Many people, including
those who are Catholic in name only, reject the Catholic Church because it
teaches that women are to be excluded from Holy Orders.
Canon Law 1024 states:
“Only a baptized man
can validly receive sacred ordination”.
Christ is free to choose as He wills those who are to be ordained
to Holy Orders for His own purposes. We
see this in the Apostolic Letter “Mulieris
Dignitatem #26” given to us by Pope John Paul II:
“In calling only men as his apostles, Christ acted in a
completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, He exercised the same
freedom with which, in all His behavior, He emphasized the dignity and the
vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the
traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”
Throughout the history of
the Church there has never been a time when women were called to Holy
Orders. If anyone on earth was worthy of
being called to serve God in such a way it would have been the Blessed Virgin
Mary before all others. She stands in
relation to the Most Holy Trinity in a singular way that is not possible to
other creatures. She is the Mother of
the Father’s Son, the daughter of the Father, the Mother from whom the Son took
His flesh, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
And in spite of her most
singular privileges and prerogatives, when it came to Holy Orders, St. Epiphanius
in writing “Against Heresies, 79.304” wrote:
“If women were
ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it
should rather have been given to Mary. She was not even entrusted with
baptizing.”
Furthermore, the male gender is in keeping with Christ who
incarnated as “male”, not “female”. And His priesthood must reflect the reality
of the Incarnation because His Priests’ act in His Person.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1548 we read:
“In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is
Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of
his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is
what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of
Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis 23…”
“It is the same priest, Christ
Jesus, whose sacred person his minister
truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration
which he has received, is truly made
like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and
place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi)24…”
“Christ is the source of all
priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of
the new law acts in the person of Christ
25 …”
Additionally, the Catechism, #1577,
tells us the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, and that it is
bound by Christ in this decision:
“Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination.”66
The Lord Jesus chose men to form the
college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose
collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The College of
bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college
of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return.
The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord
himself. For this reason the ordination
of women is not possible68…”
Yet, in spite of all
the Church has taught on this matter for millennia, there are those who will
not listen. They go about claiming the
Church has never “Infallibly” taught that women cannot be ordained to Holy
Orders. They do not understand the
nature and scope of infallibility. And
it was for this reason Pope John Paul II wrote His Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” gave to the
world on the 22nd of May, 1994, the Solemnity of Pentecost, “that all doubt may be removed.”
This book make will
make a case for the Infallibility of “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” in which he “formally declared” women are to
be excluded from ordination to the Catholic Priesthood. It will also take a look at Scripture used by
Feminists who do not accept what has been formally and dogmatically taught in
the matter of women’s ordination.
What follows is taken
from a section of the 3rd trial, “Scripture Alone vs. the Blessed
Virgin” in the “Catholicism on Trial Series”.
The Trial format has been
retained for the sake of those who wish to read the entire trial. It opens with the Defense for the Catholic
Church headed by Atty Elizabeth Stein questioning her own witness, Dr. Therese
Martin, as they respond to the opening testimony of the Plaintiff …
The Trial Begins
†
Atty Stein: After hearing this testimony we can now see
the necessity of looking closer at the issue of women’s ordination.
Therese: Ordination is in fact
the ultimate goal of feminists. This is
why we need to look at Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” and see why it is indeed infallible and the final word on the
issue of women’s ordination. But, we
must first look at what Papal Infallibility “actually is” according to both Vatican Councils I & II.
Atty Stein: Dr.
Martin, would you please tell us the conditions necessary for Papal Infallibility
to be exercised?
Therese: Certainly.
Papal infallibility is often
referred to as “Ex Cathedra”. However, many people are mistaken in the
belief that the Pope must use the actual words “Ex Cathedra” in what he
teaches, proclaim, defines, or declares to be infallible. In reality, “Ex Cathedra” is merely “a set of conditions” as made clear by the use of the words,
“that is” in Vatican I. We read:
“…when he speaks ex cathedra, that
is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.”
Atty Stein: Do the
Councils tell us what specific conditions and criteria the Pope must meet to
speak “Ex Cathedra”?
Therese: Yes, there are three conditions
which must be declared by the Pope, in any order, when he teaches
infallibly. They are:
·
When
he appeals to his office in any manner.
·
When
he is teaching on faith and/or morals.
·
When
he makes known what he is teaching is binding on all the faithful.
Whenever these 3
conditions come together in what the Pope is teaching, Papal infallibility has
been exercised.
Atty Stein: And there
are many ways the Pope can refer to his office to meet the first condition when
speaking “Ex Cathedra”? Can he say, “As
successor of Peter”, or, “as Vicar of Christ”?
Can he can refer to His Office
as “confirming his brethren in the faith”.
Therese: Yes, this is confirmed in “Lumen Gentium”:
“… In virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd
and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms
his brethren in their faith.” (Luke
22:32)
Atty Stein: Does the
Pope need anyone’s permission or consent to exercise Papal Infallibility?
Therese: No! Absolutely not!
Atty Stein: What about the
Bishops? Does the Pope need their
approval to be infallible in what he teaches?
Therese: No! And those who argue that the Bishops must
agree with the Pope for his teachings to be infallible have it backwards. It’s not the Brethren who confirm what the
Pope is teaching.
We read in “Lumen
Gentium”:
“…For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar
of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power
which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Atty Stein: Dr.
Martin, there are those who say Papal infallibility has been exercised only two
times, namely, the dogmas of “The Immaculate Conception” and “The Assumption of
Mary”.
Therese: Those who say such
things are incorrect, and that is because they do not understand the conditions
or the scope of Papal infallibility. There
are theologians who argue that the conditions necessary for Papal infallibility
has been met over three hundred times.
Atty Stein: Then let’s consider “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis”. Would you please read how
the Holy Father closed out this Apostolic Letter?
Therese: Yes. When
Pope John Paul II concluded this Papal teaching he said:
“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 - 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.”
This constitutes
infallible teaching.
Atty Stein: Would you
be more specific?
Therese: Yes. All 3 conditions necessary for Papal
Infallibility to be exercised has been were
met in what I just read.
His declaration that men
alone can be ordained to Holy Orders is a matter of the “Divine Constitution of
the Church”. So, we are dealing with a “Matter of Faith” because the Divine Constitution of the Church IS a matter of faith!
