Is it Evident that Jesus Did Not Want Women as Priests?

Is it evident that Jesus did not want women as priests?

by Ma José Arana

translation from the Spanish Mujeres Sacerdotes ¿Por qué No...?

Original text: Publicaciones Claretianas, Madrid 1994; ISBN: 84-7966-078-3;
republished with the permission of the author.

1. General Clarifications

Before delving deeper into the Gospels, it is useful to make reference to some preliminary affirmations, in our case written by Karl Rahner, but which are shared by many other authors, whether men or women: “Regarding these sacraments (marriage, holy orders, anointing of the sick and confirmation), we do not have any word from Jesus. The authorisation given to the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist is not the establishment of a sacramental rite which transmits official powers ..... So from the order of the anamnesis – i.e. the commemoration of the Last Supper, it does not follow that holy orders is sacramental. So, there are four sacraments, about the establishment of which, we do not have a single word from Jesus Christ...” (1). And, evidently, if we do not have a single word, neither do we know about a single ordination carried out by Jesus for men or women. It is very important to keep these data in mind from the start, before delving in more detail into the Gospels themselves and studying, in detail, the question which we are tackling: is it evident that Jesus did not want women as priests in his Church?

2. Jesus’s disciples and Witnesses of the Gospel

The novelty that Jesus attributed to women, and his relationship with them, at all levels, is something which, evidently, we cannot fully cover in these pages. But there is one point that we must remember: Jesus associates them totally with his apostolic life, as authentic female disciples. Perhaps, an expression of Abelardo’s can help us to focus our topic. Referring to the women who accompanied him, that is, who “followed and served” Jesus as his true disciples, he says: “so that here, too, the Lord was physically supported, during his preaching, by the ministry of women and they followed Him, in the same way as the apostles were, like inseparable companions” (2).

In effect, it is a question of a real discipleship of women, who “hear the Word of God and do the will of my father” (Matthew 12, 46-50), who “followed and ministered to them out of their possessions” (Luke 8, 1-3), who, like Martha acknowledged him and confessed to him as “Christ, the Son of God, he that comes into the world” (John 11, 27), who could quite rightly and honestly call him “my Great Master!”, because they really were his female disciples, and this is of prime importance in the subject we are tackling.

Even the disciples recognise them as “our women”, using the same term as when they referred to “our men”; “and moreover certain women of ours have amazed us...” (Luke 24, 22).

However, when legitimising the apostles, ie. the Twelve, their presence at the Last Supper was never called for as a requirement. It was expected of them that they were witnesses (and, even in this, we know there are exceptions) to the principal events in the life of Jesus and to the centre of Christian Kerygma, namely, his Death and resurrection. It is evident that the disciples had fled during the difficult moments of the passion. Neither did they show a great inclination towards believing what the women proclaimed to them about the resurrection; they struggled to accept their testimony (Luke 24, 11). However, the beloved disciple, present at the foot of the Cross, saved the situation and in him Tradition saw the representation of the rest of the male disciples (John. 19, 26). Peter and John came to the tomb at the suggestion of the women (John 20, 3); the Gospels do not tell us of any special apparition to Peter – with John, he saw the empty tomb and participated in the general apparitions. In this way his testimony was able to be valid and apostolically laid the foundations of the Christian faith. We cannot say that the apostles particularly stood out for their bravery and loyalty to Jesus at these difficult times, but, fortunately, the denials of Peter, the betrayal of Judas, the abandonment by the disciples, their disbelief.... have not “tarnished” all Christian males, like, long ago, the fall of Eve “contaminated” feminine Christians in general, in an inexplicable sexual complicity.

