Women in the early church

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember me, Spiritmeadow?

The one who asked what part of ‘The Church has no authority to ordain women’ was giving you trouble?

The one who --gasp!!!–is a woman herself? A mature woman no less, of 50, who actually was right there through all these changes and still has no trouble accepting what the Church teaches instead of whatever the spokesperson for the politically correct issue-of-the-moment teaches. . .
 
SpiritMeadow said:
This claim is always leveled by someone at some point. It is a strawman. I have said absolutely nothing that indicates any hostility or anger. I have nothing to be angry about. You raise it to deflect the conversation away from facts to emotions.
Click to expand...
You’re weird, and we’re really not on the same page.
 
estesbob said:
It is interesting that you bristle (rightly) at the suggestion men are superior to women but embrace fully the idea that we are superior to everyone in the Church that went before us in the last 2,000 years.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine why you come to that conclusion unless every disagreement with the Church is defined as being superior. That is quite a leap and one I certainly don’t make.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Remember me, Spiritmeadow?

The one who asked what part of ‘The Church has no authority to ordain women’ was giving you trouble?

The one who --gasp!!!–is a woman herself? A mature woman no less, of 50, who actually was right there through all these changes and still has no trouble accepting what the Church teaches instead of whatever the spokesperson for the politically correct issue-of-the-moment teaches. . .
Click to expand...
More’s the pity.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantum ergo
Remember me, Spiritmeadow?
Click to expand...
The one who asked what part of ‘The Church has no authority to ordain women’ was giving you trouble?
Click to expand...
The one who --gasp!!!–is a woman herself? A mature woman no less, of 50, who actually was right there through all these changes and still has no trouble accepting what the Church teaches instead of whatever the spokesperson for the politically correct issue-of-the-moment teaches. . .
Click to expand...
Originally posted by SpiritMeadow:
More’s the pity.
Click to expand...
Am I to understand that you would prefer to give a flippant, dismissive ‘one-liner’ response rather than share with us the reasoned, logical and documentative support of your position which dismisses totally Pope John Paul’s 2 definitive statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?

Because you see, all through these posts you have not given us any justification, verification, documentation etc. of your 'perhaps this issue is not determined", ‘the church may change’, etc. except that you “think they should.”

Until you leap off the fence you’re straddling and come out with either an acceptance of what the Church teaches, or a rejection of it, and not attempt a disingenuous’ perhaps’. . .you’re doing nobody any good posting on the subject. . .least of all yourself.

Of course that doesn’t mean you **can’t ** post on the subject. Far be it from me to impede your free speech. I have no authority to do so. But if you are a Catholic Christian, you do–or should–know that there is one in authority over you–the Church. Go ahead and say what you believe–even go outright and disagree with the Church’s teachings–but be honest enough to admit that you are, in fact, disagreeing.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I can’t imagine why you come to that conclusion unless every disagreement with the Church is defined as being superior. That is quite a leap and one I certainly don’t make.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about a diasagreement here. You are asking the Church to change a doctrine that has been in place for 2,000 years. Why now? What new information do we have that would justify this? If this doctrine is wrong why have so many people been so wrong for so long? It would appear the only answer to these questions is we are smarter than they were.
 
Well, I am not sure exactly what SpiritMeadow is asking. . .that’s why I want clarification.

You see, SpiritMeadow’s profile (like mine) says, “Catholic”.

Now I am the first to admit that while I totally accept all Catholic teachings, I do not practice them perfectly. For which I beg God’s pardon and any others whom I might hurt when I do not succeed in the practice of my Catholic faith.

But–and I think it’s the biggie–no matter how much I may personally ‘fail’ in trying to follow the teachings–I always, always accept the teachings as ‘right’.

Even if the teachings are hard to understand (who can really fathom the Trinity, for example? Yet I accept every word of the Church’s teachings on the subject as true even if I lack the insight of the learned theologians. And, of course, I don’t just ‘sit back’ and ‘not bother to think’ about teachings. . .I still try to better my understanding, I still try to learn more, I deepen my understanding as I grow in faith. But when my understanding ‘diverges’ from what the Church teaches–it is MY understanding which is faulty. . .not the Church’s).

So it is particularly hard for me to understand how a Catholic can say that the issue of ‘women’s ordination in the Catholic Church’ is something that not only has not already been decided, not just for ‘the olden times’ but for all time. . .but is something open to debate and ‘could happen.’

No Catholic can claim that this particular teaching is ‘open to debate’ if they mean, "Well, it’s taught now but the Church could change it.’

The Church cannot change it, the Church will not change it, and to even insinuate that they would or could shows a stunningly incorrect understanding of authentic Catholic doctrine and teachings. . .or so I believe.
 
Ugh - this is NOT one of my favorite discussions. I am a woman and really don’t feel called at all to be a man, nor do I want to assume any male roles. I raised my daughters the same. I don’t think either of them desires to be a man and are very happy being women!