And in so doing, he met the 1st condition necessary for
Papal infallibility to be exercised.
And this is confirmed in
“Responsum ad Dubium” which we shall
see later.
Atty Stein: Did the
Pope meet the condition of referring to the
ministry of his office in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”?
Therese: Yes, he did. This is indisputable as well.
He stated:
“… In virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren …”
In saying this he met the 2nd condition necessary
for Papal infallibility to be exercised.
And in his choice of
words he chose the same words that Vatican Council II gave us to indicate when
the Pope is meeting the necessary conditions to speak infallibly:
“…When he is confirming the
brethren in the faith… ”
And the Holy Father went
on to meet the 3rd condition
necessary for Papal infallibility to be exercised. He said:
“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.”
He “declared” it, and it is “binding
on all the faithful”.
All 3 conditions
necessary for Papal infallibility came together in the one document “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis”. And the infallibility of this Apostolic Letter rests solely upon
Papal infallibility.
Therefore, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” must be accepted as having been taught with Papal Infallibility
and is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the Holy
Father did not need to invoke or require the consent of individual Bishops, or the
Bishops in total who make up the Ordinary Magisterium with the Pope as its head
in order to exercise Papal infallibility for “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
In “Lumen Gentium #25” we
read:
“And therefore his
definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly
styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval
of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the
Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but, as the
supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility
of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a
doctrine of Catholic faith.”
Additionally, when the
Holy Father referred to the “Ordinary Magisterium” in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”,
he closed the door on those who would argue that the “ordinary magisterium”
must pronounce the same. This fact is
confirmed by “Responsum ad Dubium”.
Atty Stein: What is “Responsum
ad Dubium”, and would you tell us why it was written?
Therese: Yes, it was written
by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of
the Faith. And as we know, he is now
Pope Benedict XVI.
“Responsum ad Dubium” was written to put down the rebellion that
came about from the wide spread rejection of “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
It reads as follows:
“Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”
Dubium: Whether the teaching
that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on
women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be
held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and
from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the
Church, it has
been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium
(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium
25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the
brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what
is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of
the faith. (Emphasis added)
The Sovereign Pontiff
John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect,
approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and
ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the
offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the
Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card.
Ratzinger
Prefect
Atty Stein: So let’s
look closer at “Responsum ad Dubium”. Would you explain what this document says
to those who will not accept “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
Therese: Yes. Without equivocation it says that “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” is a “formal declaration” which confirmed what always belonged to
the deposit of faith, and in fact, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is now part of that
deposit of the faith. It goes beyond
what has always been taught on this matter because it is now a “formal”, Papal,
dogmatic teaching. This is why Pope John
Paul could say, “To remove all doubt”.
Women have been
dogmatically excluded from ordination. And
when women attempt ordination it is a mere forgery and nothing takes
place. Holy Orders is not conferred on
them. They can go through a ritual from
now until the day the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the cow still
goes “Muuuu”. It would be an empty
ritual and nothing more than a charade.
And let’s be clear about
something else.
Responsum ad Dubium”
points directly to the office of the Papacy as the sole basis of infallibility
in the Pope’s Apostolic Letter when it says:
“…Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming
the brethren.” Luke 22:32
Since the Pope met the
conditions necessary for infallibility in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, Responsum
ad Dubium confirms this Papal teaching is not dependent upon the infallibility of
the Ordinary Magisterium, the Word of God, or the Tradition of the Church to be
infallible.
Atty Stein: In this we see the Keys of Peter in action
preserving what was always taught within the Church through a “formal
declaration” by his successor.
Therese: Yes.
Atty Stein: Would you
read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about Papal
infallibility?
Therese: Certainly. We read:
“The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as
pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the
whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and
universal power in the care of souls.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs
882, 937]
Atty Stein: So then,
the Catholic Catechism confirms Papal Supremacy as laid out in both Vatican
Councils I and II.
Therese: Yes. And in “Responsum ad Dubium” we also read:
“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on
the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and
applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium.” (cf. Second
Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2)
“Responsum ad Dubium” shuts
the door on those who would say that unless the “Ordinary Magisterium” makes
the declaration found in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, the Pope’s Apostolic Letter
cannot be considered infallible.
Let’s look closer at the
language of “Responsum ad Dubium”,
and what it acknowledges:
·
It
refers to the “Apostolic Letter”
(Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) thereby acknowledging this teaching is united to the
Papal Office of succession in the Church. It is not dependent upon the office or consent
of other Bishops, or to the Body of Bishops by way of collegial infallibility
in the “ordinary magisterium”. This acknowledges the 1st
condition necessary for Papal infallibility.
·
It
acknowledges “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is a “formal declaration” which now belongs
to the deposit of faith. This confirms it is a matter of faith, the
2nd condition necessary for Papal infallibility.
·
It
says “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” must be held definitively by the Church. This confirms the 3rd condition
for Papal infallibility has been met.
·
The
prohibition of women’s ordination was present since the beginning of the Church
in both Scripture and Tradition.
·
The
prohibition of women’s ordination was taught by the infallibility of the “Ordinary
Magisterium” since the beginning of the Church.
Nowhere in “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” or in “Responsum ad Dubium” do we find dependence upon anything
other than Papal Infallibility to
make this Apostolic Letter infallible!
On the one hand, the Pope
said:
·
“In
virtue of MY OFFICE”.
And on the other hand:
·
The
Pope did not say, “in virtue of my office in union with my
brother Bishops with whom I consulted so that I can speak infallibly that
my teaching can become part of the Ordinary Magisterium.
·
The
Pope did not say his infallibility
rests upon the approval, consultation, or the consent of the Bishops in his
teaching.
·
The
Pope did not say, “In virtue of the
Traditions and Councils”.
·
The
Pope did not say, “by virtue of the
sense of the faithful”.
To formulate an argument against
what is contained in the Deposit of Faith there must be a precedent in any one
of the following:
·
The
Councils of the Church.
·
The
Scriptures (both Old and New Testament).
·
The
Ordinary Magisterium.
·
The
Tradition of the Church.
The fact is, the
ordination of women has been prohibited in each of these categories since the
beginning of the Church.
Atty Stein: Would you
speak about the “Pro-women’s ordination” groups that reject “Responsum ad
Dubium”?
