
cover of a sarcophagus from Salona in Dalmatia which has the
letters dotae - he wishes to fill in the first part of the word
so as to make it <sacerdotae, priestess>. This at most might be a
case of the abuses reproved by Pope Gelasius.
Farther on, on pp. 90-92, Otranto quotes a text from Atto, bishop
of Vercelli, between the 9th and 10th centuries, who speaks of
the term presbytera as capable of meaning woman priest. What does
this show? At most, that there may have been some further abuses
later, in spite of the Epistle of Pope Gelasius. Atto himself
strongly rejects women priests, as do all Fathers and Councils
who speak of the matter.
ABUSES CANNOT CHANGE DOCTRINE
After this evidence, for which he has scraped hard, he concludes
(p. 89), as we cited it earlier: "The data gathered on the
priesthood of women in antiquity are few and meager." And those
that are found are contrary to the constant teaching of the
Church, including the four Councils and Pope Gelasius, cited by
Otranto, besides many texts of the Fathers strongly rejecting
women priests. So by no means do they prove at all that the
teaching authority ever even once approved of attempting to
ordain women as priests. In fact, even if Otranto had found a
hundred times as many texts, they would prove only that there
were abuses - they would not prove at all that the Magisterium of
the Church had ever approved of the abuses at all.
More from Councils and Fathers
As we saw, Otranto recognized that four Councils, Nicea,
Laodicea, Nimes, and First Orange, rejected women priests or
women ministering at the altar. Here are still more texts of the
Councils plus the actual texts of the Fathers of the Church he
referred to and additional Fathers.
The Council of Epaon, c. 517 AD said: "We completely reject the
consecration of widows, whom they call deaconesses, from our
region... ." The Sixth Council of Paris c. 829 AD, says it has
learned "that in certain of our provinces, contrary to divine law
and canon law, women of their own accord go to the holy altars,
and boldly touch the sacred vessels, and give the sacred
vestments to priests, and what is even more improper and
unsuitable, they give to the people the body and blood of the
Lord... . That women should not go to the altar is fully found in
Canon 44 of the Council of Laodicea, and in the decrees of Pope
Gelasius XXVI... ." Since the boldest thing is to distribute Holy
Communion, we gather they did not attempt to say Mass.
Absolutely every time the FAthers of the Church have occasion to
speak of such things, they strongly reject them, never approve.
Tertullian, in <The Prescription of Heretics> 41, says:"How
wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to
dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be
even to baptize." In his work <On veiling virgins> 9. 1:"It is
not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she
teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper
to a man, and least of all the office of priest."
St. Irenaeus, <Against Haereses> 1. 31. 2 tells of a certain
magician Marcus who changed the color of the liquid in the
chalice by an invocation himself, and "After this he gave women
mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then
he took another chalice much larger than that on which the
deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller... to
the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller
chalice and overflowed."
Firmilian, in <Epistle> 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who
went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess."That woman who
first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things
to deceive the faithful, among other things... she dared to do
this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was
sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord."
Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of
the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not
speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the
Apostles... . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the
church."
St. Epiphanius, <Against Heresies> 79. 304 wrote:"If women were
ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the
church, it should rather have been given to Mary... . She was not
even entrusted with baptizing... Although there is an order of
deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function
as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that
provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at
nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the
pride of women or rather, the woman's insanity?" In 49. 2-3 St.
Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related
to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named
Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream
at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman
and was dressed in white."Among them women are bishops and
priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ
Jesus there is neither male nor female," [Gal. 3:"28]
St. John Chrysostom, in <On the Priesthood> 2. 2 points out that
Jesus said "Feed my sheep" only to Peter."Many of the subjects
could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but
also women. But when there is question of the headship of the
church... let the entire female sex retire." And in 3. 9 St. John
wrote: "Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but
they try to thrust themselves into it."
St. Augustine, <On heresies> 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians
mentioned by St. Epiphanius."They give such principality to women
that they even honor them with priesthood."
