Do Episcopalians believe that monotheistic religions have a plan of salvation?

[manualman]

Barbara,

I know I’m a bit argumentative, but forgive me. I can’t help being blunt.

What you just wrote can cut two ways. Yes, we ARE supposed to grow closer to God as we mature and it is supposed to become more about a love that comprehends rather than merely a will that submits. But please be aware that the course you are describing sounds perilously like only you are now capable of discerning truth from error, not any external source outside your own personal communion with God.

Ask God in prayer if he really wants things that way. Sounds dangerous to me. I know I sure need some external guard rails on this narrow winding road…

 

[bbcrane]

Barbara,

I know I’m a bit argumentative, but forgive me. I can’t help being blunt.

What you just wrote can cut two ways. Yes, we ARE supposed to grow closer to God as we mature and it is supposed to become more about a love that comprehends rather than merely a will that submits. But please be aware that the course you are describing sounds perilously like only you are now capable of discerning truth from error, not any external source outside your own personal communion with God.

Ask God in prayer if he really wants things that way. Sounds dangerous to me. I know I sure need some external guard rails on this narrow winding road…

Thanks for the thoughts. That is why I have decided to talk to my priest. It’s time for some deeper spiritual direction from someone more knowledgeable than I.

 

[GKC]

Of course not, for two reasons:

1. If by “spiritually inferior” you mean “less personally pious,” then of course that’s not in question here. But furthermore
2. As a man, you are ontologically *capable *of being ordained. So you are comparing applies and oranges. It’s not the *fact *of being ordained that indicates superiority. It’s the *capacity *to be ordained. That is also the answer to the flimsy argument “why didn’t Jesus ordain women if women could be ordained?” As opponents of women’s ordination rightly (but irrelevantly) point out, there is no right to ordination. That’s not the issue at all. But when you say that women are “invalid matter,” you are saying something about women’s nature. Or rather, as I said above, you are saying one of two things. Either women have a “separate but equal” nature (along the lines of hypothetical aliens for whom some other plan of salvation has been provided), in which case they shouldn’t be Christians at all (or should have their own incarnation a la the Shakers), or women are in fact inferior.

I don’t think that exhausts the way the Catholic tradition speaks about the priesthood.

More to the point, St. Thomas Aquinas *explicitly *says that women lack the ruling faculty and hence should not have any kind of authority. It is simply anachronistic and blind to claim that this had nothing to do with why women were traditionally excluded from ordination. This is not just about women wanting power. It’s about historical honesty. The defenders of the male-only priesthood whitewash the tradition by denying in the teeth of the evidence that the exclusion of women had anything to do with the belief that women were inferior.

If you would vote for a woman for President, then you’ve already abandoned the principle that underlay the exclusion of women from the priesthood. I do not advocate the subordination of women in civil life. But those who maintain this at least have a coherent view. What makes no sense at all is to allow women happily to have power in other areas and exclude them from the priesthood. And it borders on hypocrisy to then claim that the priesthood doesn’t have anything to do with power and that those who think it does are “clericalists.” Sure–Aquinas was a clericalist too. Early Christians were clericalists. There is no reason to think that they would have excluded women from the priesthood otherwise. That’s why women could be pagan priestesses–because pagan priestesses had purely ritual functions. Christian “priests” were presbyters, elders of the community, rulers. That adequately explains the fact that the Catholic Church did not traditionally ordain women.

When necessary. Clearly He didn’t think this one was necessary.

But why would He? You are the one “reading God’s mind.” You’re claiming to know what Jesus would have done. I’m not doing that. I’m pointing to things we can actually verify historically–attitudes that can be found in texts from most periods in history.

Again: ordination is not a right. Ordination is for the good of the Church, not for personal self-fulfillment. The fact that no women were ordained for most of the Church’s history was not a wrong done to women. Jesus was not (in anything like the modern sense) a feminist.

But the claim that women are biologically inferior is false. And that being the case, the claim that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained is incompatible with the baptism of women. If women are saved through Jesus, and if women’s biology is not imperfect, then women are valid matter for ordination. That does not necessarily result in any women actually being ordained, although in practice it presumably would do so (and of course has done so, in my belief).

Edwin

Remind me again why you equate “non-identity” with “inferiority”.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

The Scriptures clearly show the importance of women whether in leadership positions like Deborah and Phoebe or being held in high esteem by Our Lord like Mary Magdelene, Martha and Mary, and the BVM.

Not really relevant.

I find it hard to believe that early Christians felt the Blessed Virgin Mary not biologically equal to men.

Well, unfortunately historical facts are not true or false based on how easy or difficult you find it to believe them. (See, I’m not a postmodernist after all)

Given contemporary cultural assumptions, I can see why you find it difficult to understand how one could venerate someone one considered biologically inferior. But they clearly did just this. In fact, Mary’s biological inferiority made her holiness all the more worthy of veneration. God’s grace shone forth in her *despite *the weakness of her femininity. That’s actually the basis for much Marian piety. Marian piety might not have been so important in the history of the Church if not for the belief that women were inferior.

I believe “roles” is the angle to look toward, not biological inferiority.