Therese: Yes. They reject “Responsum ad Dubium” on two counts as convenience dictates their
agenda.
First, they raise the
point that only the cover letter of “Responsum ad Dubium” was signed by
Cardinal Ratzinger, and not the explanatory letter. So, they call into question the veracity this
explanatory letter from then, Cardinal Ratzinger. This is a desperate attempt to create a straw
man argument against the binding authority of “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”. It doesn’t rise to the level of the mundane
as an objection. Pope John Paul II confirmed
“Responsum ad Dubium” and Cardinal Ratzinger promulgated it.
Second, is where we see
the straw-man argument exposed as a desperate attempt to reject the Pope’s
teaching. “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” met
the conditions necessary for Papal Infallibility and does not depend upon
“Responsum ad Dubium” for its authority
Furthermore, “Responsum
ad Dubium” states that the prohibition of the ordination of women was always
the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This is why “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” and “Responsum ad Dubium” shut the door on those who would say
the “Ordinary Magisterium” did not infallibly teach against the ordination of
women since Christ founded His Church.
And it border on the
laughable when Feminists’ argue that “Responsum ad Dubium” is not
“infallible”. No one ever claimed
infallibility rests in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. And to the chagrin of Feminists, the Pope
approved the response of the Congregation.
So then, even though a “Congregation”
of the Church does not have the charism of infallibility, nothing changes in
the matter women’s ordination. Papal Infallibility is the basis of authority in
the Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
Atty Stein: Would you be able to provide
the court with specific women’s organizations that reject “Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” and what they have to say about it?
Therese: Yes, I can provide
that if needed.
One such organization
stated:
“In this case, an act of the *ordinary papal magisterium*, in itself *not infallible*, witnesses
to the infallibility of a teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the
church.”
Notice they say “ordinary papal magisterium”. They
reject Papal infallibility as
standing apart from, and independent of the “Ordinary Magisterium”.
Atty Stein: And this
is an attempt to “demote” Papal Infallibility to the level of “Papal teachings”
that do not carry the weight of Infallibility?
Therese: Yes. And furthermore, they claim his teachings cannot be
infallible unless he teaches in union with the Bishops and has their consent. It’s another straw-man argument.
They appeal to the:
·
“Infallibility of
teaching a doctrine already possessed by the church”
To say:
·
“The Pope’s teaching is not infallible”.
This is patently absurd. You cannot say “the teaching of the Pope is not infallible” by appealing to an “infallible teaching of the Ordinary
Magisterium” to say the Pope’s teaching is not infallible. In your appeal
against the Pope, you’ve already acknowledged infallibility in the Ordinary Magisterium.
Furthermore, the Pope “formally declared” the same thing the Ordinary Magisterium infallibly taught
since the beginning of the Church. So, either
way they look at it, feminists’ already have their answer on the matter of
women’s ordination. They just want a different answer.
Atty Stein: Why would
they persist when they’ve had their answer?
Therese: Because they know
many people don’t have the time to study the details, and are not familiar with
the theology of Papal infallibility. So
they sow seeds among Catholics who go about living their lives and among those
encamped in rebellion. Their goal is to
make people think:
·
The
Pope cannot declare anything infallibly apart from the Bishops without their
consent.
·
“Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” is nothing more than Pope John Paul’s personal opinion.
Atty Stein: We know
that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is Dogma, but what about our obligation to
“ordinary Papal Magisterial teaching” when the Pope is not speaking “ex
cathedra”?
Therese: We read in Lumen
Gentium:
“This loyal
submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the
authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that
his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent
be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and
intention.”
In addition, the scope of
the Pope’s infallibility is not limited to the “Declarations of Dogma”. It
extends also extends to the “Definitions
of Doctrine”.
Many people are confused
and fail to understand what this means.
They incorrectly think “definitions”
are only “disciplines”. They
are not.
Definitions apply to “Ordinary Papal Magisterial teachings”
and “Papal Infallibility”, as well
as the “Ordinary Magisterium”.
We read from Vatican I:
“…When he (the Pope) defines doctrine to be held…”
It does not say: “Doctrine to be held by divine faith”.
This means the scope of
infallibility extends to whatever is
related to revelation in the Bible and the Tradition of the Church when the
Pope meets the conditions of infallibility.
Atty Stein: Alright,
we can now look to see where the scope of infallibility exists in the Church.
Let’s look at these
questions:
·
Is
there a capacity of infallibility in the “Sense of the Faithful” that is different
than a Pope declaring or defining doctrine?
·
Is
there a capacity of infallibility that exists in a Bishop unto himself,
independent of the Pope?
·
Is
there a capacity of infallibility in a group of bishops apart from the Pope?
Let’s look at individual
bishops first. Are the KEYS given to
individual bishops?
Therese: No. In Lumen Gentium 25 #’s 40 & 41, we read:
“Although the
individual bishops do not enjoy the
prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s
doctrine infallibly. This is so, even
when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while
teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single
viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even
more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they
are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their
definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
Notice several things:
“… Individual bishops do NOT enjoy the PREROGATIVE … of
infallibility …”
It is the Popes alone who
possess the PREROGATIVE of infallibility which is a license, a right, the
authority, the privilege, the ability to sanction, to choose, to have a
preference, to exercise his options, has the benefit of, the advantage of, and
the power of dispensation as the holder of the KEYS that other Bishops do not
share with him.
Atty Stein: Then it
is clear the authority of the Bishops as individuals or as a group of Bishops
rests in the fact that they remain in union with the Pope. They can never be apart from the Pope because
they do not have in their possession the authority of the Papal Keys.
Therese: That’s correct.
There is no doubt Bishops
have a charism and special grace to teach, and the power to govern in their own
right in order to fulfill their roles as stated by the Council. However, the Council, also states:
“The college or body of bishops has
no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its
head.’ As such, this college has ‘supreme and full authority over the
universal Church; but this power cannot
be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. [Lumen Gentium 22; cf. CIC, can 336, Catechism 883]
Now, let’s contrast what
you just read about the “College of Bishops” with the Pope’s authority to make the
distinction in authority crystal clear:
“The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his
office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.”
“The Pope enjoys, by divine
institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.”
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 882, 937]
Atty Stein: That is
crystal clear.
Then even a Bishop is not
free to “dissent” with Pope John Paul II on the ordination of men alone?