CONCLUSION ON WOMEN PRIESTS
Otranto has, at most, proved there were some abuses. He himself
said, as we saw, that his data are "few and meager." But he
adduced no evidence whatsoever to prove the Magisterium ever
approved of the abuses. Rather, he recognizes four Councils spoke
against them, and a few Fathers. We have added more.
II - DEACONESSES
We have just seen that Otranto has not proved at all that the
Magisterium of the Church ever approved of attempting to ordain
women as priests. What of deaconesses?
Before looking at the texts, we need to keep very clearly in mind
<some very basic principles>:
THE CHURCH'S GRADUALLY DEEPENING PENETRATION INTO THE DEPOSIT
OF FAITH
1)At the Last Supper, Our Lord promised to send the Holy Spirit
"to lead you into all truth (John 16:13 cf. 14:26). This did not
mean He was to b ring new public revelations (<Dei verbum> #4),
but that He was to lead the Church into an ever deeper
penetration into the deposit of public revelation given at the
start. As a result, it is not strange - rather, it is to be
expected - that in the early centuries we should not expect to
find some points of doctrine developed nearly as clearly as they
have since become. This is true in the case of the Sacrament of
Holy Orders.
Even today the theology of Orders is not fully clear. We know
there is only one Sacrament of Orders; we know that it imprints a
character and so cannot be repeated. But what of the fact that we
know today that deacons, priests, and bishops all have the
sacrament of orders? How to explain is not fully clear. Not
strange then that there would be some lack of clarity it the
early centuries.
So if we would ask an official of the Church, or a layman, of the
early centuries: do deacons receive a sacrament -they might
easily say yes, or no. Thus, St. Hippolytus is quoted as saying,
in Apostolic Tradition (cited from Jurgens 394c) about a deacons:
"He does not receive the Spirit which the presbytery possesses
and in which the presbyters share." Further, if we speak of
someone as "receiving the Holy Spirit", what do we mean? We
speak, rightly of a person as receiving the Holy Spirit at
Confirmation, for strength. Really, a Spirit as such does not
take up place: we say a spirit is present wherever he produces an
effect so to say the Holy Spirit comes of or is present means: He
is producing an effect in a certain person. What effect? In
Baptism, it is making one basically capable of the vision of God.
In Confirmation, it is strength to live according to Christ's
principles "in the midst of a wicked and twisted generation
(Phil 2:15). In ordination of a priest today, it means He makes
the recipient conformed to Christ the Priest to such an extent
that he can act "in persona Christi" when he says;: "This is my
body, this is my blood," or when he says "I absolve you from your
sins" etc. -- So it would be possible to invoke the Holy Spirit
on someone for the sake of being more holy, or of carrying out
the things usually assigned to a deacon, i.e., giving to the
people the Precious Blood etc. It might mean, referring to a
woman, to make her capable of worthily carrying out the duty of
taking care of the doors of the church, or anointing the naked
bodies of women for baptism etc.
Could a Priest Ordain a Priest?
Pope Boniface IX (DS 1135) on Feb. 1, 1400, granted to an abbot,
who was not a bishop, the right to ordain subdeacons, deacons,
and priests. The grant was revoked soon (DS 1146) at the request
of the Bishop of London, who did not like it - no mention of
invalidity. Pope Martin V (DS 1290) on Nov. 16, 1427 also granted
to an abbot the right to ordain to the priesthood. Then Pope
Innocent VIII on April 9, 1489 (DS 1435) granted to an abbot the
right to ordain deacons - which we now consider as conferring a
sacrament. The Council of Florence, in the Decree for the
Armenians in 1439 (DS 1326) said: "The <ordinary> minister of
this sacrament [Holy Orders] is the Bishop." In saying <ordinary>
it could imply that a priest could be the <extraordinary>
minister. The Council of Trent in 1563 defined in Canon 7 on Holy
Orders (DS 1777): "If anyone says that bishops are not superior
to priests, or that they do not have the power of confirming and
ordaining, or that that which they have is in common to them with
priests... let him be anathema." But we would say bishops are
superior to priests and do not have confirming and ordaining in
common if the bishops have the ordinary power, while priest could
be given the extraordinary power. And even today, when a priest
is ordained in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, he
automatically has the power to confirm - but a Latin priest would
attempt that invalidly without a special grant from the Holy See.
