Attempts to heal a damaging split over women bishops in the Church of England have faltered after bishops could not agree on a compromise deal.
It was widely expected that plans to appoint women bishops, backed by the liberal and conservative wings of the Church, would be presented to the General Synod next month.
But when bishops met behind closed doors to thrash out proposals, there were heated exchanges and no final decision could be reached. It means that the Church is back at square one on the issue.
Uh oh.
The Church of England HOB has maintained a somewhat fraught unity over the matter of sexuality with the liberals feeling increasingly frustrated that their hands are tied not simply by the conservative English bishops but by the Communion consensus. On the matter of women bishops, I suspect they will want to have their way giventhat they know they can surely win the day.
However, the dilemma seems to be that the only way to do that is to allow the disagreements contained within the HOB to rise to the surface. All the bishops then know, given the broader pattern of conflict within Anglicanism, that it may be very, very difficult to predict let alone control what will happen next.
Some C of E clergy do understand the historic nature of the male priesthood and that to change this is to break catholic orders. But, it is probably too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Those who oppose women priests and bishops will likely end up in the Roman Church, leaving behind an even weaker C of E; one too weak to oppose the gay rights agenda. On this point, I think they are right to stay and fight, and I pray that God will give them strength to do so. Many understand that WO and the Gay “inclusion” issues are two sides of the same coin. Even Louie Crew is willing to state this. Read his “Changing the Church” (online at his site). Here is brags that the first women canonically ordained a priest (NY) was also open about being lesbian.
I am an Anglo-Catholic who fully supports women’s ordination. Although I am a progressive traditionalist who affirms and promotes inclusive orthodoxy, it should be observed that there are a great many conservative bodies that ordain women and reject liberal ideals. Examples: The Diocese of Fort Worth ordains women to the diaconate, the Salvation Army ordains women, the Assembly of God, Full Gospel Churches, American Baptists, Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Free Methodists, Wesleyan Churches, etc. The Roman Church is undecided in it’s position on women in the diaconate and the Orthodox Churches (most all of them) have had women deacons in the past and have formally embraced opening the diaconate to women again in the current age much as the Roman Church recovered the diaconate and opened it up to married men. Evangelicals have more and more opened the doors to women’s ordination without embracing a liberal theology. Even the Southern Baptist Convention allows women to serve in all ministerial positions save that of a Senior Pastor.
Archangelica, You really don’t understand catholic orders, if you equate clergy women in the Salvation Army, Assembly of God, and Baptist Churches with the sacerdotal priesthood.
Alice, I most certainly do understand the differences between Protestant ministers and the sacredotal priesthood. I was making a broad comparison between the ordination of women in general and theological liberalism in general. What I mean to say is that women have, can and do serve in ordained ministry (as Protestant ministers and as Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox bishops, priests and deacons/deaconess) while affirming and promoting conservative and traditional theology. Case in point are the many (although still a minority) women ordained to holy orders in several of the Network groups.
I second Alice’s observation.
In the midst of the disintegration of the Anglican Communion over the same-sex issue, the English Church, which is tenuously still the center of the Communion, should not choose this moment to further shatter hopes for a renewed unity in the Church universal. If it goes forward with this, it will destroy those hopes and its own unity to boot.
Gracious God, we give you thanks and praise for the insight of those who have gone before us, who recognized that you call and gift both men and women to serve your church through the ministry of Word and Sacrament. We ask you to continue to give us wisdom and openness to your grace, that the gifts of all may be encouraged and shared in your church for the sake of the gospel. Bless all your servants, and especially those women who have faithfully answered your call to priesthood, that your mission may be accomplished and your people renewed in faith. Through Jesus Christ we pray. Amen.
Blimey – top that – disagreement by prayer. I’m not sure whether it is gently offensive or mildly humourous to use prayer to try to clinch a debating point. Whichever it’s hardly an argument, in that it assumes the very thing I take it is intended to evidence.