But it appears very clear in the Gospels that women were privileged witnesses to all these happenings: they consoled and walked with Jesus right up to the Cross (Luke 23, 26-32); there they ended the “great journey” which they had begun with him, following him and serving him “from Galilee”, from the beginning, as “witnesses” (Matthew 15, 42 and parallels) from the theological place of “election to discipleship” which is Luke’s Galilee (3). They closely followed his sufferings. They were present at the burial of Jesus and “beheld where he was laid” (Mark 15, 47; Mark 16,1). They received the proclamation from the Angels, were graced by the vision of his Resurrected Body and were sent to communicate it to the Apostles. However, the disciples took a long time to believe them, because according to Jewish mentality, “they needed” the testimony of a male who could “legitimise” the credibility of that fact: “And, to them, this tale seemed more nonsense, and they believed them not.....” (Luke 24,11). Jesus himself threw their lack of faith in their faces (Luke 24, 23). And yet, why is there this insistence that the women are actually the first to testify that Jesus has been raised and are charged with communicating it to the Eleven?

So, according to the Gospels, women are the true witnesses of the passion, death, burial, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus and their testimony is carried back from Galilee, from the beginnings, from the place where the ministerial life of the Master takes place, the place where the disciples are elected; and the “journey” to Jerusalem has a unique and definitive character: it signifies wholly and jointly living the events of Easter, being authentic witnesses: “Go to my brothers”. And the women fulfil this mission.

So then, it is logical what Benedict says in this respect: “On the other hand, the fact that the apparition was granted first to women, has to speak for itself. Because it affected the pre-eminence of the apostles in a certain way, and the primitive community would have been more inclined to remove it than to invent it” (4). Something of this must have occurred when Paul seems to totally forget and not even make reference to them (women) in a fundamental text: “He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that to more than 500...... to St. James,....... to all the apostles..” and even to Paul himself (l Corinthians 15, 5) but the women are not even mentioned.

The Evangelists do name them (the women), but is it a coincidence that women are mentioned precisely at this moment in Jesus’s life? Certainly, it seems that faced with the absence of men, the holy writers had to resort to them as much to quote them as witnesses as, surely, to gather some information on the facts. It does not seem strange, either, that they were present at the moment of the Ascension (Matthew 28, 16), as it was they who were charged with communicating to the disciples the time and place when they had to meet up in Galilee, but the Eleven were already present and they are the ones who are mentioned.

Also, it seems important to me to emphasise that women were witnesses to the two moments in which Tradition most clearly saw the symbol and birth of the Church: that of the piercing by the lance, at which, symbolically and sacramentally, the water and blood from Christ’s chest expressed this gift of God to the world (John 19, 31); and the one in which they, with the other disciples, received the Holy Spirit in the Cenacle (Acts 2) and so, together with the apostles and Mary, the mother of Jesus, they formed the nucleus of the budding church under the prompting of the Spirit. And also, through that same Spirit, it is said explicitly and continuously with the Old Testament, “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2, 18), receiving and fully participating in its charisms and gifts.

That is to say, they did not passively contemplate all these mysteries but, as Abelardo says, “these holy women were established as apostles for the apostles, sent by the Lord or by the Angels...” (5). This is true of all of them, and not only of Mary Magdalene.

3. Were women present at the Last Supper?

There still remains, however, the question, which has, on so many occasions, been adduced as difficult, when it comes to talking about priestly orders for women: were they present at the Last Supper?

Feminist theology is developing what has come to be referred to as a summary and textual interpretation of suspicion, i.e. investigations are showing us that we need to “be suspicious” of silence of omission, not only in biblical texts i.e. (which, even if they do not have the outward intention of hiding anything, do at least omit data), but also of history in general which suffers the same bad habit of ignoring women and continually forgetting about their presence. Masculine language which absorbs, and makes the feminine sex invisible, does not benefit us either, but something like this also occurs when the Evangelists say that there were “some five thousand men, besides the women and children” (Matthew 14, 21). The worst thing is that they do not always add this explanation but normally they take it to be implicit in the text and ignore women.

