As long as Eve is seen as the one who succumbed first in the universal struggle between good and evil, feminism is stopped dead in its tracks. Feminists want to plunge the world into moral predetermination where Eve is no longer accountable to Adam, or to God, or that Eve had anything to do with the fall of man. It is with slight of hand that feminists re-cast Eve in positive ways in order to “empower” the “divine feminine” within each woman.
Vatican II is seen as a restoration of Christology and ecclesiology void of Mary. In fact, Feminists believe the Church decided that Christ did not need a competing figure in Mary. They believe that Mary suffered a kind of “demotion.” They actually believe that Vatican II recognized a “flaw” that existed in the Church which produced a false image of Mary over the centuries. They clearly think that she was “restored” to her human status, as though the Church taught otherwise. In short, they now believe they have the upper hand on who is going to control the “image of Mary” in the future.
That is why feminists have a particular hatred for Pope John Paul II. He made it perfectly clear to those who misread Mary in the light of Vatican II that they were wrong. And feminists vilify him for doing so. He was personally devoted to Mary as a Pope, and with a very “conservative view” of Mary at that.
Feminists accuse him of causing ambivalence in the Church on a matter that they thought had been settled. They concluded that the Pope John Paul II did not learn the “lesson of Vatican II.” But the fact is, he spoke often about the dignity of women as “persons.” And more than that, he warned men about abusive attitudes towards women. He was not afraid to acknowledge abuse and injustice perpetrated against women far too often in history. He was not afraid to acknowledge and champion advancements that brought about equality with men in the world of “professionalism.”
In fact, on June 29, 1995, the year of the year of the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women, in his letter to women on “The Genius of Women,” he said “Respect for the full equality of man and woman in every walk of life is one of civilization's greatest achievements.”
When it came to equal opportunity in the work force, he noted the need to combat every form of discrimination against women when he said,
“As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic state.”
Even when it came to political life he said:
“The highest levels of representation, national and international, women are showing that they can make as skilled a contribution as men.”
And he also said,
“As adults, women have a full right to become actively involved in all areas of public life, and this right must be affirmed and guaranteed, also, where necessary, through appropriate legislation.”
When it came to finding solutions for the problems that women face, within the context of Church doctrine he said:
“There can be no honest and permanent solutions if they are not based on the recognition of the inherent, inalienable dignity of women, and the importance of women's presence and participation in all aspects of social life. Recognition of the dignity of every human being is the foundation and support of the concept of universal human rights.”
Most people do not realize how much Pope John Paul II championed the rights of women. But feminists give him nothing because he said that women have specific responsibilities by virtue of their very nature as women designed by God Himself. They are furious with him in that he would insist that women have nobility in bearing new life and their nurturing role as regards life itself. They do not want to acknowledge the essential ways that women differ from men which also means there is a difference in their vocation in life.
He told us that a women’s role in the world is not restricted to family responsibilities while at the same time acknowledging that a woman’s natural vocation is maternal. He insisted that women have the right to enter any worldly vocation with everything it offers and that she can bring to it. But, he remained firm that a woman’s nature is different than a man’s. What he has done is thrown down the gauntlet challenging society to search for ways that acknowledge and assist men and women in meeting their responsibilities, but one that acknowledges their differences as well.
Nevertheless, in the minds of feminists, his total opposition to abortion means that all of his words are insincere.
That is correct, equal rights in the workplace is not all that feminists want. They demand sexual license with no obligations to life.
We’ve seen how much John Paul II advocates women’s rights. But we also know that he stood his ground. Is there something he did that made feminists become unhinged?
Yes. He declared 1987 to be a Marian year. And the very notion that he would promulgate an encyclical titled, “The mother of the redeemer, Redemptoris Mater” was just too close to that hated prerogative of Mary as “Co-Redemptrix.” This not only “restored” Mary to where feminists thought she had been removed, but now she is the “Mother of her Divine Son.” This stopped them cold in their attack of Christ’s divinity through Mary.