Therese: No, a Bishop is not
free to dissent on this matter. It has been
infallibly, dogmatically settled. Nor is
any group of Bishops free to dissent. The consequences for dissent would be
dramatic in the eyes of God, and according to Canon Law.
However, when Bishops are
in union with the Pope on this matter, or any matter defined or declared in the
manner of “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, this is how we are to understand their
voice:
“…Furthermore, when
the Roman Pontiff, OR the body of
bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to
which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this
revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition
through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful
concern of the Roman Pontiff himself- and through
the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and
unerringly explained.” [Lumen
Gentium 25; 45]
Atty Stein: So then, the
promise of the Holy Spirit to unite the Bishops throughout the world rests
solely upon the condition that they remain in union with the Holy Father.
Therese: Yes.
Atty Stein: I noticed
the word “unerringly” at the end of
what you just read.
Therese: Yes. “Unerringly”
means without error, and this means that which is taught is infallibly correct,
otherwise it could not be said to be without error.
And notice also that I
emphasized the word “OR” at the
beginning of what I just read. This is
what we were speaking of a short while ago when we said Papal “definitions”
(not only declarations) are infallible when they meet the three necessary
conditions even without the consent of the Bishops.
And keep in mind, the
Church teaches that even an ecumenical council has no authority to teach, and that
such a Council does not technically even exist unless it has been “confirmed”,
or at least “recognized”, by the Supreme Pontiff.
Atty Stein: There are many Catholic
women who join ranks with Feminists who believe that if the Church is to
survive it must allow two things. They
are:
·
The
ordination of Women
·
And
that Mary must evolve into a feminine manifestation of God
Therese: Yes, that is what
they hope for, but as we’ve seen, women will never be ordained, and Mary will
never evolve into a feminine manifestation of God.
Atty Stein: Well, if they’ve had
their answer how do they expect to arrive at ordination?
Therese: Incrementally.
Atty Stein: Would you
please explain how they expect to do this?
Therese: Yes. First, in principle, they have become
Protestants because they appeal to “Sola Scriptura” to make their case. But, as we are about to see, there is no case
for them in Scripture,. Afterwards,
we’ll explore Marian doctrine in light of the Most Holy Trinity.
Atty Stein: Please
continue.
Therese: Feminists try to make the
argument that Deaconesses in the early Church were ordained to “Holy orders” in
the same way that men were ordained to the Diaconate. And they claim this is evidence that women
are not prohibited from being ordained priests.
Atty Stein: Then we must look at what
Scripture has to say about this.
Therese: Yes. Let’s take a look at Acts 6:2-3.
They read:
2:
“Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is
not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.”
3:
“Wherefore, brethren, search from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,
whom we may appoint over this business.”
There is nothing in these
verses that says anything about a woman being ordained a Deacon. They do, however, speak about men who are of good reputation.
Atty Stein: But
Feminists’ argue that 1st Timothy 3:8-13 proves women in the early Church
were Deaconesses. Please read it for the
court, and I would like you to comment on it afterwards.
Therese: Certainly.
It reads as follows:
8:
“Deacons likewise must be dignified,
not double-tongued, not addicted to too much
wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”
9: “They must hold the
mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.”
10: “And let them also be
tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves
blameless.
11: “Their wives likewise must be
dignified,
not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.”
12: “Let Deacons each be the
husband of one wife, managing their
children and their own households well.”
13: “For those who serve well
as Deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the
faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
Verse 11 is what
Feminists cite as an argument for Ordination because it says:
“Their wives likewise must be
dignified …”
Atty Stein: Does the
use of the word “Likewise” mean
women are to be ordained deacons as well?
Therese: Nowhere in the verses
I just read do we read that a woman is to be ordained a “Deaconess”. The wives of Deacons are simply being
contrasted to their husbands who are the Deacons.
And once again, much to
the chagrin of Feminists, there is a clear reference to the “wife of a Deacon” in these verses which
tell us what kind of a woman the wife of a Deacon should be. She must be spiritual which is most appropriate
for the wife of a Deacon.
To prove the point, let’s
insert the feminine of “Deacon” (Deaconess) into the qualifications of a Deacon
found in verse 12 and see what happens:
“Let Deaconess’s each be the husband
of one wife”.
Clearly, the Catholic
Church is not advocating same sex marriage.
The verse does not say:
“Let the Deaconess be the wife of one wife”.
Nor do these verses say:
“Let the Deaconess be the wife of one husband”.
Atty Stein: And this
would eliminate the argument of Feminists when they say there was no Greek word
for “Deaconess” to distinguish between men and women in verse “8”. Isn’t that correct?
Therese: Correct. Women would still end up marrying women in
verses “11 & 12”.
Atty Stein: Feminists’ will argue there is no Greek word
for “Deaconess” so Paul was could only resort to using the word “likewise” to
imply women could be Deacons.
Therese: Nothing changes. They have all the same problems we’ve just
pointed out. Furthermore, it’s
impossible for them to argue there is no Greek word for “women” or “wife”.
The Greek word “gunh” is a feminine noun and is
transliterated as “gune”. It would sound as “goo-nay” if you were to pronounce it.
And in fact, “gunh” is a reference to a woman of any
age. It can refer to a virgin, a married
woman, a widow, a betrothed woman, and even a silly woman, but it can never
mean “Deaconess”.
If St. Paul wanted us to
understand that women are to be ordained Deacons, instead of saying “likewise”,
all he had to do was say use the Greek Word “gunh” to make a case for women to
be ordained to Holy Orders as Deaconesses.
All he had to do was say:
8:
“Women Deacons likewise must be
dignified, not double-tongued, not
addicted to too much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.”
Or:
11: “Women Deacons likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but
sober-minded, faithful in all things.”
But, he didn’t say any
such thing. Furthermore, we know that St. Paul never made a case for the
ordination of women because we know what he said about the role of women in the
Church.
The fact is, St. Paul was
talking about the “qualities” of a
Deacon’s wife versus the “qualifications”
of the man who is a “Deacon”. The Deacon is understood not only in terms of
his “qualities”, but in terms of his “function”
as well. His wife is understood in terms of her “qualities” in the contrast between a Deacon and his wife.
And as we know, some men
go on to become Priests and Bishops.