Even further, the words <priest> and <bishop> were
interchangeable for some time. In Acts 20: 17 & 28 St. Paul uses
both words to refer to the same men. Pope St. Clement I, in his
<Epistle> to Corinth in 44 & 54 does the same. St. Paul more than
once calls himself a <diakonos> ("servant"): e.g., 1 Cor 3:5; 2
Cor 3:6. Rom 15:8 speaks of "Christ as a <diakonos>.
Vatican II, in the <Preliminary Explanatory note> to <Lumen
gentium> explained:"In consecration [ of a Bishop] there is given
an ontological participation of the sacred offices... The word
offices is used purposely, instead of powers, because this latter
word could be understood of direct empowerment to act. To have
such a power, there must also b e a canonical or juridical
determination by the hierarchical authority." Perhaps this is the
explanation of the grants to abbots to ordain priests: priests do
have the office, the basic power, but it needs determination by
the Pope to a special group of people before it can be used. The
case would be similar with the grant to power to confirm to
eastern but not to western rite priests.
Is the Diaconate a Sacrament?
Even today some, improperly, question whether deacons receive the
Sacrament of Holy Orders. Jean Galot, (<The Theology of the
Priesthood>, Ignatius, 1985, p. 189) says:"On the one hand,
Vatican II favored the sacramentality of the diaconate... . it
did not intend to disavow theologians who deny this
sacramentality nor to resolve the issue once for all... ." Galot
gives a note referring to G. Philips, <L'Eglise et son mystere au
II Concile du Vatican> (Paris, 1967, I. 379). But the doubts are
out of order. Pius XII, in <Sacramentum Ordinis> of Nov . 30,
1947 wrote (DS 3858):"It is evident that the Sacraments of the
New Law must signify the grace with they bring and bring it
about. Now the effect must be signified and so produced by the
Ordination to the Priesthood and Episcopate, that is, power and
grace, are found to be sufficiently signified in all the regions
of the universal Church by the imposition of hands and the words
that determine it." The Council of Trent defined ( DS 1774)"If
anyone says that through sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not
given, and so that the Bishops say in vain,"receive the Holy
Spirit,". . let him be anathema." Such words are said with the
imposition of hands in the ordination of a Deacon (DS 3860).
Vatican II, <Ad gentes> 16, in speaking of the restoration of the
order of Deacon that the deacons "were joined more closely to the
altar, so that they may fulfill their ministry more effectively
through the sacramental grace of the diaconate." But, sacramental
grace is that which comes from receiving a sacrament.
In view of the lack of clarity in some minds even today abut the
sacramentality of the diaconate, it will hardly be surprising to
find confusion many centuries before.
GRADUAL CLARIFICATION OF THE WORD "SACRAMENT"
2) The very word <sacrament> is a special case of what we have
just said. The Latin <sacramentum> in pagan Latin meant the oath
of allegiance a pagan soldier took to his military commander.
Christians readily adapted it to mean allegiance to Christ. But
then they enlarged the scope, so that it could mean anything
sacred and/or mysterious. <Actually, it took until the 12th
century to arrive at a general agreement to rather artificially
limit the meaning of the word to a sacred sign, established by
Christ, to give grace>.
SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICAL TERMS
3)In any field of knowledge, it takes a long time to develop
precise terminology except for those things for which words are
coined on the spot. For other things, it is necessary to arrive
at a general agreement to artificially limit the meaning of a
word which in ordinary speech is rather broad. We saw this above
in the case of the word <sacramentum>. The matter is similar for
<priest> and <bishop> as we saw. It holds for many other words as
well.
