Author Topic: The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church  (Read 240 times)

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3595
  • Thanked: 3858 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church
« on: August 16, 2020, 12:11:59 PM »
The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church: Unmasking a Cuckoo's Egg Tradition

By Fr. John N. M. Wijngaards. In Academia.edu

Setting the scene

1. The discovery
2. Papal teaching on slavery
3. A time for speaking
4. The focus of this book

Claim and counter-claim

5. The mismatch in vision
6. The assessment of believers
7. Naming the culprit

Cross-examining the evidence

8. The arguments found in 'tradition'
9. Not created in God's image?
10. Not allowed to teach?
11. Carrying the burden of Eve's sin?
12. Deliberately left out by Jesus Christ?
13. Not human enough to represent Christ?
14. Not man enough to represent the 'groom'?
15. Verdict on the presumed 'tradition'

Picking up the pieces

16. Genuine Tradition
17. Nine centuries of women deacons
18. The reality of women deacons
19. The devotion to Mary Priest
20. Women with a priestly vocation
21. Unmasking the intruder
22. The way forward

Appendix. Sources of official texts

Quote
The Second Vatican Council defined that Scripture and Tradition are not two separate sources of revelation. They belong together.

“Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit  .  .  . Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.”

The implication is that, in order to be valid, tradition must be scriptural. And a tradition does not become scriptural just because Fathers of the Church, theologians or the magisterium of the Church quote some scriptural texts. In order to be validly scriptural, the use made of Scripture must be legitimate. This means that only those written sources are valid sources of tradition which employ Scripture according to the intended meaning of the inspired authors. In this respect the presumed ‘tradition’ banning women from ordination has been proved to be a fake, for its scriptural basis was inadequate.

When we go to a museum and we see an ancient human skull, we accept the information presented by the museum on its antiquity, origin and significance. We rely on the museum having a scientific basis for such claims. But what if the scientific basis is flawed? For 41 long years, from 1912 to 1953, the British Museum in London exhibited the cranium and jawbone of the socalled ‘Piltdown Man’, a supposedly ancient human from the Pleistocene period. The presumed scientific basis turned out to be a mixture of deliberate fraud and archeological incompetence - the jawbone belonged to an orang utang! The same applies to ‘traditions’ in the Church. Their value does not depend on how long they have been exhibited, but on their basis. But has the Church had its own ‘Piltdown Man’ embarassments?

Unscriptural traditions

In chapter 2, I have already outlined the presumed ‘tradition’ that defended slavery. It was based on misunderstood texts in the Old Testament, in the Gospels and in St. Paul’s Letters. Remember, as late as 1866 the Congregation for Doctrine taught that it was “not against Divine Law [= Scripture!] for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. The fact that slavery was upheld for nineteen centuries by Fathers of the Church, medieval theologians and Popes did not give the tradition any greater validity. For it rested on a flawed scriptural basis.

Another infamous example has been the so-called ‘tradition’ that excluded non-Catholics from salvation. Until at least 1854, the official teaching emanating from Rome was that there was no salvation outside the Church. Here are some statements by the magisterium:

    • In a profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocentius III in 1208 we read: “We believe that outside the one, holy, Roman, Catholic Church no one will be saved”.
    • In the IVth Lateran Council of 1215: “There is one universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved”.
    • Boniface VIII solemnly defined in his Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.
    • The Council of Florence in 1442, under Pope Eugene IV: “[The Holy Roman Church]   firmly believes, professes and preaches that no-one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are received into it. For union with the body of the Church is of so great importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, and other works of piety, and exercises of a militant Christian life bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

We find the ‘tradition’ already with the Fathers: Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Fulgentius.  The ‘tradition’ was mainly based on two Scripture texts: “I give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  And: “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved. Who does not believe will be condemned”. Through the centuries it was argued that these texts are exclusive in what they state. They attribute universal power to the hierarchy and make baptism the only means of salvation. However, Jesus’ absolute way of speaking is a specific literary form, the hyperbole, a characteristic Jewish idiom to make a point. Jesus stressed the importance of baptism without entering into the wider question of how virtuous people are saved in and through their own religions. The exclusive interpretation went beyond his intention.