This same “unknown situation” appears clearly in a very important moment in the life of Jesus. According to the Evangelists, women were not present in the three scenes in which Jesus predicted his passion and resurrection (6). In these passages, they are not mentioned; according to the texts, Jesus always addresses the disciples (we do not know if “female disciples” are included) or the Twelve. Also, this is done in secret. However, when the angels appear to the women, announcing the resurrection, what they are told is to remember: “Remember what he spoke to you about when he was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man had to be delivered into the hands of male sinners, crucified and raised on the third day....”. The evangelist does not say “what he said to the men” but “what he spoke to you ( women)” and “they remembered his words...” (Luke 24, 6-8). That is to say, it must be concluded that the presence of women is simply passed over. He includes their presence in those moments when he speaks of “disciples”. Or ,otherwise, we need to conclude that the Evangelists forgot to tell us about the moment in which Jesus revealed it separately to the women (!!!).

The data we have provided previously when referring to the presence of women at the Easter events also underpin this theory. Women are not explicitly named as guests at the Last Supper; but we know that, firstly, we cannot irrevocably conclude they were absent because of this; neither would they necessarily have disregarded them, as it was not a custom that was contrary to Jewish practice. Quentin Quesnell has an interesting article in which he proves their attendance at the Last Supper in great detail. He underlines the discipleship status of the women and shows this even by the language of the Discourse, the size of the place and other data, but so as not to expand further here, please refer to his text (7). It is also necessary to remember that the Last Supper was not the setting for the establishment of the sacrament of Holy Orders; it was – indeed – for that of the Eucharist, in which, fortunately, women can participate, whether they had been witnesses to its establishment or not.

On the other hand, theologically, does the resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, which transforms the offerings, not seem much more fundamental in the Eucharistic sacrifice? Here, in this sacrifice, women did totally and actively participate and they were established as true witnesses, eye witnesses, in condolence and hope, witnesses proclaiming the complete Kerygma and as such they can truthfully say: “we proclaim your death, we proclaim your resurrection....”. This is, of course, without definite sexist statements, without excluding anyone or forgetting those words of Jesus to the disciples either: “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20, 29).

4. Jesus’s anointings

However, John does not talk about the institution of the Eucharist, as such, at the Last Supper, and this is important information; the washing of feet is the symbolic gesture in which many exegetes have seen the expression and sense of the Eucharist. Although as far as Peter was concerned, as we can well remember, it was not easy for him to understand it.

But we know that a woman performs and, in a way, foreshadows the actions of the Master, on the very person of Jesus. Abelard, who we are going to refer to shortly, says this beautifully, with some expressions and a mentality which was pretty different to those prevailing in his era: “Until the end of his service, the Lord had water placed in a washbasin for his ablutions. But she did not offer him external water, but the tears of intimate compassion”. “Certainly”, this author continues, “from none of the disciples or the men are we aware that Jesus received these personal kindnesses” (8). And if we read it in this prophetic and Eucharistic context, the symbol is filled with meaning.

But this sign acquires a more solid significance because the “anointing” that the woman performed on Jesus, specifically in Matthew and Mark, is carried out as an immediate introduction to the passion, just before the “betrayal of Judas” as a contrast to this, emphasising the loyalty of the woman.

We will let ourselves be guided by the same author, who uncovers, in great depth, the prophetic and sacramental meaning of the gesture:

He links the anointing in Bethany, as Jesus himself had already done, with that of the tomb, and discovers its prophetic meaning in which “the future incorruption of the Body of the Lord is proclaimed and foreshadowed”. But, and here our author places a special emphasis, he links it to the Christian sacraments, too, and to the anointing of Christ as King and Priest, which fulfils in itself, precisely by means of this anointing, the prophecies of the Old Testament. “Daniel had predicted it”, he says and the text continues: “He was anointed twice, both on the feet and on the head. He received the sacraments of King and Priest...”. And he is astonished because “we know that in the first place a stone was anointed as a symbol of the Lord by the Patriarch Jacob. And afterwards, the anointing of kings and priests or any other anointing was only allowed to be carried out by men”, and it seems that Abelard himself fears that there are contradictions with ecclesiastical practice and clarifies: “although women can sometimes baptise”. He continues further on, emphasising:

Certainly, the anointings that the woman performed on Christ the King, the Priest and Prophet, have a distinct sacramental and prophetic character (10). So then, whoever performs them on the Head, will she have no significance for the members of the Mystical Body, Christ who is the Church? Because, as we have seen, “the anointing of the head is superior; that of the feet, inferior. Here it is that the King receives the sacrament from the woman, a sacrament which the Kingdom refused to allow men to offer......”.