Alice,
The Anglican church also does not have a “sacerdotal priesthood”. Jon R
Two points:
1) The c of E cannot come to an agreement because it only did its theology AFTER it ordained women in the first place. Quite simply the liberals need to counter the arguments put forward in the FIF work ‘Consecrating Women’ if they are to progress with Women Bishops with any credibility. But for some time the arguments have been sidestepped and ignored. The reason (IMHO) being that there is no answer because WO goes against orthodox church teaching.
2) Archengelica- whilst I am sure you are a wonderful sister in Christ- but you need to explain how on earth you define orthodoxy? If you mean faithfulness to scripture, the faith as handed down by the apostles and reason combined- then how on earth do you justify WO which simply ‘does it cos it feels right so the holy spirit must want it’ logic??? If you show me clearly and succinctly a reasoned argument that supports WO with faithfulness to scripture and tradition- I will throw away my resolutions and join AFCATH tomorrow. (heaven knows it would do my prospects the world of good)!!
A final feeling: We were told WO would lead to a stronger church with more young people etc etc…the reverse happened. We creatd disharmony and a shism. I wonder if a lot of those who originally backed the inovation are proivately seeing their errors?
One additional point, in reply to #3. It’s not just Anglo-Catholics that are opposed to women’s ordination. Church Society, Reform and their supporters are just as opposed to Rome as Jewel and Hooker were (if not more so), but also as committed to a biblical male only priesthood as, well, Jewel and Hooker (if not more so). For these Anglicans, should women become “bishops,” neither Rome nor Constantinople would be a viable option in which they can find refuge.
[blockquote] I am a progressive traditionalist who affirms and promotes inclusive orthodoxy [/blockquote] Ah. A liberal conservative. I see.
RugbyPlayingPriest, do you have a link to that FIF document?
#14 I’m not sure if there is a version to download, but you can order it by following links from
here.
Re: #s 14, 15,
It is a cogent, focused and compelling book, and one which, as well, was the fruit of orthodox ecumenical cooperation between some of the leading thinkers of the English Forward-in-Faith organization and at least one orthodox Roman Catholic theologian.
Thanks, Bloke. The link you provided does not have the detailed arguments, but it does provide an overview of the arguments that they intend to make in the book, and it also contains the proposed solution for the Church of England: in essence, a separate Tikanga.
Alice and Rugbyplaying priest are spot on. And #10, you are incorrect. Many Anglican priests and bishops understand their role as sacerdotal, as does this Anglican layman.
Regarding deaconesses, Professor Evangelos Theodorou argued that female deacons were actually ordained in antiquity [14]. Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote:[51]
The order of deaconesses seems definitely to have been considered an “ordained” ministry during early centuries in at any rate the Christian East. … Some Orthodox writers regard deaconesses as having been a “lay” ministry. There are strong reasons for rejecting this view. In the Byzantine rite the liturgical office for the laying-on of hands for the deaconess is exactly parallel to that for the deacon; and so on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi — the Church’s worshipping practice is a sure indication of its faith — it follows that the deaconesses receives, as does the deacon, a genuine sacramental ordination: not just a χειÏοθεσια but a χειÏοτονια.
On October 8, 2004, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece voted [15] for a restricted restoration of the female diaconate.
There is a strong monastic tradition, pursued by both men and women in the Orthodox churches, where monks and nuns lead identical spiritual lives. Unlike Roman Catholic religious life, which has myriad traditions, both contemplative and active (see Benedictine monks, Franciscan friars, Jesuits), that of Eastern Orthodoxy has remained exclusively ascetic and monastic
A link to an article supporting the historicity of women’s ordination from a Roman Catholic perspective:
http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/RCWP_Resource.pdf
rugbyplayingpriest, I define orthodoxy in the most ordinary way i.e. as adherence to the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church and to the Apostle’s, Nicene & Athansian creeds.
…where in the scriptures or the councils is there any indication that admission of women into the priesthood is a legitimate action of an orthodox church?