In doing this, Pope John Paul II sent a direct volley at the progress that feminists had made in the area of abortion and sexual license. And with renewed fervor they see the Church at war with their “Mother Goddess” and “sexual liberty.”
They personally blame Pope John Paul II for cloaking Mary with his Papal conservatism in order to perpetuate his sexist attitudes upon women in the Church. And they went over the edge in May of 1994 when he issued “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” on the “Ordination of Men alone.”
Then how do feminists intend to go forward with their fight against Mary?
They feel empowered in academic circles now, and they have access to things and places that they never had before. They are organized and networked across the world with the “Blessing of the Goddess” to wage war upon the Church.
They are hard at work in trying to deconstruct and redefine the “Catholic Mary” through workshops on campuses, at retreat houses, convents, and cloisters. They have entered various religious orders and have managed to influence seminaries around the world in order to attack Mary. And they regard all positions of authority in the Church to be useless, antiquated, archaic, and Patriarchal unless they bend to the pressure that feminists exert upon them.
Why do feminists feel the “modern Catholic woman” is different from all other woman in days gone by?
Actually, feminists insult all Catholic women who have come and gone before them. They speak of them as though they were mindless robots who internalized what the “Patriarchy” told them to believe without any ability to think on their own.
Who do you think will be able to look back at life with satisfaction when the time comes for us to leave this world? Will it be the women who can look back at their lives with the satisfaction of knowing that they were loved by a man that they loved? Will it be those who see their children as the fruit of their love? Or, will it be women who have championed the “rights” of lesbians and homosexuals, and all the loneliness that awaits them for having lived such a life under a pagan “Mother Goddess?”
Thank you, but I’ll stand with Mary and company.
What has all of this done to the self-image of young men?
We see the ever-present media stereotypes of the “ignorant male” who is either being mocked by his wife or made to look like a fool. He is portrayed as being a useful idiot in life and is acceptable only if he is willing to admit that his worth is nothing more than a pack animal who says “yes” to his wife for the sake of “peace.” Slaves are made in such ways.
And we need only look at how all of this has affected young men in our day. Studies are showing terrible societal disconnection in young men because they are told they have no worth as a man. Feminists have turned them into “metrosexuals” who are tolerant of behavior that is a violation of what is most natural about a man, and it is becoming commonplace. They have produced a generation of weak minded men who are too tepid to speak up for what it means to be a man. Many men have become “woman-like” to get what they want and this has encouraged homosexuality and bi-sexuality in a world which demands societal acceptance of such lifestyles, even from the Church.
And how does this affect their ability to understand St. Joseph and his ability to abstain from sexual intimacy in regards to Mary?
It makes St. Joseph seem a mythic figure. They have become too weak to imagine how such a thing could be possible for a man.
The total emasculation of man is necessary for the destruction of “conservatism/orthodoxy” within the Church. This is the linchpin that must be removed if the feminists are to topple the “male Patriarchy.”
Are all feminists equally radical?
No, definitely not. But they all tend towards the same end. Some feel that moderation and a relaxation of doctrine about Mary would be sufficient to meet “the sensibilities of the modern catholic woman.” But this has produced the “modern catholic woman” who is now part of the “culture of death” spoken of by Pope John Paul II. They are pro-abortion, pro-birth control, and other such things even though they may not be “fierce, feminist, and in your face.”
But it does not matter if you are radical or moderate when it comes to abortion. Death is death. If people doubt the fall of Eve, look around. The culture of death is a witness to what Eve did when she killed/aborted all of her children not just physically, but spiritually as well.
We needed a redeemer because of what she and Adam did. Nevertheless, we see that many of the sons and daughters of Eve have made the choice to be of the “seed of Satan” in their attempt to be God and the master over life.
Make no mistake about it, feminists’ are cagey. They recognize that “symbolic figures” are no less important to history than a real person. And in the case of Mary they want to spin her constitution in such a way that her personal, psychological, physiological characteristics, as well as her place in religion reflects the “Goddess Mother” rather than the Mother of God that she truly is.