Let’s look at 1st
Timothy 3:2 when St. Paul speaks about the qualities of a Bishop. It would read as follows:
2:
“A bishop then must be blameless,
the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality …”
Now, let’s insert the
word “gunh” into this verse:
2:
“A bishop (gunh/woman/wife) then
must be blameless, the husband of one “gunh” (wife), vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to
hospitality …”
Once again, the Church
has condemned same sex marriage. And
it’s ludicrous to think St. Paul was advocating them.
Atty Stein: So then, a “wife” can
never be someone who is “ordained” into Holy Orders?
Therese: Correct. And this means a woman is not to serve in any
capacity of “ecclesiastical functions
within the Church” as someone who is ordained.
In fact, one of the
reasons that men alone are to be ordained is based upon a reflection between a
man and a woman and Christ and the Church.
Christ is the Groom and the Church is His Bride. This relationship is in fact the substance
and a sign of Holy Orders. And the
Church must be faithful to this.
St. Thomas Aquinas tells
us:
“The priest is thus truly a sign in the
sacramental sense of the word. It would be a very elementary view of the
sacraments if the notion of sign were kept only for material elements. (Summa Theologiae, 111 q. 83, a. I, ad 3-um)
Atty Stein: Does the Catechism of the Church reiterate
this?
Therese: Indeed it does. Number 1142 reads:
“These servants are chosen and
consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables
them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the
members of the Church.13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an
"icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the
sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the
Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion
with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.”
Atty Stein: So then, the very “Maleness” of Jesus Christ
is fundamental to the sign of the Sacramental Holy Orders?
Therese: Absolutely.
From the Apostolic
Constitutions 400 A.D., 3:9, we read:
“The “man is the head
of the woman” (1st Corinthians 11:3), and he is originally ordained
for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and
leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body
of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated
for the procreation of children. For he says, “He shall rule over you” (Genesis
3:16). For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in
the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how
will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the
priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain
women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ…”
And from the same
Constitutions, 8:25, we read:
“A widow is not
ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly
and unblameably 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.”
And Apostolic
Constitutions 8:24 reads:
“A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command
from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of
marriage, but on account of leisure for piety.”
So now, we can see what
Pope John Paul II was saying in “Mulieris
Dignitatem, No. 26” when he said:
“Since Christ in
instituting the Eucharist linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly
service of the apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to
express the relationship between man and woman, between what is
"feminine" and what is "masculine." It is a relationship
willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of redemption.
It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ, the
bridegroom, toward the church, the bride. This is clear and unambiguous when
the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts in
persona Christi, is performed by a man.”
Atty Stein: In light of all you’ve shown us, let’s see
what happens if we flip Paul’s use of the words “in like manner” or “likewise”
back on the feminists.
Please read 1st
Timothy 2:8-9.
Therese: Yes. It reads:
8:
“I will therefore that men
pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.”
9:
“In like manner also that women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamed-faced-ness and sobriety; not
with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”.
In verse 8 we know that before men lift up their hands to pray they are to be holy. So we know this is an
exhortation to “character” and “posture”. But we know also that a woman is excluded
from Holy Orders, so the posture
involved in ecclesiastical functions found in this verse can never refer to
a woman in such a capacity.
And if we flip the
argument back on the Feminists and demand that “likewise” or “in like manner”
in the case of men it would read:
9:
“In like manner also that men
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamed-faced-ness and sobriety; not
with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”.
Is St. Paul now exhorting men not to braid their hair, or wear
gold, and pearls, and costly array?
No! He was not an advocate of
cross dressing.
Once again, the use of
the words “in like manner” makes the
distinction between “qualifications”
and “qualities”. They are not interchangeable. Women can never be ordained to Holy Orders.
Atty Stein: And what
about Church assemblies? Isn’t it clear
that St. Paul said it’s impossible for women to be ordained when he spoke about
the role of women in Church?
Therese: Yes. In 1st Timothy 2:11-12 St. Paul
said women are to be silent in the Church:
11:
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
12:
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to
be in silence.”
It is impossible for a
woman to lead in “ecclesiastical capacity” if she is to be silent in the
Church.
Now, Feminists’ may want
to hem and haw saying this is the “Word
of Paul”, but Scripture is either the Word of Paul, it’s the “Word of God”. We are
dealing with a matter of God’s rights and how He structured His own Church.
From the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, No. 1578 we read:
“No one has a right to receive
the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he
is called to it by God.69 Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs
of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the
authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone
to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only
as an unmerited gift.”
As far as chauvinism is
concerned, the Church has condemned it.
Men who abuse women for any reason will answer to God, particularly if
they do it in the name of the Church. In
fact, Pope Benedict XVI forcefully condemned chauvinism at a Vatican Sponsored
International Congress on February 9, 2008.
And in his Apostolic
Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (10), Pope John Paul II said:
“The presence and the
role of women in the life and the mission of the Church, although not linked to
the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable.”
Atty Stein: And what
can you tell us about the title “Diakonos”?
Therese: It was originally
known as “Diakonov”, but was never,
nor will it ever be a title that designates “ordination”. It refers to someone who carries out the
commands of someone over them in authority such caring for the poor, or a
waiter, or someone who serves food and drink.
Atty Stein: Was there
ever any discussion in the Church about referring to women as “Deaconess”?
Therese: In the early Church
there was debate over whether the title “Deaconess” should be applied to
“widows” who vowed to remain celibate, or to a “virgin” who would remain
unmarried. Only when it became a matter
of consideration as to how the Church would refer to these women was the title
of “Deaconess” applied to them. But they
never held ecclesiastical positions that were sanctioned by the legitimate
authority of the Church at any time in history.
So, the argument that feminists make to create a feminists
ecclesialogical theology from the title of “Deaconess” is without merit.
In the early Church a
“Deaconess” would be appropriately referred to in the capacity of “Diakonos”,
because she would only assist men who held ecclesiastical offices. An example would be when a woman was to be
baptized and prepared for immersion in water it would not be appropriate for
men to assist them while being clothed. It was proper for women to assist each
other for the sake of purity.
From the Apostolic
Constitutions 400 3:16 A.D. we read:
“Appoint, [O Bishop],
a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it
is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of
unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A
deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing
of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and
afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them.”
