January 16, 2020

Female Altar Servers

January 16, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

From the beginning of its ‘universal’ formulation in the the Middle Ages, 1 church law forbade women to serve at the altar of the Eucharist. The reasons for this were:

women’s presumed inferiority that precluded them from leadership functions, and
women’s impurity because of menstruation.

When the Code of Canon Law was revised in 1917, 2 the prohibition against women at the altar remained firmly entrenched.

A female person may not minister. An exception is permitted only when no male person is available and if a just cause is present. The female person may not, however, approach the altar under any circumstances, and may only respond from afar. 2(Canon 813§2). [Imagine such an impure creature defiling the pure altar~]

The 1917 Code permited a nun to act as server during celebration of mass if the mass in in a convent chapel. But there were restrictions:

If a male server is readily available, the celebrating priest would commit a venial sin[by allowing a female server]. It is, however, forbidden on pain of grave sin for the female server to approach the altar. 3 [Note: the priest and nun commit a grave sin if he permits her to approach the altar.]

Many Catholic women experienced deep and personal sense of shame and rejection on account of their exclusion. One woman writes:

When we were children, girls were told they could only go on the altar [past the Communion rails to the front of the church] the day they got married. It made me angry, because my little brother was an altar boy and he could go up there any day he served Mass. 4

Unsurprisingly, the prohibition against serving during mass did not affect the expectation that lay women were responsible for cleaning the sanctuary and altar area.

Another woman relates that as a child she eagerly learned all the Latin responses by heart and would get to Mass early each Lenten morning with hope that if the altar boy did not show up, the priest would allow her to say the responses to the priest’s Mass prayers. If she was permitted to say the responses, because girls weren’t allowed in the sanctuary (altar area), she had to so so from a pew because girls were not allowed ‘up there with the priest’. Ruth Wallace writes:

I can remember being told by a priest in the early 1960s that it was a mortal sin for a woman to be present in the sanctuary of Church during Mass. 5

Changes since 1963

1963 The Second Vatican Council launches far-reaching liturgical reform through Sacrosanctum Concilium. Women are not mentioned in detail.

1970 March: The General Instruction on the Roman Missal provides for lay persons of either sex and without canonical limitation on age (although they must be old enough to do the service appropriately) to supply some of the same services as installed lectors and acolytes. These additional roles had been classified in the pre-Code documents as liturgical ministries:

All the ministries below those proper to the deacon may be performed by laymen whether they have been commissioned for any office or not. Those ministries which are performed outside the sanctuary may be entrusted to women if this be judged prudent by the priest in charge of the church. (Gen. Instr.§70)

1970 September: Liturgiae Instaurationes specifies which ‘ministries’ are permitted to women and which are not. Serving at the altar is still forbidden. The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the altar, even in women’s chapels, houses, convents, schools and institutes. In accordance with rules governing this matter, women may:

a) Proclaim the scripture readings, with the exception of the gospel. Modern technical means should be used so that everyone can easily hear. Episcopal conferences may determine more concretely a suitable place from which women may read the word of God.

b) Offer the intentions for the Prayer of the faithful.

c) Lead the congregation’s singing; play the organ and other approved instruments.

d) Give the explanatory comments to help people’s understanding of the service.

e) Fulfill certain offices of service to the faithful which in some places are usually entrusted to women, such as receiving the faithful at the doors of the church and directing them to their places, guiding them in processions and collecting their offerings in church. (§ 7).

1980 In an instruction titled The Inestimable Gift, John Paul II stipulates that ‘women are not permitted the functions of an altar server’.

1983 The Code of Canon Law is revised. New canon 906 calls for ‘the participation of a believer’ whenever a priest celebrates Mass and thus seems to remove the ban on women servers. But new canon 230§1 makes it clear that the office of acolyte - which includes altar servers - is entrusted to men alone.

Canon 230§1: Lay men who possess the age and qualifications determined by decree of the conference of bishops can be installed on a stable basis in the ministries of lector and acolyte in accord with the prescribed liturgical rite; the conferral of these ministries, however, does not confer on these lay men a right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

The new Law recognised the need of exceptions in special circumstances. Women are included but again the situation is permissive, allowed in special circumstances, and not prescriptive:

Canon 230§3: When the necessity of the Church warrants it and when ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply for certain of their offices, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion in accord with the prescriptions of law.