Feminists’ tell us that we know very little about Mary. How can they claim to know her “as she is” when they reject all that we know of her which came to us through the Church? And that is the point. This is evidence that their view of Mary is a projection of the “feminist’s experience” onto the real person of Mary. It is not of God.
We’re in the midst of a battle over who is going to control the image of Mary and feminists hope to create three players to negotiate for her image.
Who are they?
They are the Hierarchy of the Church, theologians, and the Catholic faithful.
Rather than accepting the Hierarchy which Christ instituted, feminists wish to create a struggle between “theology” and “ecclesiology”; between doctrine and the very nature of the Church. And “theologians” are essential to accomplish this task.
They want the “theologian” to be seen as a “parallel magisterium” rather than being at the service of the Magisterium. And by raising “feminists” to the rank of “theologian” they see this as fertile ground opportunity with barren wombs.
And by inserting themselves into the ranks of an imagined parallel magisterium they hope to pit the Catholic faithful against the Hierarchy?
Yes. They need to break the “solidarity of faith” between the faithful and the Church; between the faithful and theologian. They want to bust solidarity within the Church wide open.
So then, on the one hand feminists tell us that the “Patriarchal Church” has convinced the masses to internalize a “male construction of Mary” which has become universal, i.e., a single image of Mary. Yet on the other hand, feminists’ tell us that the sheer numbers of Catholics is so large that it is impossible for there to be a unified view about Mary within the masses.
Yes. And this is where they want to insert the feminist theologian.
But they cannot have it both ways. What do they hope to gain in being duplicitous in what they say? They try to exploit both views, but they also resort to another tactic. They claim the “Catholic Mary” has only a “superficial appearance” of solidarity. And as they divide people over who Mary is and what we are to believe about her, they hope to produce “acceptable division” where people can “agree to disagree” in the “civilized world of relativism.”
This encourages the mindless position that there are no absolutes about anything, particularly when it comes to religious doctrine, and in this case, Marian doctrine.
When this kind of thinking connects with “sexual liberation” it makes religious doctrine become insufferable in the minds of the rebellious. Doctrine is seen by them as arrogant and judgmental. And in the end, people will no longer suffer Church doctrine. In fact, they will be the ones to make the Church suffer.
Feminists’ and like minded theologians are setting themselves up as a parallel magisterium. How does this relate to the Catholic faithful?
Feminist “theologians” try to raise the voice of rebellion in the faithful. So now you have “the voice of the faithful” being used to try and crack the Magisterium’s “control” over the image of Mary. By instigating the faithful to attack Marian doctrine the feminists hope to attack all the doctrines of the Church. The “voice of the people,” the democratic, socialist Church is to be seen as equal to the authority of the Papacy.
This raises “opinion” to the level of authority and casts Mary into the world of subjectivism where there is nothing absolute about her except that she is a trapped “Goddess.” Their agenda rests on a “perpetual version Mary” that is never complete and never fulfilled unless she comes forth from the tomb as “Mother Goddess.”
And part of their tactic is to tell us that the “modern” position on Mary is too complex for the “ordinary Catholic” to understand? They don’t speak from a position of humility. The fact is, these women are confused in their own minds and they try to bring order out of chaos by calling it “complex.” And of course, only they can plumb the depths to understand what it all means.
In the larger picture, they intend to redefine spirituality through ecclesiology that lacks doctrinal absolutes. But what about the “sensibilities” of the faithful when they try to implement this?
The faithful must be convinced that any “Roman doctrine” which they have internalized and assimilated into their lives is only a cover for their “cradle Catholic insecurity.” This is a bully tactic; step over that doctrinal line of Marian theology or you are weak. Feminists want to brand worship of Jesus in light of Mary as “insecurity worship and veneration.”
Is that not trying to exploit man’s natural need and desire to worship God? Yes. Exactly! They want Catholics to think that doctrine is rooted in insecurity, and therefore, doctrine is “uncertain.” This is an attempt to draw the faithful into “skepticism.”