Archangelica, Deaconesses in Orthodoxy are not an “order”. They are not ordained and they do not serve in any liturgical role. I personally see Deaconesses as a biblically mandated role for mature women. Deaconesses are well attested in the Epistles and encouraged by St. Paul. Were the Church to have preserved this biblical role for women, there might have been less confusion and argument over the role of women in the Church. I do agree with you that women have a role and that it is urgently important to recover it. If you wish to do more reading on this topic, go here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/09/males-as-spiritual-leaders-two-patterns.html/
and here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/primeval-origins-of-priesthood.html/
and here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/priesthood-and-genesis.html/
and finally here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/priesthood-and-genesis.html/
Best wishes to you, Archangelica!
That last link should have been to an essay comparing Priests and Shamans, since there is confusion about how they differ. It is here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/shamanic-practice-and-priesthood.html/
that link isn’t working for me
I think consecrating women bishops in the C of E is inevitable, especially as the opponents of WO head elsewhere. My time in an episcopal seminary (and a Methodist one with a strong Episcopal presence) has convinced me that, barring a turnaround, we will probably see more women ministers than men. At the seminaries I attended, women outnumbered men.
I used to support women’s ordination, with reservation. However, a few months after the consecration of Gene Robinson, when I was wondering how in the world the Anglican Communion got to its current state, I began to look at women’s ordination in a different light. I eventually concluded that even though I proudly claimed the label “catholic,” by supporting WO I was embracing a novel practice embraced only recently in some Protestant churches, and not in other “branches” of the Catholic church. And I found no good examples of ordained women among orthodox Christians in the Patristic era (I am aware some scholars think deaconesses were ordained, but I never found compelling evidence for this; I am not opposed to Churches bringing back deaconesses as an un-ordained order of women). After this, I know longer saw WO as “no big deal,” but rather part of what got the Anglican Communion in its current state. Because of this, I believe consecrating women bishops will add even more instability to the C of E.
Click on the link below my name. The essays were posted within a few days of each other, between August 4, 2007 and September 1, 2007.
I agree, David, and I really like your blog!
ReinertJ (#10), We receive this Faith, in substance and form, from the Apostles. The sacerdotal priesthood was the only priesthood the Apostles knew. It is the only priesthood, and it has roots in the earliest days of human existence. To me, that says that God prepared the way from the beginning for the revelation of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest and the Lamb of God. The ordination of women “priests”, the demonic oppression of godly priests, and the priesting of non-celibate homosexuals, represent a full frontal attack on the integrity of the sacredotal priesthood.
Oh, yawn. Another thread of posts by folks who have left the Anglican Communion and purport to be very happy and at peace with their decision.
You left. So, how about leaving Anglican blogdom, too?
(This frank observation will no doubt draw heaps of objections, to which I shall not reply. This site is very helpful for up-to-date information on reasserter matters, and I thank Canon Harmon for it. However, I have learned to rarely bother reading the comments, because so many of the posts are from those who gleefully now reside outside the AC (usually having transplanted to Rome), but seem to spend much time and effort taking potshots at the AC. Please, go off and found your own sites, and leave AC matters to those of us who are still aboard, ok? Thanks.)
Is that “Little Cabbage” as in “cabbage head”?
troll
Catholic (Roman) Women Deacons
https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2778
Elves, could you please review the ad hominem attack in #31? Too bad she felt she (or he?) had to stoop so low. Thanks.
“This frank observation will no doubt draw heaps of objections, to which I shall not reply.”
hahaha
Alice, all of the blog links you refer me to don’t work. Are other able to view these?
no, none of them are working for me, either
#34
Your #30 is a textbook example of a fallacious ad hominem argument in that you do not address the arguments being advanced but only the circumstances and character of those making the arguments. As to #31, sometimes a light-hearted pun is just… a light-hearted pun.