The Situation as of January 2020:

Many local Churches throughout the world have begun to allow girls to function as altar servers. This in spite of repeated attempts by the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments to discourage the practice. For instance:

1994 The Congregation for Divine Worship partially capitulates and relaxes the rule. In a Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences allows for the local Bishop to grant permission for women and girls to serve at the altar. The change is permissive but not prescriptive:

The Diocesan Bishop, in his role as moderator of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, has authority, within the boundaries of the territory entrusted to his care, to permit women to serve at the altar.

2001 In its instruction ‘Regarding Female Altar Servers’, the Congregation for Divine Worship reiterates that the local Bishop may refuse to allow women to serve:

The authorization [by a local bishop] to allow women servers may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese must make use of female altar servers, since it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. 6

Summary:

Our work for women’s equality in the Church is not over.

Cultural prejudice is slowly breaking down, also in the Catholic Church. The prejudice is still kept in place by Church authorities clinging to flimsy arguments that have no credible foundation. The official Church will not be able to shore up its untenable opposition to the ordination of women for much longer.

Can Women Write the Rules? St. Clare of Assisi Did - Nicole Sotelo

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

Can women write the rules? St. Clare of Assisi did

by Nicole Sotelo | National Catholic Reporter
August 28, 2014

Although seven centuries have passed, St. Clare of Assisi continues to be revered for her piety and poverty. Perhaps she should also be revered for her pen.

History tells us that Pope Gregory IX wrote the first guidelines for the women of Clare's community. But later, Clare took things into her own hands.

In fact, Catholic historians consider St. Clare to be the first woman to write a rule, or set of guidelines, for her religious community. At a time when most women's communities lived according to rules written by men, Clare's decision to compose a rule for her own community was a bold gesture.

It was also born out of necessity. Both the women and men of the early Franciscan communities felt that an authentic response to the Gospel could not be lived under the common rules of the day.

Sound familiar? It is. Ask a woman religious today, and you will likely hear a similar sentiment. The boxes into which the Vatican would like to place them do not allow many sisters to fully respond to the Gospel call. So after a lifetime of experience, women religious have begun writing a new path with their lives.

Their path is not without consequence. The same was true for St. Clare.

Her decision to write a rule was a radical departure from the religious norms of her time. Only after persistence did Pope Innocent IV approve it two days before her death on Aug. 11, 1253.

It should be noted that Clare did not compose her own rule without input from others. As she wrote a new way of living into religious history, her voice was in dialogue with the community in which she had spiritually grown. She modeled much of her rule on the austere and equally novel guidelines of Francis' community, recasting them to better fit women's experience.

Clare's rule displays the good that comes from a healthy dialogue between women and men. It is a model for our own times.

In fact, in Clare's rule, we find two fragments written by Francis himself that she incorporated into her own writing. The second fragment records his last wish for Clare's community: "I, little brother Francis ... beseech you all, my ladies, and counsel you, to live always in this most holy life and poverty."

He did not emphasize habits, cloisters or conformity. It was only Gospel living and holy poverty that, in the end, mattered to St. Francis.

The final sentence of his wish reads, "And watch yourselves well that you in no wise depart from it through the teaching or advice of any one."

Perhaps Francis anticipated that these bold women would be challenged later by church authorities in their way of life. Indeed they were.

A few years after Clare's death, Pope Urban VI charged a cardinal with writing a new rule for the Order of St. Clare. It seems radical rules written by women drew controversy 700 years ago. Women writing rules still do.

One can only hope that Vatican officials today under the watch of Pope Francis will have courage, like the original Francis, to affirm women religious in their efforts to respond to the Gospel. The ways of women religious may look different than what the Vatican envisions, but so did the Franciscan ways so many centuries ago.

Thank goodness for St. Clare, who both paved and penned the way for women to respond to the Gospel in their own voice. Thank goodness for the women religious of the United States, who seek to do the same today.

[Nicole Sotelo is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates WomenHealing.com. She is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School.]

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/can-women-write-rules-st-clare-assisi-did

January 14, 2020

Evidence of Women Priests in the South of Italy and Sicily in 2nd to 6th centuries AD

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

There is evidence that shows that from the 2nd to the 6th centuries AD, women priests - presbyterae - functioned in the South of Italy and in Sicily. Here are some examples:

1. A fourth-century tombstone (image below) records the burial of ‘Guilia Runa, woman priest’.

2. Another inscription of the 5th century records the life of "Leta Presbitera": "Sacred to her good memory. Leta the Presbyter lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days, for whom her husband set up this tomb. She preceded him in peace on the day before the Ides of May". The epitaph refers to a presbyter Leta, having died at just over forty, for whom her husband had set up a tomb. This inscription comes from the catacomb of Tropea, a small town that has offered the most consistent epigraphical and monumental documentation of Paleochristian Bruttium. See image below.