In the 19th century the Roman authorities began to modify their teaching, stating that one could belong to the Church also ‘in desire’ and that this sufficed for salvation. Vatican II completed this process by clearly stating that there is salvation for those outside the Church.

“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

This recognition has the following implications: The presumed ‘tradition’ that was thought to limit salvation to Catholics and on which the magisterium based its doctrinal justification was, in fact, not part of the real Tradition handed down from Christ. The so-called ‘tradition’, which was claimed to be scriptural has been proved to be not scriptural. The biblical texts were quoted illegitimately. Their interpretation went beyond the inspired and intended sense. The real Tradition that came down from Christ and the apostles was contained in other Scripture texts, such as Christ’s respect for the religious sincerity of Romans, Samaritans and Syro-Phenicians; and Paul’s teaching that God judges everyone, Jews or non-Jews according to the dictates of their own conscience. Only this Tradition was valid because its basis was biblical.

The biblical basis for not ordaining women

In the presumed ‘tradition’ for not admitting women to ordination four scriptural reasons were given. None of these holds up to scrutiny as we saw in the preceding chapters.

Women were believed not to have been created in God’s image, at least not to the full extent men were. We could find no satisfactory scriptural basis for this assertion. The first creation story in Genesis was misunderstood, in dependence on rabbinical interpretations. Similar rabbinical remarks in Paul’s Letters can be shown to be typical Pauline rationalizations, not doctrinal statements. The real source was cultural prejudice: “How can anyone maintain that woman is in the image of God when she is demonstrably subject to the dominion of man and has no authority?” (chapter 9)

It was said that no woman was ever allowed to teach in Church. The prohibition was derived from 1 Timothy 2,12 and 1 Corinthians 14,34-35. These texts do not, however, imply a permanent exclusion of women from teaching in Church. They reflect a specific measure taken by local church leaders which are not applicable to later times. The justification for accepting the ban on women’s teaching had a cultural origin. “This is so because teaching in public is not proper for a woman because of the weakness of her intellect and the instability of her emotions, of which defects women suffer more than men by a notable common law. But a teacher needs to have a vivid intellect to recognise the truth and be emotionally stable  .  .  .” (chapter 10).

Women were believed to carry the punishment for Eve’s sin. The references in ‘tradition’ to Genesis incorrectly put most of the blame on Eve. Moreover, any guilt incurred by the Fall was wiped out by Christ, and men and women share equally in Christ’s redemption. Prejudice was again at the root of this incredible distortion of Scripture. “Women are unfit to receive ordination, for ordination is reserved for perfect members of the church, since it is given for the distribution of grace to other men. But women are not perfect members of the church, only men are. Moreover, woman was the effective cause of damnation since she was the origin of transgression and Adam was deceived through her, and thus she cannot be the effective cause of salvation, because holy orders causes grace in others and so salvation” (chapter 11).

Jesus Christ had deliberately left women out of the apostolic team, it was said. He wanted to exclude women from the priesthood for all time to come. A study of the gospels proved this to be an insupportable conclusion. Jesus left women out of his team for practical reasons, as an ad hoc measure. So many non-decisions by Jesus were later on filled in by the Church. Jesus’ vision clearly included women as equal in every respect and this logically requires their inclusion in the full priestly ministry. Blaming Jesus for excluding women is mentioned first in the Didascalia (4th cent.) in the context of stopping widows from instructing converts. Unfortunately this text, and the social bias it contained, snowballed into becoming some kind of surrogate scriptural argument. “When the Gentiles who are being instructed hear the word of God not fittingly spoken, as it ought to be, unto edification of eternal life, how that our Lord clothed himself in a body, and concerning the passion of Christ: they will mock and scoff, instead of applauding the word of doctrine. This will happen all the more if the instruction is spoken to them by a woman — and she shall incur a heavy judgement for sin  .  .  .  If it were required that women should teach, our Master himself would have commanded these to give instruction with us” (chapter 12).

