Perfect elucidation of the problem--the "Great Tradition" is not an ecclesiastical body and can't serve as a reference point for these pastors. They may refer to the history of the Church of England or our confessions and most certainly to holy scripture--but not this amorphous idea. The Great Tradition is a wonderful gift to be pursued wholeheartedly--but it doesn't resolve church disputes. The tone with these pastors also resembles the Puritans who Hooker eventually had to oppose because of their overly-righteous assurance of correctness.
As a working priest, and definitely not a Medievalist, I won’t be able to do a detailed response for a little while at least, and I haven’t heard of the book you cite, but can I ask a few questions about it? First, are the list of texts in your article the primary ones he treats of? There are much longer catenae out there, available even on a simple Google search, of very early references to women in a priestly roles, and much more direct in their prohibitions than the ones cited. Obviously each of these deserve more detailed treatment than just cherry picked quotations, but it strikes me that there are a great deal more out there, and much less “problematic” to the anti-WO position.
Second, how has the book been received in the discipline? My cursory opinion of it based on your summary alone (also the link to the 7 page summary you reference appears not to point to it?) is that, at the very least, the claims he makes—flattening out the meaning of ordination to white out any distinction between those ‘ordained’ to perform sacramental rites and those ‘ordained’ to the ladder of other clerical orders that were formalized in the Middle Ages, that the 4th Lateran amounted to, not a reformation, but a revolutionary suppression of a perfectly ordinary and widespread practice of women celebrating at church altars—would be a narrative pretty far outside the mainstream of histories of the medieval church, even by secular and feminist accounts, who are often content to count the Church as just part of the scaffolding of the great edifice of Western patriarchy from its very earliest days. But it’s been several years since I was in an academic history department, so maybe there’s an emerging consensus I haven’t considered?
For instance, here is an episode we did, spelling out what I would consider the standard narrative of the five clerical orders, which assumes that the distinction between the two holy orders, which are authorized to handle the sacraments, and the other five were not invented in the 12th Century.
Lastly, I think your post provides a good opportunity to do a follow up on the meanings of some of the passwords that Anglicans with a Catholic sensibility throw around: ‘patristic consensus,’ ‘Great Tradition’ and the like, so thanks for calling these out. These are my primary interests, so look for a follow up primarily on that score. I’ll let the medievalists among us respond to the Macy book. But here is a post, aimed at a completely different controversy that lays out some of the basic assumptions behind how we would answer the questions you ask. See esp. the section “A Unity of Faith”
Whoops - I didn't respond fully to (2). Is this conflict best characterized as a reformation or as a revolutionary suppression? I don't think it's dramatic as the latter, but I don't think it's as clean as the former. Although Macy's work appears to have been well received, I think we're (at least I'm) still waiting (and reading toward) a consensus. My inclination, in the meantime, is both (a) not to sign a letter I'm not significantly enough confident in and (b) not to depart from my generally "broad church" sensibilities until I am.
Fr. Wilgus, thanks for this. Some quick responses:
1. The list of patristic texts are the ones used in the RCC's discussion of this question in the 1990s, which I got from the (linked) paper from the CTSA. Macy's book doesn't address patristic issues.
2. My bad with the link - just fixed it. And that's a good question. As even less of a historian than you are, I'm entirely dependent on scholarly book reviews. Here is a catena of the a few I consulted:
Berman, Constance H. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West." Church History 78, no. 1 (March 2009): 180-183.
"This is a careful, well-argued study that justifies its assertive title by its rather slow opening chapters that outline the evidence and earlier interpretations. Macy's arguments about how even the role of abbesses came to be reduced by the combined assemblage of university-trained canonists, theologians, philosophers, and popes are compelling."
Zagano, Phyllis. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
Zagano just notes that "While the materials [Macy] treats overlap some of those in Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek's Ordained Women in the Early Church (2005), M. provides much more commentary." Madigan and Osiek's work has been similarly well received.