They want to make the “religious experience” of the Church a quest that is unable to transcend doubt in all matters of doctrine. And after that, they want to introduce those who fall into their trap to a world mired in religious skepticism and relativism. And they do this to create a genderless “spirituality” as the conduit to crown their “Mother Goddess.”
How can you have “spirituality” without doctrine? Doctrine represents absolutes. They will redefine doctrine which is rooted in “revelation” to be the “Natural Law” which is not “revealed truth” at all. This would allow feminists to “move worship” into the venue of what “all people” have in common: “Ecce Homo” turns into “Behold the Natural Law.” It cannot redeem us.
Why would they do this? To elevate the “Natural Law” above doctrine and call it the “true face of spirituality.” They want to make “spirituality” superior to “religion.” This makes it easier for feminists to develop a “feminist ecclesiology” superior to “Christological ecclesiology.” They want to elevate the “Spiritual Mother Goddess” and crown her “Goddess.”
But the Natural Law does not support this type of thinking. Feminists intend to produce a view of doctrine based upon what becomes most “popular.” And if you move the hearts and minds of people away from the doctrine of the Church, then declaring “popular doctrine to be divine” becomes a lay-up. Whatever becomes popular becomes divine, even if its abortion.
They must convince Catholics that their novenas, and indulgences granted by the Church are given to them so that the “Patriarchy in Rome” to retain control over them. These things are regarded as fostering emotional and sentimental attachments to the Church, so they must go. Feminists know this will be hard for them to accomplish but they intend to try, and they will appeal to what is most base in the fallen man. They will hold out the promise of sexual liberty if Catholics will only go their way.
Do you think the faithful will begin to realize what these feminists have been up to and rise up against them and tell them, “Enough?” One can hope. We must do what we can to inform the faithful.
How do we recognize any progress that feminists are making within the Church itself? By their impact on Liturgical Life. The Mass is the target.
Feminists must try to turn the Mass into a symbolic reflection of “popular belief.” They want to shape the Mass itself to be understood as “the community at worship, worshipping self.” It is a frontal assault on the Transubstantiation.
They see the Mass as the fruit of human anguish, a sort of human invention like any other invention meant to make life easier. They do not see it as an act of redemption by God Himself in which Calvary is present on the altar. This means “traditional” and “treasured music” of the church from days gone by, as well as artistic impressions, writings, and anything else that reflects attachment to Rome in the way we see the Mass by way of teaching, worship, and veneration must go. And the more they tear at the fabric of the Mass the more prayer and mediation can be shaped to take on the meaning of the feminist agenda.
They have no regard for the fact that the Mass is divinely instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. They undermine the Mass theologically by violation of protocol “performing” roles not proper to them within the sanctuary itself. And the more they do this the more they feel empowered to push for women’s ordination. They want to “effectively” remove Jesus and Mary from the Sanctuary, and this makes Calvary itself the target.
Churchmen must heed the danger and remove these women from the Sanctuary, now. These women will not stop until they can worship the beast on the altar in the Sanctuary, and that beast is the “Goddess Mother.”
We’ve seen a battle for the meaning of words in the liturgical setting. Is this related to the struggle over the Mass and the ordination of women? Yes. Words used in Liturgical settings are Key in their battle against the Mass. They demand that gender neutral language be used in the Mass and in all devotions.
Words such as “Father, Son, Lord, Master, King, God-Man” are to be minimized wherever possible and “male, man, or mankind” are to be replaced with “person, human, humankind” and the like. All “male” imagery has to go. They regard any language that is not gender neutral as proof that Christ Himself has a “transcendent male ego.” And nowhere is the fact that Christ revealed the Most Holy Trinity in the masculine gender more evident than in the Mass. In the mind of the feminist, the Mass is the ultimate form of misogyny.