B(onae) m(emoriae) s(acrum). Leta presbitera/vixit annos XL, menses VIII, dies VIIII/ quei (scil. cui) bene fecit maritus/Precessit in pace pridie/idus Maias

Until recently, many scholars have always construed the term presbytera as the ‘wife of the presbyter’. New evidence suggests that the Leta of the epigraph of Tropea was a true and proper presbytera: that is, a woman who was practising the sacerdotal ministry in the Christian community of Tropea. An analysis of the archeological evidence, as well as literary evidence, including Pope Gelasius’ letter (494 AD) and the testimony of Bishop Atto of Vercelli (9th cent.), has led Professor Giorgio Otranto to firmly conclude to the presence of ministerial women priests in the South of Italy and Sicily.

Read his conclusions for yourself:

“Priesthood, Precedent and Prejudice. On Recovering the Women Priests of Early Christianity” by Mary Ann Rossi (see credits) from: Journal of Feminist Studies 7 (1991) no 1, pp. 73 - 94. It contains a translation from the Italian of "Notes on the Female Priesthood in Antiquity," by Giorgio Otranto.
“The Problem of the Ordination of Women in the Early Christian Priesthood”. Lecture delivered in the USA in 1991 by Professor Giorgio Otranto, University of Bari, Italy; translation by Dr. Mary Ann Rossi ( see credits).

For more information, see the work of Women’s Ordination Worldwide member group, Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research (WICR). For specific information about the case for women priests, see their website, womenpriests.org. The website provides an extensive library of scholarly research, manuscripts of ancient ordination rites, videos and discussion material. Their work shows the full case for women’s ordination in the context of scripture, theology, Tradition, and history. It proves how the exclusion of women from Catholic priesthood rests on cultural prejudice against women instead of anything authentic to Christianity.

WICR also runs the website, womendeacons.org which provides an extensive library of scholarly research, manuscripts of ancient ordination rites of women deacons, videos and discussion material. Their work shows the tens of thousands of women who served as fully ordained deacons in Catholic parishes during ten long centuries. Some of them ministered in Italy and Gaul, but the vast majority lived and worked in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. At that time the Orthodox East was still part of the Catholic Church.

January 14, 2020

The Apostleship of Women in Early Christianity - by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

The Vatican Declaration and Commentary appear to assume that the Twelve and the apostles were essentially one and the same group of people (cf. n. 10). Since no woman was called to be a member of the Twelve, no woman received the apostolic charge. This conclusion is, however, not cogent if initially the terms the Twelve and the apostles were not coextensive but designated different leadership circles in early Christianity which only partly overlapped. It must therefore be asked whether women might have received the apostolic charge even though they were not among the Twelve. In the following we must discuss more carefully how the NT writers understand the function and the office of apostle and whether or not, according to the NT, women were entrusted with the apostolic function and office in primitive Christianity.

From the outset we can say that the NT writings contain several different conceptions rather than a singular interpretation of apostleship. They give us neither a clear definition of apostolicity nor a simple definition of apostle. While non-specialists may feel certain who the apostles were, the numerous exegetical studies of the last twenty-five years(1) demonstrate that the case is not at all so clear. There is neither consensus on the origin and derivation of the Christian designation “apostle” nor agreement on who belonged to the circle of the apostles in early Christianity. The use of the designation in pre-Christian Hellenism and Judaism does not explain the meaning of the term and its origin in early Christianity. The majority of scholars would agree today that neither the function nor the self-understanding of the Christian apostle can strictly be derived from the use of the “ambassador” term in Rabbinic Judaism, since the Jewish missionaries were never called “apostles” and use of the term is not documented for pre-Christian Judaism. The use and meaning of the designation “apostle” has a peculiar Christian origin and emphasis.

On the other hand the majority of scholars studying the problem agree that the generally assumed, popular understanding of apostleship limiting the circle and function of the apostles to that of the Twelve does not stand at the beginning of the development of the apostle-concept but at the end. In the Pauline letters, the oldest NT sources available to us, the term is still very fluid and not clearly defned.(2) These letters give evidence that Paul had a different understanding of apostleship than Luke. Moreover, Paul did not introduce the term and function but had found it already given in his tradition. Finally, the Pauline texts also indicate that many more apostles existed in early Christianity than we now know by name.

The following does not intend to trace the origin and development of the concept of apostle(3) in early Christianity but simply to list the different types and understandings of apostleship encountered in the NT writings. Only then can we raise the question of which criteria for apostleship the NT writers propose and whether women fulfilled these criteria and functioned as apostles.