We can understand 1st
Timothy 5:9-10 in light of this when we read:
9:
“Let
a widow be chosen of no less than
threescore years of age, who hath been the wife of one husband.”
10: “Having
testimony for her good works, if she has brought up children, if she have
received to harbor, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has ministered to them that suffer
tribulation, if she has diligently followed every good work.”
If
we conclude these verses point to the selection of a “Deaconess” it is because
she was chosen for her service in tending to the suffering and the
poor. But a Deaconess never served in
the capacity of one who is ordained to Holy Orders.
From the Apostolic
Constitutions we read:
“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.”
Atty Stein: Thank
you.
Would
you please read 1st Timothy 5 and comment on the verses
as you do?
Therese: Certainly. We read:
1: “An
ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father: young men, as
brethren.”
Remember,
men who are not “blood brothers” were
referred to as “brethren/adelphos”, and this verse is speaking
about “honoring” an elder man as a “father”.
Women
who are not “blood sisters” are
referred to as “sisters/adelphos/adelphia”.
And this verse is speaking about “honoring”
the elder women as “mother”, and in
some cases “Elderess”.
In this verse a widow is
being “honored”, not ordained. And the widow will be honored if she deserves
to be honored as we will see in the next verse. But a widow does not get a pass
to be honored in virtue of being a “widow”. If she expects to be honored as a widow, she
must have lived life exhibiting qualities proper to being honored as such “because of her deeds in life”. But there is no mention of “qualifications” for ordination to the
Diaconate in this verse. She is “being honored as a widow” for a life
well lived, and that’s it.
4: “But if
any widow have children or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own
house and to make a return of duty to
her parents; for this is acceptable before God.
If she
is a widow she must govern her own home in honor of what her parents did for
her. This is not “ordination” to the Diaconate.
5: “But
she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in
supplications and prayers night and day.
This is
the difference between being a widow “indeed”
(as a fact) and being a woman who is honorable “in deeds” (in what she does as a widow).
In
verses 5 & 6 we see the contrast between those who live for God and those who
live for the world. There is nothing
about “ordination” in the
comparison.
7: “And
this give in charge, that they may be blameless.”
8: “But if any man has
not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an infidel.”
In verses 9-16 there is
instruction on what is honorable and what is not, but there is no “ordination”
of a widow to the Diaconate. And we see
the manner in which a widow had to live her life if she is to be cared for by
the Church. Men are to minister to them
and take care of their needs. They are
not to be abandoned:
9: “Let a
widow be chosen of no less than threescore years of age, who hath been the wife
of one husband.”
16: “If any
of the faithful have widows, let him
minister to them, and let not the
church be charged: that there may be sufficient for them that are widows indeed.
In
verses 17-22 we see what our relationship is towards
“Priests”, not “Priestesses”. And when
we arrive at verse 22 we see specific instructions about “imposing hands” (ordination) upon any man (not women). And after ordination there is reference only to men.
22: “Impose
not hands lightly upon any man,
neither be partaker of other men’s
sins. Keep thyself chaste.”
23: “Do not still drink
water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thy frequent
infirmities.”
25: “In
like manner also good deeds are manifest: and they that are otherwise cannot be
hid.”
And
thus has it always been in the history of the Church. Women have never been ordained to “Holy Orders”.
Atty Stein: Alright,
now let’s look at the “Sense of the Faithful”.
Feminists are also pressing to be ordained in this area.
How do we discern when
the “Sense of the faithful” is authentically inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Therese: If the Pope and the
Bishops in union with Him agree with what the faithful sense. But it cannot be said the “faithful” are
truly “the faithful” if they do not accept what the Church teaches in
definitive matters to begin with.
In our day a majority of
people who call themselves “Catholic” think the Pope should allow birth
control. If it were said the “Sense of
the faithful” has the “capacity of infallibility independent of the Magisterium”
you would divide the church and set the faithful against the Papacy on the
issue of birth control. And that is just
one issue where a majority of “Catholics” disagree with the Pope.
If a “majority” is
perceived as having the power to determine infallibility in the “sense of the
faithful” then an understanding of infallibility has mutated into seeing the
Church as a democracy, and worse, in the midst of a world plagued with
relativism which will accept a model of a church like that with open arms.
Atty Stein: Then it’s clear why feminists are hard at
work among the faithful to sway them against the Church on the issue of
ordination of women. They know they will
not win against the Papacy. And this
also shows their urgency and need to separate women from the traditional role
of “Mother”.
Theresa: Correct. They know that their fight for ordination
goes nowhere unless they can convince “popular Catholicism” to take up their
cause, as we will see later in this trial.
Atty Stein: It’s time
we look at the “Apostle Junia”.
And it’s worth noting how
ironic and embarrassing it is to watch feminists feign to revere and honor
Paul’s “every word” just when they
think they caught him using a “single
word” that proves women were ordained.
But, once they think they’ve got him they dismiss him with disdain as a
chauvinist in all else that he said.
It’s time we look at the
word “Apostle”.
Please explain to the
court what the word “Apostle” actually means, and then we can look at it in
light of Scripture and what the Church has formally taught regarding ordination
down through the centuries.
Therese: The word “Apostle” is a Greek word which simply means
“Messenger”. It does not mean “Ordination”.
When we hear the word “Apostle” we generally think of the “Twelve Apostles”, and we know these men
were Bishops and “ordained” into the
Priesthood by Jesus Christ Himself. But
it does not follow that the word “Apostle” designates “ordination” when used in
reference to those other than the Twelve Apostles.
Atty Stein: Then the
burden is on feminists to prove that Paul’s reference to “Andronicus and Junia” as “outstanding
apostles” would mean that “Junia”
was “ordained”.
Therese: Correct. Feminists have no right to assume
anything.
Atty Stein: What can
you tell us about “Junia”?
Therese: First of all, she is not mentioned in her own right. She is mentioned with her husband who is in
fact listed before her. And as such it
can be said she received the title “Apostle” in virtue of being the wife of
Andronicus. As a couple they acted as “Apostles”.
Atty Stein: Does St. Paul
tells us this couple had converted even before he converted?
Therese: Yes, but feminists
try to use the “timeline” of Paul’s conversion to say something that Paul
simply did not say.
Atty Stein: Would you
explain?
Therese: Yes.