It is a more convenient angle, at least if you don’t look too deeply.

Are men and women meant to have the same roles in every single avenue of life?

Straw man. For Catholics this isn’t about roles. The claim is not just that women shouldn’t play this particular role, but that they are “invalid matter.” That is a claim about ontology, not just function.

If it was just about roles, then you would believe that women could validly be ordained but ought not to be (that women’s ordination was illicit, not invalid). That would be a whole different debate (the debate that folks like me have with conservative Protestants, who do in fact think that ordination is just a role–it’s actually a more difficult debate because the Christological argument doesn’t work as well, and it boils down to beliefs about the relationship of Scripture to culture).

Are men biologically inferior because they cannot bear children?

Men can beget children. Men and women produce children together, playing different roles. If you want to make this a “roles” debate, then name one role in the Church that women can play which is the the counterpart of the priesthood. Nuns are the counterparts of monks, not priests. Mothers are the counterparts of physical fathers, not priests. (And motherhood isn’t an office in the Church anyway.) I’d rather not get into this debate, because that allows you to avoid the argument from the Incarnation. But in fact this particular argument is specious too, for what that’s worth.

The role of priest is fatherly.

And what motherly role is there in the Church? None that I can see. Again, this really isn’t the point.

I think to carry the biological inferiority hypothesis to its conclusion, one would have to say Jesus Himself felt women inferior then (which I totally reject).

Or simply that He wasn’t trying to overturn people’s cultural assumptions on that particular issue. I don’t think Jesus was a feminist. I don’t think He was using the apostolate to make some kind of egalitarian point.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, that if Jesus Christ wished for women to play the role of priest, they would have indeed been ordained as apostles

And I’ve said before and will say again that we have no business basing a theological argument on our speculation as to what Jesus would have done. Ancient cultural attitudes about women are a matter of historical record. What Jesus “would have done” is presumptuous, maybe blasphemous speculation. There were a lot of evils Jesus didn’t attack. Jesus violated cultural norms only when it was directly relevant to His mission at the time. (Why didn’t Jesus make a point against slavery? There’s no evidence that any of the Twelve were slaves. And if that seems weak, consider that the only reason we know that the Twelve were all men is that the names are obviously masculine.)

And yet Christ didn’t ordain her?

He didn’t pick her as one of the Twelve. I would question the assumption that being chosen as one of the Twelve is simply identical to ordination. But furthermore, as conservatives keep pointing out, ordination is not a right. Basing an argument about valid matter on the fact that someone was not ordained is extremely weak.

The group that was willing to go against the sactity and caution of the church were the gnostics, a vile group of heretics.

And I have explained why–because everyone thought women were biologically inferior, and for the Gnostics bodies didn’t matter.

Not accepting women’s ordination is not a bigotted, prejudiced, or unenlightened theological opinion.

Straw man. My problem with it is that in the absence of scientific beliefs no one now holds, the claim that women are invalid matter is incompatible with orthodox Christianity, because it leads to the conclusion that women cannot be saved through Christ.

I do wish someone would at least try to refute this argument. But everyone prefers to argue against feminist straw persons instead.

In any case, in secular life I have no problem with women

And while I’m glad that’s the case, from a logical point of view it is a fatal flaw in your position. I admit that I also care about the fact that it gives the impression to the world that the Church is the one place where women are not equal. But if the practice could be defended on other grounds, we would just have to put up with that. In fact, the oddity of saying that women can hold civil office but can’t be presbyters or bishops is only a symptom of the fact that you are holding on to a practice while having abandoned the framework that made it coherent.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Remind me again why you equate “non-identity” with “inferiority”.

GKC

I do not do any such thing. But simply saying “non-identity is not inferiority” is not enough, if the non-identity in question does amount to inferiority. The Shakers believed in non-identity without inferiority (or rather believe, since according to Wikipedia there are still three of them left), but the Shakers are heretics (however admirable in other respects).

Here’s a way of putting it that is a bit different than what I’ve said in other posts:

1. Jesus is the head of the human race. By this I mean that He is the paradigmatic human being, the most fully human of us all. He recapitulates humanity, as St. Irenaeus said.
2. The fact that Jesus is male is either essential or incidental to His headship.
3. If Jesus’ maleness is essential, it follows that maleness is superior to femaleness, because to be male is to be more like Jesus in a manner essential to His status as the head and sum of humanity. (This consequence is something that most Christians in the past would have affirmed without hesitation.)
4. If Jesus’ maleness is incidental to His ability to sum up the human race in Himself, then women are valid matter for ordination.
5. Therefore, either women are valid matter for ordination or the male is superior (in itself) to the female.

My argument does not rest on the general claim that non-identity is equivalent to inferiority, but to the particular implications of orthodox Christology and soteriology.

I think it’s also possible to argue that where
a. non-identity is used to support one group having more power than another, and/or where
b. the supposed “equal non-identity” actually consists of an important role being given to group a and not group b, while every role given to group b can be matched by a role given to group a
there nonidentity does equal inferiority.