1. Apostleship based on the resurrection appearance of Jesus Christ

The references to the circle of apostles in 1Cor 15:7 and Gal 1:17-19 understand the apostles to be a cohesive group that was in existence before Paul and lived probably in or near Jerusalem. Its claim to apostleship appears to be based on the resurrection appearances of Jesus. There is no way to decide definitely whether or not in the pre-Pauline tradition and Paul’s own understanding women were members of this circle of apostles in Jerusalem.(4) It is true that the masculine form of the noun is used, but the masculine form also permits a generic usage of the word. What speaks in favor of such a generic interpretation of the term is that the NT often uses masculine terminology in a generic sense to include and to address the female members of the community. Otherwise we would have to assume that most letters, sayings, and admonitions expressed in masculine terminology would not pertain to Christian women. In other words, the NT preaching and the gospel message would be inherently sexist, if we would insist that all masculine forms in the NT are restricted to males.

Since according to the canonical and apocryphal Gospels women are the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection and are sent to the male disciples to proclaim the Easter message(5) women could have been members of this circle of the Jerusalem apostles. This is suggested by the summary account of Acts 1: 14 The germ-cell of the primitive Church consisted of the Eleven, the women witnesses with Mary of Magdala,(6) and the mother and brothers of Jesus. According to 1 Cor 15:5, 7 and according to Mark, Matthew and John, it was the Eleven, the women witnesses, and James the brother of the Lord who experienced a resurrection appearance and were witnesses to the resurrection. The summary description of Acts reflects traditions in which women were a part of the nucleus of the primitive Church. This is significant because Luke attempts to play down the qualification of the women disciples for apostleship (cf. Lk 24).

2. A postles—charismatic missionaries

It appears that a second group of apostles did not so much base their apostolic claim on a resurrection appearance as derive it from their missionary success. The apostles of the Hellenistic missionary field appear to have been itinerant preachers whose proclamation was confirmed by mighty signs and wonders. The so-called “super-apostles” or “false apostles” or the “other apostles” against whom Paul might be polemicizing in 1Cor 9:5 and to whom he certainly refers in 2 Cor 10-13, probably understood themselves in such a way. They seem to have placed special emphasis upon missionary success as the legitimization of their apostleship. They travelled from city to city, relying on the communities for their support and for letters of recommendation. They appear to have travelled with women missionaries or as missionary couples (1 Cor 9:5).(7)

Paul does not dispute their claim to apostleship as itinerant missionaries for he calls himself and other co-missionaries apostles in the same sense. Such missionary apostles were Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), Timothy and Silas (1Thess 2:6f.) and Andronicus and Junia (Rm 16:7). Just as Paul emphasized in his dispute with the Jerusalem apostles that he too has seen the risen Lord so he insists vis-a-vis the super-apostles that he can claim for himself the signs and visions of an apostle (1Cor 2:4; Rm 15:19; 2 Cor 12:1-7). Paul acknowledges that the apostle has the right to refrain from working for a living. Yet he emphasises that he himself consciously has not made use of his right.(8) For Paul apostleship is not proved by exclusive claims and rights but by the fruits of the missionary work (1Cor 9:15-18). Its decisive mark does not consist in signs and mighty speech but in the conscious acceptance and endurance of the labors and sufferings connected with the missionary task (1Cor 4:8-13; 2 Cor 11-12). Andronicus and Junia,(9) mentioned in Rm 16:7, fulfill these criteria of Pauline apostleship. They had become Christians even before Paul and they had suffered prison for their missionary activity. They probably were Hellenistic Jews who had become highly respected among the apostles and are fellow prisoners of Paul.

3. Apostles of the Churches

2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25 mention “apostles of the churches,” who appear to be most similar to the emissaries of the Jewish community.(10) They are the official messengers or delegates of the Christian churches of Macedonia (2 Cor 8:23) or of the church at Philippi (Phil 2:25); Paul recommends them highly. A woman appears to have had a similar role in the church at Cenchreae. In Rm 16:1 Phoebe is called the diakonos of the church at Cenchreae and she too is highly recommended by Paul. In NT Greek the title diakonos means not primarily “servant” or “deacon” but “herald” or official messenger.(11) The term, however, is almost never used for charitable service 1Cor 3:5, 9 indicates that Paul uses this term exchangeably with synergos (12) (i.e., missionary co-worker). Moreover, 2 Cor 11:13 documents that Paul uses the titles apostolos and diakonos interchangeably to address the same circle of persons. It can therefore be assumed that the diakonos title characterizes Phoebe as official messenger and missionary apostle of the church at Cenchreae. Since the diakonos title can be used interchangeably with the apostolos title she is characterized as fulfilling the function of an apostle of the Church. Like other missionaries and apostles she has received a letter of recommendation.