Numbers 36 and 37, The essays were posted within a few days of each other, between August 4, 2007 and September 1, 2007. Go here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com
Here are the links:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/priesthood-and-genesis.html
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/primeval-origins-of-priesthood.html
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/08/shamanic-practice-and-priesthood.html
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/09/males-as-spiritual-leaders-two-patterns.html
#30 (Sorry, I have a store of troll food.) Not every Anglican is North American; but that does not mean that those of us in Europe and elsewhere are directly affected by the stories on this site; particularly this one involving the Church of England. Not every Anglican in North America is in TEC; there are those who have left TEC and are still part of a province in the Anglican Communion, or who are Anglican in the sense that they follow the BCP, ordinal and Articles. And even those, like Alice Linsley, who have moved on to another part of the church, still have every right (and some may say a duty from Christian love) to feel concerned about and look in on their friends and Christian brothers and sisters in Canterbury. Though I disagree with the Orthodox on a few issues, I certainly welcome their perspective in general and Alice’s in particular. If nothing else, I need them to warn me and bring me back when I get too enthusiastic about my protestant principles.
#26; God is a God of miracles; we have to keep trusting in that. Also if the Anglican Communion does split, and the liberals head off to join TEC (whether Canterbury goes with them or not), then we will have a better chance of averting this coming catastrophe, or at least mitigating against its effects by securing a third province. There are the open evangelicals; but at least they speak a common language with us, and we have a chance of convincing them of their error. If, at the end, these efforts fail, we are asked to make a stand for the gospel; so be it. Perhaps this is God’s way of winnowing the Canterbury Churches, and separating the wheat from the chaff. In the meantime, we can just pray and do what we can to support our godly bishops as they fight for the church.
Alice: the problem with your links was the “/†at the end of them.
“cabbage head†– he he he, funny
Archangelica:
#19) If memory serves about that article about the Church of Greece, the deaconesses are only for service in the female monasteries and are not equivalent to the male diaconate.
#20) RCWP do not speak from a Catholic perspective and to say that they do is insulting to Catholics.
#33) America magazine is the place to go if you want to find out the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.
James: in the Greek Orthodox Church, the ordination of women to the diaconate is full sacramental ordination. Please read the quote from the learned Bishop K. Ware (the quote in #19 refutes your memory) and you will see, when the scales fall from your eyes, that the good Bishop himself fully affirms the sacredotal nature of the deaconess ordinations. Where an ordained deacon serves, be that a monastery, parish, hospital, etc. is a moot point. Is a priest who lives and serves in monastic enclosure any less a priest?
#20) Roman Catholic Women Priests speak from a dissenting Catholic perspective. RCWP continues to grow AND to prepare Roman Catholic women for ordination. In the last poll taken a majority of American Catholics support the ordination of women and opening the priesthood to married men. Traditionalist Roman Catholics are well aware of this fact and bemoan it constantly from their publications and organizations. It is a fair and accurate representation of the internal discord and blatant disobedience occuring in the RC Church especually in America. I am sorry that it is insulting to good and faithful party line Catholics that there is rank and widespread disunity, and wide difference of belief and practice in the Roman Catholic Church. It is not the monolithic structure some make it out to be.
#33) “America” magazine is a Jesuit sponsored magazine (again, internal dissent is alive, well and growing in the RC Church especially amongst many of it’s oldest and largest i.e. the Society of Jesus, religious orders and communities) that is read and written by Catholics (ordained and lay) who reflect the ever growing diversity of belief and desire for change in the Roman Church.
All of this exemplifies that the Roman Church, especially in America; from the pulpit to the pew, is moving ever closer to embracing positions held by TEC. Traditionalists in the RC recognize this and have for years been creating alternative structures i.e. Latin Mass communities and societies. It is false and unjust to present the RC as a vast glassy sea of uniform belief and practice. It is not.
Roman Catholic Woman Priests. Canonically, any woman who undergoes any sort of “ordination” rite in the Roman Catholic Church is not only not validly ordained, but is excommunicated along with the bishop involved. The history of the church is one of a universal and orthodox community of God that constantly undergoes threats from those who would seek to create a church designed according their own, rather than God’s, plans.