The final reason against the ordination of women, which is still favoured by the Congregation for Doctrine, is not scriptural at all. Jesus Christ was a man, so he can only be represented at the Eucharist by a man. The argument contradicts everything else we know from Scripture: women’s equal share in baptism, women’s equally reflecting Christ’s image, women’s already acting in the person of Christ, the priority of love rather than gender in Christ’s priesthood. It also has an abysmal origin. It springs from a mistaken biological interpretation. St. Thomas Aquinas who is quoted by the Congregation in support of its position, held that women cannot represent Christ because they cannot signify eminence of degree. “The active power of the semen always seeks to produce a thing completely like itself, something male. So if a female is produced, this must be because the semen is weak or because the material [provided by the female parent] is unsuitable, or because of the action of some external factor such as the winds from the south which make the atmosphere humid  .  .  .  A female is a deficient and misbegotten male” (chapter 13).

The imagery of the bridegroom and bride may not be legitimately interpreted as confirmation of the representational argument, as Rome does. It is just one image among many. The ‘great mystery’ alluded at in Ephesians 5,32 does not refer to masculine incarnation, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles. There is no scriptural basis for contending that Christ had to become human as a man. Insisting on Christ’s maleness as a predominant eucharistic symbol distorts the true meaning of the sacrament (chapter 14).

What more needs to be said? The presumed ‘tradition’ had no authentic scriptural basis. Perhaps, there were mitigating circumstances for the medieval theologians, such as their inadequate rules of scriptural interpretation, defective knowledge of biology, insufficient access to reliable historical data, and the overwhelming and seductive power of Roman law. Such excuses do not hold good today. The practice of not-ordaining women can clearly be seen to have sprung from social and cultural prejudice. And as St. Cyprian aptly remarks: “A practice without truth is merely an ancient error.”
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8034
  • Thanked: 6324 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2020, 12:55:41 PM »
Quote
Another infamous example has been the so-called ‘tradition’ that excluded non-Catholics from salvation. Until at least 1854, the official teaching emanating from Rome was that there was no salvation outside the Church. Here are some statements by the magisterium:
Clearly this article belongs: 1. In the "non-Catholic" discussion sub forum 2. In the trash can. 3. Both.
This is what happens when a person frequents the N.O. Milieu; one ends up denying the truths of the faith.
By the way, "No salvation outside the Church" is a dogma of faith; that was taught up until the infamous Robber Council of1961-65.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Miriam_M, St.Justin, Kent

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6841
  • Thanked: 4927 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2020, 03:23:54 PM »

Clearly this article belongs: 1. In the "non-Catholic" discussion sub forum 2. In the trash can. 3. Both.
This is what happens when a person frequents the N.O. Milieu; one ends up denying the truths of the faith.


 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 214 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2020, 04:18:35 PM »
The implication is that, in order to be valid, tradition must be scriptural.

This is an incoherent statement, as what constitutes scripture is given not by scripture itself, nor is that even possible, but by tradition. Now show me the dogma of the Assumption in scripture.


Quote
And a tradition does not become scriptural just because Fathers of the Church, theologians or the magisterium of the Church quote some scriptural texts. In order to be validly scriptural, the use made of Scripture must be legitimate.

Dogma is dogma, and JPII pretty much defined the impossibility of female ordination.

Quote
This means that only those written sources are valid sources of tradition which employ Scripture according to the intended meaning of the inspired authors.

But in Catholic theology it is the Church, in the Pope and bishops in union with him, who determine what scripture means.

Quote
When we go to a museum and we see an ancient human skull, we accept the information presented by the museum on its antiquity, origin and significance. We rely on the museum having a scientific basis for such claims. But what if the scientific basis is flawed? For 41 long years, from 1912 to 1953, the British Museum in London exhibited the cranium and jawbone of the socalled ‘Piltdown Man’, a supposedly ancient human from the Pleistocene period. The presumed scientific basis turned out to be a mixture of deliberate fraud and archeological incompetence - the jawbone belonged to an orang utang! The same applies to ‘traditions’ in the Church. Their value does not depend on how long they have been exhibited, but on their basis. But has the Church had its own ‘Piltdown Man’ embarassments?

