Women & Church Leadership

[Kismet]

[url="http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5162"]http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news....e=C&NewsID=5162[/url]


The real tradition of women and church leadership
by Sandra Dufield
SojoMail 1-25-2006

In claiming church tradition doesn't allow women to be ordained priests, Vatican and Catholic officials would do well to consider the history of their tradition.

According to Dorothy Irvin, a Catholic theologian and archaeologist, the traditional Christian church had women priests and the archaeological evidence of this is preserved for us to see today.

In the Church of St. Praxedis in Rome there's a mosaic depicting four women leaders. One woman, Theodora (ca. 820 A.D.), has the title Episcopa above her head, which means a bishop who is a woman.

In a cathedral at Annaba, in what is now Algeria, is a mosaic covering the tomb of a woman. Along with her name, Guilia Runa, is her title "presbiterissa," which means female priest. The same title is on women's tombs in Rome. Two read, "Veronica presbitera daughter of Josetis" and "Faustina presbitera."

Additionally, a fourth-century fresco in Rome's Catacomb of Priscilla shows a woman being ordained. She's wearing an alb under her chasuble, which is first worn at ordination. Only priests and higher church leaders could wear it. Next to her, with his right hand on her shoulder, is a bishop, identified by his chair and his pallium, also worn during ordination.

Although tradition is a key argument used to oppose women's ordination, another cites the fact the 12 disciples were all male. It contends if Christ wanted women to be church leaders, some of his twelve would have been women.

While initially convincing, the rationalization crumbles when another pivotal distinction of the day is considered: ethnicity. The disciples were also all Jewish. Does this mean when we choose church leaders today, only those with primary Jewish ancestry can be considered candidates?

Every argument the Vatican and other denominational officials give to block women's ordination can be biblically and theologically challenged. Saying "no" to women priests and pastors is nothing more than the "good old boy" system at work in a sacred institution, and remnant survivalism of the sub-Christian thought that leached into the early church influencing the way men and women were perceived.

Elements of gnostic and ancient pagan thought systems saw women as flawed, problematic, and more susceptible to malfeasance than men. The early church failed to adequately challenge and eradicate these permeating cultural distortions and in time scripture was interpreted through the contaminated lens of women's ontological inferiority.

This is reflected in the statements of great early church leaders such as Thomas Aquinas, "Woman is defective and misbegotten"; Gratian, "Woman is not made in God's image"; and St. Augustine, "What is the difference wither it is in a wife or a mother; it is still Eve the temptress that we must be aware of in any woman.... I fail to see what use women can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

While the inferiority argument is considered heretical in the church today, the unbiblical prejudicial constructs it upheld still exist. Replaced and repackaged with expressions like "equal in essence, but unequal in function" and "different roles," the dismissal and diminishment of women has a modern home in the modern church.

Very early church tradition had women serving in all areas of ministry. Women's restriction in the church did not derive from tradition, but from the gradual importation of sub-Christian thought from outside the church, into the church.

Until the Vatican and other denominational leaders acknowledge women's call to full discipleship and reinstitute the tradition of women's ordination, they will continue to perpetuate constructs of the heretical thought that diminished and dismissed half the redeemed based on an innate fleshly distinction: femaleness.

Sandra Dufield is a freelance writer living in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania.

[Era Might]

[quote]According to Dorothy Irvin, a Catholic theologian and archaeologist, the traditional Christian church had women priests and the archaeological evidence of this is preserved for us to see today.[/quote]

Blah, blah, blah.

The matter is settled.

[Myles Domini]

Titles like Presybtera are still in use today in the Eastern churches for the wives of clergy and that has been their consistent usage. I dont know how in light of the unbroken tradition of using such terms this way that exists in the Orient how this woman intends to substantiate her case.

[Desert Walker]

Rome has spoken. The case is closed.

[Guest Rick777]

Why must we continue this? Its over and done with.Women will not be priests, or priestesses

[Kismet]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Jan 25 2006, 02:49 PM']Rome has spoken.  The case is closed.
[right][snapback]865768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Herein lies the difference between a conservative and an orthodox Catholic. A conservative will say, "This is not what had been and therefore it can't be good." An orthodox Catholic will say, "Whatever the Church decides, even if it ultimately changes her mind, is OK for me."