I will refer you to one of our very own 39 articles, article 20, on the authority of the church:
“The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
The church’s hands are tied: the ordination of women to the priesthood cannot be found in scripture. It cannot be found in the traditions of the church, the councils or the fathers. The church has no authority to do this and certainly no need, it is a practice that has developed from modern political considerations of female equality, rather than any desire to follow the orthodox faith. All it does is further alienate churches within the Anglican Communion from one another, and further alienate the Anglican Communion from everyone else.
Archangelica:
First off RCWP are not Catholics. They have been e-x-c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-e-d, that means they are not in the Church. To call them “dissenting Catholic[s]†it like calling the Seventh-Day Adventists “dissenting Catholics†(no offense to 7thDAs, the point is that neither group are Catholics).
As far as whatever a poll may say, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. She will never ordain women. See here.
It is very true that the Church is not as “monolithic†a structure as “some make it out to be,†but the rules are clearly delineated. There is much diversity (what would you expect with over a billion people) but this “desire for change†you speak of is getting smaller and smaller (yesterday’s voice for change is today’s obituary) (and the Jesuits are NOT the “oldest†nor “largest†order).
Finally, in case you missed it, the Pope has regularized the Tridentine Mass and it is taking off here in the States. And most of those “alternative structures†you speak of are fully integrated “communities and societies.†That is, unlike the groups who’s mailing lists you’re on, they are fully part of the Church.
I’ll let the Orthodox speak to Bishop Kalisto’s notions; but I wonder if he’s not starting to remind his Church of another English academic bishop?
James G:
Jesuits are the largest male religious order of the Roman Catholic Church with 19,216 members (13,491 priests, 3,049 scholastic students, 1,810 brothers and 866 novices) as of January 2007, (the Franciscan family of orders OFMs, Capuchins, and Conventuals has some 30,899 members [20,786 priests]). The average age of the Jesuits in 2007 is 57.3 : 63.4 for priests, 29.8 for scholastics and 65.5 for Brothers[1].
“Finally, in case you missed it, the Pope has regularized the Tridentine Mass and it is taking off here in the States. And most of those “alternative structures†you speak of are fully integrated “communities and societies.†That is, unlike the groups who’s mailing lists you’re on, they are fully part of the Church.”
We’re wandering a bit off topic here, but the Tridentine mass will only ever be popular with churchy people. “Taking off” is a bit of an exaggeration.
“As far as whatever a poll may say, the Catholic Church is not a democracy.”
“It has been nearly forty years since the Second Vatican Council challenged the laity to more effectively involve themselves in carrying forth the message of Jesus Christ. Recent action by Voice of the Faithful is a reflection of the fact that at long last this challenge is taking root. . . . Today we see the church being influenced by the march of democracy. This transition will not be smooth or without pain, but it will come about.â€
–Most Rev. John McCarthy, bishop emeritus of the Austin (Texas) diocese
P.S. I love the Latin Mass and hope that many others may come to love it too. I hope and pray for the day it may be celebrated in all it’s glory by a woman priest without raising any eyebrows.
Thank you, James. I have no idea where those forward slashes came form!
St. Cyprian, you are correct and I applaud you!
“P.S. I love the Latin Mass and hope that many others may come to love it too. I hope and pray for the day it may be celebrated in all it’s glory by a woman priest without raising any eyebrows.”
A woman priest saying a latin mass. Gee, it’s like Christmas and birthday all come at once!
Archangelica, When I read the comments you have made here, I can’t help but remember when I was your age. I used to think like you and say things like this. In fact, I received an F in seminary on a final exam question about the Precedent for Women Bishops because I used dubious sources to make a case for women Bishops. My professor for that course was the former TEC bishop (now Roman Catholic) Jeffrey Steenson.
SaintCyprian: You’re right, we’re wandering off-topic. Hows this:
‘Taint no such thing as a lady priest, they be Priestesses!