However, that is not a distinctively Christian argument and is not the one I prefer to focus on. I note that opponents of the validity of women’s ordination love to focus on this kind of argument, usually ignoring or dismissing the Christological argument. (To be fair, there are plenty of proponents of women’s ordination who take this kind of socio-political tack as well, and I understand that most arguments against women’s ordination were forged in that context.) I engage in this second kind of argument only when people make blatantly illogical claims like “men can’t be mothers, so why should women be priests?” when in fact physical fatherhood is the counterpart to physical motherhood and there is no genuine feminine counterpart to the priesthood in orthodox Christianity.

It should also be relevant to a lover of history such as yourself that historically people (at least men, but women may have accepted it as well) did believe women were biologically inferior. In this particular case non-identity was very explicitly equated with inferiority until very recently.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, Thank you for your post and I appreciate your comments. You are right; it isn’t the same thing. Maybe that is the problem; my faith. I have faith in God but not necessarily all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Well, join the club. Folks on this forum may tell you that you are “not really Catholic,” but questioning Church teaching (or more precisely, questioning whether a certain commonly believed doctrine or practice is really part of the perennial teaching of the Church) is something Catholics do all the time. You should feel lucky that you have such a rich, deep, well-rooted teaching to question. If you question Episcopal doctrine, it’s likely to change to accommodate you. And then where are you? You have to go back to the drawing board and find something else to question, which is very unsettling. (The “you” here is the colloquial equivalent of “one”–I am not making fun of you personally–of myself if anything.)

Nobody is likely to throw you out of the Catholic Church because you have issues with some things. Maybe the Church has something it can learn from you. Certainly you have much to learn from so ancient and profound a Christian tradition as Catholicism–we all do. So why leave?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

. . . . And also what in Scripture do you see PERMITTING women’s ordination? You say there is no Biblical objection. From the Sciptures through the many centuries, we see no justification or theologians supporting this position other than heretics in the gnostic sects. Why didn’t Christ ordain a female apostle? Any theories? Why were there none in the early church and none throughout history until the twentieth century in the Anglican world?

And how do you know that tradition is prejudiced and not your sensibilities being prejudiced by the secular world? How can you be so sure it is not you who is being prejudiced but rather the Church thanks to bogus traditions?. . . .

Junia was an Apostle, even called “prominent among the Apostles.” Some Bible translations went so far as to change the female name of Junia to the male name, “Junias.” I suppose the idea of a female Apostle is a rather scandalous thing.

**Romans 16 (NAB): **7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, 5my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.

5 [7] The name Junia is a woman’s name. One ancient Greek manuscript and a number of ancient versions read the name “Julia.” Most editors have interpreted it as a man’s name, Junias.

Tabitha was a Disciple.

**Acts 9 (NAB): **36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). 10 She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.

**10 [36] Tabitha (Dorcas), respectively the Aramaic and Greek words for “gazelle,” exemplifies the right attitude toward material possessions expressed by Jesus in the Lucan Gospel (Luke 6:30; 11:41; 12:33; 18:22; 19:8).

There is question regarding whether or not 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 was contained in the autographs, or was a later “interpolation,” used to keep women in subordinate roles.

Some Bible translations make reference to the “interpolation” possibility, such as the [New American Bible, from Catholic Bibles Online, link: Catholic Faith Education: Catholic Bibles Online]

1 Corinthians Chapter 14 (NAB):
33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones, **10 **

34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

**10 **[33b-36] Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34-35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.

1 Corinthians Chapter 14:33-36 seems to be in direct contradiction to:

**Galatians 3 (ESV): **27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

If we all are baptized and in Christ, and there is no male or female; how can you justify denying the ordination of woman?

There are other examples as well, but I lost my connection to the Catholic Bibles Online and the Catholic NAB–not sure if they are overloaded or working on the site. I can give more examples later.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Saying Junia was prominent among the apostles doesn’t mean she was one herself. I’m a teacher. You could say I am prominent among the principals of my school district, doesn’t make me an administrator?

And the classic, “there is no male or female, Scythian or Greek, slave or free” words to that affect, is often used by liberals trying to justify WO. It’s a thin argument, bone thin. Read the entirety of this passage before and after it. It is not an ordination or clerical context but rather SALVATION. Of course women, men, black, white, Jew, Gentile, all are capable of being saved. Of course in Christ there are no distinctions in our salvation. That only makes sense. But this is what happens when you approach things with a sola scriptura angle like you’re doing. You’ll use your own cherry-picked passages and come up with the conclusions you were looking to find–self-fullfilling prophecies. Holistically look at the entirety of Scripture with regard to women, the early church, and the past 2,000 years and your argument collapses like the Titanic.

Paul also points out that we all have different gifts–some teachers, some clergy, some prophets, some healers, some with preaching, etc. Are we all cut out for the same destiny as Christians? Not at all. Now in the year 2010 we all like to throw Scripture upside down and go with secular sensibilities. The Bible is not an Oprah episode and we need to look at the consistency and timelessness of truth. Truth is not relative or maleable like clay. It’s like granite. Moral and theological relativism is the most dangerous heresy of our times.

Junia was an Apostle, even called “prominent among the Apostles.” Some Bible translations went so far as to change the female name of Junia to the male name, “Junias.” I suppose the idea of a female Apostle is a rather scandalous thing.

