[MR] In summary (women's ordination)

[EoganOg at aol.com]

Ok, boys and girls.  Time for Eogan to have school.  Gather around.  The 
focus of this whole discussion on whether or not women were ordained as 
priests in the early church has gotten a bit askew.  Just for clarity's sake, 
and to try to get things a bit more on track, here's a summary of what has 
been presented so far.

Stemming from a discussion on early pagan cultural practices that may have 
survived in modern Christianity, someone stated, matter of factly, that women 
were ordained as priests in the early church.  I reacted to this tid bit 
because it is anything but matter of fact.  In fact, it is fringe history, 
usually pushed by those with an agenda, and never in my experience adequately 
supported by evidence.  I would hate for it to pass as accepted historic fact 
(or even theory), so I questioned it.

The suggested evidence for the ordination of women priests in the early 
church has come in three forms.

1)  Various grave markers and memorials to women with the titles of 
"deaconess" or "priestess" or "bishopess."  The main problem with these is 
that in the early centuries of the church, it was acceptable for married men, 
even in the West, to be ordained.  When married men were ordained, certiain 
privledges were extended to their wives, one of which was the use of the 
feminine form of their husband's title.  The use of this title in no way gave 
them any authority nor did it imply any kind of ordination.  This custom can 
be demonstrated by the records of early church synods.  It has always been 
maintained that these "priestesses" and "bishopesses" were wives of priests 
and bishops.  Anyone who wishes to use this as evidence of women's ordination 
must first demonstrate that these women were actually ordained priests and 
bishops in their own right.  So far, no one has been able to do that.

The only piece of intruiging evidence in this category so far has been a 
mosiac of a "Bishopess Theodora" who tradition has it was the mother of Pope 
Paschal I, and that is why she is honored with the title of Bishopess.  The 
question raised is due to the fact that in this mosiac she is pictured in a 
coif, which signifies that she was unmarried.  Therefore, she is not the 
mother of Paschal, and therefore she is an actual ordained bishop.  This is 
quite a leap!  

Now, I admit to knowing nothing about the headdress practices of women in 
that particular time or place.  So let's assume that only unmarried women 
wore coifs.  What are some reasons she may be pictured in one?  Was she a 
widow?  Was she being pictured in her youth as a maiden?  Is there any other 
reason that a woman would wear a coif?  Are we sure that what is pictured is 
a coif?  And are we sure that the woman pictured is Theodora?  All these 
questions need to be answered.  And even if it is determined that she is 
Bihsopess Theodora, and that she is wearing a coif, ask yourself which is 
more likely -- that a woman would disregard a custom about headdress or that 
an entire church would disregard a Church teaching about women's ordination?  
Anyway, it's certainly interesting to think about, but there is certainly not 
enough here to make the claim that she was an ordained bishop.

On to the second category:
2)  Various letters from bishops instructing a particlar priest or church to 
stop encouraging women to assit or preside at the altar.  The problem with 
this is that people again are reading too much into them.  First of all, 
whoever is encouraging women to assist at the altar is being called down on 
it and instructed to stop.  If anything, this is evidence of the Church 
enforcing its teaching that women are not to be ordained. Second of all, no 
mention is actually made of women preists.  These letters only mention women 
assisting at the altar, or taking on priestly roles.  A lot of "leftist" 
Catholic churches in America today do this -- they will have a lay woman 
"co-consecrate" the host with the priest.  They will have a lay woman give 
the homily instead of the priest.  These women are not ordained.  And we 
cannot assume that the women that these letters are referring to are ordained 
either.

I'll give a modern example.  A couple of years back my wife and I were 
travelling in Ohio and stopped at a Catholic church on Sunday for mass.  We 
went in and were met with songs and prayers that omitted any reference to 
gender whatsoever.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were called the 
"Creator, Redeemer, and Sactifier."  The host used for the Eucharist was loaf 
bread.  The priest didn't even wear a collar.  And a lay woman co-consecrated 
the host with him.  It was one liturgical abuse after another.  Now, I expect 
that if the bishop of that diocese were made aware of the abuses going on in 
that parish, his first step would be to write a letter to the parish priest 
instructing him to end these abuses.  Now, if someone 1000 years from now 
were to look on that letter and conclude from it that the Catholic Church in 
20th century America ordained women priests, would he be correct?  No, of 
course not.  But that is what we are assuming from these same sort of letters 
written in the early church.

These letters may be very helpful if we are trying to support a thesis that 
certain heretical sects in the early church ordained women.  They do not 
prove that heretical sects ordained women in and of themselves, but they do 
inform us that women were encouraged to take on priestly functions in these 
sects.  They do not prove that women were ever ordained by the Church itself, 
however.

As a side-category to this one, I would add the writings of various Church 
theologians Against Heresies where they condemn the faults of certain 
heretical sects, some of which include encouraging women to participate at 
the altar.  The same flaws lie in these referenes as to the letters above.

3)  And the last category would be references to deaconesses in the early 
church.  This is perhaps the most flawed because deacons are simply not 
priests, so deaconesses would not be priestesses.  To be one is not to be the 
other.  And the Catholic Church has never said that women could never be 
deaconesses.  As it is now, it is not allowed, but the Church has not denied 
that it was done in the past and leaves the possibility open of it being done 
in the future.  On top of this, I have illustrated from early chuch documents 
that the position of "deaconess" was not an ordained position anyway.  It was 
a special position intended to aid priests and deacons in ministering to 
women in situations where it was deemed improper for a man to be present.

Regardless, it is apples and oranges.