…How can you tell how old people are? Just curious…
From my comment on MCJ:
Why is “priestess†objected to anyway? How is “woman priest†any better when it still makes a gender distinction? Priestess has historical usage. There were priestesses to the gods and goddesses of the ancient pagan world and that is still the way they are referred to when discussing the pagan cults. Why should there be such an objection when naming female servants of the True God? Is it because those who follow the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never had priestesses; that was a practice of the worshippers of “the abomination of the Ammonites.â€
St. Cyprian, I can’t tell the exact chronological age, but youth is characterized by enthusiasm and experiential gaps.
To get back to the topic… The priesthood has to do with blood and sacred law. It is verifiably one of the oldest institutions known. To understand the sacerdotal priesthood (the only kind there is), one must understand that Afro-Asiatic archaic peoples viewed blood with considerable anxiety. They also had a binary worldview. This meant that they regarded two types of blood:, The first type of blood pertained to the Male and involved blood shed in hunting, animal sacrifice and execution. There was also anxiety about menstrual blood, which pertains to giving life. The two bloods indicate separate but complimentary roles for males and females. They believed that this is the way the Creator ordered the world.
[i] This blog has always asked the commenters to refrain from using the term priestess. We respectfully request that you discontinue using it in this thread. [/i]
James:
“Priestess” is objected to for the same reasons that all of the following (all with historical usage) are: poetess, actress, stewardess, deaconess, etc. Language changes and develops based on cultural, sociological and societal change.
In regards to women in holy orders, are you at ease with deaconesses so long as they retain the “ess”?
“… are you at ease with deaconesses so long as they retain the ‘ess’?”
Yup; that makes it clear they are simply a lay ministry (as is stated clearly enough by Canon 19 of Nicaea).
Oh, and the Orthodox Church of Greece had made it clear that they are “ordaining” (if you will) deaconesses, and are not assuming that “deaconesses” are “female deacons” (as is very clear from the fact that they cannot undertake the service in the Divine Liturgy that is peculiar to deacons). It strikes me as rather rash of them to use the term “ordination” in this respect, but there is enough terminological variation between “cheirotonia” and “cheirothesia” to reduce its significance to insignificance.
Alice:
I attended a very conservative Roman Catholic College (The College of St. Thomas More in Fort Worth, TX) for three years and was voted vice-president of the student council. Jeffrey Steenson was an ocassional visiting instructor. I made A’s and B’s in every one of my theology classes (12 hrs). It was no secret that I was an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian who supported women’s ordination. I have also just finished two years of biblical and theological studies at the very conservative Dallas Theological Seminary where I also made all A’s and B’s. As per most all theological arguments, it is not usually the sources in question but the intrepretation of said sources. The story of your earned F reminded me of my friend K.L. from Nebraska Christian College. She wrote a research paper in her English class on homosexuality in which she concluded, with ample sources and references, that she thought homosexiality was morally neutral. The Prof. gave her an F (she was a straight A honor role student with a perfect GPA). The Prof. (a woman) was abhorred by her conclusion and felt that giving her an A would be affirming her position. I was apalled. K.L. was given the opportunity to rewrite her paper. She did, changed her conclusion and received an A+. I withdrew at the end of the semester.
P.S. I am 39.
Time was when a person went out to eat at a restaurant they were met by the “hostess,†the food was brought out by the “waitress†and then the “buss boy†cleaned it all up when done. Now it’s “greeter,†“server†and “director of sanitation and hygiene.†Is our language getting richer or poorer? Gender distinctions exist in languages even to the point of some inanimate objects being masculine or feminine. English does not have as many distinctions as other languages but the ones we do have are being eliminated by the juggernaut of PC totalitarianism.
As for my accepting the term deaconess: I’m fine with it if it’s used properly. If used as the female equivalent of the male order of deacons than that is an improper usage. Now by “women in holy orders†do you mean minor-orders like porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte? As we all know, women cannot be ordained to the sacred-orders of deacon, priest, or bishop. Now if memory serves, the minor-orders of porter and exorcist were recently suppressed though lector* and acolyte* are still around and reserved only to males.