Martin, John Hilary, OP. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
"Initially, ordination meant to be engaged in ministry, to bring grace to the baptized--the grace of forgiveness, healing, teaching, feeding, and leading the worship service in a Christian community. Macy asks: Did women do any of these things in the ancient and early-medieval Church? They certainly did all these things and were given titles from their contemporaries of epsicopae, presbyterae, diaconae, or abbatissa, reflecting their work in their local communities. They may have been given names (it is and was widely agreed that such names did appear in the ancient literature), but were they ceremonially ordained as men were routinely and ceremonially ordained to perform the same sorts of functions? Macy presents much evidence to show that women as well as men were ritually ordained in this sense or in a parallel way One great strength of his book is its wealth of Latin citations, demonstrating that women were doing ministry and were recognized as doing so. For those whose Latin is rusty or nonexistent, he provides English translations and a wealth of footnotes to give them a context. The context Macy provides shows that these titles were not mere honorifics. The context Macy provides shows that these titles were not mere honorifics. If women were occasionally titled episcopae and more frequently diaconissae until the early-twelfth century, why did this practice die out? If women ministers were so prevalent, why did they disappear from historical records to become almost invisible? Macy points the finger at reformers under Pope Gregory VII as culprits. We all know of the eleventh- and twelfth-century battles of ecclesiastical reformers who were intent on removing lay (read "royal") interference with church property and church life. It was then that the notion of Order was changed to carry the specialized meaning of having power to consecrate the Eucharist and preside. In the course of church reform, clergy were separated from laity, the clergy becoming more monastic in lifestyle, and the laity marginalized in the "church." It was in this century that women were vilified as temptresses and the cause of the Fall of the human race, flighty, and inferior in intellect. Women were further infantilized, no longer capable of being ordained, excluded from the nascent universities, and placed under tutelage of their husbands or fathers. Ordination was closed to women even if their ministry (their good offices) continued in the Church. Macy's excellent Hidden History is both a scholars' book and a comfortable read that is hard to put down."
Bennison, Charles. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
I mean, it's Bennison, which always feels sketchy, but even he seems to offer the most measured review. He points this out: "Despite all the evidence he has marshaled that in the early Middle Ages women were ordained and functioned in official ministries, it remains an open question - especially when it comes to ministries at the altar - whether they did so officially with the approbation of the whole church. Macy himself observes that 'the evidence that women did so is so scant that the scarcity of that evidence could be read to suggest that these occasions were anomalies that were quickly condemned' (p. 131). On the other hand, die vehemence with which the church increasingly engaged die issue by doctrine, decree, and canon law, as documented by Macy, strongly suggests it 'protested too much' for there not to have been at least some women ordained according to its own post-Lateran IV definition of ordination. Even then, women's ordination clearly was an open question." This at least matches the stated purpose of my essay, which is not to argue for WO but to question whether it can be stated that the consensus of the Great Tradition forbids it.
3. I want to thank you, here, for hearing the center of my question, which has to do with these, as you have called them, "passwords." I'll take a look at your linked post (thank you again), and I'll look out for your follow up. Feel free to notify me (Facebook? email? jackfranicevich@gmail.com) when you do. I don't want to miss it.
Thanks for your post. One historical note: Epiphanius doesn't object to WO because of a belief in the inferiority of women (though he does say that nasty line). This is a common argument but I think it is wrong. I have a post I'm working on that digs into the details in response to Witt's book, but the short of it is that in Panarion 7.79, Epiphanius argument is that the ministerial priesthood is formally like the Levitical priesthood, and so a male only priesthood in the OT is grounds for a male-only priesthood in the Church (or more specifically, it is evidence for him that priesthood generically should be restricted to men). Also, less often discussed is Panarion 4.46 where he objects to women "clergy" (his word) by citing the (now) standard Pauline passages and Gen 3:16 with no notes of misogyny.
Dr. Clevenger, I appreciate the historical note. I hadn't read widely enough in Epiphanius to know that, only to look up the footnotes in the CTSA's (linked) paper. Thank you for providing this better reading of Epiphanius.