Tabitha was a Disciple.

There is question regarding whether or not 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 was contained in the autographs, or was a later “interpolation,” used to keep women in subordinate roles.

Some Bible translations make reference to the “interpolation” possibility, such as the [New American Bible, from Catholic Bibles Online, link: Catholic Faith Education: Catholic Bibles Online]

1 Corinthians Chapter 14:33-36 seems to be in direct contradiction to:

If we all are baptized and in Christ, and there is no male or female; how can you justify denying the ordination of woman?

There are other examples as well, but I lost my connection to the Catholic Bibles Online and the Catholic NAB–not sure if they are overloaded or working on the site. I can give more examples later.

Anna

 

[GKC]

Twice I have gotten well into a detailed reply. Twice I have lost it. Make of that what you will. This is going to be a short version.

But if it is non-identity, and not inferiority in any meaningful sense, then it is enough. Christ is the head of humanity. And between Him and us there is an unbridgeable, ontological gap (on this sub-lunar sphere) of kind, and not degree. Christ is perfection; no human possesses perfection in any degree, in any category. Christ is sui generis; His status says nothing about what roles he would assign to the rest of us, in His perfection. A man does not more closely approach perfection by virtue of his sex, nor merits any role because of it, save as the hand of the Maker chooses to use him (or her). A saw is not less or more the platonic perfect tool, in that it cannot fill the function of a hammer. The Maker uses what tools he will for his purpose. And did so.

You use power terms, which, you recognize, are also the language of political entitlement. I see the role as a given role, from the Perfection that is entitled to define the role. I do not assume I know Christ’s mind. Only His actions, and that from history. I know from history (you’re right) also, what imperfect man has done. But I have no reason whatsoever to read mankind’s motives/actions back into that of Perfection. I know what He did, if I don’t know why, any more than I know why He didn’t do other things. In this, go thou and do likewise. I cannot see this as anything save a theory of culturally conditioned constraint, in which I do not believe, believing what I do of Christ.

First time around was the best.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Saying Junia was prominent among the apostles doesn’t mean she was one herself. I’m a teacher. You could say I am prominent among the principals of my school district, doesn’t make me an administrator?

And the classic, “there is no male or female, Scythian or Greek, slave or free” words to that affect, is often used by liberals trying to justify WO. It’s a thin argument, bone thin. Read the entirety of this passage before and after it. It is not an ordination or clerical context but rather SALVATION. Of course women, men, black, white, Jew, Gentile, all are capable of being saved. Of course in Christ there are no distinctions in our salvation. That only makes sense. But this is what happens when you approach things with a sola scriptura angle like you’re doing. You’ll use your own cherry-picked passages and come up with the conclusions you were looking to find–self-fullfilling prophecies. Holistically look at the entirety of Scripture with regard to women, the early church, and the past 2,000 years and your argument collapses like the Titanic.

Paul also points out that we all have different gifts–some teachers, some clergy, some prophets, some healers, some with preaching, etc. Are we all cut out for the same destiny as Christians? Not at all. Now in the year 2010 we all like to throw Scripture upside down and go with secular sensibilities. The Bible is not an Oprah episode and we need to look at the consistency and timelessness of truth. Truth is not relative or maleable like clay. It’s like granite. Moral and theological relativism is the most dangerous heresy of our times.

First of all, I am not a proponent of Sola Scriptura. You said there were no female Apostles or Disciples. I gave you Scriptures that state otherwise. So, you are right, I did “cherry pick” Scriptures that pertain to female Apostles and Disciples.

My views are not a product of my Baptist background. Southern Baptists believe “pastoral leadership is assigned to men.” They are very adamant about the submissive role of women, even more so than Catholics.

My views regarding the ordination of women changed as I studied the transmission of Scripture; and found that men were more than willing to alter Holy Scripture to justify the subjugation of women.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Saying Junia was prominent among the apostles doesn’t mean she was one herself. I’m a teacher. You could say I am prominent among the principals of my school district, doesn’t make me an administrator?

Actually, Junia was an Apostle and is rather famous among Biblical Scholars. Much has been written about her name and the fact that her name was changed to the Masculine form in a number of manuscripts. You will still find Catholic Articles that claim the name is Junias, a male, and not Junia. It is quite an interesting debate.

Here is a quote from newadvent.org from Homilies on Romans by Chrysostom, who definitely believed Junia was a woman and an Apostle:

newadvent.org/fathers/210231.htm
Homily 31 on Romans
Ver. 7. "Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen."

This also looks like an encomium. And what follows is much more so. And what sort is this of? “And my fellow-prisoners.” For this is the greatest honor, the noble proclamation. And where was Paul a prisoner, that he should call them “my fellow-prisoners?” A prisoner indeed he had not been, but he had suffered things worse than prisoners, in being not an alien only to his country and his family, but in wrestling with famine and continual death, and thousands of other things.

For of a prisoner the only misfortune is this, that he is separated from his relations, and often has to be aslave instead of being free. But in this case one may mention temptations thick as snow-flakes, which this blessed person underwent by being carried and taken about, scourged, fettered, stoned, shipwrecked, with countless people plotting against him. And captives indeed have no further foe after they are led away, but they even experience great care from those who have taken them. But this man was continually in the midst of enemies, and saw spears on every side, and sharpened swords, andarrays, and battles.