But, in addition, “having angered the disciples by such audacity...., the woman also benefited from the fact that in the same Gospel her action was inserted and preached jointly with him in remembrance and praise of the woman who did this” (Abelard, ibid). This praising by Jesus is key to our topic: “I assure you: wherever the Good News is proclaimed, in the entire world, we will also speak, of what this she has done in her memory” (Mark 14, 9). These words, unique in the Gospel, are of prime important and are addressed specifically towards a woman, in the context of anointing. And they are of such importance, not only because it immortalises the deeds of this woman, but also, in addition, they are exactly the same as the very words of Jesus, to which Paul refers us in the passage of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, with regard to the Eucharist. The Apostle uses a similar expression: “At the moment when the Eucharist was established, at the Last Supper, Jesus exhorted his disciples to repeat his gestures and his words, precisely in memoria mea (1 Corinthians 11, 23. 25). The Greek terms are equivalent and refer to the anamnesis. If we consider the importance which is attributed to this term in the worship and celebration of the Christian Eucharist and if we compare, as is logical, both sentences: “in memory of her” and “in memory of me”, we will certainly realise that it is no coincidence that, after the carrying out of the anointing of Jesus, the woman receives from him the assurance that the act would be remembered, specifically, “in memory of her”. But, as Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza notes, although the Eucharistic formula “in my memory” is verbally similar to the evangelical affirmation “in memory of her”, the Church, subsequently, did not ritualise this history of the woman prophet, but explained it in another way, using it to present, as the will of God, the fact that poverty cannot be eliminated (11).

However, we should retrieve this formula in all its sacramental, symbolic-Eucharistic sense, in the context of the blood that redeems and nourishes us, and of the oil which consecrates and anticipates the burial of Christ. Using an expression from the orthodox theologian Anca Manolache we will say: “This time the Master makes clear an unexpected and strange distinction. No one has been exalted in this way by the Lord throughout the Gospel. This woman is the only entrusted recipient of such an anamnesis, arranged by Jesus himself, and using the same terms in which Paul tells us about the institution of the Eucharist” (12).

Effectively, could the situation of women in the Gospel lead us to affirm with such clarity that Jesus, decidedly, did not want them as priests in his Church? Is this affirmation, which is repeated throughout the centuries in our Church, sufficiently proven? Which biblical text proves this and positively excludes them?

5. Mary, the Mother of Jesus

Popular and artistic devotion has developed and handed down the image of the pietá (compassionate suffering) of Mary. It is the moment in which she welcomes, in her lap, the dead body of Christ; the body which is going to be buried and, from the same earth, will be raised and glorified by its own energy and the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a moment of contemplation and offering. She offers to the Father the Son sacrificed in Golgotha for the salvation of the world. She had remained present and compassionate at the foot of the Cross, with the other women, but her presence and her relationship were substantially different; in this pietá, her participation and identification in the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is complete.

In Catholic theology, there is no hesitation in granting Mary the title of co-redeemer, co-operator of our redemption, especially because of her total association with the supreme sacrifice on the Cross and as co-offerer of her Son, for the salvation of the world. In this intimate communion with Christ, the true Mediator, she completely participates and co-operates in his delivery to the Father until the very end at the Stations of the Cross; thus, she is a true “redeemer of the world” (13). In effect, we can assert that “ because of this co-operation in the main act of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, as well as the constant application by Our Lord, supreme Priest, of all the graces warranted for his passion, Mary can legitimately be called Virgo sacerdos....”. And, elsewhere, the same author says “So, the virginity of the divine maternity has repercussions for the Christian Priesthood...” (14).

