Kvinnor vigdes fram till slutet av 1100-talet!
Fick en artikel som var för bra för att inte stanna uppe och blogga om mitt i natten...
***
"Gary Macy, the John Nobili SJ Professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, says historical evidence is overwhelming that for much of the church's history, the ordination of women was a fact.
Macy has held his post at Santa Clara University since September 2007. Before that, he taught at the University of San Diego for 29 years. "During his years in San Diego, Dr. Macy published several books and over twenty articles on the theology and history of the Eucharist and on women's ordination," says the Santa Clara University web site. Among his books is The Hidden History of Women's Ordination, published in 2007.
According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. "Women were considered to be as ordained as any man... they were considered clergy," he said.
By the middle of the 12th century, said Macy, a profound change occurred in the Church's understanding of the concept of ordination, largely as a consequence of political considerations as the Church sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing "a separate clerical class." Theologians came to view women as "metaphysically different from other people," so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position, "Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained," said Macy."
Läs hela artikeln här.
Inlägg
17 kommentarer:
Detta är mycket intressant, men förvånar mig inte.
Jag har hört och läst en del uppgifter som jag dessvärre inte kommer ihåg källorna till, om att det var relativt vanligt ända fram till Den Heliga Birgittas tid att abedissorna utförde prästfunktioner alltså sakramentsförvaltning.
Har denne Macy säkra källor till sitt material så är han ju synnerligen läsvärd.
Waow!
Det kan inte vara sant.
Då skulle alltså fjantiga tjoltyg :) vara präster ända till
1100-talet det är ju löjligt!
På den tiden kunde de säkert inte ens läsa bibeln, så då gjorde de säkert som Kajsa Warg sa:
"Man tager vad man haver."
Det skulle vara jätteintressant att läsa var hon funnit källan för sitt påstående.
Än finns det hopp om RKK!
Mikael
Anneli, Mikael,
Jag har också läst om abedissornas funktioner - minns inte heller var. Men tror att det var i anslutning till att en abedissa relativt nyligen invigdes - var det hos benediktinsystrarna? Då läste jag en artikel nånstans där det nämndes.
Har skrivit till Macy och frågat om hans källor och även bett honom att gästblogga - hoppas jag får svar!
Jag har sett samma info även från många andra håll - men det unika här är att en katolsk professor talar om det så öppet. Det är inte riskfritt.
Charlotte Therese!
Sannerligen riskerar Macy en hel del. Men er kyrka är inte enbart konservativ utan vill få fram sanningen även när det gör ont och även när det tar lång tid.
Så vi får hoppas att det nu går litet snabbare än när Kopernikus stack ut näsan.
Jag är rätt övertygad om att Macy kommer i rättan tid.
När jag läste teologi för ca fyrtio år sedan,insåg jag att jag inte kunde bli präst eftersom den striden skapade en sådan splittring.
När Påven o Patriarken av Konstantinopel o alla vi Protestanter är ense om ett Traditionsskifte, då vet vi att Den Helige Anden talat om för oss vad som är rätt
it is all cute, but the fact that there are ancient canons against the ordination of women...they specify that a candidate must be male. And the only organ that could change this canon and practice is an ecumenical Council..and as such a Council is still due since the schism...any person going against this ruling of the Church ends up in trouble as we know. So wait till the next Ecumenical Council of a united Church...might be quite a wait but then again..maybe not.
Addition...ordained to what? Deaconesses great, but what?
Ephraim!
I agree.
I do have a theological BA from Uppsala University and some years studies in Jerusalem.
But I do not accept christian priestesses, not until The Holy Ghost shows the way by just a united church unanimous vote for a change. It is not a biblical problem just a Traditional.
Ephraim,
The existence of the law against it is in itself evidence of the existence of ordained women.
Since if there were never any ordained women there would be no need to forbid future women from being ordained.
It's always like that as canons have been shaped - to change the present situation - to forbid something which exists, which some influential people (often by pressure from other influential people - as in this case, outside the Church) decide that they don't want any longer.