"Rome has spoken. The case is closed" or other permutations of this thought are tautological; they are as they are. It ultimately doesn't add much to the discussion. I am not arguing one way or the other as I am not in a position to affect change in this matter. But, keep in mind that there are many things in our theology and in our Church structure that had been "case closed" that ultimately changed also, including, for example, Mass in the vernacular, the acceptance of charging interest on a loan (not technically the same as usury but uncomfortably close,) limbo, allowing Latin rite priests to grow beards, celibate priesthood, slavery, concern for the ecology, lay Eucharistic ministers and the evolution and development of Sacramental theology from a high of forty sacraments to the present seven.

As you can see, Rome can speak and then it can readdress an issue. As the Church decides, so will I believe. My personal preferences, for example, for Latin over the vernacular are unimportant. The Spirit has guided the Church to make the change it did during Vatican II. As an orthodox Catholic, I accept what the Spirit has asked for. If the Spirit were to lead us to having women priests, then I would accept it also. Conservatism is resistance to new ideas and a preference for "nostalgia." Orthodoxy is a faith-based acceptance of a Higher Authority.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Kismet

[morostheos]

However Kismet, that arguement really has no bearing on this particular issue. It is not a case of "it could happen in the future" but a case of "it is beyond the bounds of the Church to do so." Sure, there are many disciplines that have changed over the years, but this is not a matter of discipline. Just as the matter for the consecration can never be changed to something other than bread and grape wine, women will never be priests.

[Kismet]

First...thank you for responding gently and in an intelligent manner. I wish I could say that everyone is as pleasant as you.

Second...are you so sure that women priests are "beyond the bounds of the Church?" On the surface of things, it would seem to me that people in the previous century and in all of the centuries prior to that one would have said the same about Mass in the vernacular. Whittling down the number of sacraments from 40 to 7 is substantial and touches at the heart of the Church.

But, I respect your opinion. My opinion is "let's wait and see."

[Era Might]

[quote]"Whatever the Church decides, even if it ultimately changes her mind, is OK for me."[/quote]

This is incorrect, because Christianity is not a religion of popular opinion. It rests on a Deposit of Faith. The Church herself is bound to this Deposit. She is just the messenger, not the Revealer.

She has made herself clear, for 2000 years, that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved to men alone, most recently in the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", written by Pope John Paul II:

[quote]Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) [b]I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful[/b].[/quote]

Note well that we must hold "definitively" that the Church has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".

[quote]But, keep in mind that there are many things in our theology and in our Church structure that had been "case closed" that ultimately changed also, including, for example, Mass in the vernacular, the acceptance of charging interest on a loan (not technically the same as usury but uncomfortably close,) limbo, allowing Latin rite priests to grow beards, celibate priesthood, slavery, concern for the ecology, lay Eucharistic ministers and the evolution and development of Sacramental theology from a high of forty sacraments to the present seven.[/quote]

1) The Liturgy has always been a flexible rite. The Fathers of Trent, for example, although they decided to retain the Latin language in the Liturgy, opened up the possibility to introduce the vernacular in the West. The practice of the Eastern Churches, likewise, has never been questioned by the Apostolic See.

2) The Church still condemns usury. It's too complex a subject to go into here, but what has changed is not the Church's teaching on usury, but the very nature of money itself.

3) Limbo was never a doctrine of the faith, and indeed, as a theory, had quite a few variations of its own.

4) Beards have nothing to do with the faith. Disciplines of the Church come and go.

5) I don't know what "concern for ecology" is supposed to mean. The Church has always recognized the need for man to be a good steward of the earth.

6) Celibacy in the Priesthood varies from one Sui Iuris Church to the next. It is a discipline, not a question of faith.

7) The Church's condemnation of slavery is well documented. Too long to go into here.

8) The administration of the Holy Eucharist is a question of prudence and discipline. While only a Priest can confect the Holy Eucharist, anyone can distribute it, if properly authorized. It was commonly kept in private homes in the Apostolic age.