There are very many thinkers who, in the tradition of the Church, have looked deeply into this topic. Saint Bernard, Saint Andrew of Crete, E. Hugon and others thoroughly examine this real, positive and, definite “priestly” contribution of Mary’s to our redemption and salvation. Albert the Great calls her “co-helper and associate of Christ”. San Irenaeus uses the formula “cause of our health” (15). Arnaud de Chartres (XII cent.) goes as far as to say that the sacrifice of the holocaust is simultaneously offered to God by Mary and by Christ; Jesus “in sanguine carnis” [=with the blood of his flesh] and Mary “in sanguine cordis” [= with the blood of her heart](16). Muller talks of the “vicarious task of Mary in the salvation of humanity” (17).

She is truly co-redemptrix with Christ, and, in the most classic theology, she is called “Virgo Sacerdos”, co-redeemer, authentic, universal and interceding mediator (Saint Alfons Maria de Ligori). Because of all of this, she is invoked as “Queen of Priests”. Saint Thomas explains how Christ, as true Priest, applies through the intercession of the priests, the graces and favours of his passion, and Mary, through her intercession, also co-operates (18).

So then, the dead body that Mary supports is that of her own Son, Flesh of her Flesh and truly the Blood of her Blood. No one, as much as she could say: “This is my Body”. There is a whole real, physical and spiritual meaning in this affirmation. Because when Mary accepts, in her “official function”, the maternity of Jesus, the divine maternity, she is filled with the Holy Spirit and then the process of gestation begins according to the flesh, within the active core of Mary’s body. Effectively, the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers states that the Son of God has been embodied in Mary, has remained in her breast, and she is not a passive receptacle but has given birth to and informed the Son of Man, “according to the law of human conception”, as Saint Gregory Nazianze formulates.

Mary is Mother in the complete sense of the term. The Body of Jesus participates in that of his mother; is formed in Mary.

“She conceived in her breast and gave birth through the work of the Holy Spirit”. It is here that the Sacrifice of Christ and the contribution of Mary begins; from here the intimate communion between the Mother and the Son starts off, which perseveres and deepens throughout the whole of his life until the very end in the stations of the Cross and the glorious resurrection. So, the act of the Incarnation is already a priestly act: She makes it possible for Jesus to come into the world. The liturgy expresses it plainly: “She, through whom we have been able to receive the creator of life, our Lord Jesus Christ” (19).

More traditional and orthodox theology claims that Mary co-operates in the main act of the priesthood of Christ, giving her consent, accepting it, from the moment of the Incarnation, throughout her whole life and, at the foot of the Cross, actively participating in his sufferings and, in doing so, in those of all of humanity. The “let it be done to me” of the Mother and the “here I am” of the Son go hand in hand, in one movement respecting the will of the Father for the salvation and redemption of the World. Mary carries out this act, according to Saint Thomas, as a deputy, ie, representing all of humanity, “loco totius humanae naturae” (20); of course, rightly so, it does not occur to such theologians to exclude from this deputising act anyone who is not of the feminine sex.

All of Christ’s life is a sacrifice, a Eucharist, and, as Teilhard de Chardin tells us, “the only Mass and the only communion”, which are carried out on the Cross because the rest constitute one whole with this. Mary is co-offerer, co-redeemer, mediator in the Great Mass of the World. The body that is delivered forms part of the physical being of Mary, for she gave birth to him. So then, the affirmation “this is my Body” in front of the dead and mutilated Body of Christ, is even fulfilled, physically, in Mary.

