Junia the female apostle

[Peregrino]

The verse in question is

What does prominent mean

Merriam-Webster

Defines it as

Replace prominent with this definition and it reads
Greet Andronicus and Junia, 5 my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are widely known among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.
It isn’t that she is being called an apostle but that she is known by the apostles.

Now that is not being selective is it? Why not say (using your definition that they are "readily noticeable among the apostles or evening leading among the apostles? The letter to the Romans was written 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. Certainly it is possible that there were other “leading” apostles. Why not a woman?

 

[catharina]

Now that is not being selective is it? Why not say (using your definition that they are "readily noticeable among the apostles or evening leading among the apostles? The letter to the Romans was written 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. Certainly it is possible that there were other “leading” apostles. Why not a woman?

If one believes that the Church has delivered the truth to us from its beginnings to the present then it would be far more selective to say “except in this case.” Jesus calls Himself the Truth; the Church nourishes us with the Truth.

All else is dross and irreverent speculation.
(The Church “conspiring” against Jesus? Total hogwash.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yeah… I agree. Why do you think that is???

Simply because the site was apparently constructed from very conservative members. So far I have not found any criticism of the Magisterium that is not met with screams of heresy, unless its criticism is that the Magisterium is not conservative enough. There is a fair amount of that.

But as I have said in other posts, the Church requires both liberal and conservative with the vast majority in the middle. The Holy Spirit has a way of pushing the church when necessary. That certainly happened at the 2nd Vatican Council, the results of which I think motivate most of this conservatism today.

What I find odd, is that a Church which claims (rightly in my mind) that God continues to reveal himself throughout His creation, thus making (dare I use the word change?) a reasonable expectation over time, is peopled by a segment who apparently feel everything should have stopped about 1959. I think that’s the Church they wish to return to.

One just moves on. The private messaging is such a welcome respite sometimes.

 

[Peregrino]

If one believes that the Church has delivered the truth to us from its beginnings to the present then it would be far more selective to say “except in this case.” Jesus calls Himself the Truth; the Church nourishes us with the Truth.

All else is dross and irreverent speculation.
(The Church “conspiring” against Jesus? Total hogwash.)

If one does not believe this but rather believes that “continuity” has been layered on as a perspective on the Church’s rather diverse and messy history, then s/he is called a heretic.

 

[catharina]

If one does not believe this but rather believes that “continuity” has been layered on as a perspective on the Church’s rather diverse and messy history, then s/he is called a heretic.

I could call you a giraffe or an ashtray but that won’t make you a giraffe or ashtry. Only the Church can declare one to be a heretic regardless of what one might called by others.

 

[TMC]

This suggests as I understand the Magisterium to have said…that the conclusion for a male priesthood lies essentially in tradition rather than scripture.

This is also my understanding. I also agree with Leopard that John Paul said he believed ordaining women to be beyond the Church’s authority, but …

This has also been spoken infallibly, correct?

I think the answer to this is “no,” although the Church can be a bit evasive on what is or is not infallible at times.

On the general point of using Junia to promote the role of women in the church, there are plenty of better examples beginning with Mary Magdalene. She was a personal witness to Jesus’ ministry, and along with John the only of His followers to stay with him through the Passion. She was the first to witness the resurrection. As to what it means to be an Apostle, the Twelve were the Twelve, but Paul certainly considered himself a big “A” apostle. Not sure what Mary M. was considered, but her role in the early Church is undeniably significant.

 

[catharina]

This is also my understanding. I also agree with Leopard that John Paul said he believed ordaining women to be beyond the Church’s authority, but …

I think the answer to this is “no,” although the Church can be a bit evasive on what is or is not infallible at times.

On the general point of using Junia to promote the role of women in the church, there are plenty of better examples beginning with Mary Magdalene. She was a personal witness to Jesus’ ministry, and along with John the only of His followers to stay with him through the Passion. She was the first to witness the resurrection. As to what it means to be an Apostle, the Twelve were the Twelve, but Paul certainly considered himself a big “A” apostle. Not sure what Mary M. was considered, but her role in the early Church is undeniably significant.

It’s my understanding that evasiveness is never present regarding the infallibility of doctrines. Infallible doctrines are formally proclaimed as infallible doctrine. (Two most recent examples being the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.) What the Holy Father John Paul II said regarding the topic of possible priesthood for women is that the discussion is closed.

I’m fine with that.
Always good to hear the conclusion of the one in authority.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pro-female ordination folk on this site. Are there any? LOL

They don’t last long - after we eat them alive, we pile their skulls by the entrance as a warning to others.

St. Faustina is referred to as “the Apostle of Mercy” but no one thinks she was ever ordained to the priesthood. The term “Apostle” is used in a number of senses, only one of which has anything to do with the Sacrament of Ordination.

 

[TMC]

It’s my understanding that evasiveness is never present regarding the infallibility of doctrines. Infallible doctrines are formally proclaimed as infallible doctrine. (Two most recent examples being the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.) What the Holy Father John Paul II said regarding the topic of possible priesthood for women is that the discussion is closed.

I’m fine with that.
Always good to hear the conclusion of the one in authority.

OK, infallibility is a whole nother topic, but, if someone can point me to an authoritative list of the infallible doctrines of the Church I would much appreciate it. I have never seen one. Seems that if we have a list of things we know are infallibly true, we would tack it up somewhere.