4. The Lukan understanding of apostleship

A very late stage in the development of the apostle-concept and function is found in the Lukan writings.(13) Luke not only identifies the apostles with the Twelve but also spells out criteria for apostleship. To become one of the twelve apostles it is necessary to have accompanied Jesus from his baptism to his ascension and to become a witness to his resurrection. According to Luke’s traditions women have fulfilled these criteria and functions of apostleship. Women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem (Mk 15:40f.) and they were the first disciples to receive the resurrection message (Mk 16:7) and to have seen the Lord (Mt 28:9f.; Jn 20:18). Why then does Luke limit apostleship to men (Acts 1:21)? The answer might lie in his identification of the apostles with the Twelve. Luke was aware that women fulfilled the conditions for apostleship. However, he was also aware that according to tradition no women were members of the Twelve. Thus he felt compelled to give the women disciples a preeminent place equal to that of the Twelve (Lk 8:1-3), while not calling them apostles and deemphasizing their resurrection witness (24:11.34). It becomes apparent that Luke’s theological redaction had to formulate maleness as an additional criterion for apostleship because of the peculiar Lukan understanding that the circle of the apostles was co-extensive with that of the Twelve. It is, however, extremely significant that in the Lukan writings the twelve apostles fade from the picture once the Gentile mission is under way. Moreover, Luke’s theological conception of apostleship as limited to the Twelve has no historical foundation, since the Pauline letters indicate that the circle of apostles was much wider in early Christianity, and that even in Paul’s time apostleship was not yet clearly defined and limited. Finally, later writings still know of apostles as itinerant missionaries (Rev 2:2; 18:20; Didache 11:6).

In summary: A careful study of the NT writings demonstrates that different types and understandings of apostleship were present in early Christianity. Whereas the Pauline writings attest to a wider circle of apostles, Luke considers the Twelve to be the apostles par excellence. The Pauline letters know of two types of apostles. Whereas the Jerusalem type bases its claim to apostleship upon a resurrection appearance of the risen Lord, the itinerant missionary type derives its claim from the success of missionary work. In connection with these different types of apostles the NT writers spell out the following criteria for apostleship.

Apostles must be witnesses of the resurrection.
Apostles must be witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus.
Apostles must be sent to missionary work and exhibit the charisma necessary for this work.

In arguing with his opponents at Corinth and in Galatia, Paul stresses that on the one hand he experienced resurrection appearance and that on the other hand he was sent to do missionary work and has proven himself an outstanding missionary. The requirement of personal involvement with the earthly Jesus and his ministry seems not yet to have been a necessary criterion for apostleship in Paul’s time, since in no way could Paul have fulfilled this criterion. The NT writings however indicate that women fulfilled all these criteria of apostleship. Women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, they were the primary witnesses of the resurrection, and they were outstanding missionaries in the early Church. On biblical grounds it would be easier to prove that Paul was not entrusted with the “apostolic charge” than to demonstrate that women were excluded from apostleship.