My primary research area is NT use of Leviticus, and I have my own responses to appeals to Leviticus (e.g. we maintain its sex restriction but not its genealogy restriction? priests can own property now? what about Jesus's 'heavenly' priesthood founded on an 'indestructible line' in the order of Melchizedek?)
I just perused (have not yet actually read) your posts on WO. I'll follow them with interest. I haven't totally turned my attention to the issue as you are, just to the arguments being made about it right now.
Rev. Franicevich, with respect to appealing to the OT priesthood, has anyone discussed the practical reasons why women might have been excluded (i.e., menstruation and the purity codes that priests had to follow)? I realize this argument alone is not enough to dispute that point, but it is interesting corroborating evidence (in my mind) as women in the Church aren't bound by similar purity regulations (although it may have been practiced in the past).
Also, then, how does the ANCA parse between priesthood of all believers and ordained priesthood? (I realize this might be a very big question, sorry.)
(I'm just an interested observer here, eavesdropping as I have many friends in the ANCA but haven't made the leap myself.) :)
God bless you for taking the time to pen this, brother! It’ll definitely be fruitful for me to study as I’ve been on the lookout for more comprehensive resources on this subject. And your post is, in general, a good apologetic for the blessed messiness we have in the Anglican world right now. You ask serious and good faith questions of the too tidy pronouncements on “Tradition”.
Fr. Daniel, thank you for the good word. Comprehensiveness is hard to come by—history is long, lol. For what it’s worth, the feedback I’ve gotten on “the Great Tradition” has made me decide to write a follow up post on how to argue from the Great Tradition. Let me know your thoughts on that.
Perfect elucidation of the problem--the "Great Tradition" is not an ecclesiastical body and can't serve as a reference point for these pastors. They may refer to the history of the Church of England or our confessions and most certainly to holy scripture--but not this amorphous idea. The Great Tradition is a wonderful gift to be pursued wholeheartedly--but it doesn't resolve church disputes. The tone with these pastors also resembles the Puritans who Hooker eventually had to oppose because of their overly-righteous assurance of correctness.
As a working priest, and definitely not a Medievalist, I won’t be able to do a detailed response for a little while at least, and I haven’t heard of the book you cite, but can I ask a few questions about it? First, are the list of texts in your article the primary ones he treats of? There are much longer catenae out there, available even on a simple Google search, of very early references to women in a priestly roles, and much more direct in their prohibitions than the ones cited. Obviously each of these deserve more detailed treatment than just cherry picked quotations, but it strikes me that there are a great deal more out there, and much less “problematic” to the anti-WO position.
Second, how has the book been received in the discipline? My cursory opinion of it based on your summary alone (also the link to the 7 page summary you reference appears not to point to it?) is that, at the very least, the claims he makes—flattening out the meaning of ordination to white out any distinction between those ‘ordained’ to perform sacramental rites and those ‘ordained’ to the ladder of other clerical orders that were formalized in the Middle Ages, that the 4th Lateran amounted to, not a reformation, but a revolutionary suppression of a perfectly ordinary and widespread practice of women celebrating at church altars—would be a narrative pretty far outside the mainstream of histories of the medieval church, even by secular and feminist accounts, who are often content to count the Church as just part of the scaffolding of the great edifice of Western patriarchy from its very earliest days. But it’s been several years since I was in an academic history department, so maybe there’s an emerging consensus I haven’t considered?