Since then it was likely that these shared many dangers with him, he calls them fellow-captives. As in another passage also, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner.” Colossians 4:10 Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the devotion ( φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”

The Australian Biblical Review of Junia: The First Woman Apostle, by ELDON J. EPP, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), is, also, very interesting. I thumbed through this book while in B&N awhile back. Thought it was interesting, since I kept coming across the name of Junia in my studies.

Link to Book Review: fbs.org.au/reviews/epp54.html

The Ordination of Women is really not that big of an issue to me. So, I’m really not that concerned if you disagree with me. I just wanted you to know there is a discussion about Junia that has been going on for centuries. It’s not something I dreamed up by “cherry picking” Scripture.

I do find these conflicting passages very interesting, especially from an historical standpoint in trying to understand some of the variants among New Testament Manuscripts, and the motivations behind the alteration of Scripture–and there have been quite a few over the centuries. (The KJV, popular with many Protestants, contains quite a few.)

To the OP: I apologize for the sidebar. I’ll try not to derail the topic any further.

Anna

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Actually I think it’s compelling in the other direction. Clearly in that culture people could not conceive of women being biologically equal to men and having institutional authority. Hence the only groups that ordained women were either Gnostics (who thought bodies didn’t matter) or Montanists (who thought institutional authority didn’t matter).

It seems clear to me that the reason women were not historically ordained in the Catholic Church is that women were considered to be inferior biologically. In the absence of that cultural belief, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation mandates the opening of the priesthood to women.

This is an argument I have frequently made on this forum. It has been often avoided, rarely addressed, and never to my memory and judgment refuted.

Edwin

what about Pauls statement about not giving a woman authority over a man?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In my humble opinion, the two most worthy ladies of Christ’s time to be apostles, and I said this earlier, were The Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdelene. Just a question, why do you think despite their intense holiness and MM’s conversion that was a powerful witness to Christ’s salvation, that both of these wonderful women were never ordained apostles of Christ? What’s your theory? Because MM seemed far more of a changed and convicted Christian than a few of the apostles, especially Judas!! Why do you think they were not ordained?

And like I said, Junia is mentioned as being held in high esteem among the apostles but is never labelled an apostle.

The reason I say you are using a sola scriptura approach (and I don’t say it insultingly, trust me) is that you are not taking into account everything holistically but just looking at a few passages in scripture (out of context as well) to explore a point. You use the Pauline “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentle, Scythian…” quote and try to put it into a context to which it doesn’t belong. Then you take the Junia citation by Paul and try to link it to her being an apostle. That is cherry-picking. Pulling something out of context and drawing conclusions. Like folks who read the Good Thief on the cross story and draw an inference, “well since he never got baptized and was promised salvation by Jesus, I guess baptism isn’t necessary.” This is sola scriptura cherry picking. With that approach, you can convince yourself of just about anything in the Holy Bible. Isolation citation is self-fullfilling prophecy and comforts the person who is struggling to reconcile timeless biblical truths with modern secular ideas. I take more comfort in hearing the Holy Father’s opinion of women’s ordination, the statements by early fathers, the scriptural absence of it and lack of priesthood for women in the Old Testament as well, the AMIA Anglican statement on it, the outrage it drew from the Fathers when they saw WO amongst gnostics, and how generally it has been rejected for two millenia. I take comfort in the holistic totality, not a few isolated scriptures with feminist liberals drawing weak inferences. But that’s just my approach…

Actually, Junia was an Apostle and is rather famous among Biblical Scholars. Much has been written about her name and the fact that her name was changed to the Masculine form in a number of manuscripts. You will still find Catholic Articles that claim the name is Junias, a male, and not Junia. It is quite an interesting debate.

Here is a quote from newadvent.org from Homilies on Romans by Chrysostom, who definitely believed Junia was a woman and an Apostle:

The Australian Biblical Review of Junia: The First Woman Apostle, by ELDON J. EPP, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), is, also, very interesting. I thumbed through this book while in B&N awhile back. Thought it was interesting, since I kept coming across the name of Junia in my studies.

Link to Book Review: fbs.org.au/reviews/epp54.html

The Ordination of Women is really not that big of an issue to me. So, I’m really not that concerned if you disagree with me. I just wanted you to know there is a discussion about Junia that has been going on for centuries. It’s not something I dreamed up by “cherry picking” Scripture.

I do find these conflicting passages very interesting, especially from an historical standpoint in trying to understand some of the variants among New Testament Manuscripts, and the motivations behind the alteration of Scripture–and there have been quite a few over the centuries. (The KJV, popular with many Protestants, contains quite a few.)

To the OP: I apologize for the sidebar. I’ll try not to derail the topic any further.

Anna

 

[Ahimsa]

I do not do any such thing. But simply saying “non-identity is not inferiority” is not enough, if the non-identity in question does amount to inferiority. The Shakers believed in non-identity without inferiority (or rather believe, since according to Wikipedia there are still three of them left), but the Shakers are heretics (however admirable in other respects).