Thus <cheirotonein> is often taken to mean <ordain>, and often it
does. But basically, the dictionary meaning is to choose by a
show of hands. In that sense, the people, in <Didache> 15, are
told to "choose bishops" for themselves. Of course, they did not
ordain bishops. So, the word <cheirotonein> could mean imposition
of hands - but not always - and even then we would have to
determine what function was conveyed by that word.
Similarly the Greek <kathistani/kathistemi>, sometimes translated
as <ordain>, is very broad. It means basically to establish in a
position.
SOME TEXTS ON DEACONESSES
Here are some of the chief texts on deaconesses;
Apostolic Constitutions 3. 26. 1-2 (c. 400AD):"Choose as a
deaconess a faithful and holy woman for the ministry of women...
For we need a female deaconess for many things, first, when women
are baptized, the deacons only anoints their forehead with holy
oil, and after the deaconess spreads it [all over] on them. For
it not proper that women be seen by men." Ibid. 8. 28. 6: "A
deaconess does not bless or do any of the things priests and
deacons do. She just takes care of the doors and ministers when
women are baptized, for the sake of propriety."
Council of Nicea, Canon 19: "We have mentioned the deaconesses,
who are enrolled in this position, but since they have not
received any imposition of hands at all, they are surely to be
numbered among the laity."
Council of Chalcedon (452 AD) Canon 15 (From Greek text in
Harduin II, 1714, cols 607-08):""A deaconess is not to be
ordained [<cheirotoneisthai>] before the age of forty and this
with diligent examination. But if she received the imposition of
hands and for some period stayed in the ministry, she gives
herself to marriage, she has scorned the grace of God. Such a one
is to be anathematized along with the one joined to her."
Chalcedon vs Nicea?
We notice of course, that there seems to be a clash between Nicea
and Chalcedon, both general Councils. Now of course we must not
suppose there is a real clash between two General Councils. So we
recall the great vagueness of terminology we saw above on the
words meaning ordain, and also on the very question of whether
the diaconate for men is a sacrament. Today it is clear that it
is. In the early centuries it was not really clear, as we saw
especially in the text from St. Hippolytus who denied they
receive the Spirit.
We conclude that Nicea speaks of the sacrament of Orders, while
Chalcedon does not.
Some Eastern Rituals
Morin, <De Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus>, 1655, in reporting
the practices of some Greek churches -- which seem not to have
gotten into the west: "In the ordination of a Deaconess... . the
woman to be ordained is led to the bishop, and he in a loud
voice, saying the prayer 'Divine grace', imposes hands on the
ordinand as she bows her head, and after making three signs of
the cross, he prays thus: 'Holy and all powerful God, who by the
birth of your only begotten Son our God from the Virgin according
to the flesh sanctified the womanly sex, and granted not only to
men but also to women the grace and coming of the Holy Spirit,
now look, O Lord, upon this your maidservant, and call her to the
work of your ministry and send upon her a rich and abundant gift
of your Holy Spirit. Keep her in the true faith, in a life beyond
reproach, always carrying out her ministry according to what is
pleasing to you, for all glory and honor befits you. ' [after a
prayer by one of the deacons] While this prayer is said by the
deacon, the Archbishop similarly hold his hands over the head of
the Ordinanda, prays thus: 'Master, Lord, who does not reject
women consecrating themselves and wanting, as is proper, to
minister to your holy houses, but you accept them into the order
of ministers, give the grace of your Holy Spirit also to this
your handmaid who wills to consecrate herself to you, and to
carry out the diaconal ministry, as you granted the grace of your
ministry to Phoebe whom you called for the work of this
administration. Give to her, O God, to persevere without fault in
your holy temples, to take great care of her manner of life,
especially moderation and temperance. Further, make your handmaid
perfect so that she, standing before the tribunal of your Christ,
may receive the fruit of an excellent life, by the mercy and
kindness of your Only begotten Son. ' After the Amen, he puts the
orarium or diaconal stole on her neck."