Catholics must not be fooled. Feminists are not interested in a “gender neutral God.” Gender neutral language is the means to an end, and the end goal is to establish the female gender and the “Mother Goddess” on the altar at the hands of women priests. And they are pressuring governments to enact laws requiring the Church to remove all male gender language from Scripture and from the pulpit if the Church hopes to retain its tax exempt status. They finally want to end the “separation of Church and State” in an attempt to finish off the Church.
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.”
And 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.
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.”
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 possible.”
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.”
After this we can now see the necessity of looking closer at the issue of women’s ordination.
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.
We need to look at the conditions necessary for Papal Infallibility to be exercised.
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.”
Do the Councils tell us what specific conditions and criteria the Pope must meet to speak “Ex Cathedra?” 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.
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.”
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)
Does the Pope need anyone’s permission or consent to exercise Papal Infallibility? No! Absolutely not!
What about the Bishops? Does the Pope need their approval to be infallible in what he teaches?No! And those who argue that the Bishops must agree with the Pope for his teachings to be infallible have it backwards. It is 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.”
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.”
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.
Then let us consider “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.” 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. To be more specific, all 3 conditions necessary for Papal Infallibility to be exercised have been met.
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.
Did the Pope meet the condition of referring to the ministry of his office in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?”
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.”
What is “Responsum ad Dubium,” and why it was written? 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
So let us look closer at “Responsum ad Dubium.” Who will not accept “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”
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 “Moooooo.” It would be an empty ritual and nothing more than a charade.
And let us 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.
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.
What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach about Papal infallibility?
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]
So then, the Catholic Catechism confirms Papal Supremacy as laid out in both Vatican Councils I and II.
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 us 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,
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.
What about those “Pro-women’s ordination” groups that reject “Responsum ad Dubium?”
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 does not 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 borders 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.”
I would we be able to provide specific women’s organizations that reject “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and what they have to say about it.
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.”
And this is an attempt to “demote” Papal Infallibility to the level of “Papal teachings” that do not carry the weight of Infallibility?
And furthermore, they claim his teachings cannot be infallible unless he teaches in union with the Bishops and has their consent. It is another straw-man argument.
They appeal to the:
To say:
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.
Why would they persist when they’ve had their answer?
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:
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?
”
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.
Alright, we can now look to see where the scope of infallibility exists in the Church.
Let us 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 us look at individual bishops first. Are the KEYS given to individual bishops?
No. In Lumen Gentium 25 #’s 40 & 41, we reads,
“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.
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.
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 us 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]
That is crystal clear.
Then even a Bishop is not free to “dissent” with Pope John Paul II on the ordination of men alone. 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]
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.
Note the word “unerringly” at the end of what I've just read. “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.
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:
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.
Well, if they’ve had their answer how do they expect to arrive at ordination? Incrementally.
How they expect to do this?
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.
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.
We must look at what Scripture has to say about this.
Let us 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.
But Feminists’ argue that 1st Timothy 3:8-13 proves women in the early Church were Deaconesses.
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 …”
Does the use of the word “Likewise” mean women are to be ordained deacons as well?
Nowhere does this verse 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 us 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.”
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.” Is that not correct?
Women would still end up marrying women in verses “11 & 12.”
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. Nothing changes. They have all the same problems we have just pointed out. Furthermore, it is 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 did not 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 us 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 us 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 is ludicrous to think St. Paul was advocating them.
So then, a “wife” can never be someone who is “ordained” into Holy Orders. 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)
Does the Catechism of the Church reiterate this? 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.”
So then, the very “Maleness” of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the sign of the Sacramental Holy Orders.
From the Apostolic Constitutions 400 A.D., 3:9, we reads,
“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 reads,
“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.”
In light of all we have seen let us see what happens if we flip Paul’s use of the words “in like manner” or “likewise” back on the feminists.
In 1st Timothy 2:8-9 we read:.
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-facedness 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 reads,
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.
And what about Church assemblies? Is it not clear that St. Paul said it is impossible for women to be ordained when he spoke about the role of women in Church?
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, or it is 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 reads,
“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.”