*not to be confused with lay readers and servers commonly and erroneously referred to by such titles
James G:
I think I may have found an ess we can both love! ABBESS
“In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and more important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerate bishops and abbots. In Saxon England,
they had often the retinue and state of princesses, especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;. . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted. (Montalembert, “The Monks of the West,” Bk. XV.)
They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests, as did the Abbess Hilda at the Synod of Whitby in 664, and the Abbess Elfleda, who succeeded her, at that of the River Nith in 705. Five Abbesses were present at the Council of Becanfield in 694, where they signed the decrees before the presbyters. At a later time the Abbess
took titles from churches impropriated to her house, presented the secular vicars to serve the parochial churches, and had all the privileges of a landlord over the temporal estates attached to her abbey. The Abbess of Shaftesbury, for instance, at one time, found seven knights’ fees for the King’s service and held manor courts, Wilton, Barking, and Nunnaminster, as well as Shaftesbury, ‘held of the king by an entire barony,’ and by right of this tenure had, for a period, the privilege of being summoned to Parliament. (Gasquet, “English Monastic Life,” 39.)
In Germany the Abbesses of Quedimburg, Gandersheim, Lindau, Buchau, Obermünster, etc., all ranked among the independent princes of the Empire, and as such sat and voted in the Diet as members of the Rhenish bench of bishops. They lived in princely state with a court of their own, ruled their extensive conventual estates like temporal lords, and recognized no ecclesiastic superior except the Pope. After the Reformation, their Protestant successors continued to enjoy the same imperial privileges up to comparatively recent times.
In France, Italy, and Spain, the female superiors of the great monastic houses were likewise very powerful. But the external splendour and glory of medieval days have now departed from all.”
From New Advent
I’m sure everyone’s pretty well done with this now and moved on to other topics. But in case anyone is still here and still interested, I’d like to say that I have just finished working through Aime Georges Martimort’s book, “Deaconesses, an Historical Study†with a postulant for the permanent diaconate. Martimort sets out a strong argument from the writings of many of the early Fathers that deaconesses were never allowed to be ordained (in fact the bishop was directly ordered in many sources NOT to lay hands on them at their institution) and, if in rare cases they were (among certain schismatic groups), corrective actions were taken in Councils. I’m not too sure what the revisionists amongst our Roman brethren are saying, but Martimort’s book is a very scholarly publication fully documenting that deaconesses are not women in Orders but are of a lay ministry (much like lectors, widows, etc.).
For those interested, the book is published by Ignatius Press, ISBN: 0-89870-114-7
Priest on the Prairie:
It never ceases to amaze me how the same people can read the same historical source documents and reach very different conclusions. Of course we come to the information with our own biases, its impossible not to. But I was at one time very firmly against womens ordination until I began to read from both camps (for and against) and was persuaded by the arguments and evidence in the for camp to change my mind. It was hard to let go of. In the Anglo-Catholic parish in the diocese of Fort Worth that most formed me, women are not permitted behind the altar rail to do anything (not even as readers) except clean and organize all the holy hardware after the men are gone. For any who are willing to look at. read and investigate the issue from both sides, here is a very good (if not the best) book in support of women deacons based on historical documents:
Women Deacons in the Early Church – 9780824523930
ISBN 0824523938
Wijngaards, John
Would the ordination of women deacons represent a break with tradition? Wijngaards beautifully demonstrates through new evidence that tens of thousands of women deacons served in early Catholic communities, showing there is no reason not to ordain women deacons today
The Greek Orthodox perspective:
Book Review: Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church
Called to Holiness and Ministry
by Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald
Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church:
Called to Holiness and Ministry
Deborah Malacky Belonick
This book review was published in the St. Nina Quarterly, Volume 3, No. 2.
Divine grace. . . which always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is lacking, ordains N., beloved of God, as deacon. Let us pray for her, that the grace of the Holy Spirit may come upon her.