In the case of all three classes of evidence presented, I have questioned the 
conclusions drawn from it and provided evidence that would support the 
opposite conclusions.

In reply to the various references to early church writers saying explicitly 
that women are not to be ordained, the most common response is, "If they have 
to forbid it, then someone must be doing it."  The reasoning there is sound, 
but taken too far.  If they have to forbid it, then it means that people are 
*attempting* it, or that they are *suggesting it*, but not neccesarily 
*doing* it.  They may be doing it, or they may not.  We simply would need 
more evidence.  What is apparant is that *if* anyone was ordaining women, it 
was without consent of the Church, and therefore not a valid ordination in 
the eyes of the Church.

I have also questioned the motives of some of the sources for this 
information.  Those who have listed their sources to me (on and off list) 
have included books like _When Women Were Priests_, videos like _Hidden 
Tradition_ and web sites like www.womenpriests.org.  All of which are very 
biased.  The authors in each case have an agenda (ordination of women in the 
modern Church), and believe they can advance that agenda by proving a thesis 
(that women priests were ordained in the early Church).  They seek out what 
scraps of evidence they can find, without considering evidence to the 
contrary, and twist it to support their preconceived thesis.  It is not 
proper history and it should not be taken seriously by proper historians.  

That's why I questioned their conclusions on this list.  We are a group of 
historic recreationists.  While no one expects us to all be doctors of 
history, I think it is fair to say that we all have an interest in historical 
study and an interest in seeing that historical study done properly.  So 
let's not fall victim to modern revisionists.

Since the fact that this deals with religious issues has muddied some 
people's minds, let me show you an example of what I am talking about that 
has nothing to do with religion, but is also a subject that I know a great 
deal about.  The history of the kilt.

There are those with the preconceived notion that the kilt is an ancient 
garment in Scotland.  They have an agenda (proving all those snotty 
authenticity-maves who say the great kilt is late 16th century wrong), they 
set out to prove a thesis (that the kilt was worn at a very early date) and 
they see what evidence they can find to back that up.  Without fail, they 
stumble upon the Magnus Barefoot saga of 1092 that describes King Magnus 
adopting the dress of the western Scots, wearing a kirtle and an upper 
garment, and going bare legged to the knee.  They jump upon this and say, 
"See!  Here is evidence of a kilt being worn in 1092!"  They assume that 
since he is bare legged, he is wearing a kilt, when in fact no kilt was even 
mentioned in the saga.  They ignore the fact that the word translated as 
"kyrtle" is "kyrtlu" and could also mean a tunic.  They ignore the fact that 
other contemporary documents describing the dress describes short tunics and 
mantles.  In short, their evidence just does not stand up to scrutiny.

The same is true of those persuing the agenda of proving that women were 
ordained in the early church.  Their evidence just does not stand up to 
scrutiny.  You don't have to be a theologian to determine that, just an 
observant historian.

Since refuting the supplied evidence for women priests in the early church, I 
have been called to task both on and off this list for many things.  I have 
been asked to define and then define again the meaning of "Catholic" and 
"heresy."  People have challenged the Inafllibility of the Papacy and the 
authority of the Church.  People have brought up Sola Scriptura, the Western 
Schism, the Easter Schism, the myth of Pope Joan.  Someone even tried to 
throw Marian doctrines into the mix.  I've had Arianism, the Hussites, the 
Waldensians, and others brought up.  The celebacy of the clergy, the canon of 
the Bible, the nature of Catholic doctrine, and Galileo.  I'm surprised that 
no one has mentioned contraception and the Inquisition, so we can complete 
this little "bash the Church" party.

Seriously, I am very willing to discuss any of these issues on this list 
(where they deal with period history), as seperate issues.  But what is the 
point here?  What has Sola Scriptura to do with evidence for early women 
priests?  If you manage to prove to me that the Bible is the sole rule of 
faith, will I then say, "Well, in that case, yes, the early church *must* 
have ordained women priests!"  If you convince me that John Hus got a bad 
rap, am I to conclude that "Bishopess Theodora" was a true ordained bishop?

I have been accused of ignoring evidence for women priests in the early 
church, when in fact I have responded to every bit of evidence presented to 
me and have shown where it is lacking.  And the evidence I have supplied to 
support the fact that the early church did not ordain women has gone without 
comment.  Instead, all of these other issues get thrown up and I find myself 
defending the Catholic Church on a number of issues that have nothing to do 
with the historic reality of whether or not women have ever been ordained.

So, I would like to conclude with this.  If you believe that I am wrong in 
casting doubt on the evidence presented for the early ordaination of women to 
the priesthood, fine.  Show me where I am wrong.  Show me where the historic 
record indicates that there were women priests in the early Church.  Let's 
talk about history here.

If you want to discuss any of these other church history issues brought up 
over the past few days, that's fine, too.  But let's talk about them on their 
own merits, one at a time, and let's keep it on topic to the list, please.  
Frankly I'm glad to see church history being discussed.  I have always 
thought it odd that such a large group of medieval enthusiasts would almost 
never talk about the single most influential institution in medieval Europe, 
the Church.

If you want to have an intellegent discussion with me about the Catholic 
Church off list, just e-mail me privately. I'm not shy.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is that.
Aye,
Eogan

Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, CP, OPE
http://www.albanach.org
Sacred Stone Pursuivant
Web Master for the Canton of Hawkwood
"Checky Or & Vert, two lions combatant, tails knowed, in base a mouse 
couchant, all within an orle of roundels, Argent."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020304/39acd00c/attachment-0002.htm>