The Church does not base its doctrine upon "science". Nor does it upon whatever indiscernible method is being employed in this article.


Quote
Unscriptural traditions

In chapter 2, I have already outlined the presumed ‘tradition’ that defended slavery. It was based on misunderstood texts in the Old Testament, in the Gospels and in St. Paul’s Letters. Remember, as late as 1866 the Congregation for Doctrine taught that it was “not against Divine Law [= Scripture!] for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. The fact that slavery was upheld for nineteen centuries by Fathers of the Church, medieval theologians and Popes did not give the tradition any greater validity. For it rested on a flawed scriptural basis.

Another infamous example has been the so-called ‘tradition’ that excluded non-Catholics from salvation. Until at least 1854, the official teaching emanating from Rome was that there was no salvation outside the Church. Here are some statements by the magisterium:

    • In a profession of faith prescribed by Pope Innocentius III in 1208 we read: “We believe that outside the one, holy, Roman, Catholic Church no one will be saved”.
    • In the IVth Lateran Council of 1215: “There is one universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved”.
    • Boniface VIII solemnly defined in his Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.
    • The Council of Florence in 1442, under Pope Eugene IV: “[The Holy Roman Church]   firmly believes, professes and preaches that no-one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are received into it. For union with the body of the Church is of so great importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, and other works of piety, and exercises of a militant Christian life bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

The aforementioned teaching of the Council of Florence is dogmatic. It is extraordinary magisterium. It is one thing to re-interpret the meaning of this text so as to redefine extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as the majority of theologians now do. Bu it is quite another to imply, as does this man, that it is itself false and representing a false tradition. That is formal heresy.

Quote
We find the ‘tradition’ already with the Fathers: Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Fulgentius.  The ‘tradition’ was mainly based on two Scripture texts: “I give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  And: “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved. Who does not believe will be condemned”. Through the centuries it was argued that these texts are exclusive in what they state. They attribute universal power to the hierarchy and make baptism the only means of salvation. However, Jesus’ absolute way of speaking is a specific literary form, the hyperbole, a characteristic Jewish idiom to make a point. Jesus stressed the importance of baptism without entering into the wider question of how virtuous people are saved in and through their own religions. The exclusive interpretation went beyond his intention.

Apparently this expert in scripture and Biblical exegesis has never seen John 3:5.

Quote
God judges everyone, Jews or non-Jews according to the dictates of their own conscience. Only this Tradition was valid because its basis was biblical.

Justification and salvation are not based in God's judgment of our conscience; they are based in grace through faith in Jesus Christ, merited by him alone upon the cross. That is the Gospel. As I've always maintained, those who teach salvation of non-Christians are neo-Pelagian in soteriology. It always amounts to salvation by "being a good person".

Quote
It was said that no woman was ever allowed to teach in Church. The prohibition was derived from 1 Timothy 2,12 and 1 Corinthians 14,34-35. These texts do not, however, imply a permanent exclusion of women from teaching in Church. They reflect a specific measure taken by local church leaders which are not applicable to later times.

That is merely a claim.

Quote
The justification for accepting the ban on women’s teaching had a cultural origin. “This is so because teaching in public is not proper for a woman because of the weakness of her intellect and the instability of her emotions, of which defects women suffer more than men by a notable common law. But a teacher needs to have a vivid intellect to recognise the truth and be emotionally stable  .  .  .” (chapter 10).

If it has a "cultural origin", that "culture" has its origin in two millennia of divine revelation to the seed of Jacob. The Hebrew religion does not have priestesses.

Quote
Jesus Christ had deliberately left women out of the apostolic team, it was said. He wanted to exclude women from the priesthood for all time to come. A study of the gospels proved this to be an insupportable conclusion. Jesus left women out of his team for practical reasons, as an ad hoc measure.