Macy says:
"women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. "Women were considered to be as ordained as any man... they were considered clergy."
So, that seems to be what they did back then. Other sources point in the same direction.
Anneli,
I think you're a bit inconsequential here.
If we'd have to wait for the united Church to agree about every little practical detail - we'd probably have to wait for ever...
So why single out one question that has to be decided by them all - if that's not the case with everything else?
And I also don't wish to see "priestesses" - that's something very different than women priests - which I do wish that the Church reintroduces.
"The existence of the law against it is in itself evidence of the existence of ordained women."
That's like saying that the condemnation of Arianism at the council of Nicea is in itself evidence that Arianism was part of the Christian faith.
The fact that there are canons against ordaining women to holy orders is rather evidence that the Church rejected it being done in the first place.
The attempt of ordination of women was an abuse that the Church did not accept and consequently took action against, which the canons are proof of. And abuses do not make a doctrine, just because a particular action ocurred within the Church doesn't automatically mean that the Church approves of it.
Concerning the deaconesses it has been shown that they belonged to the lower orders that strictly speaking doesn't make part of the holy orders, bishop, priest and deacon.
The lower orders were made to assist those in holy orders, and the fact that a lower order had to be made for women is a strong indication that the Church did not consider women being able to receive holy orders.
The order of deaconess still exists in the Eastern Church but it is not considered being a sacrament, because it was never part of holy orders.
Jacob,
That's simply not true.
It's an attempt to rewrite history to fit in with the current official abuse against women who are called to serve as deacons, priests and bishops.
Why do you wish to stick so hard to a lie and even try to defend it against historical evidence?
We've talked about this many times before and I don't think I have anything else to say to you in this subject than I've already said...until you're ready to receive more of the truth than you see now.
"It's an attempt to rewrite history to fit in with the current official abuse against women who are called to serve as deacons, priests and bishops."
Wishing doesn't make it so. Give me something concrete.
"Why do you wish to stick so hard to a lie and even try to defend it against historical evidence?"
Wow, how does one answer a question like that. It's like if I would ask someone "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".
I'm not questioning the historical evidence, only the interpretation of them. Isolated incidents of women acting as priests and deacons does not mean the Church approved of their actions. The official response the Church always has given is that it doesn't belong in the Church.
Yes Charlotte, I know we're stuck at a dead end at the issue of holy orders being reserved to men only. That wasn't my concern here, but mainly to object how you choose to interpret the historical evidence.
And talk about rewriting history, neither the documents of the Church or the Church fathers show support for this, it is rather totally opposed. Even Ephraim who seems to be sympathetic to the idea of ordaining women recognises this.
So if you look to the historical evidence of what the Church has said in this matter, then it is perfectly clear that the Church is consistent in its refusal to ordain women. Indeed, the Church would betray her own tradition if she did.
Jacob,
I have given you concrete things over and over again - and each time you chose to interpret them so they fit into that rewritten and thus false Church history you have chosen to defend. I think that leads to quite a tiring discussion.
The interpretation we're talking about isn't only "my" interpretation, but that of many other theologians, out of which most aren't speaking too loudly about the truth they've found as their colleagues have lost their jobs by doing so.
But the good thing is that the ones who decide about such things can't possibly fire all the theologians who aren't afraid of the truth... So it will be spoken by one after the other. Until the Church admits that it was indeed wrong here...
Just a few comments to some of your false ideas:
>The official response the Church always has given is that it doesn't belong in the Church.
No, not always - and it won't always be like it happens to be right now either. Your sense of "always" is relative indeed.
>neither the documents of the Church or the Church fathers show support for this
There are for example Church documents with ordination rites for women deacons that luckily have been preserved.
I'd call that rather supportive.
And what exixts as the most natural thing you can imagine for centuries doesn't need to be mentioned particularly until it suddenly had to be forbidden.