This Byzantine ordination rite for the deaconess, dating at least from the eighth century and possibly from the fourth century, is just one of the many treasures Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald unearths in Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry. Little-known marvels of the glorious history of women in the diaconate constantly surprise the reader. Dr. Fitzgerald also bids the reader to peruse twentieth-century documents relating to the female diaconate and introduces a subject heretofore pondered by select historians and theologians.
Dr. FitzGerald’s initial analysis of this topic appeared in the early l980s as a contributing article to Women and the Priesthood, edited by Thomas Hopko. Hers was the first scholarly examination of the ordination of women to the diaconate written in English for a specifically Orthodox audience. It served as a catalyst for the present work, greatly expanded in historical detail and more daring in theological expression.
The stunning retelling of the lives of deaconesses unveils a history foreign to modern Orthodox. Who is aware of St. Olympias, a deaconess and close confidant of St. John Chrysostom, who wrote her seventeen letters with the greeting: “To my dear Lady the Reverend and God-Loved, Deacon, Olympias”? Who would imagine in certain areas of Greece, monastic communities existed where women wore the diaconal stole, censed and decorated the holy sanctuary, read the Gospel when a clergyman was not present, and brought the presanctified gifts to nuns who were ill? Who could guess that in the twentieth century, in 1911 on Pentecost, Bishop Nektarios, subsequently canonized, ordained a nun to the diaconate on the Greek island of Aegina?
Well, I have read almost all of the material cited here, prairie priest, and I can say that Fr. Wijngaard’s screed (for such it is) doesn’t even begin to impact the abundant documentation and sophisiticated analysis contained in Prof. Martimort’s book. (All of Fr. Wijngaard’s writings on WO — for of course he is also a zealous proponent of — barely rise above the level of screeds, and perhaps recognizing the futility of his position, he left the Catholic priesthood some years back in protest at the Church’s “backwardness” on the subject of WO.) As to the varied writings of Kyriake Kydonis Fitzgerald, I would indeed recommend that you read her article in *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko — and be sure you get the expanded 1999 edition. From my perspective, it is both interesting and instructive, not least (1) for the frequent slighting references to Martimort’s works, references which, while not “ad homimen” are rather “ad Occidentem” — “Latins” just can’t understand “the East” — and not so much as once ever attempt to refute his sources or analysis. but merely to belittle them; and (2) how she admits that Orthodox scholars are and have been seriously divided whether deaconesses were “ordained” or not and, if they were “ordained,” whether they were “ordained” in the same sense that deacons, priests and bishops were “ordained,” or “ordained” (for that term is sometimes also used here as well) in the same sense that Readers or Subdeacons were “ordained.”
I would also add, that if the incoherent and lamentable “Postscript” by Fr. Hopko to the 1999 edition of the book is at all representative of Orthodox opinion — he says that while he is “personally opposed” to WO it ought to be a “fully open” question for the Orthodox, as the Orthodox Church has no Magisterium; and that the question of WO can only be resolved for the Orthodox when clergy and laity alike have come to a “unanimous mind” on the issue — than I fully expect that the Orthodox may well wake up one fine day in the not-too-dstant future to find themselves confronting their ownb version of ECUSA’s “Philadelphia Eleven” of 1974.
Oh, and re:
“Who could guess that in the twentieth century, in 1911 on Pentecost, Bishop Nektarios, subsequently canonized, ordained a nun to the diaconate on the Greek island of Aegina?”
it would be a bad guess, as in fact he “ordained” her to the Subdiaconate.
Dr. Tighe (Teague? Ty? Tige(r)?)
If you come back to this thread, are there any further developments on the Anglican prelature front?
Re: #66,
Consider the slow progress of the papal initiative to free up the Tridentine Mass, which was expected and predicted for Corpus Christi 2006 and yet did not see the light of day until July 2007, and you will have a good analogy to the subject of your inquiry, which I have been informed advances slowly in Rome.
From comment 4: “Although I am a progressive traditionalist who affirms and promotes inclusive orthodoxy…”
Is that anything like the tall-short, fat-skinny guy?