A similar rite is found on p. 15 of Morin: "Give to her the Holy
Spirit... so that she may worthily carry out the work imposed on
her." We note there is only generic mention of her work - in the
ordinations today, the functions are enumerated (cf. DS 3857-61).
As to a stole - we recall that Abbesses received even something
like a mitre, normally the mark of a Bishop, as did some Princes,
yet they clearly are not Bishops.
CONCLUSION ON DEACONESSES
We conclude that there never was an ordination in the strict
sense of the Sacrament of Holy Orders for women as deaconesses.
To conclude that there was, we would have to suppose a
contradiction between two General Councils. We cannot do that. So
Chalcedon was speaking in a broader sense, which is easily
possible in view of the undeveloped and unclear theology of the
day regarding deacons. That, as we said, is not surprising, since
even today some, improperly, question whether male deacons
receive the Sacrament of Orders.
SCRIPTURAL TEXTS ON ORDINATION OF WOMEN
Gal. 3:28: "There is not among you Jew or Greek, there is not
among you slave or free, there is not among you male or female:
for we all are in Christ Jesus."
COMMENTS: For centuries, the besetting fault in Scripture study
was to take a text out of context: if the words could carry the
desired meaning, the interpreter would say they did mean that.
This habit was common among the Rabbis before the time of St.
Paul. St. Paul himself often does quote OT out of context, though
the meaning he gives is something true in itself. But today all
competent scholars recognize we must pay attention to the context
- an obvious requirement. Now in the context of Galatians, Paul
is speaking of trying for justification by faith. So this text
means that men and women are equal in trying for that. To
extrapolate and say they are equal in everything, is to go far
beyond St. Paul. Yet, a special report for the Catholic Biblical
Association, published in CBQ of October 1979, goes back to the
old error, says this supports ordination of women. They clearly
have caved in to feminists.
1 Cor. 14:34: "The women must be silent in the churches. For it
not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as the law
says."
COMMENTS: There is much division of thought among exegetes on
this passage: 1)Many say it clashes with 1 Cor 11 which says that
a woman praying or prophesying without a veil disgraces her head.
That <could> imply that with a veil it is permitted. Yet 14:34
flatly forbids women speaking. -- There is an answer, if one
recognizes that St. Paul, especially in regard to the Law, but
also on some other things, has two ways of looking, <(a)focused
view>, in which, it is as if one were looking through a tube and
saw only what is inside the circle made by the tube, and so he
says that the law makes heavy demands, gives no strength, so one
must fall. Of course, to be under heavy demands without strength
does mean a fall; <(b)the factual view>, in which the circle of
the tube is removed, so we see the whole horizon. Then: the law
still makes heavy demands and gives no strength. But off to the
side, in no relation to the law, is grace, offered even in
anticipation of Christ. With it the result is no fall, but
spiritual gain. -- Similarly in our present texts, Paul could be
focusing in 11:5 on the fact that for her to prophesy without a
veil is wrong - he dos not mean to say that with a veil it is
permitted. Further, he seems to have in mind doing so as part of
the church service. He probably would not object to her
prophesying outside of official context. (cf. Doctrinal
Congregation, <Inter insigniores> of Oct 25, 1976).
2)Those who say there is a clash resort to varied things, such as
saying that 14:34 is an interpolation - but that would have to
have happened in the autograph. No indication of that. Others say
Paul only objected to women joining in discussion after a
prophecy was given. A most radical view would say that 14:34-35
are really a quote by Paul of what his opponents in Corinth say .
So in the next lines he angrily rejects their view. (We must
admit, there was no punctuation in Paul's day. Hence we must
supply quote marks etc. according to sense).
The net result: We cannot use 14:34 to <prove> Paul prohibits
women's ordination. But we add, that at the last part of 14:34
Paul appeals to the Law. That would probably be Genesis 3:16,
which speaks of subjection of women to husbands. So it seems not
to be mere social custom he has in mind.
