Women in the early church

[constantconvert]

I was just reading an article about Jimmy Carter breaking ties with the Southern Baptists because of their discrimination against women. He states:

During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

OK, there was Pricilla who seemed to host a house church, and there may have been women deacons. Obviously the apostles thing is way off, although some denominations use the term very loosely. Prophets, okay, probably. But women bishops and priests? Me thinks Mr. Carter needs to do a little research. Can anyone cite a source for this claim?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I was just reading an article about Jimmy Carter breaking ties with the Southern Baptists
Obviously the apostles thing is way off, although some denominations use the term very loosely.

The Holy Apostle Photini is mention in the Bible as ‘the woman at the well’. She is well known for being an Apostle. She has multiple Feast Days on the Church calendar.

The term ‘presbytera’ literally means priestess, but actually is the Title for a Priest’s wife - this could be confusing for someone like Jimmy Carter who doesn’t know. I’m sure there was a similar term for a Bishop’s wife back when it was common for married men to be ordained as Bishops, a practice that changed early on.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The Greek words *apostolos *(apostle), episkopos (bishop), presbyteros (presbyter), diakonos (deacon), etc. were not fixed titles in the first century. *Apostolos *means one who is sent; *episkopos *means overseer; *presbyteros *means elder; *diakonos *means servant. These words are used in different ways in the New Testament, sometimes more literally, sometimes more as titles. The term *presbyteros *doesn’t even have an exact correspondence to “priest,” because it is used interchangeably with episkopos. Whether a particular instance of such a word is literal or a title, and if a title, what office it refers to, is determined by context, not just by the word itself.

So if Scripture says someone is an apostolos, it doesn’t necessarily refer to the office of Apostle, etc.

As to Photini, I thought her title was “equal-to-the-apostles,” and that this title was not meant literally. Doesn’t Constantine also get that title from the East?

 

[mab23]

The Greek words *apostolos *(apostle), episkopos (bishop), presbyteros (presbyter), diakonos (deacon), etc. were not fixed titles in the first century. *Apostolos *means one who is sent; *episkopos *means overseer; *presbyteros *means elder; *diakonos *means servant. These words are used in different ways in the New Testament, sometimes more literally, sometimes more as titles. The term *presbyteros *doesn’t even have an exact correspondence to “priest,” because it is used interchangeably with episkopos. Whether a particular instance of such a word is literal or a title, and if a title, what office it refers to, is determined by context, not just by the word itself.

So if Scripture says someone is an apostolos, it doesn’t necessarily refer to the office of Apostle, etc.

As to Photini, I thought her title was “equal-to-the-apostles,” and that this title was not meant literally. Doesn’t Constantine also get that title from the East?

this is very helpful to me!

 

[edwest2]

When I originally read Mr. Carter’s remarks, it was clear to me that he felt that he had seen too much bad or improper treatment of women in connection with those in his denomination. However, there is nothing from Scripture that supports his views about women being priests and so on.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve just started reading a book published in '08 called “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West” by American scholar and Santa Clara theology professor Gary Macy, that delves into this exact question you ask. (Macy’s usual field of expertise is the medieval history of the Eucharist).
Macy’s research maintains that a radical change in the definition of “ordination” **during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), is what removed women from the ordained ministry which they had populated before.**After the council, women–as well as married clergy–were pushed out.

In the book so far, he mentions female bishops including Theodora Episcopa, the mother of a 9th century pope, Saint Brigid of Ireland, and Irish abbess St. Bertila, who heard confessions from the entire area surrounding her convent.

But I’m still in the beginning of the book…will report on proper and specific sources as I find them…

Does the author provide primary sources supporting such a claim? My first opposition would be:

If women “populated” the ministry by being ordained, why so much silence on a common practice going back prior to 1215 AD?

 

[Rawb]

It’s going to be difficult for Westerners who are unfamiliar with Eastern practices (many of which are familiar in early Western practice) to examine the evidence and draw the correct conclusion.

As others have said, we in the East still use titles like “Deaconess” and “Presbytera” but they mean “Wife of a Deacon” or “Wife of a Priest” (though “Deaconess” was also once an office in itself, and there is some debate about whether or not it was an ordained one or not. What isn’t up for debate is whether a Deaconess served the same role as a Deacon - they didn’t. Furthermore there is an ontological difference between a Deacon and a Priest/Bishop, so allowability of Ordination to one does not necessarily correlate to allowability of Ordination to the other). It is a very reasonable assumption to conclude that titles like Episkopa (which are referenced in historical mosaics that I know of, for example) just meant “Wife of the Bishop.”

We also still use the title “Equal to the Apostles” which is for someone who does a lot of evangelizing work, or “Apostle to the _______.” St. Patrick, for example, is called “Apostle to the Irish” and St. Mary Magdalene is called “Equal to the Apostles.” This doesn’t correspond to any type of ordination or even rank in the hierarchy of The Church.