Here’s a way of putting it that is a bit different than what I’ve said in other posts:

1. Jesus is the head of the human race. By this I mean that He is the paradigmatic human being, the most fully human of us all.

If Jesus is fully human and fully God, and if Jesus is the paradigm (or exemplar) of what it means to be human, then every human should have as his or her goal, or potential, to be what Jesus is (that is, fully human and fully God, in the way Jesus is).

I don’t think you’re saying that the goal of the Christian is to become fully human and fully (by nature) God.

If you are not saying that, then I don’t see how you can say that Jesus is the exemplar embodying the ultimate goal for Christians.

Instead, it would seem that Mary is the example who demonstrates what it means to be fully human (and, therefore, by grace, fully God).

Since Mary was not ordained, one can presume that ordination is not necessary for being fully human (and, therefore, by grace, fully God).

In fact, one may tentatively hypothesize that ordination is a life-preserver thrown to males, in order to make them more capable to imitating Mary.

 

[Contarini]

If Jesus is fully human and fully God, and if Jesus is the paradigm (or exemplar) of what it means to be human, then every human should have as his or her goal, or potential, to be what Jesus is (that is, fully human and fully God, in the way Jesus is).

I don’t think you’re saying that the goal of the Christian is to become fully human and fully (by nature) God.

Of course not, because I was very explicitly speaking of Jesus’ humanity.

If you are not saying that, then I don’t see how you can say that Jesus is the exemplar embodying the ultimate goal for Christians.

This gets us into deep Christological waters, but as I understand the matter a two-nature, one-person Christology allows us to say that Jesus is the ultimate exemplar while still being fully divine. That is kind of the point of all those ancient debates. Unfortunately, there seems to be a latent strain of Apollinarianism in Catholicism which pops up in remarks like this one of yours.

Instead, it would seem that Mary is the example who demonstrates what it means to be fully human (and, therefore, by grace, fully God).

I believe this to be heresy. My only major concern with Catholic Marian doctrine is the *lack *of an explicit condemnation of this heresy (even the Immaculate Conception, unnecessary and dubious as I find it, is small potatoes by comparison).

If you say that Jesus’ divinity makes Him unavailable as an exemplar, then you are denying the Incarnation. Period.

This if course is not to detract from the honor due the Blessed Virgin, who is indeed also a shining example of holiness. I have no problem with extravagant praise of Mary as long as it is not accompanied by the explicit or implicit claim that she is somehow more appropriate as an example than Jesus.

Since Mary was not ordained, one can presume that ordination is not necessary for being fully human (and, therefore, by grace, fully God).

And I have repeatedly said that *being ordained *is not the issue. It’s theoretically possible that no woman has ever been called to ordination. But the Catholic Church does not just claim this. It claims that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained. It is this claim which contradicts orthodox Christology. Although the premise of your post contradicts orthodox Christology far more blatantly.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

what about Pauls statement about not giving a woman authority over a man?

That is a separate issue. Catholic defenses of the male-only priesthood do not generally appeal to this, and the Pope has indicated that such passages should not be taken literally. My arguments are directed against those who claim that the whole ordination issue has nothing to do with a more general pattern of the subordination of women to men, or more precisely that the invalidity of women’s ordination can be established without invoking such a pattern. This latter at least is clearly the current position of the Catholic Church, and hence this is the position against which I’m concerned to argue.

The more consistently subordinationist (though they prefer the euphemism “complementarian”) position is much harder to refute, because we have to discuss general principles of Scriptural interpretation, the historical context of the relevant passages, the implications for civil society, the nature of Biblical inspiration and infallibility (Catholics prefer to say “inerrancy” but this has a fairly narrow meaning among Protestants), etc. So I am sorry if you think I’m dodging your argument, but it’s not one I’m concerned to engage here.

My argument as presented here leaves it quite in the realm of possibility that women *ought not *to be ordained because they shouldn’t hold positions of authority generally. I do not in fact believe this, but that’s not the point I am arguing. I am arguing specifically about sacramental validity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But if it is non-identity, and not inferiority in any meaningful sense, then it is enough.

My argument is precisely that inferiority is implied–most seriously, inferiority in the ability to represent Christ sacramentally and hence inferiority in a woman’s relationship to the source of her salvation.

As I said before, the fact that non-identity doesn’t always mean inferiority does not settle the question as to whether a given kind of non-identity implies inferiority. And without positing a sexual dualism like that of the Shakers, I see no way that the non-identity of men and women can be used to exclude women from ordination and yet not either imply their inferiority or exclude them from salvation altogether.

Either women are related to the Incarnate Christ in a way inferior to the way men are, or they are not related to Him at all, or they may be ordained. There is no fourth possibility. (This is assuming a Catholic theology of ordination in which the priest sacramentally represents Christ. If ordination is simply about holding authority within the Church, then of course we get into a completely different set of issues. But neither of us believes that.)

Christ is the head of humanity. And between Him and us there is an unbridgeable, ontological gap (on this sub-lunar sphere) of kind, and not degree.

