Monday, July 2, 2018

Women Cannot be Ordained

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 declaredwomen 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”.

2: “Old women, as mothers: young women, as sisters, in all chastity.”

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”.

3:Honor widows that are widows indeed.

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.

6:For she that lives in pleasures is dead while she is living.”

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.”

24:Some men’s sins are manifest, going before to judgment: and some men they follow after.

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 thepresbytera” 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:

"[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