For instance, here is an episode we did, spelling out what I would consider the standard narrative of the five clerical orders, which assumes that the distinction between the two holy orders, which are authorized to handle the sacraments, and the other five were not invented in the 12th Century.
https://wordandtable.simplecast.com/episodes/clerical-orders
Lastly, I think your post provides a good opportunity to do a follow up on the meanings of some of the passwords that Anglicans with a Catholic sensibility throw around: ‘patristic consensus,’ ‘Great Tradition’ and the like, so thanks for calling these out. These are my primary interests, so look for a follow up primarily on that score. I’ll let the medievalists among us respond to the Macy book. But here is a post, aimed at a completely different controversy that lays out some of the basic assumptions behind how we would answer the questions you ask. See esp. the section “A Unity of Faith”
https://northamanglican.com/anglican-catholicism-and-its-critics/
Whoops - I didn't respond fully to (2). Is this conflict best characterized as a reformation or as a revolutionary suppression? I don't think it's dramatic as the latter, but I don't think it's as clean as the former. Although Macy's work appears to have been well received, I think we're (at least I'm) still waiting (and reading toward) a consensus. My inclination, in the meantime, is both (a) not to sign a letter I'm not significantly enough confident in and (b) not to depart from my generally "broad church" sensibilities until I am.
Fr. Wilgus, thanks for this. Some quick responses:
1. The list of patristic texts are the ones used in the RCC's discussion of this question in the 1990s, which I got from the (linked) paper from the CTSA. Macy's book doesn't address patristic issues.
2. My bad with the link - just fixed it. And that's a good question. As even less of a historian than you are, I'm entirely dependent on scholarly book reviews. Here is a catena of the a few I consulted:
Berman, Constance H. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West." Church History 78, no. 1 (March 2009): 180-183.
"This is a careful, well-argued study that justifies its assertive title by its rather slow opening chapters that outline the evidence and earlier interpretations. Macy's arguments about how even the role of abbesses came to be reduced by the combined assemblage of university-trained canonists, theologians, philosophers, and popes are compelling."
Zagano, Phyllis. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
Medieval West." Theological Studies 69, vol. 3 (Sep. 2008), 691-2.
Zagano just notes that "While the materials [Macy] treats overlap some of those in Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek's Ordained Women in the Early Church (2005), M. provides much more commentary." Madigan and Osiek's work has been similarly well received.
Martin, John Hilary, OP. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
Medieval West." The Catholic Historical Review 95, no. 3 (July 2009): 590-591.
"Initially, ordination meant to be engaged in ministry, to bring grace to the baptized--the grace of forgiveness, healing, teaching, feeding, and leading the worship service in a Christian community. Macy asks: Did women do any of these things in the ancient and early-medieval Church? They certainly did all these things and were given titles from their contemporaries of epsicopae, presbyterae, diaconae, or abbatissa, reflecting their work in their local communities. They may have been given names (it is and was widely agreed that such names did appear in the ancient literature), but were they ceremonially ordained as men were routinely and ceremonially ordained to perform the same sorts of functions? Macy presents much evidence to show that women as well as men were ritually ordained in this sense or in a parallel way One great strength of his book is its wealth of Latin citations, demonstrating that women were doing ministry and were recognized as doing so. For those whose Latin is rusty or nonexistent, he provides English translations and a wealth of footnotes to give them a context. The context Macy provides shows that these titles were not mere honorifics. The context Macy provides shows that these titles were not mere honorifics. If women were occasionally titled episcopae and more frequently diaconissae until the early-twelfth century, why did this practice die out? If women ministers were so prevalent, why did they disappear from historical records to become almost invisible? Macy points the finger at reformers under Pope Gregory VII as culprits. We all know of the eleventh- and twelfth-century battles of ecclesiastical reformers who were intent on removing lay (read "royal") interference with church property and church life. It was then that the notion of Order was changed to carry the specialized meaning of having power to consecrate the Eucharist and preside. In the course of church reform, clergy were separated from laity, the clergy becoming more monastic in lifestyle, and the laity marginalized in the "church." It was in this century that women were vilified as temptresses and the cause of the Fall of the human race, flighty, and inferior in intellect. Women were further infantilized, no longer capable of being ordained, excluded from the nascent universities, and placed under tutelage of their husbands or fathers. Ordination was closed to women even if their ministry (their good offices) continued in the Church. Macy's excellent Hidden History is both a scholars' book and a comfortable read that is hard to put down."
