[MR] Women and the Early Church

[EoganOg at aol.com]

Rosine has some interesting points.  However, let me just emphasise that when 
attempting to challenge a widely accepted historical fact for which there is 
ample evidence (such as the male only preisthood of the Church), then any 
evidence that you provide to the contrary must be held to a very high level 
of scrutiny.  The burden of proof in cases such as this lies with the one who 
is challenging the upheld fact.

>   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."
> 

I am not familiar with this reference cited, so all I know about it is from 
the part quoted here.  I don't know the context this is in.  But just from 
what is presented it is apparant from the Pope's writing that someone, 
somewhere in Christendom is encouraging women to officiate during mass ("at 
the sacred alters").  Or I should say that at least he has heard word of 
this.  It does not say that he has seen it himself.  

What it also does not say is that these women were actually ordained priests. 
 It simply says that women are being encouraged to do things that should be 
reserved for priests alone.  It also does not say that these women are even 
willing participants in this, only that they are being encouraged.  So to 
read into this that women are actually being ordained priests is to assume 
something that the evidence does not support.

Furthermore the Pope's reaction to this news is obviously not favorable.  He 
is "annoyed" at these abuses and makes it clear that such roles are not to be 
assumed by women.  If anything, this source should be used as evidence to 
support that the Church in the fifth century most definitely taught that 
women could not be ordained priests.

> and...
> 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.
> 

You hit the nail on the head.  They are heretical sects.  Here is what 
Irenaeus wrote in his _Against Heresies_ in 189 AD (the title alone should 
tell you what he thought of the topic).
---
"Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great 
length the word of invocation, [Marcus the Gnostic heretic] contrives to give 
them a purple and reddish color. . . . [H]anding mixed cups to the women, he 
bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he 
himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded 
woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the 
woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same 
time pronounces these words: ‘May that Charis who is before all things and 
who transcends all knowledge and speech fill your inner man and multiply in 
you her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in you as in good 
soil.’ Repeating certain other similar words, and thus goading on the 
wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the 
large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to 
overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other 
similar things, he has completely deceived many and drawn them away after 
him" (Against Heresies 1:13:2 [A.D. 189]).  
---

By looking at what Irenaeus himself wrote, it is evident that the reference 
to "women priests" comes not from a ligitimate Church source, but from a 
Gnostic heretic who was using slight of hand to decieve women whom he was 
encouraging to take on priestly roles.  Again, there is no mention of women 
actually recieving ordination, and the context here is one of a heretic sect, 
which in no way represents the teaching of the universal Church.

>    Given that our history of the early church is written by members, usually
> clerical, who had a firm grasp of "what was correct"for their era and
> reflected that knowledge in their work, this subject comes down to "what do
> I want to believe?" 

No, it comes down to "what does the evidence support."  It is when we read 
our modern notions back into historical sources that we fall into error.  For 
instance, when we take our modern notions of gender issues, feminism, and 
equality in the workplace, along with a healthy disregard for spiritual 
authority that is rampant in the modern age, and project these views back on 
early church documents, what we wind up with is a very skewed vision of 
history.  It should not be about what one believes but rather what is true, 
regardless of personal belief.

For instance, you wrote above that the history of the early church was for 
the most part written by clerics who "had a firm grasp of what was correct 
for their era."  If they had a firm grasp of what was correct, and they are 
telling us that women assuming roles reserved for priests is heretical, then 
we should assume just that.

To assume from this evidence that the early church ordained women priests is 
to willingly use our modern prejudices to blind ourselves to what the 
evidence actually is telling us.

>    Any expression of Christianity not sanctioned by the Pope of Rome was
> considered heretical and in some cases, "heathen" - just reading the history
> of missionaries in Greater Europe can bring that home, as many of the Roman
> missionaries were reported as "ministering to the heathens" which included
> the Arian (and a few other more obscure sects) Christians along with the
> pagan tribes. 

Yes.  Catholicism (not yet called "Christianity") was and is one faith 
teaching one truth.  If what you taught was contrary to what the Church 
taught then you were a heretic.  And some of the early heresies were 
radically different from the Catholic church.  What they taught and what they 
practiced cannot and should not be taken as evidence of what the early Church 
taught.  Just like I would not use the fact that Anglicans ordain women 
priests today as evidence that the Catholic Church recognizes women priests, 
I should not use that same logic to infer by the actions of heretical sects 
the teachings of the early Church.