It is very difficult to understand how one of the difficulties that medieval authors raise against ordaining women and in their participating in other powers is that Mary was not “ordained” (Duns Scotus), did not baptise (Didascalia), did not receive “the power of the keys” (Inocentius III)....,and even, recently, Müller: “Christ placed the Apostles in this ministry, but not his Mother....” (21). It is clear, on close inspection, that these affirmations are, at the very least, an anachronism, since Jesus, as we have been repeating continuously, neither ordained men nor women nor, of course, his Mother. Mary, just like her Son, Jesus, was a lay woman of the Jewish people. But why were they going to “ordain her?” Mary was his Mother, so who, like her has brought Jesus into the World? Who can we claim has acted as “mediator, co-redeemer and a priest? “Virgo sacerdos”, but why was she not ordained ritually? Can women not be priests? And, for this very reason, did Jesus not want them as priests in his Church either? What does mediator, co-redeemer, co-offerer, intercessor mean? In fact, what is the priesthood? There are painful contradictions, which are difficult to explain.

Footnotes

1. RAHNER, K. La Iglesia y los sacramentos, Edit. Herder, Barcelona 1967, p. 45.

2. Yo misma he trabajado este tema: ARANA, M. J., La Mujer en los Evangelios sinópticos, tesina presentada en la U. de Deusto, 1974, s/p.

3. H. CONZELMANN, El centro del tiempo. La teologica lucana, Madrid 1971, p. 64.

4. M. E. BOISMARD y P. BENOIT, Synopse des quatre évangiles, París 1972, p. 151. Los textos evangélicos: Mt. 27, 55-56 y 57-61; 28, 1-10 y 9-10, etc. y paralelos, Jn. 1-2 11-18; Lc. 24, 22-24.

5. ABELARDO, P, PL 178. Ep. VIII.

6. Los anuncios de la Pasión están siempre dirigidos a los Doce o a los discípulos. En el primer anuncio, se dice: "Mientras Él estaba a solas, orando, se hallaban los discípulos con Él" (Lc. 9, 18-22); "salió con los discípulos" (Mc. 8, 31; Mt. 16, 21-28). En Lc. 9, 43-45, se narra el segundo anuncio: "dijo a sus discípulos...", "No quería que se supiera, porque iba enseñando a sus discípulos" (Mc. 9, 30; Mt.17, 22-23). El tercero es más restrictivo: "Tomando consigo a los Doce, les dijo" (Lc. 18, 31)."Tomó otra vez a los Doce" (Mc. 10, 32; Mt. 20, 17) y paralelos.

7. Ibid. Los textos citados que siguen pertenecen a la misma Ep. VIII, por lo que evitaremos las citas.

8. Ibidem.

9. Ibidem.

10. Cfr. 2 Sam. 3; Ps. 132, 10, etc.

11. E. SCHUSSLER FIORENZA, o.c. p. 203.

12. A. MANOLACHE, Anotaciones sobre Marcos 14. Hojas ciclostiladas s/. p. 4.

13. Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, París 1927, o.c. Ver María.

14. Ibidem, col. 2397, 2366.

15. Adv. H. 3, 22, 4; P.G. 7, cit. A. Muller, "Puesto de María y su cooperación en el acontecimiento de Cristo", Misterium salutis III/2, Madrid 1975, p. 959.

16. ARNAUD DE CHARTRES, De laudibus B.V.M. P.L. 189, col. 1727, cit. en Dict. Th. o.c./ "En la sangre de la carne", "en la sangre del corazón".

17. MULLER, loc. cit. p. 466

18. STO. TOMÁS DE AQUINO, Contra Gentiles, 1, IV, c. 74, 76

19. LEFEBVRE, Misal Romano, Brujas 1960, Misa de la Virgen en sábado.

20. STO. TOMÁS DE AQUINO, Summ. Th. III, q. 30, a 1.

21. A. MÜLLER, o.c. 501. Ver también R. LAURENTIN, Marie, L’Eglise et le sacerdoce, París 1953; L. BOFF, El rostro materno de Dios. Ensayo interdisciplinar sobre lo femenino y sus formas religiosas, Madrid 1979. K. RAHNER, Dicc. Teol. o.c. vv/ "María mediadora".

Translated by Lisa Mullins

Return to the index of the book?

Bottom Bar

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.