There's no way one can deduce that proposition from a study of the Gospels. It's a mere claim.

Quote
So many non-decisions by Jesus were later on filled in by the Church. Jesus’ vision clearly included women as equal in every respect and this logically requires their inclusion in the full priestly ministry.

Another mere claim.

Quote
Blaming Jesus for excluding women is mentioned first in the Didascalia (4th cent.) in the context of stopping widows from instructing converts. Unfortunately this text, and the social bias it contained, snowballed into becoming some kind of surrogate scriptural argument.

"Social bias". He's yet to show that this "social bias" of the Hebrews isn't rooted in divine revelation.

Quote
“When the Gentiles who are being instructed hear the word of God not fittingly spoken, as it ought to be, unto edification of eternal life, how that our Lord clothed himself in a body, and concerning the passion of Christ: they will mock and scoff, instead of applauding the word of doctrine. This will happen all the more if the instruction is spoken to them by a woman — and she shall incur a heavy judgement for sin  .  .  .  If it were required that women should teach, our Master himself would have commanded these to give instruction with us” (chapter 12).

A reasonable, if not logically certain, inference.

Quote
The final reason against the ordination of women, which is still favoured by the Congregation for Doctrine, is not scriptural at all. Jesus Christ was a man, so he can only be represented at the Eucharist by a man.

Know what is scriptural? Priests. Male priests. The High Priest is male. A priestess is not a priest.

Quote
The argument contradicts everything else we know from Scripture: women’s equal share in baptism,

How does that contradict?

Quote
women’s equally reflecting Christ’s image,

God's image, not Christ's. Of course the scriptures, which he appeals to, say nothing about equality.

Quote
women’s already acting in the person of Christ,

In what sense? Certainly not in the sense of a priest of Yahweh. That is found nowhere in either the Old or New Testament.

Quote
the priority of love rather than gender in Christ’s priesthood.

What? And how is that in contradiction?

Quote
The imagery of the bridegroom and bride may not be legitimately interpreted as confirmation of the representational argument, as Rome does.

Says who?

Quote
It is just one image among many. The ‘great mystery’ alluded at in Ephesians 5,32 does not refer to masculine incarnation, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Ummm ... no.

Quote
There is no scriptural basis for contending that Christ had to become human as a man.

Except He is, from the beginning, before the Incarnation, the Son of the Most High. Yahweh is a male figure. That is how He appears in every verse of scripture and every theophany. Because that's what He essentially is. Get over it.

Quote
What more needs to be said? The presumed ‘tradition’ had no authentic scriptural basis.

A lot more needs to be said, as this claim is not supported by what he has written, which amounts to a series of unsupported claims which do not "prove" the contention.

A last remark: because of the hierarchical order of being that the scriptures teach, a "female Christ", if such a thing made sense, would be beneath a "male Christ" and as such, in her humanity could never be the absolute pinnacle of the created order.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 04:25:16 PM by The Theosist »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson, Alnitak

Offline aquinas138

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1024
  • Thanked: 1011 times
  • Παναγία Τριάς, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς!
Re: The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2020, 09:48:47 PM »
Sigh. Dumping on Latin Fathers as if they created the "ban," despite the fact that not a single one of the ancient churches, neither Western nor Eastern, has ever had female priests. While some did have female deacons (though what that exactly entails is debatable) and liturgical choirs composed of females, they never had priests. When the Latins, the Greeks, the Copts, the Ethiopians, the West Syrians, the East Syrians, the Armenians, and the Slavs—whether Chalcedonians, Miaphysites, or Nestorians—all manage to agree on something, without deviation for the entire history of Christianity, that is as close to an obviously revealed truth as there is.
O Mary most pure, golden censer that became the tabernacle of the uncontainable divinity, in you the Father was well pleased; in you the Son did dwell; and the Holy Spirit, by overshadowing you, revealed you to be the Birthgiver of God.
 
The following users thanked this post: nmoerbeek, Lynne, Michael Wilson, St.Justin