From your post and Ahimsa’s I realize that this is one of the major issues dividing us. It seems to me that an “unbridgeable gap” Christology is frankly heretical (although of course heretical per consequens). If the Incarnation leaves an unbridgeable gap between us and Christ, then the Incarnation cannot save us in the way the Fathers said it did, and orthodox Christianity collapses altogether.

We are saved because Christ has assumed our nature, and because we participate in Christ. That is what salvation is.

Christ is perfection; no human possesses perfection in any degree, in any category. Christ is sui generis; His status says nothing about what roles he would assign to the rest of us, in His perfection. A man does not more closely approach perfection by virtue of his sex, nor merits any role because of it, save as the hand of the Maker chooses to use him (or her). A saw is not less or more the platonic perfect tool, in that it cannot fill the function of a hammer. The Maker uses what tools he will for his purpose. And did so.

I expect this kind of language from a Calvinist, or perhaps an Occamist, but I’m surprised to hear it from you. I could not disagree more strongly that Christ simply “chooses tools” in some arbitrary way, without ontological considerations being involved. I believe, as the Fathers believed, that salvation is deification by grace–that we are transformed into Christ’s likeness as we were created in His image. I don’t see how the purely utilitarian language you use harmonizes with that understanding of salvation.

Your argument also seems to give up any relationship between Christ’s maleness and the requirement that priests be male (since you claim that there is an unbridgeable gap between us and Christ and we cannot in any way argue from Christ’s nature when discussing this question). Unless perhaps you are going to say that the choice of the Logos to become incarnate as a human male was logically subsequent to the choice to give only men the “role” of priesthood. That to me is not only convoluted and unconvincing, but robs the argument from Christ’s maleness of all its natural force (at least I have always understood it to be implied that there was something inherently fitting and natural in Christ becoming male and that the ordination of only men followed from this).

You use power terms, which, you recognize, are also the language of political entitlement.

I knew that it was a dangerous thing to get into that side of the question at all, since it can eastily distract from the much more important Christological argument and allow you to dismiss everything I’m saying as simply part of a feminist grab for power (obviously not for me personally, but you know what I mean). But given that the non-identity of women has traditionally been understood in terms of inferiority, and given that Christians have generally opposed the ordination of women in the past as part of a broader opposition to women having any authority at all, I think it is relevant to bring up the issue of power in response to your point about non-identity not necessarily implying inferiority. Entitlement, though, isn’t the point. The point is simply that as a matter of fact this particular kind of non-identity does imply inferiority, whether you look at it in terms of the ontological claims about representing Christ or the claim that women should not have authority over men.

I cannot see this as anything save a theory of culturally conditioned constraint

I’m not working off a theory of culturally conditioned restraint. I’m working off historically indisputable evidence which you acknowledge but choose to declare irrelevant, because your theology compels you to do so. I don’t want to be dismissive about this. No doubt I could be accused of doing this as well in various ways. But I can’t honestly pretend to believe that a historical pattern of arguing for women’s inferiority and a historical claim that women can’t be ordained are really unrelated to each other. It’s not that I assume that Christian teaching is constrained by culture. It’s rather that I assume that when Christian teaching matches certain cultural patterns, this is not pure coincidence, and therefore if we reject these cultural patterns in whole or in part, this has implications for what we think about the teaching in question. We have to ask how well the teaching stands in light of the changed patterns (and of course it may be that changing the pattern was wrong in the first place).

Respectfully yours,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

But inferiority for that function is your term. I say differentiation. And I say it from my observation of what Christ did. He differentiated. I can no more attempt to analyze that than I would attempt to construct a theory of how the Real Presence is manifested. And call it, oh, I don’t know, transubstantiation, or something. Your argument with the differentiation is not with the Church, but with her Head. Either women then were related to the incarnate Christ in a way inferior to the way men were, or they were not related to Him at all, or they were not selected as apostles for reasons we do not comprehend, but that we will stipulate were not culturally conditioned. Either Christ was ignorant, or was indifferent or made His selections for His own reasons not made manifest. But make them he did. For what reason which tool was chosen, for what end, I do not know.

I don’t think I skate so close to heresy. The unbridgeable gap is that which, no matter which of us is correct as to inferiority, lies between Christ’s perfect human nature and our ability to reach it, in this mundane world. Christ shares in our nature, as its exemplar. We are raised to that perfection, but not while any of us is still capable of elevating a chalice. I’ve never seen a deified human, let alone such a priest, though I’m sure I have seen saved ones…

The apostolic succession began in one way and not another, and we know who set that in motion. I prefer that it be done as it was done. I make no claim to understanding it, though I’m certainly open to hearing the Church explicate why it might properly be so. I’m interested in hearing about substance and accidents, too. I don’t understand the RP, or the incarnation, either. But it should not surprise you that my basis for what should be is what was. I’m historically inclined, not theologically so. You will have noticed.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

In my humble opinion, the two most worthy ladies of Christ’s time to be apostles, and I said this earlier, were The Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdelene. Just a question, why do you think despite their intense holiness and MM’s conversion that was a powerful witness to Christ’s salvation, that both of these wonderful women were never ordained apostles of Christ? What’s your theory? Because MM seemed far more of a changed and convicted Christian than a few of the apostles, especially Judas!! Why do you think they were not ordained?