9) There were never 40 Sacraments. Again, too broad a question to go into here.

You should bring these topics up in the Debate phorum, if you wish to discuss them in more depth.

But back to the original point. Just in case Pope John Paul II was not clear, our present Holy Father, while still Prefect of the CDF, confirmed that the condemnation of female ordination is, indeed, infallible:

[quote]In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. [b]To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)[/b]. Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

[url="http://www.cin.org/ord_rat.html"]http://www.cin.org/ord_rat.html[/url][/quote]

To say that an "orthodox" Catholic leaves himself open for any change whatsoever is to misunderstand the nature of Catholicism. It is true that we submit to the decisions of our Bishops. But we know, as well, that they too are bound to the doctrine of the Church, and would not (indeed, cannot) change it. We know that Christ will never be declared non-Divine. We know Our Lady will never be declared un-assumed. And we know women will never be ordained.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

When were there 40 sacraments?

A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace established (or raised to a sacred level) by Jesus Christ. If anything else in the past has been labeled a "sacrament" (though I am not aware of anything) it would be purely a matter of semantics, because I cannot think of any but the seven that fit the above definition.

[Myles Domini]

No point. The Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has rulled out women priest descively. One must understand John Paul II said that the Church did not have the authority to ordain women how could a future Pontiff contradict this statement? How would he magically substantiate the assumption of new papal powers not previously accorded to His office in contradiction to one of his predecessors? This is not a disciplinary action its a doctrinal one which hinges on the lawful extent of Papal authority and one indeed that has been settled. In defining the limits of Papal power to be less than needed to make ordaining women legitimate John Paul II bound all future Pontiff's.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 25 2006, 10:45 PM']When were there 40 sacraments?

A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace established (or raised to a sacred level) by Jesus Christ.  If anything else in the past has been labeled a "sacrament" (though I am not aware of anything) it would be purely a matter of semantics, because I cannot think of any but the seven that fit the above definition.
[right][snapback]865921[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Al is right. Those things that were considered sacraments but did not square with the definition of what a sacrament is are called sacramentals these days. To say there were once 40 sacraments is like saying that once in Trinitarian Theology Ousia and Hypostasis were synonmous e.g. Origen's First Principles but using them that way now would be heretical. The definition was attached to the word sacrament for clarity just as Ousia and Hypostasis were distinguished for clarity. Anything not falling under that definition is a sacramental. This is not a change in fundamentals. The sacraments have always had the same definition they simply didnt have the same label and somethings that didnt have that definition got the label which is now exclusively reserved to the channels of grace.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Myles

[Era Might]

To apply what I said above, if, as you say, we are to accept whatever the Church decides, then this is a settled question. Pope John Paul II said we, the faithful, must believe definitively that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Thus, to believe the Church can change her mind on this matter would be a transgression of what the Church has decided.

The Church has closed the door. We must do so as well, and not presume to know more than Her what is "definitive" and what isn't.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Era Might

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 25 2006, 11:08 PM']To apply what I said above, if, as you say, we are to accept whatever the Church decides, then this is a settled question. Pope John Paul II said we, the faithful, must believe definitively that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Thus, to believe the Church can change her mind on this matter would be a transgression of what the Church has decided.

The Church has closed the door. We must do so as well, and not presume to know more than Her what is "definitive" and what isn't.
[right][snapback]865935[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Jan 25 2006, 05:11 PM']Herein lies the difference between a conservative and an orthodox Catholic. A conservative will say, "This is not what had been and therefore it can't be good." An orthodox Catholic will say, "Whatever the Church decides, even if it ultimately changes her mind, is OK for me."

"Rome has spoken. The case is closed" or other permutations of this thought are tautological; they are as they are. It ultimately doesn't add much to the discussion. I am not arguing one way or the other as I am not in a position to affect change in this matter. But, keep in mind that there are many things in our theology and in our Church structure that had been "case closed" that ultimately changed also, including, for example, Mass in the vernacular, the acceptance of charging interest on a loan (not technically the same as usury but uncomfortably close,) limbo, allowing Latin rite priests to grow beards, celibate priesthood, slavery, concern for the ecology, lay Eucharistic ministers and the evolution and development of Sacramental theology from a high of forty sacraments to the present seven.