Notes

For surveys of research cf. H. Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament,” StTh, Vol. 2 (1948), pp. 166-200; E.M. Kredel, “Der Apostelbegriff in der neueren Exegese,” ZKTh, Vol. 78 (1956), pp. 169-193, 257-305: J Roloff, Apostolat, Verkündigung, Kirche (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), pp. 9-37; R.Schnackenburg, “Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time,” in Gasque Martin, Apostolic History and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) pp. 287-303; R.E. Brown, Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections (New York Paulist Press, 1970), pp. 47-86; C.K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); J.A. Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorff,” NTS, Vol. 21 (1975), pp. 249-264.
Cf. H.Greeven, “Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus,” ZNW Vol. 44 (1952/53), pp. 1-43; D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen: Vluyn, 1964), pp. 42f.; R.Schnackenburg, “Apostles,” p. 289.
K.H. Rengstorf, TWNT, Vol. I (1933), pp. 406-448 (=TDNT I 407-447); L. Cerfaux, “Pour l’histoire du titre Apostolos dans le Nouveau Testament,” Rech SR, Vol. 48 (1960), pp. 78-92 and J.A.Kirk
On the basis of this text it should therefore not be argued that the NT writers give a secondary position to the appearance to a woman or to women and that women were not “official” witnesses of the resurrection. The distinction between “official” and “unofficial” witness to the resurrection appears to reflect our contemporary church institutions and to project our situation back into the first century.
According to the critical criteria of historical authenticity, women were the primary witnesses to the resurrection. The criterion of distinctiveness or dissimilarity maintains that those NT materials can be considered to be historically authentic that are dissimilar to well-known tendencies in Judaism or in early Christianity. In the Judaism of the time women probably were not admitted as official witnesses. Moreover, because of apologetic reasons the early church played down the Easter witness of the women disciples (cf. already Lk 24). the criterion of distinctiveness would indicate that the women’s witness is probably historically authentic. Secondly, the criterion of multiple attestation also speaks for the historicity of the women’s witness, since all four Gospels know that women disciples first received the message of the resurrection. This knowledge likewise can not be due to a widespread Church practice of the time. Finally, the criterion of cohesiveness supports the historicity of the women’s witness, since this tradition about the resurrection witness of women coheres with the information of the Gospels that in his itinerant ministry women disciples accompanied Jesus, contrary to the customs of the time.
The most prominent of the women must have been Mary of Magdala, since all four Gospels transmit her name while the names of the other women vary. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel according to Mary and the Pistis Sophia understand her leadership as co-equal to that of Peter, who sees her as a rival. The tradition calls her “apostle to the apostles.” This title is accepted by the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: Part III. In my writings I have consistently pointed out the importance of Mary of Magdala: cf. E. Schüssler, Der vergessene Partner (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1964), pp. 57-59; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, “Feminist Theology as a Critical Theology of Liberation,” in W. Burkhardt, ed., Woman: New Dimensions (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 48-50; “Die Rolle der Frau in der urchristlichen Bewegung,” Concilium, Vol. 12 (1976), pp. 3-9.
Their self-understanding and ministry appears to have been patterned after the itinerant ministry of Jesus. Cf. G. Theissen, “Itinerant Radicalism. The Traditions of the Jesus Sayings from the Perspective of the Sociology of Literature,” Radical Religion Reader: The Bible and Liberation (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 84-93.
Cf. G. Theissen, “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionäre,” NTS, Vol. 21 (1975), pp. 192-221.
See essay by Bernadette Brooten on the woman apostle Junia, pp. 141-144.
Cf. Rengstorf, op. cit.
Cf. J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (HThNT X, 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1968), p. 39.
See essay by Mary Ann Getty on synergos, pp. 176-182.
G. Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), pp. 202ff. maintains that the apostleship of the Twelve had its origin in Lukan theology. J. Roloff, op. cit., p.232, argues that Luke used existing traditions to develop his theological concept.

January 14, 2020

Junia: A Woman Apostle Named in Scripture

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

'Junia…Outstanding among the Apostles' (Romans 16:7) (1)

by Bernadette Brooten
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 141-144.

Bernadette Brooten was at the time a PhD candidate at Harvard University in the field of New Testament and was writing a dissertation on ‘Women in Early Church Office and Within the Organizational Structures of the Synagogue.’ She also studied theology for three years at the University of Tuebingen in West Germany.

“Greet Andronicus and Junia … who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstan ding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.

-John Chrysostom (344/54-407)(2)

Also notable is the case of Junias or Junio, placed in the rank of the apostles (Rom. 16, 7), with regard to whom one or another [exegete] raises the question of whether it is a man.

- Pontifical Biblical Commission (1976)(3)

What a striking contrast! The exegesis of Romans 16:7 has practically reversed. Whereas for John Chrysostom the apostle addressed by Paul is a woman by the name of Junia, for almost all modern scholars it is a man, Junias, whom Paul is greeting. The Biblical Commission is quite right in saying that only “one or another” exegete questions the prevailing view that the person named is a man. Most Romans commentators do not seem to be even aware of the possibility that the person could be a woman, and virtually all modern biblical translations have Junias (m.) rather than Junia (f.).

It was not always this way. John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine. Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as “these honorable men” (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title “apostle.”

the apostle junia.jpg — Attribution: This slide is part of a larger Collection of Research by Apostle Dr. Lee Ann Marino of Spitfire Ministries. See note 10 below

If Aegidius started the ball rolling, it really picked up momentum in the Reformation period. The commentary which Martin Luther heavily relied upon, that by Father Stapulensis (Paris, 1512, p.99b), took the accusative ’IOUNIAN to be Junias (m.). Luther’s lecture on Romans (1515/1516: Weimarer Ausgabe 56, p. 150) followed Faber Stapulensis on this and other points. Through Luther the Junias interpretation was assured of a broad exposure for centuries to come. In each of the succeeding centuries the Junias hypothesis gained new adherents and the argument was expanded. To make the Junias interpretation more plausible, some commentators suggested that it was a “short form” of the Latin Junianus, Junianius, Junilius or even Junius. This “short form” hypothesis is the prevailing view in modern scholarship.