1 Timothy 2:11-12: "A woman must learn in silence, in all
submission. I do not permit a women to teach or to dominate over
a man, but to be in silence."
COMMENT:This seems to support the strong interpretation of 1 Cor
14:34.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON ORDINATIONS OF WOMEN
Otranto has proved only that probably a few cases were known of
bishops who attempted to ordain women as priests. But he has not
shown any scrap of evidence that the Magisterium ever approved.
So he has proved nothing on that score. Rather, we have seen
abundant texts of Popes, Councils, and Fathers, who strongly
reject ordination of women as priests, and even broad texts
forbidding them to minister at the altar at all. Abuses have been
known in the church in all ages, including our own, and many very
extensive. But unless the Magisterium approves, an abuse can
never be considered legitimate.
As to deaconesses, Chalcedon does speak of ordination, and some
Greek rituals, reported by Morin, do speak of a rite that looks
like ordination. Yet there is no proof this was ever intended as
the Sacrament of Orders. The prayer of ordination does not seem
to be anything more than a call for the Holy Spirit to help her
carry out her ministry, which at most would have been in giving
the Chalice to the people. And in view of the great confusion
about the diaconate which we saw, we conclude there never was any
such attempt. Further, these things happened only in the East,
not at all in the West, and were ever approved by the
Magisterium.
APPENDIX; A SLIDE LECTURE BY OTRANTO
The same Mary Ann Rossi who translated the article by Otranto,
provides also what she calls an "Abstract" of a slide lecture he
gave in the Washington area during 1991.
The evidences he provides in it are almost all the same as those
we saw above. He adds just a few quite unclear things, chiefly
these: There is an inscription from about 491 or 526 in Interamna
in central Italy which speaks of an <Episcopa>. There is another
from the 9th century in Rome. However Otranto does not offer any
proof that these were any more than the wives of bishops. There
is also a Novella of Emperor Justinian, 535 AD, which speaks of
the function of deaconesses. But Otranto does not offer any
evidence of precisely what functions they had. He recalls also
some grave excesses by Spanish abbesses who even heard
confessions - this was strongly condemned, as Otranto says, by
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216 PL 116. 356). He also cites an
Epistle of Gregory the Great mentioning an abbess who refused to
wear monks' garb, instead using the clothing usually worn by
<presbyterae>. However Otranto admits that this could easily mean
merely the wives of priests, of which the same Gregory the Great
speaks elsewhere (<Dialogues> 4. 12).
Otranto gives away his bent when he cites from the <De
virginitate> (PG 28. 264) which some attribute to St. Athanasius,
in which it is said that according to the abstract of his
lecture,"the virgins are invited to bless the <eucharistic> bread
three times with the sign of the cross, to give the thanksgiving
and to pray: these are acts that may be construed as a
eucharistic celebration." In all scholarly research there are two
phases: 1) collect all possible data. Otranto and many others do
well enough in this phase; 2) exercise good judgment in
interpreting it. Here Otranto fails sadly. We underlined the word
<eucharistic> - it is not in the original language text at all.
In context, the passage speaks merely of virgins, like nuns,"when
you are <seated> at table," making the sign of the cross three
times over the bread. This is just an ordinary meal, by virgins
seated at table. No mention of a chalice of wine etc. No one sits
down to celebrate Mass, unless he be crippled or ill. Really this
is just a sort of grace before meals, like our common,"Bless us O
Lord, and these thy gifts... ." It is simply Otranto's great zeal
to promote ordination of women that makes him strain and
diligently collect scraps about abuses and about an ordinary
grace before a meal.
After all these scraps he admits, as he did in the larger
article, that his data are: "few and meager" and are also "rather
sparse."
But most importantly, again he ignores the fact that it is not
abuses that determine doctrine, but the Magisterium. No amount of
abuses can determine doctrine. And the doctrinal statements, of
which we saw many, are entirely uniform in condemning ordination
of women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