And like I said, Junia is mentioned as being held in high esteem among the apostles but is never labelled an apostle.

The reason I say you are using a sola scriptura approach (and I don’t say it insultingly, trust me) is that you are not taking into account everything holistically but just looking at a few passages in scripture (out of context as well) to explore a point.

You use the Pauline “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentle, Scythian…” quote and try to put it into a context to which it doesn’t belong. Then you take the Junia citation by Paul and try to link it to her being an apostle. That is cherry-picking. Pulling something out of context and drawing conclusions.

Like folks who read the Good Thief on the cross story and draw an inference, “well since he never got baptized and was promised salvation by Jesus, I guess baptism isn’t necessary.” This is sola scriptura cherry picking. With that approach, you can convince yourself of just about anything in the Holy Bible.

Isolation citation is self-fullfilling prophecy and comforts the person who is struggling to reconcile timeless biblical truths with modern secular ideas.

I take more comfort in hearing the Holy Father’s opinion of women’s ordination, the statements by early fathers, the scriptural absence of it and lack of priesthood for women in the Old Testament as well, the AMIA Anglican statement on it, the outrage it drew from the Fathers when they saw WO amongst gnostics, and how generally it has been rejected for two millenia. I take comfort in the holistic totality, not a few isolated scriptures with feminist liberals drawing weak inferences. But that’s just my approach…

This has nothing to do with “cherry picking” Scripture. The debate over female Apostles is centuries old. I gave you an example with the quote from Chrysostom’s Homily 31 on Romans quoted from a Catholic website. Hardly a Sola Scriptura argument.

The Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Feast of Andronicus and Junia, acknowledging both as Apostles—and other female Apostles, as well. Today, the EO are celebrating the Feast of Aquila and Priscilla. So, you may disagree–and there are some good historical arguments to support your position; but “Sola Scriptura” is not one of them. There is too much history involved in the issue.

Believing if there were female Apostles, it should have been the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene is very presumptuous. This is not an valid argument against female Apostles.

I went into my studies believing there were no female Apostles. So, your statement, “Isolation citation is self-fulfilling prophecy and comforts the person who is struggling to reconcile timeless biblical truths with modern secular ideas,” does not apply to me.

Scribes were concerned enough, about the reference to Junia as an Apostle, to change the name to Junias, a male name–which is found in many Bible translations.

There is also the following passage of Scripture, now believed to be an interpolation. Again, for the purpose of “keeping women in their place.” Variants among manuscripts and translations is a very interesting study–especially when alterations have such clear motives.

Again, the following passage is taken from a Catholic Bible translation:

1 Corinthians Chapter 14 (NAB):
33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones, 10

34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

10 [33b-36]Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34-35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.

Taking the argument any further is futile at this point. As I said before, female ordination is not even a big issue to me.

The issue of female Apostles is still an ongoing debate in the world of Christian history and textual criticism. I didn’t invent the argument; and there is always the possibility that I could be on the wrong side of the argument. At this point, you haven’t given an argument convincing enough to change my mind.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At least we have something in common…I don’t feel your argument has been compelling either and it certainly hasn’t changed my mind. I have shown 2,000 years of precedent, no Biblical sanction of it, and the time-honored tradition of a priest in persona christi being a father, not a mother, for his congregation. There is a wealth of study and tradition and common sense against it. What you have supplied is Chrysostom making a statement and the Orthodox celebrating a festival for a female Christian. Why don’t you ask your local Orthodox bishop or priest what he thinks about female ordination? What do you think he’ll say? Orthodox may celebrate a day for Junia but do you think they’d ordain her or any other woman? You quote Chrysostom. I can do that as well:
**"[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]). **

And there were indeed deaconesses, not truly ordained but a reality of the early church due to the delicate nature of being around women, avoiding scandal in baptismal situations, etc.
**“Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them” Apostolic Constitutions (ibid., 3:16). **

And this citation is also compelling showing that women had no true apostolic, sacramental powers given, just pastoral ones:
"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" Apostolic Constitutions (ibid., 8:28).

Augustine is noted for being very vocal against WO.

**"[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" St. Augustine (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]). **

And then of course there are the councils and proclamations of Mother Church:
"[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church" Council of Laodicea (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

**“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” Council of Nicaea I
(Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). **
I wanted to laugh out loud when you said my feeling that Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary being worthy of apostleship had women been eligible for such an office. Seriously, you’re right. She was on the Mother of God Incarnate. Only shared the same blood as Christ, literally. She was at His birth, at his side at Cana, by his side at His Passion, at the foot of the Cross, at Pentecost, known to be “full of grace” and blessed among women in a way no human being has ever been blessed. She was revered in the early church and is considered the queen of heaven and of all the saints. Yeah, you’re right. Junia was far holier and more worthy And Mary Magdalene’s interactions and obvious holiness, evidence of deep conversion, witness of Christ risen first, and rich appreciation by Christians wouldn’t make her eligible either I am indeed presumptuous. Why is it ok to speculate about women’s ordination and the notion of ordaining typical women but the idea of ordaining these deeply holy women is folly…