The proponents of the new Junias hypothesis were, however, by no means left unchallenged. In 1698, for example, Johannes Drusius (in the Critici Sacri, Amsterdam, 1698, Vol. VII, p. 930) patiently tried to remind his colleagues that Junia was the feminine counterpart of Junius, just as Prisca was of Priscus, and Julia was of Julius. Christian Wilhelm Bose, in his doctoral dissertation Andronicum et Juniam (Leipzig, 1742, p. 5), questioned that Junia/s is a short form of anything. If that be true, he pondered, then one might just as easily argue that Andronicus is a short form of Andronicianus! In our century, the most notable protester against the Junias hypothesis has been M.-J. Lagrange (Paris, 1916; sixth ed. 1950, p. 366). His reason is a conservative one: because the abbreviation Junias is unattested, it is “more prudent” to stick to the feminine Junia. Unlike many of his Protestant colleagues, Lagrange was aware of the Patristic exegesis on this point. Precisely because the Church Fathers took the name to be feminine, Catholic exegetes of the past were generally slower to accept the innovation of Junias. But by now commentators of all confessions take ’IOUNIAN to be Junias.

What reasons have commentators given for this change? The answer is simple: a woman could not have been an apostle. Because a woman could not have been an apostle, the woman who is here called apostle could not have been a woman

See also Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon Epp. The name "Junia" appears in Romans 16:7, and Paul identifies her (along with Andronicus) as "prominent among the apostles." In this important work, Epp investigates the mysterious disappearance o… — See also Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon Epp. The name "Junia" appears in Romans 16:7, and Paul identifies her (along with Andronicus) as "prominent among the apostles." In this important work, Epp investigates the mysterious disappearance of Junia from the traditions of the church. Because later theologians and scribes could not believe (or wanted to suppress) that Paul had numbered a woman among the earliest churches' apostles, Junia's name was changed in Romans to a masculine form. Despite the fact that the earliest churches met in homes and that other women were clearly leaders in the churches (e.g., Prisca and Lydia), calling Junia an apostle seemed too much for the tradition. Epp tracks how this happened in New Testament manuscripts, scribal traditions, and translations of the Bible. In this thoroughgoing study, Epp restores Junia to her rightful place.

What can a modern philologist say about Junias? Just this: it is unattested. To date not a single Latin or Greek inscription, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed. Nor is it plausible to argue that it is just coincidental that Junias is unattested since the “long forms” Junianus. Junianius, Junilius, and Junius are common enough. It is true that Greek names could have abbreviated forms ending in -as (e.g., Artemas for Artemidoros); such names are called “hypocoristica” (terms of endearment or diminutives, e.g., Johnny for John, or Eddie for Edward). Latin hypocoristica, however, are usually formed by lengthening the name (e.g., Priscilla for Prisca) rather than by shortening it, as in Greek. The Junias hypothesis presupposes that Latin names were regularly abbreviated in the Greek fashion, which is not the case. The feminine Junia, by contrast, is a common name in both Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. In short, literally all of the philological evidence points to the feminine Junia.

What does it mean that Junia and Andronicus were apostles? Was the apostolic charge not limited to the Twelve? New Testament usage varies on this point. Luke, for example, placed great emphasis on “the twelve apostles.” In fact, with one exception (Acts 14:4, 14: both Paul and Barnabas are called “apostles”), Luke does not honor Paul with the title “apostle.” Paul on the other hand, never uses the term “the twelve apostles.” He himself claimed to be an apostle, though he was not one of the Twelve, and he also called others, such as James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19, cf. 1Corinthians 15:7), “apostle.” This does not mean that Paul used “apostle” in an unrestricted, loose sense. Precisely because of the seriousness with which he defends his own claim to apostleship (he says that he received his call from Christ himself: Galatians 1:1, 11f.; 1Corinthians 9:1), we must assume that he recognized others as apostles only when he was convinced that their own apostolic charge had also come from the risen Lord (cf. 1Corinthians 15, 7 the risen Lord was seen by all he apostles). For Paul the category “apostle’; was perhaps of even greater import than for other New Testament writers because it concerned authority in the church of his own day and did not refer to a closed circle of persons from the past, i.e., a restricted number which could not be repeated.

