11. The Truth Vs. Historical Revisionism

An Argument Against Priestesses

"Is there not evidence for women's ordination in the early Church?"

While the imposition of hands becomes a symbolic action for several sacraments and even in charismatic prayer, its use over women in some parts of the early Church, at their own attestation, cannot be ascribed to any legitimate ordination, as understood today. Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD asserts: "Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, [the Paulianists being received into the true Church], let the same form be observed [rebaptism]. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit [enrolled], but who, since they have no imposition of hands [actually it might be rendered, "although, not having been in any way ordained"], are certainly to be numbered [or "reckoned"] only among the laity." I wish I could refer you to the original Greek which might make matters clearer. Unfortunately, Denzinger only offers the text preceding this quotation. Until recently, the need to repudiate women's ordination was not felt in the West. An accompanying note in an old Anglican text states: "This whole matter is treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while indeed speaking of deaconesses as an tagma, asserts that 'they were only women-elders, not priestesses in any sense, that their mission was not to interfere in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform certain offices in the care of women' (Haer. lxxix, cap. iij). From all this it is evident that they are entirely in error who suppose that 'the laying on of hands' which the deaconesses received corresponded to that which persons were ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate at that period of the church's history. It was merely a solemn dedication and blessing and was not looked upon as 'an outward sign of an inward grace given.' For further proof of this I must refer to Morinus, who has treated the matter most admirably. (De Ordinationibus, Exercitatio X.)"