> That being the case, early accounts of women priests cannot be totally
> dismissed 

So far the accounts presented have not given any evidence for women being 
ordained priests.  No need to dismiss them.  

(and somewhere I just read a paper on the writings of Sts. Paul
> and Peter, which have phrases in them which in translation read "deaconess"
> rather than "holy women", along with listing some of these womens first in
> the "order of precedence" in their churches, which are now being reexamined
> in light of the possiblity that they did, indeed, acknowledge women helping
> to celebrate the Eucharist during the time of the Apostles, such practise
> later being deemed heretical and therefore the translations "adjusted". 

A few points.  A deacon is not a priest.  And therefore a deaconess is not a 
priestess.  And "helping to celebrate the Eucharist" is not celebrating the 
Eucharist on your own as a priest does.

Now, more specifically to the point.   There is ample reason to believe that 
the term "deacon" (and by extension "deaconess") did not have the connotaion 
in the early church that it does now.  That term evolved in meaning, just as 
the term "saint" was originally applied to any Christian, and later came to 
be applied specifically to those souls believed to be in heaven.

Today, a deacon is an ordained man.  He is not ordained to the priesthood, 
but it is recognized as a level of ordination.  Because of the controversy in 
certain areas of the church over women in the priesthood, it is the opinion 
of the Magesterium that ordaining women as deacons would only mislead the 
faithful into believing that women would one day be ordained as priests, 
which the Pope has specifically declared an impossibility.  The Church has 
not denied that there have been deaconesses in the past, and it does not rule 
out the possibility of deaconesses being ordained in the future.

That being said, it is apparant from contemporary evidence in the early 
Church that these "deaconesses" were not ordained in the way that deacons are 
ordained today.  According to the Council of Nicea (325 AD), they were 
considered laity.
---
"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the 
register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the 
deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having 
been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" 
(Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). 
---

These references to early deaconesses in no way can be considered evidence of 
women being ordained priests.

>    I'm not actually going to get involved beyond this one post in this
> debate. It is a heavily emotional one for many people, and the evidence, or
> lack of it, is already a subject of extreme polarity amoung religious
> scholars. But I could not let the blanket dismissal of scholarly evidence,
> thin as it is, of canonical ordination of women go by unchallenged. 

Well, we all appreciate a challenge, don't we? ;-)  But really, this should 
not be an emotional issue.  I know it is for many people who wish for women's 
ordination today.  But we aren't talking about that (and it would be way off 
topic for this list).  We are talking strictly history, and whether or not 
women were ordained as priests in the early church should not be an emotional 
topic.  Either they were or they were not.  We just need to look at the 
evidence for what it is worth.

And if one looks at that evidence with an open mind, one concludes that the 
only way it could be a subject of "extreme polarity" among scholars is if 
some of those scholars refuse to let go of their modern prejudices and 
political agendas.

For the record, I'm not dismissing out of hand "scholarly evidence for the 
cannonical ordaination of women."  I just haven't seen any yet.  So far the 
strongest evidence provided on this list has been from heretical sources that 
describe women acting is roles reserved for priests, but make no mention of 
these women actually being ordained.  And even if they were, it would not be 
a vaild "connonical ordaination" since the sources are all from heretical 
sources.

And there are ample historic sources from within the Church that constantly 
uphold the notion of the male-only priesthood.  For an example, the Council 
of Laodicea in 360 AD proclaimed, "[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or 
‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church."

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in 377 AD:
"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for 
being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the 
sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of 
examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not 
be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess."

The Apostolic Constitutions of 400 AD tell us:
"A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and 
has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her 
family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen 
into the order of widows" (ibid., 8:25). 

And. . .
"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that 
is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and 
greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are 
baptizing women" (ibid., 8:28).     
    
When asnwering questions about women's ordination in the Church today many 
point to the example of Christ only ordaining men as his Apostles (the first 
bishops), despite the fact that he had many women as disciples.  All too 
often this is dismissed as a modern interpretation of Scripture to justify an 
age-old practice.  In fact, as early as 225 AD the Church was telling the 
same thing.
---
"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God 
the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to 
teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples 
among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he 
did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had 
been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed 
them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).
---

These are just a few of the many sources from the early church that tell us 
that ordination to the priesthood was reserved for men.  Anyone suggesting 
that the early church accepted the ordination of women, and that there were 
even women bishops, would have to ignore or explain away the overwhelming 
amount of evidence that said this was simply not allowed.

Aye,
Eogan




Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020228/f84598b5/attachment-0021.htm>