The lives of women are in fact seldom spoken of in books written by men over thousand years ago. Not only theological books. History has had to be detected at a large scale from the few remains and traces we still have in modern times.
"The interpretation we're talking about isn't only "my" interpretation, but that of many other theologians, out of which most aren't speaking too loudly about the truth they've found as their colleagues have lost their jobs by doing so."
If it's really true I would say it doesn't happen nearly as much as it should. Notre Dame, Boston College, Fordham and Loyola Marymount are just a few examples of having people with heterodox views in their theological faculties.
"No, not always - and it won't always be like it happens to be right now either. Your sense of "always" is relative indeed."
You've given me no proof of that. See the documents of the councils, read the Church fathers, give me something substantial.
"There are for example Church documents with ordination rites for women deacons that luckily have been preserved.
I'd call that rather supportive."
No, because deaconesses do not form a part of holy orders, it belongs to the lower orders as I've already stated, and I have also written about it on my blog.
"And what exixts as the most natural thing you can imagine for centuries doesn't need to be mentioned particularly until it suddenly had to be forbidden."
So not being mentioned equals approval? That is rich.
"The lives of women are in fact seldom spoken of in books written by men over thousand years ago. Not only theological books. History has had to be detected at a large scale from the few remains and traces we still have in modern times."
So the Church systematically cleared all the evidence of women being ordained? A massive conspiracy? What you have here is an unlikely hypothesis(like the magic bullet that killed Kennedy) contradicted by the striking facts, the canons of the councils and the Church fathers, that not only are historical evidence but theological fonts.
Jacob,
So many things have changed in Church history during the centuries - some for better, others for worse.
One example is the changed view on wars - from totally against - to very positive - to less positive.
Another is the end of married latin rite priests (with few exceptions). It'll hopefully change again as the fruits from it have been so rotten, especially during the last century. The latest example is what happened on Ireland.
Another is, as I've said, the end of ordinations of women - which will have to change back again when the Church can't try to hide the truth any longer.
You'll for sure read about it in coming Church documents, if it's not silenced down as much as possible, like things that the Church has to change are at times.
And just because you would like to see women deacons as a "lower" order doesn't change reality: that it wasn't/isn't so.
No - not all evidence has been cleared out as you know, as there still are historical facts showing it - but much of it must have gotten cleared out after it got forbidden. And - more important - men who are only interested in power and Church careers seldom have any interest in writing the history of women. That's why it has remained unwritten until recent times. Also at a large scale - including secular history.
I won't answer to any more replies about this from you in this thread as we're more or less just repeating things from old discussions - and it leads no where. I refer you to the books I've referred you to previously if you wish to know more.
Charlotte Therese.
I do think the question of priestesses is a big enough problem to need the hole Christianity in total agreement. This question tears us apart and that's the reason I after three years studies refused to become a priestess.
If you have a problem with my use of the female word, I am sorry. I do not see why
Anneli,
That word doesn't describe Christian women priests, it's used about pagan priestesses.
It's also very often being used in a negative sense in the debate these days by those who are against women priests - to make it look like a pagan thing.
Thus it's not just a neutral feminine form of the word as you maybe thought.
That's why it's better to use the correct word for women who are ordained as priests.
Well, I don't mind keeping on writing, I'm having fun.
Yes, I know things have changed in the Church, that's not the issue here. The question is whether the Church at one point officially recognised women as being able to receive holy orders, and of this no proof exists.
And it's not a question of me wanting to see the female diaconate as a lower order, I'm just referring to what scholars like Marcel Metzger and Manfred Hauke has written on the subject.
And of course the fact that the Orthodox churches still have the order of deaconesses, ask them what the status of a deaconess is.
Yes, it's very convenient to rule out the Church hierarchy as a bunch of male chauvinistic pigs on a power trip. Were the Churchfathers sexists as well? Men that were extraordinary examples of living the faith they taught?
Well, if you really believe that I certainly understand your scepticism, but it has clearly nothing to do with overwhelming historical evidence, just a lack of faith.
Skicka en kommentar