From this and from Paul’s description of his own apostolic work in his letters, we can assume that the apostles Junia and Andronicus were persons of great authority in the early Christian community, that they were probably missionaries and founders of churches, and that, just as with Paul, their apostleship had begun with a vision of the risen Lord and the charge to become apostles of Christ.

In light of Romans 16:7 then, the assertion that “Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women” must be revised. The implications for women priests should be self-evident. If the first century Junia could be an apostle, it is hard to see how her twentieth century counterpart should not be allowed to become even a priest.

Notes

The following comments summarize briefly the results of a comprehensive study of the history of interpretation of Romans 16:7 and of the inscriptional evidence for the name IOUNIAN. The reader interested in more complete documentation is referred to that study, which will be published in the near future.
In Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia 31, 2 (J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca [= PG] 60, 669f.).
“Can Women Be Priests?” (Report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission), see below, p. 344.
Commentaria in Epistolam ad Romanos 10, 26 (PG 14, 1281B); 10, 39 (PG 14, 1289A). Thc text printed in Migne has Junia emended to Junias, but the manuscripts have Junia or Julia.
Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72, 15 (J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina [=PL] 23, 895).
In Epistolam ad Romanos 16, 7 (PL 134, 282A).
Expositio In Epistolam ad Romanos 114 (PG 124, 552D).
Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos 5 (PL 178, 973C).
Opera Exegetica. Opuscula I (Facsimile reprint of the Rome, 1554/55 edition: Frankfurt, 1968), p. 97.
This slide is from the work of Apostle Dr. Lee Ann B. Marino, Ph.D., D.Min., D.D., Spitfire Apostolic Ministries, Inc., www.kingdompowernow.org. The slide is part of a larger collection of research presented and copyrighted by Apostle Dr. Marino in 2010.

January 14, 2020

Deacon Phoebe of Cenchreae

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

Discussion on Phoebe the Deacon of Cenchreae

“I commend to you my sister Phoebe,
the deacon of the church at Cenchreae.”
Romans 16,1

Some critics just dismiss Phoebe’s status in the apostolic Church by saying that diakonos in Greek only means ‘servant’. If this applies to Phoebe, then why not to all the words that referred to ministries in apostolic times: presbuteros (elder), episkopos (overseer) and even apostolos (delegate)? If we argue as these critics do, we might as well discount all such New Testament terms as having no more than secular implications.

Diakonos denotes a very ancient ministry. It was instituted by the apostles even before presbuteroi or episkopoi were. Diakonoi were properly ‘ordained’ by the imposition of hands and the invocation of God’s Spirit (Acts 6:1-6). Paul mentions ‘bishops and deacons’ in one breath (Philippians 1:1). In the early Christian communities everyone knew that diakonos, no less than episkopos, indicated a person with an ‘ordained’ ministry. It is therefore highly significant that Paul calls Phoebe not only a ‘diakonos’, but, as the text says literally: ‘(also) being (the) deacon of the church in Cenchreae’. Would Paul use the term loosely in this context?

The early Greek Fathers certainly understood Phoebe to have been an ordained minister. St. Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215) speaks of the ‘women deacons’ (diakonoi gunaikes) whom ‘the noble Paul mentions in his letters’. Origen (185 – 255) states: ‘This text (Romans 16,1-2) teaches with the authority of the Apostle that also women are institued as deacons in the Church’. And may we omit the testimony of Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia (112 AD), who reports that he arrested a group of Christians whose two female leaders bore the title of ministrae (Latin for diakonoi)?

All this becomes more than speculation if we remember the detailed ordination rites for women deacons, just as for male deacons, that have been preserved, dating back to at least the 4th century. In those rites the bishop calls on the Holy Spirit to pour out the grace of the diaconate on the woman ordinand ‘as you granted to Phoebe the grace of your diaconate whom you had called to this ministry’.

-John Wijngaards

Their work shows the tens of thousands of women who served as fully ordained deacons in Catholic parishes during ten long centuries. Some of them ministered in Italy and Gaul, but the vast majority lived and worked in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. At that time the Orthodox East was still part of the Catholic Church.

WICR also runs the celebrated website, womenpriests.org which provides the full case for women’s ordination in the context of scripture, theology, Tradition, and history. They show how the exclusion of women from Catholic priesthood rests on cultural prejudice against women instead of anything authentic to Christianity.

January 14, 2020

Mary Magdalene: Apostle to the Apostles

January 14, 2020/ Therese Koturbash

Women's Ordination Worldwide

Women's Ordination Worldwide

Timeline Links

Women's Ordination Worldwide