Furthermore we do get blessings from Abbesses when we meet them, and this would’ve been especially prevalent in Ireland where the normal Bishop/Diocese relationship was almost supersceded by a Monastary’s Abbot/Diocese relationship. There are also people who will go to Abbesses, nowadays, for confession and advice, but absolution is reserved for a priest still. The Abbess will just let the priest know the person has confessed. I believe this practice has dropped in the West.

So see, someone who is unfamiliar with Orthodox practices really can’t look at the evidence and draw the right conclusion, because they’re going to assume things that aren’t true but which might make sense from a Western perspective.

 

[constantconvert]

It’s going to be difficult for Westerners who are unfamiliar with Eastern practices (many of which are familiar in early Western practice) to examine the evidence and draw the correct conclusion.

As others have said, we in the East still use titles like “Deaconess” and “Presbytera” but they mean “Wife of a Deacon” or “Wife of a Priest” (though “Deaconess” was also once an office in itself, and there is some debate about whether or not it was an ordained one or not. What isn’t up for debate is whether a Deaconess served the same role as a Deacon - they didn’t. Furthermore there is an ontological difference between a Deacon and a Priest/Bishop, so allowability of Ordination to one does not necessarily correlate to allowability of Ordination to the other). It is a very reasonable assumption to conclude that titles like Episkopa (which are referenced in historical mosaics that I know of, for example) just meant “Wife of the Bishop.”

We also still use the title “Equal to the Apostles” which is for someone who does a lot of evangelizing work, or “Apostle to the _______.” St. Patrick, for example, is called “Apostle to the Irish” and St. Mary Magdalene is called “Equal to the Apostles.” This doesn’t correspond to any type of ordination or even rank in the hierarchy of The Church.

Furthermore we do get blessings from Abbesses when we meet them, and this would’ve been especially prevalent in Ireland where the normal Bishop/Diocese relationship was almost supersceded by a Monastary’s Abbot/Diocese relationship. There are also people who will go to Abbesses, nowadays, for confession and advice, but absolution is reserved for a priest still. The Abbess will just let the priest know the person has confessed. I believe this practice has dropped in the West.

So see, someone who is unfamiliar with Orthodox practices really can’t look at the evidence and draw the right conclusion, because they’re going to assume things that aren’t true but which might make sense from a Western perspective.

Thanks, very helpful

 

[Sam_777]

I personally have no issue with women becoming deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, etc, at the end the woman is a human being…

And maybe one day the Catholic Church would allow it, only time will tell…

 

[bmonk]

It’s going to be difficult for Westerners who are unfamiliar with Eastern practices (many of which are familiar in early Western practice) to examine the evidence and draw the correct conclusion.

As others have said, we in the East still use titles like “Deaconess” and “Presbytera” but they mean “Wife of a Deacon” or “Wife of a Priest” (though “Deaconess” was also once an office in itself, and there is some debate about whether or not it was an ordained one or not. What isn’t up for debate is whether a Deaconess served the same role as a Deacon - they didn’t. Furthermore there is an ontological difference between a Deacon and a Priest/Bishop, so allowability of Ordination to one does not necessarily correlate to allowability of Ordination to the other). It is a very reasonable assumption to conclude that titles like Episkopa (which are referenced in historical mosaics that I know of, for example) just meant “Wife of the Bishop.”

Another possibility often mentioned by scholars regarding deaconesses, since they seem to have some greater evidence for deaconess ordinations than for the other clerical ranks, is that in days when baptism was customarily by full immersion, and the baptizing minister was in the pool with the catechumen, there was a possibility of scandal if you had male ministers with female catechumens. Hence, they had deaconesses for this single purpose, to assist in the baptism of women.

 

[Rawb]

Oh…here is one interesting point in the book:

That one of the basis’s for women not being allowed to be priests comes from Paul’s letters…
…but many current New Testament text scholars agree that only seven of the 13 letters in the bible said to have been written by Paul actually were…and that the other six he did not write. (based on their difference in content, vocabulary, and literary style to Paul’s other writings.)

Namely…Timothy 1, which includes the quote about women not teaching or having authority over men…is one of the letters believed to have been written by someone else after the disciple Paul had already died

But why would that matter? The scriptures aren’t inspired because St. Paul wrote them, but because The Church says they’re inspired.

Also, recall, no ancient church is sola scriptura.

 

[bmonk]

But why would that matter? The scriptures aren’t inspired because St. Paul wrote them, but because The Church says they’re inspired.

Also, recall, no ancient church is sola scriptura.

Yes–the Churches that insist most strongly on not being authorized to ordain women are those same churches that point to and rely on the constant tradition from the time of the Apostles, not on Scripture, and certainly not on which parts of Scripture are “more authentic” by being from a “greater authority.”