That being said, the “facts” stated about the “female apostle” are bunk. Here is a copy of Romans 16:7 from the Douay Rheims Bible: “7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” As you can plainly see St. Paul is calling both men his kinsmen NOT kinswomen and their names both end in “s” here and “m” in the Latin a sure sign of proper spelling and that they were male names. Also note they were fellow prisioners with St. Paul and it was very unlikely he was housed with a woman or some women simply because that would have made prision not such a bad thing! The Romans weren’t stupid. St. Paul doesn’t call either of them an Apostle, but does say they have been noted by the Apostles, which means that the actual Apostles think good things of these men.

You’d have to re-write this entire verse to make it sound as if St. Paul was talking about a woman and a man and that they would have been kin to him and in jail with him, but while you’re re-writing, you could bend it furhter and eliminate the kin and jail stuff! and a few words around the word Apostle and TA DA! You’ve just written in proof that St. Paul acknowleged the Apostlship of a woman! Ummmmmm…I can’t wait till Priscilla is brought up.

Oh BTW, my name is Gail, can you tell if I am a man or a woman? Should I spell it differently so you don’t get confused? I know there are men who use my name. Hmmmmmm…

Peace,

Gail

P.S. Latin just in case: “7 Salutate Andronicum et Juniam, cognatos, et concaptivos meos: qui sunt nobiles in Apostolis, qui et ante me fuerunt in Christo.” from newadvent.org/bible/rom016.htm
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Am I to understand that you would prefer to give a flippant, dismissive ‘one-liner’ response rather than share with us the reasoned, logical and documentative support of your position which dismisses totally Pope John Paul’s 2 definitive statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?

Because you see, all through these posts you have not given us any justification, verification, documentation etc. of your 'perhaps this issue is not determined", ‘the church may change’, etc. except that you “think they should.”

Until you leap off the fence you’re straddling and come out with either an acceptance of what the Church teaches, or a rejection of it, and not attempt a disingenuous’ perhaps’. . .you’re doing nobody any good posting on the subject. . .least of all yourself.

Of course that doesn’t mean you **can’t ** post on the subject. Far be it from me to impede your free speech. I have no authority to do so. But if you are a Catholic Christian, you do–or should–know that there is one in authority over you–the Church. Go ahead and say what you believe–even go outright and disagree with the Church’s teachings–but be honest enough to admit that you are, in fact, disagreeing.
Click to expand...
Look, you did a whole post that said nothing except woopie I’m a woman and I believe this. It was not anything that needed much of a reply. I don’t claim there is any authority for women to be priests. I only speak that the issue cannot be muted by any pronouncement. The fact that you are discussing it says that much. I don’t claim to say it should or should not happen. I do say that the reasoning of the Vatican up to this point has not be satisfying to many folks, which is why it keeps being discussed. The fastest way to start a discussion is to prohibit it.

You’re attempt to paint me as dishonest is noted. I have straddled nothing. I am certainly not attempting to persuade anyone to believe anything than they already believe. I simply find the evidence unconvincing. That there may be some, I will continue to await.
 
estesbob said:
We are not talking about a diasagreement here. You are asking the Church to change a doctrine that has been in place for 2,000 years. Why now? What new information do we have that would justify this? If this doctrine is wrong why have so many people been so wrong for so long? It would appear the only answer to these questions is we are smarter than they were.
Click to expand...
Bob, you seem to be a smart fellow, at least from all the posts I’ve seen. You know the answer I believe. It is only in the 20th century that women have actually persuaded for the most part themselves, let alone men that they were in fact equal. It is only now that women are regarded in most parts of the world as equal in every respect, so of course these issues were never seriously considered until recently. No one was so very wrong for so long, it simply wasn’t thought about. It was accepted by men and women as a given for centuries. With better biblical exegesis and archaelogy, we are now learning that women played a much greater role in preaching in the early church. Thus the new interest. Course it also stems from the fact that when women discovered they were good enough to be police officers, CEO’s, physicians and the like, they began to wonder why they couldn’t as well be preachers. In most all other Christian faiths they can, Catholicism stands alone with a few fundamentalist sects in opposing it as far as I know.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well, I am not sure exactly what SpiritMeadow is asking. . .that’s why I want clarification.

You see, SpiritMeadow’s profile (like mine) says, “Catholic”.

Now I am the first to admit that while I totally accept all Catholic teachings, I do not practice them perfectly. For which I beg God’s pardon and any others whom I might hurt when I do not succeed in the practice of my Catholic faith.

But–and I think it’s the biggie–no matter how much I may personally ‘fail’ in trying to follow the teachings–I always, always accept the teachings as ‘right’.

Even if the teachings are hard to understand (who can really fathom the Trinity, for example? Yet I accept every word of the Church’s teachings on the subject as true even if I lack the insight of the learned theologians. And, of course, I don’t just ‘sit back’ and ‘not bother to think’ about teachings. . .I still try to better my understanding, I still try to learn more, I deepen my understanding as I grow in faith. But when my understanding ‘diverges’ from what the Church teaches–it is MY understanding which is faulty. . .not the Church’s).

So it is particularly hard for me to understand how a Catholic can say that the issue of ‘women’s ordination in the Catholic Church’ is something that not only has not already been decided, not just for ‘the olden times’ but for all time. . .but is something open to debate and ‘could happen.’