As you can see, Rome can speak and then it can readdress an issue. As the Church decides, so will I believe. My personal preferences, for example, for Latin over the vernacular are unimportant. The Spirit has guided the Church to make the change it did during Vatican II. As an orthodox Catholic, I accept what the Spirit has asked for. If the Spirit were to lead us to having women priests, then I would accept it also. Conservatism is resistance to new ideas and a preference for "nostalgia." Orthodoxy is a faith-based acceptance of a Higher Authority. 
[right][snapback]865899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You need to study the difference between dogma and discipline.

[Norseman82]

When I first looked at the title and the reference to "Sojourner" I thought Abby wrote this!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jan 25 2006, 06:23 PM']When I first looked at the title and the reference to "Sojourner" I thought Abby wrote this!
[right][snapback]865981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Same here!

(Thank God she didn't , though!)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Jan 25 2006, 04:11 PM']Herein lies the difference between a conservative and an orthodox Catholic. A conservative will say, "This is not what had been and therefore it can't be good." An orthodox Catholic will say, "Whatever the Church decides, even if it ultimately changes her mind, is OK for me."

"Rome has spoken. The case is closed" or other permutations of this thought are tautological; they are as they are. It ultimately doesn't add much to the discussion. I am not arguing one way or the other as I am not in a position to affect change in this matter. But, keep in mind that there are many things in our theology and in our Church structure that had been "case closed" that ultimately changed also, including, for example, Mass in the vernacular, the acceptance of charging interest on a loan (not technically the same as usury but uncomfortably close,) limbo, allowing Latin rite priests to grow beards, celibate priesthood, slavery, concern for the ecology, lay Eucharistic ministers and the evolution and development of Sacramental theology from a high of forty sacraments to the present seven.

As you can see, Rome can speak and then it can readdress an issue. As the Church decides, so will I believe. My personal preferences, for example, for Latin over the vernacular are unimportant. The Spirit has guided the Church to make the change it did during Vatican II. As an orthodox Catholic, I accept what the Spirit has asked for. If the Spirit were to lead us to having women priests, then I would accept it also. Conservatism is resistance to new ideas and a preference for "nostalgia." Orthodoxy is a faith-based acceptance of a Higher Authority. 
[right][snapback]865899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm both conservative and orthodox, and I take offense at how you claim the two are in opposition (and your condescending definition of "conservatism" as mindless resistance to change, driven by mere nostalgia.)
The author of the article is certainly not orthodox! (nor is your explanation of your beliefs here, which show a profound ignorance of the issues invovlved.)

Rome has consistently taught that men (male) are necessary matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is a matter of dogma, not a disciplinary issue, such as whether priests may be married.

This article is nothing but a load of liberal carp!

[shortnun]

[quote name='Kismet' date='Jan 25 2006, 05:11 PM']Herein lies the difference between a conservative and an orthodox Catholic. A conservative will say, "This is not what had been and therefore it can't be good." An orthodox Catholic will say, "Whatever the Church decides, even if it ultimately changes her mind, is OK for me."
[right][snapback]865899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Amen! Thanks for this point. The Church is in [i]a constant state of change[/i]... and for all the joys and sorrows this brings, I am thankful.

[Aloysius]

properly speaking, the Church absolutely never changes. at all. change means at one point you are x and you change yourself into z.

but the Church is the same always and forever. she does not change, she progresses. the Church is x. then she progresses and she is x + y. then she progresses and she is x + n + y. then she progresses and she is x + q + n + y. she has not changed, and will never change, the original "x". nor will she ever change the "q" the "n" or the "y". she only adds, never takes away. only progresses, never digresses or alters.

also, I believe our friend Kismet is of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion. saying that an 'orthodox catholic' rejects appeals to Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est, makes more sense in light of that fact, it's referring to the orthodox church.