And what can we say about the title “Diakonos?”
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.
Was there ever any discussion in the Church about referring to women as “Deaconess?”
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.
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 reads,
“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 reads,
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 reads,
“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.”
In 1st Timothy 5: 1- 6 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 is 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.”
Alright, now let us 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?
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.
Then it is 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.”
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.
It is time we look at the “Apostle Junia.” And it is worth noting how ironic and embarrassing it is to watch feminists feign to revere and honor St. 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 is 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.
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.
Then the burden is on feminists to prove that St. Paul’s reference to “Andronicus and Junia” as “outstanding apostles” would mean that “Junia” was “ordained.”
Feminists have no right to assume anything.
What can we say about “Junia?”
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.”
Does St. Paul tells us this couple had converted even before he converted?
Yes, but feminists try to use the “timeline” of Paul’s conversion to say something that Paul simply did not say.
Paul informs us this couple converted before him, as did scores of other people. It is that simple. Paul never so much as hinted that calling them Apostles indicated that Andronicus or Junia had been ordained. It is 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.
Do we find other couples like Andronicus and Junia in Scripture?
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.
And even if we refer to them as his “co-apostles” he never stated they were “ordained” in virtue of being his “co-workers.” Are there times where the title “Apostle” is used as an “Honorary Title” for specific individuals?
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.
Can we provide a few Scriptural references for some of these women?
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.
But does this mean a woman is only to learn and never teach? 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 reads,
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.”
So then, women are to learn and to teach, and that takes shape in many ways, but never from within the Magisterium.
Does Paul use a particular word when prohibiting women from teaching in the Church? 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, 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.
And does Paul use another word which demonstrates that a woman is not to teach with authority?
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.
I’d like to look at this question. Is there ever a time we encounter heretical sects, and even Bishops who ordained women?
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 us 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.
Did Pope Gelasius have anything more to say to Bishops who attempted to ordain women?
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.
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.
Yes, indeed there are. For example, a tomb in Tropea (South Italy) was found with an inscription which says,
“Sacred to her memory: Leta the “presbytera” lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days.” Her husband set up this tomb and she preceded him in peace on the day before the Ides of May.”
One can argue that Leta had the title of “presbytera” because her husband was likely a “presbyter” in the same way we say Mr. and Mrs. Her husband simply does not tell us if he was a “presbyter.” But, in the end, it is 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.”
Is there more evidence to supply the court which proves the Church never ordained women?
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.
We mentioned that we would provide an example of a “feminist attempt to change, and therefore invalidate, a sacrament.”
The following is a recent condemnation of a feminist attempt to restructure the sacrament of Baptism.
The article is: Holy See Rejects Feminist “Baptism” Affirms That Church Must Follow Christ's Mandate.
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 29, 2008
Zenit.org
The congregation’s statement, made public today, responded to two questions concerning the validity of baptism conferred without referring to God the Father and Son.
The first question is: “Is a baptism valid if conferred with the words 'I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier,' or 'I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer'?”
The second question is: “Must people baptized with those formulae be baptized 'in forma absoluta'?”
The responses are: “To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative.”
Benedict XVI, during a recent audience with Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these responses, which were adopted at the ordinary session of the congregation. The Pope ordered their publication.
The text of the responses bears the signatures of Cardinal Levada and of Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the dicastery.
An attached note, signed by Monsignor Antonio Miralles, professor of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Holy Cross University, explained that the responses “concern the validity of baptism conferred with two English-language formulae within the ambit of the Catholic Church. [...] Clearly, the question does not concern English but the formula itself, which could also be expressed in another language.”
“Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," the note continued, "obeys Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew. [...] The baptismal formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith, approximate formulae are unacceptable.”
“Variations to the baptismal formula -- using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons -- as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology," being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names," the note clarified. "Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity.”
In a commentary on the responses, Cardinal Urbano Navarrete, former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, clarified: "The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptized, or who will in the future be baptized, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptized.
“Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of 'non-baptized.”