Paul informs us this
couple converted before him, as did scores of other people. It’s that simple. Paul never so much as hinted that calling
them Apostles indicated that Andronicus or Junia had been ordained. It’s simply not in the text.
From Romans 16:7 we read:
7:
“Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note
among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”
There are three things to
say about this verse.
First, this verse says
nothing about the ordination of Andronicus and Junias.
Second, if we refer to
them as “apostles” its because they were likely the ones who were the first “Messengers”
(Apostles) sent to Rome by the original apostles themselves.
Third, the verse does not
say:
7:
“Salute the apostles Andronicus and
Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who also were in Christ before me.”
It says:
7:
“Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who
also were in Christ before me.”
We can understand this
verse to mean nothing more than saying that Andronicus and Junias had been
noticed by the original apostles because of their faith, their zeal, and their
works.
And as a husband and wife
team it would have been proper only for Andronicus to act in any liturgical or
official teaching capacity within the Church.
We also know that Andronicus and Junia were Paul’s relatives and
citizens of Rome.
Atty Stein: Do we
find other couples like Andronicus and Junia in Scripture?
Therese: Yes. We know of
Aquila and his wife Priscilla who was of Roman aristocracy. This couple would be no different than
Andronicus and Junia in their work. In
fact, Paul refers to them as his “co-workers”
in the same epistle. Now if Paul is an
“apostle” and he refers to Aquila
and Priscilla as his “co-workers”, we
can regard them to be “co-apostles”
with Paul.
Atty Stein: And even
if we refer to them as his “co-apostles”
he never stated they were “ordained”
in virtue of being his “co-workers”.
Therese: Correct.
Atty Stein: Dr.
Martin, are there times where the title “Apostle”
is used as an “Honorary Title” for
specific individuals?
Therese: Yes, Mary Magdalen
would be one such “Apostle”. And there
are many other women who were deeply involved in various ministries in the life
of the Church from the very beginning, but they were never ordained.
Atty Stein: Would you
provide a few Scriptural references for some of these women?
Therese: Surely. We can find them in Romans 16:1-2, 6, 15,
Acts 9:36, Acts 16:14,
Acts 17:34, Acts 21:9, 2nd Timothy 4:21, 1st
Corinthians 1:11, Philippians 4:2-3.
Clearly,
Paul does not look upon these women as though they were “potted plants”. They are highly praised by him for their work
and ministries in spreading the faith.
What
must be kept in mind when looking at Paul’s praise and prohibition of women in
the Church is concluded when he says women are not part of the Teaching
Magisterium or to have authority over man.
Atty Stein: But does this mean a woman is only to learn
and never teach?
Therese: No, Scripture does
not say that a “woman should only learn”.
Paul is talking about teaching in an “Ecclesiastical Setting” because they
cannot be ordained. Many people fail to make
this distinction and it causes a lot of pain and confusion.
In 1st Timothy
2:11 we read:
11:
“Let the woman learn
in silence with all subjection.”
12: “But I
suffer not a woman to teach, or to use authority over the man: but to be in
silence.”
There are those who focus
on the words “in silence with all
subjection” and do not even see the words “Let the woman learn”.
Atty Stein: So then,
women are to learn and to teach.
Therese: Of course, and that
takes shape in many ways, but never from within the Magisterium.
Atty Stein: Does Paul
use a particular word when prohibiting women from teaching in the Church?
Therese: Yes, he uses the
Greek word “didaskein” which means to teach with absolute authority in the matter of doctrine.
And in 2nd Timothy 2:2
we have an example not only of Apostolic Succession which we
covered in the first trial, but we also have evidence that the word “didaskein” is used only in reference to
“men”:
2: “And the things which thou hast heard of
me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach
others also.”
Paul
used this word over a dozen times in the same manner.
Atty Stein: And does Paul use another word which
demonstrates that a woman is not to teach with authority?
Therese: Yes, he used the Greek word “oude” which means “not ever, never” when he linked the two prohibitions: “I do not
permit a woman to teach OR to
exercise authority”.
The important thing to
note is that from the first days of the Church to this day, the word “Apostle” was never used to designate
that a woman had been ordained.
Atty Stein: I’d like
to look at this question. Is there ever
a time we encounter heretical sects, and even Bishops who ordained women?
Therese: Yes. And even though a “ritual” took place, a valid
ordination never took place. The
actions of a Bishop, or whoever presumed to ordain a woman, were null and
void. When these events were reported to
the Magisterium, a Bishop who presumed to ordain women was rebuked, admonished,
and prohibited from doing any such thing in the future.
Let’s look first at an
Epistle of Pope Gelasius, 14: 26, dated March 11, 494:
“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.”
And related to this
Epistle we have evidence from St. Irenaeus that there were heretical Gnostic female
priestesses, and some from other heretical sects as well. This was demonstrated by Firmilian of
Caesarea and St. Epiphanius of Salamis.
Atty Stein: Did Pope
Gelasius have anything more to say to Bishops who attempted to ordain women?
Therese: Yes. He referred to
the actions of the Bishops as having:
“… Such
disrespect for divine affairs that this evil seems to threaten not only their
own downfall (the Bishops), but also the tragic downfall of the whole church if
they do not come to their senses.”
We also know that Pope
Gelasius referred to the Canons of previous Councils such as Canon 19 from the
Council of Nicea, Canons #11 & 44 from the Council of Laodicea, Canon #2
from the Council of Nimes, and Canon #25 from the First Council of Orange, all
of which prohibit women from participation in the liturgical service in any
way, or from being a member of the clergy.
Atty Stein: Are
there Feminists who point to the word “presbytera”
found on tombstone inscriptions and on sarcophagus to prove that women were
ordained in the past.
Therese: Yes, indeed there
are. For example, a tomb in Tropea
(South Italy) was found with an inscription which says:
“Sacred to her memory: Leta the “presbytera” lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days”. Her husband set up
this tomb and she preceded him in peace on the day before the Ides of May.”
One can argue that Leta
had the title of “presbytera” because her husband was likely a “presbyter” in
the same way we say Mr. and Mrs. Her
husband simply doesn’t tell us if he was a “presbyter”. But, in the end, it’s irrelevant. Pope Gelasius condemned the ordination of
women, and in fact, her tomb was found in the very region where Pope Gelasius
was clamping down on rogue Bishops and heretical sects who were “ordaining
women”. So feminists cannot appeal to
“Leta” as a right of passage to “ordination”.
