[MR] Reply Pt. 1 (women priests)

[EoganOg at aol.com]

I had some trouble getting this through the list due to length.  I've cut it 
into two portions.
--

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.  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"). 

What it 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 the actual 
content of what Irenaeus wrote in his _Against Heresies_ in 189 AD:
---
"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
> 


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
> 



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. 


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


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. Pauland 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
> 



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.

End pt. 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020304/ea3fb165/attachment-0020.htm>