This implies that if they have received other sacraments, they are invalid as well and should be re-administered.” That is a blatant attempt indeed.
We have to keep in mind that we are not speaking about rational people when we refer to radical feminists. These women are twisted out of shape over the fact that men and women are biologically different. They actually find themselves at odds and in rebellion against nature itself, and they try to turn their enmity with nature against the Church by claiming the Church uses this biological difference as a tool for social engineering against women.
Yet, the more we see women enter into the world of politics and the workplace the less you hear about the differences between men and women. And feminists like it that way because this means they don’t have to talk about the different responsibilities which God assigned to each gender. After all, they did not ask to be women so why should they be responsible for being women when they did not freely choose to be a woman in the first place.
Neither God nor the Church can do anything right in the minds of these people. It is that classic situation, “you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”
It is clear that feminists are upset with the personal devotion that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have towards Mary.
What about Pope John XXIII? Did feminists have expectations in light of what he said about women?
Yes. They appeal to Pope John XXIII because he rightly said that women must not be regarded as objects, but feminists want to change the meaning of his words. They took his exhortations to mean that he opened the door to women’s rights according to the terms of the feminist movement; they took it to mean they were “empowered” to press for women’s ordination.
So then, feminists felt that throughout the 1970’s the Church had shifted away from the “Patriarchal” structure and became an “advocate” for the role of women in the Church?
Yes, but that “advocate role” was not defined by the Church as they wanted it to be. And when it became clear that their interpretation of Vatican II was not what they had hoped for, they became bitter. They regarded any “advocacy” offered by the Church to be phony if it did not include women in “Hierarchical Authority.” And the prohibition against the ordination of women is seen as a tactic meant to prevent women from assuming positions of authority in the Hierarchy.
And after Pope John XXIII we had Pope Paul VI who spoke about woman’s rights as an independent person in the cultural, economic, and political spheres of life. How did feminists see this?
They wanted to link this with the feminist agenda, of course. They took the words of a Pope and twisted them to serve their cause, and as a result we now have many women who are at odds with the Church in the matter of abortion and birth control. Unless and until the Church lets women have their way in these issues, even the words of Pope Paul VI are lip service to the cause of women.
This sheds more light on why feminists have such antipathy towards John Paul II.
They deeply resent him for many reasons. Even though he would agree that women should receive equal pay for equal work, he said that society should not restructure business to accommodate women in any way that would encourage women to find their “natural role” to be found outside of the “family circle.”
Feminists consider this kind of endorsement for equal pay to be seen as an “after thought contribution” to the family if money was needed to get by. This kind of endorsement means a woman’s work is still tied to her “nurturing role” in light of the family, and this is insufferable to them. They simply did not want to hear Pope John Paul II praising women in terms of their traditional qualities and strengths which they exhibit in motherhood. They regard all of this as patrimony because the Church still prohibits the ordination of women and shared authority in the Hierarchy.
Feminists will not be content until a woman’s experience is elevated to the level of being an additional source of “revelation,” as it were, a source that is equal to “Patriarchal” approved revelation found in traditional Catholicism.
And this is where we see Protestantism in perfect sync with feminists. Scripture itself must be compliant to their agenda. But unlike “Protestants,” Feminists’ regard the entire Judeo-Christian ethic as having been formed by a “Patriarchal experience” that will not let the “Goddess Mother” take her place.
Then in effect, feminists are challenging the authenticity of the entire Bible itself? Yes. The Bible came to us through the hands of men and the “expectation” that women should accept it as it is must be regarded as an intrusion into the “experience of a woman,” and “pagan women” at that.
Feminists want us to believe that a man cannot understand a woman’s relationship to the “Goddess Mother,” a goddess who wishes to communicate to her daughters on a “psychosexual level.” This means they try to cast Mary as sexually frustrated from a psychoanalytical view which comes from their own pagan experience.
A man does not have to become a woman to understand a “women’s experience” in order to know what God has said and what He wants. And if these feminists want to reject the Bible because it came to us through men, well, too bad. Let them go their own way, but they should leave us alone.