Such rituals would have been null
and void and these women would have never received Holy Orders.
The same applies to a
sarcophagus from Salona in Dalmatia, dated from 425, which reports that a man
by the name of Theodosius bought a cemetery plot from a “presbytera” Flavia
Vitalia. Quite aside from rogue Bishops
and heretical sects who were selling grave lots, none of this translates into
“priestly ordination” even if the word “presbytera” was found on a sarcophagus.
And we know that
“episcopa” was a title used for the wife of an Episcopus (bishop), and that “presbytera”
was the name for the wife of a “presbyter”, “deaconissa” was also used for the
wife of a deacon, and the wife of a subdeacon was “subdeaconissa”.
Atty Stein: Is there
more evidence to supply the court which proves the Church never ordained women?
Therese: Yes:
The Council of Epaon, c.
517 AD said:
“We completely reject
the consecration of widows, whom they call deaconesses.”
The 1st Council
of Nicaea, Canon 19 A.D. 325:
“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.”
From the Council of
Laodicea Canon 11, 360 A.D. we read:
“The so-called
‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church.”
The Sixth Council of
Paris c. 829 A.D., says it had been made known to them:
“That in certain of
our provinces, contrary to divine law and canon law, women of their own accord go to the holy altars, and boldly touch the
sacred vessels, and give the sacred vestments to priests, and what is even more
improper and unsuitable, they give to the people the body and blood of the Lord.
That women should not go to the altar is fully found in Canon 44 of the Council
of Laodicea and in the decrees of Pope Gelasius XXVI.”
Tertullian, in “The
Prescription of Heretics” 41, says:
“How wanton are the women of these heretics! They dare to teach, to
dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to
baptize.”
He also said with regard
to “On veiling virgins” 9.1 in 206 A.D.:
“It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she
teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and
least of all the office of priest.”
Tertullian also said in “Demurrer Against the Heretics” 41:4–5, 200 A.D.:
"It is of no concern how diverse be their [the
heretics’] views, so long as they conspire to erase the one truth. They are
puffed up; all offer knowledge. Before they have finished as catechumens, how thoroughly
learned they are! And the heretical women themselves, how shameless are they!
They make bold to teach, to debate, to work exorcisms, to undertake cures . . .
"
And in “Baptism 1”, 203 A.D. he said:
And in “Baptism 1”, 203 A.D. he said:
"[A female heretic], lately conversant in this
quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine,
making it her first aim to destroy baptism. . . . But we, little fishes, after
the example of our Icthus [Greek, "Fish"], Jesus Christ, are
born in water . . . so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach
even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking
them away from the water"
The Syriac Didascalia 3:6:1–2 A.D. 225., meaning “the Catholic
doctrine of the twelve Apostles and the holy disciples of our Lord” correspond
to what we find in the Apostolic Constitutions:
"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.”
From Firmilian, in the collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74:10, 253 A.D., we read:
“There suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a
state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with
the Holy Ghost … Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman
had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the
means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper
invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist. She offered up
the sacrifice to the Lord in a liturgical act that corresponds to the usual
rites, and she baptized many, all the while misusing the customary and
legitimate wording of the [baptismal] question. She carried all these things
out in such a manner that nothing seemed to deviate from the norms of the
Church.”
Firmilian also tells us in
"Epistle" 75.1-5 to Cyprian:
“That woman who first
through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the
faithful, among other things...she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying
bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord.”
St. Irenaeus, “Against Haereses” 1.31.2, 189 A.D., tells of
Marcus, a Gnostic heretic and magician, who changed the color of the liquid in
the chalice by means of his own invocation:
“Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and
protracting to great length the word of invocation, contrives to give them a purple
and reddish color … Handing 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.”
From Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Corinthians
14:34:
“For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”
St. Epiphanius speaks
about a heretical sect known as “Cataphrygians”. They embraced a woman named Quintillia,
possibly Priscilla, who claimed that Christ visited her in a dream at Pepuza. She claims He appeared as a woman dressed in
white and shared her bed. “Against
Heresies” 49.2-3:
“Among them women are bishops and priests and
they say nothing makes a difference”, for in Christ Jesus there is neither male
nor female.”
St. Epiphanius, “Against Heresies” 79.304 wrote:
“If women were
ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it
should rather have been given to Mary....She was not even entrusted with
baptizing...Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they
are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this
kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at
nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women
or rather, the woman's insanity?”
St. Epiphanius, “Against
Heresies” 78:13 377 A.D.:
“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In
an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer
up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is
godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in
fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit.”
“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.”
“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named
apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of
God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According
to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the
evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses.”
“If women were to be charged by God with entering the
priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it
would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function.
She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling
in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . .
But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good.”
Hippolytus, “The
Apostolic Tradition” 11, 215 A.D:
“When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be
ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is
appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands
are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does
not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy;
but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all.”
St. John Chrysostom, “On the Priesthood” 2.2, 387 A.D.:
“Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have
mentioned, not only men, but also women. But
when there is question of the headship of the church...let the entire female
sex retire.”
“When one is required to
preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the
whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority
of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all
others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped
the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature.”
St. John Chrysostom, “On the Priesthood”, 3.9:
“Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but
they try to thrust themselves into it.”
St. Augustine, “On heresies” 27, also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius:
“They give such principality to women that they even
honor them with priesthood.”
St. Augustine, “On heresies” 1:17, 428 A.D.:
“The Quintillians are heretics who give women
predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them.
They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla
[two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman"
Now, when we consider all of these things, we can see why
Pope John Paul II, in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” cites the examples given to us
in Sacred Scripture by Christ Himself as to who can be ordained:
·
Christ
chose His Apostles only from among men and those whom He willed.
·
It
has been the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in
choosing only men.
·
And
the teaching authority of the Church has consistently held that the exclusion of
women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for His Church.
He sums it up by saying the Church:
·
“Does
not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination”
·
That
He chose only men for ordination in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
·
He
spent the night in prayer before He made His selection.
·
And
that he called 12 men to an office associated with Him and His mission as the
Redeemer.
And the Apostles have done the same when they chose those who
would succeed them in their ministry …
Continued at … http://www.truthinreligion.com
Trial #3, “Scripture Alone vs. the Virgin Mary