No Catholic can claim that this particular teaching is ‘open to debate’ if they mean, "Well, it’s taught now but the Church could change it.’

The Church cannot change it, the Church will not change it, and to even insinuate that they would or could shows a stunningly incorrect understanding of authentic Catholic doctrine and teachings. . .or so I believe.
Click to expand...
You can search the theads and find one that went on for some time on the issue of why those in dissent or disagreement don;t leave the church. As many said then, never has a faction of the Church tried so mightily to reduce the size of the Church by 85% so that they could attain their own vision of purity. I’m not going to revisit the issue, no more am I going to leave because you don’t find my opinions to your liking. I don’t find people of this rigidity in my parish and never have in any from 3 different states I’ve lived in.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Bob, you seem to be a smart fellow, at least from all the posts I’ve seen. You know the answer I believe. It is only in the 20th century that women have actually persuaded for the most part themselves, let alone men that they were in fact equal. It is only now that women are regarded in most parts of the world as equal in every respect, so of course these issues were never seriously considered until recently. No one was so very wrong for so long, it simply wasn’t thought about. It was accepted by men and women as a given for centuries. With better biblical exegesis and archaelogy, we are now learning that women played a much greater role in preaching in the early church. Thus the new interest. Course it also stems from the fact that when women discovered they were good enough to be police officers, CEO’s, physicians and the like, they began to wonder why they couldn’t as well be preachers. In most all other Christian faiths they can, Catholicism stands alone with a few fundamentalist sects in opposing it as far as I know.
Click to expand...
In the above you are claiming we are more enlightened than all who went before us. Again why should the Church change its dooctrines to accomodate at specific culture at a specific point in time? As far as female clergy goes your comments about who accepts it applies only to the culture of the western indstrialized counrties for the last 40 years or so. There is very little demand for female clergy in Latin America, , Africa, Estern Europe or most of Asia. Not only can the Church not change its doctrine on female clergy there is absolutely no compelling reason to do so even if they could.
 
estesbob said:
In the above you are claiming we are more enlightened than all who went before us. Again why should the Church change its dooctrines to accomodate at specific culture at a specific point in time? As far as female clergy goes your comments about who accepts it applies only to the culture of the western indstrialized counrties for the last 40 years or so. There is very little demand for female clergy in Latin America, , Africa, Estern Europe or most of Asia. Not only can the Church not change its doctrine on female clergy there is absolutely no compelling reason to do so even if they could.
Click to expand...
Of course we are more enlightened than any before us. We have the staggering benefit of all of recorded history at our beck and call to use. Every mediocre physicist today stands heads and shoulders above all but the greatest minds of the past. He simply knows more than they could. You try to make this sound superior and it is not. Perhaps you really don’t grasp this. I assumed you were being disingenuous.

take a look Bob, the Churches you speak of in Latin america, Asia and so forth are NOT gaining in Catholicism. They are departing in droves to evangelical protestant churches. So you gain nothing there.

You can claim all day long that the Church cannot chainge the doctrine, but saying so simply doesnt convince. Otherwise as I said, you wouldn’t be bothered talking about it at all.
 
only read the title i suppose a conspiracy by hackers to fix the ellection for hillory clinton to win in being presedent and obama being vise presedent is going to be controled within the computer realm. then again i as human want bush to win the ellection he should have another term
 
I only speak that the issue cannot be muted by any pronouncement. Does this mean that you are saying that no matter what Rome says, the ‘issue’ is not going to go away? The issue ‘has gone away’ in that no matter how you or anyone say it is ‘up for debate’ – it is not. You may well go on . . .and on. . .saying "Yes it is up for debate’ and you may get kind-hearted people trying to show you that you are sadly mistaken. . .but that isn’t discussion–it is one person (you) being incorrect and other people (who explain the truth to you) trying to turn you from the error of your ways.The fact that you are discussing it says that much.
Au contraire. . .the issue is not up for ‘discussion’ and I merely attempted to give you the relevent information, hoping that you were merely ignorant of the ‘issue’s’ already haven been dealt with for 2000 years and counting. If a person absolutely refuses to abide by the words of The Church and insist that ‘21st century advances in womens’ rights’ now have corrected 2000 years of male tyranny and that ordination for women must be a ‘right’ the Church MUST give in order to be ‘fair’ to women, I can only hope that person will return to the true teachings of the Church. . .the sooner, the better. …
Click to expand...
 
I don’t find people of this rigidity in my parish and never have in any from 3 different states I’ve lived in.
Click to expand...
Ah. A sad loss for you 😃

One person’s ‘rigidity’ is another person’s firm stand for the truth. Which of us is closer to what Christ commanded we will, assuredly, know one day.

I can only say that I truly do hope that you find enough ‘rigidity’ to be able to stand against the relativism, indifferentism, and the ‘cultural bias’ etc. of today. In This Rock, May-June 2001, there was an excellent article on “The Spectrum Virus” which I recommend you read. If nothing else it may enlighten you regarding my point of view. I find it always helps to know something about why a poster ‘says what he/she says’. . .to give a context–which is why I was very careful to ask you to explain what you were saying and not to assume I ‘knew’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top