Then feminists truly want us to see Mary only in terms of her sexuality. And for them, Mary’s perpetual virginity is simply a sign of sexual repression.
And it is interesting to note, they have a particular abhorrence for St. Jerome. They act as though his writings gave birth to the notion that Mary as a virgin to begin with. But once again, feminists conveniently forget that Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus was prophesized by Isaiah centuries before St. Jerome. That is why they tried to attack the understanding of the word “almah.” Feminists attack Jerome with a “straw-man” argument. Jerome never came up with the idea that Mary was a virgin. They can say he is responsible for the notion that women are to suppress any joy in sexuality, and that virginity itself was the default natural order for women all they want. It makes no difference.
Feminists think virginity is the default position of the natural order. That somehow it was not intended for women to be intimate with their husbands with all the accompanying joy that goes with it. Well that is just ridiculous.
It is. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that had man not fallen, intimacy in marriage would have been much more wonderful than the joy present in it after the fall of man.
To assert that women would have remained virgins if man had not fallen is crazy, and it flies in the face of Scripture. This is another invention of the Feminists. If they had only looked at what God said to Adam and Eve before the fall they would have seen women would not have been virgins even if man had not fallen. Women were not intended to be virgins in either the first or second account of creation.
Before the fall of man we read in Genesis 1:28:
28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Because feminists fail to see this, they create the false idea that there is a dualism which exists in catholic doctrine and theology regarding sexuality.
They want people to believe the Church teaches that sex is evil so they can march against the moral doctrines of the Church. And in so doing they try to legitimize lesbianism, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, and the like.
And this is why virginity for the sake of the Church makes no sense to feminists. Yes. It has no value to feminists. They need to paint virginity as a form of masochism embraced by women in order to be acceptable to men. And they insult every consecrated virgin in the history of the Church by mocking them as women who stunted their desire for men in order to be a bride of Christ. And for their trouble they get to be treated by Christ as the ultimate misogynist through His Church.
For them, consecrated virginity carries with it an “espousal love” for God and for His Church. This is exemplified in the life of the Virgin Mary. This means virginity outside of marriage must no longer be regarded as a treasure.
One shudders to think about what feminists are going to face when they meet Jesus and His mother.
And feminists see Mary’s perpetual virginity as an image that perpetuates heterosexuality in marriage as the only valid norm in terms of sexuality. These women have become so twisted and hateful towards men that they think a woman has succumbed to the idea that her moral life will be licit only if she becomes “man-like” when she “loves a man.” And that to marry in the Church is to embrace the man’s default misogynist default position. This is why feminists feel free to speak of “mates” in “open terms” that are not restricted by the Church. And as a result, they accuse Mary of consenting to a hateful image of the Church that feeds “homophobic” accusations against feminists’ choices for “mates.”
In short, they want the homosexual and lesbian experience to be validated, even in terms of commitment. And this is one of the fallacious reasons why feminists have the unmitigated audacity to accuse the “Male Patriarchy” of raping Mary by constructing “misogynist’s demands which require her to be a Perpetual Virgin against her will.” They regard this as a violation of their pagan “Mother Goddess.”
And this is an example of why feminists will embrace “Sola Scriptura.” Like Protestants, they reject Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church as having anything to say about Mary beyond Scripture. By convincing people there is little known about Mary in Scripture they intend to effectively remove her from any association to Scripture. This liberates her from the control of “Rome.” They must re-cast Mary as a “symbolic Mary” rather than a “doctrinal Mary” to continue their assault on Marian doctrine.
What is the most effective way to break Mary’s association to Scripture?
By re-casting the “the fall of man” as a “myth.” If they can convince people that the “Fall of Man” is a myth they can attack the role that Eve played in convincing Adam to sin with her. And if there is no “Fall of Man” there is no need for redemption. And if there is no need for redemption they can re-cast the fall of man as a “Patriarchal construct” that is designed to control women.
Roger L.