Bennison, Charles. "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the
Medieval West." Anglican Theological Review 92, vol. 2 (Spring 2010) 417-419.
I mean, it's Bennison, which always feels sketchy, but even he seems to offer the most measured review. He points this out: "Despite all the evidence he has marshaled that in the early Middle Ages women were ordained and functioned in official ministries, it remains an open question - especially when it comes to ministries at the altar - whether they did so officially with the approbation of the whole church. Macy himself observes that 'the evidence that women did so is so scant that the scarcity of that evidence could be read to suggest that these occasions were anomalies that were quickly condemned' (p. 131). On the other hand, die vehemence with which the church increasingly engaged die issue by doctrine, decree, and canon law, as documented by Macy, strongly suggests it 'protested too much' for there not to have been at least some women ordained according to its own post-Lateran IV definition of ordination. Even then, women's ordination clearly was an open question." This at least matches the stated purpose of my essay, which is not to argue for WO but to question whether it can be stated that the consensus of the Great Tradition forbids it.
3. I want to thank you, here, for hearing the center of my question, which has to do with these, as you have called them, "passwords." I'll take a look at your linked post (thank you again), and I'll look out for your follow up. Feel free to notify me (Facebook? email? jackfranicevich@gmail.com) when you do. I don't want to miss it.
Thanks for your post. One historical note: Epiphanius doesn't object to WO because of a belief in the inferiority of women (though he does say that nasty line). This is a common argument but I think it is wrong. I have a post I'm working on that digs into the details in response to Witt's book, but the short of it is that in Panarion 7.79, Epiphanius argument is that the ministerial priesthood is formally like the Levitical priesthood, and so a male only priesthood in the OT is grounds for a male-only priesthood in the Church (or more specifically, it is evidence for him that priesthood generically should be restricted to men). Also, less often discussed is Panarion 4.46 where he objects to women "clergy" (his word) by citing the (now) standard Pauline passages and Gen 3:16 with no notes of misogyny.
Dr. Clevenger, I appreciate the historical note. I hadn't read widely enough in Epiphanius to know that, only to look up the footnotes in the CTSA's (linked) paper. Thank you for providing this better reading of Epiphanius.
My primary research area is NT use of Leviticus, and I have my own responses to appeals to Leviticus (e.g. we maintain its sex restriction but not its genealogy restriction? priests can own property now? what about Jesus's 'heavenly' priesthood founded on an 'indestructible line' in the order of Melchizedek?)
I just perused (have not yet actually read) your posts on WO. I'll follow them with interest. I haven't totally turned my attention to the issue as you are, just to the arguments being made about it right now.
Rev. Franicevich, with respect to appealing to the OT priesthood, has anyone discussed the practical reasons why women might have been excluded (i.e., menstruation and the purity codes that priests had to follow)? I realize this argument alone is not enough to dispute that point, but it is interesting corroborating evidence (in my mind) as women in the Church aren't bound by similar purity regulations (although it may have been practiced in the past).
Also, then, how does the ANCA parse between priesthood of all believers and ordained priesthood? (I realize this might be a very big question, sorry.)
(I'm just an interested observer here, eavesdropping as I have many friends in the ANCA but haven't made the leap myself.) :)
This is excellent. Thank you. I appreciate the linked resources as well for further study.
Thanks for saying so, Marissa!
God bless you for taking the time to pen this, brother! It’ll definitely be fruitful for me to study as I’ve been on the lookout for more comprehensive resources on this subject. And your post is, in general, a good apologetic for the blessed messiness we have in the Anglican world right now. You ask serious and good faith questions of the too tidy pronouncements on “Tradition”.
Bravo.
Fr. Daniel, thank you for the good word. Comprehensiveness is hard to come by—history is long, lol. For what it’s worth, the feedback I’ve gotten on “the Great Tradition” has made me decide to write a follow up post on how to argue from the Great Tradition. Let me know your thoughts on that.