But more seriously, I have seen people debate what was or was not infallible, and I have seen definitions of infallible, but never a list of the infallible. Why not?

Still, the majority, but not universal, opinion seems to be that male-only ordaination is not an infallible teaching.

 

[BlestOne]

Can i throw out something here? Is it possible that if it is Junia or a female that this is referring to, is it possible that she is the wife of a priest or deacon? In Matthews gospel they give the qualities that the wife of a deacon should posses… they recognized that the wife of a priest or deacon had to adhere to a certain code too… They also mention this in Acts as well… I think we forget how much faith is a family affair to the early Christians.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Junia is another one of Strong’s deceptions.

It should be Junias. It follows suit with other Greek words that end in ίας

**G2458 **Ἰουνίας Iounias ee-oo-nee’-as
Of Latin origin; Junias, a Christian: - Junias.

From the next verse we have Amplias

**G291 **Ἀμπλίας Amplias am-plee’-as
Contracted for the Latin ampliatus (enlarged); Amplias, a Roman Christian: - Amplias.

After doing an exhaustive search. All names ending in ίας
are rendered ias with just one exception and that is Junia.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is also my understanding. I also agree with Leopard that John Paul said he believed ordaining women to be beyond the Church’s authority, but …

I think I agree. All I remember when the thing was read by my teaching priest at the time, was that in the end it was considered essentially Tradition not biblical, and that in no uncertain terms were were instructed to shaddup…lol…course that didn’t happen and they realistically knew it wouldn’t.

I

 

[catharina]

OK, infallibility is a whole nother topic, but, if someone can point me to an authoritative list of the infallible doctrines of the Church I would much appreciate it. I have never seen one. Seems that if we have a list of things we know are infallibly true, we would tack it up somewhere.

But more seriously, I have seen people debate what was or was not infallible, and I have seen definitions of infallible, but never a list of the infallible. Why not?

Still, the majority, but not universal, opinion seems to be that male-only ordaination is not an infallible teaching.

I’m sure you could locate a list. The more major points are:

1. Most of the articles of faith are included in the Nicene Creed.
2. We are expected to uphold any declared teaching of the Church, infallible or otherwise.

 

[TMC]

I’m sure you could locate a list. The more major points are:

1. Most of the articles of faith are included in the Nicene Creed.
2. We are expected to uphold any declared teaching of the Church, infallible or otherwise.

Sorry for the continuing thread drift. I have been looking and can’t find a list. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vatican website, and other likely sources all give definitions but not lists. That said you are right, of course in both 1 and 2. And right that the most recent were probably the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Just bugs me that I can’t find a list. I’ll keep looking. Maybe I’ll post a question to the Apologists…

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry for the continuing thread drift. I have been looking and can’t find a list. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vatican website, and other likely sources all give definitions but not lists. That said you are right, of course in both 1 and 2. And right that the most recent were probably the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Just bugs me that I can’t find a list. I’ll keep looking. Maybe I’ll post a question to the Apologists…

There is no list, because a list of infallible statements would give the impression that infallible statements have greater weight than other teachings of the Church. They don’t.

 

[catharina]

Sorry for the continuing thread drift. I have been looking and can’t find a list. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vatican website, and other likely sources all give definitions but not lists. That said you are right, of course in both 1 and 2. And right that the most recent were probably the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Just bugs me that I can’t find a list. I’ll keep looking. Maybe I’ll post a question to the Apologists…

The most recent were definitely those of the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption;
the first, two centuries ago and the second, last century.

Definitively proclaimed and declared teachings do not come along every day.

 

[catharina]

There is no list, because a list of infallible statements would give the impression that infallible statements have greater weight than other teachings of the Church. They don’t.

I get your point and can easily agree with you. Infallible statements (if I remember correctly) are usually proclaimed to settle the truth of a certain matter. Not every teaching brings about the arguments that might lead to necessary statements of infallibility.

 

[TMC]

There is no list, because a list of infallible statements would give the impression that infallible statements have greater weight than other teachings of the Church. They don’t.

Hmmm. So it is a secret? This does not make sense to me. If there is no difference between an infallible teaching and another kind of teaching, what is the point of the infallibility doctrine? Is it merely a theological theory that has no real application the lives of Catholics? If there is a real distinction, why wouldn’t the Church want people to know?

 

[catharina]

Hmmm. So it is a secret? This does not make sense to me. If there is no difference between an infallible teaching and another kind of teaching, what is the point of the infallibility doctrine? Is it merely a theological theory that has no real application the lives of Catholics? If there is a real distinction, why wouldn’t the Church want people to know?

A secret? No.

Once a truth is solidly within the minds of the faithful, quoting
its origins from infallible proclamation OR commonly held (and unopposed) teaching yields little but a satisfying of one’s curiousity.

Am I sort of saying “who cares?” I guess I am.

 

[jmcrae]

Hmmm. So it is a secret? This does not make sense to me. If there is no difference between an infallible teaching and another kind of teaching, what is the point of the infallibility doctrine? Is it merely a theological theory that has no real application the lives of Catholics? If there is a real distinction, why wouldn’t the Church want people to know?

This is one of those things that is interesting for theologians, but has no real impact on everyday life. It really is of no importance which teachings are considered “infallible” and which ones are not, because we are required to believe all of them.