Women in the Priesthood

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Gnostics were considered early Christians.
religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

Are you doing any research before you respond?

At which accredited Catholic university did you study and receive your degree in Catholic history and theology? For me, it was the University of St. Thomas here in Houston, Texas.

The Gnostics were not Christians. They denied very nearly every credo of the Apostles’ Creed.

Why not simpy face facts: You’re grasping at straws trying to justify the ordination of women contra to infallible Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

Melissa:

I read your link–did you read it and consider the source?

Nope–sorry, gnostics were heretics even at the time the New Testament writings were being written. That’s fact, not the nonsense written by the people at your link.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[mikew262]

marcadam:

Given that the Gnostics were pre-Christian, and the interesting coincidence of some of Jesus’ teachings with their own metaphysic, I can see how they could have crafted stories of Christ’s life that wove truth and said metaphysic together, highlighting especially those anecdotes that they found put them in the best light. That’s all I need to know.

Short answer: I lose no sleep over the Gnostic “gospels”.

In relation to today’s Christian, yes I suppose you could say they were “pre-Christian”. However, in the very early days of Christianity, they were recognized as a Christian sect. Yes, later they were branded as heretics.

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

What, one is left to ask, was the “early Christian movement”?

There were the Apostles, and those who followed their teachings after the first Pentecost. That’s called the “Catholic Church”.

The gnostics were accomplished syncretists before the Church, and tried to pervert the Church with their syncretism. That’s hardly a “movement.”

The gnostics were no more a part of Christianity than was Simon Magus – except, of course, those who may have abandonned gnosticism and embraced Christianity. There is just no way to be a part of Christianity and espouse gnostic beliefs.

Blessings,

Gerry

Ok, despite several references I’ve given you, you still say gnostics were not part of the early Christian faith. Believe what you want.

 

[mikew262]

At which accredited Catholic university did you study and receive your degree in Catholic history and theology? For me, it was the University of St. Thomas here in Houston, Texas.

The Gnostics were not Christians. They denied very nearly every credo of the Apostles’ Creed.

Why not simpy face facts: You’re grasping at straws trying to justify the ordination of women contra to infallible Church teaching?

– Mark L. Chance.
[/quote]

Just trying to prompt a little discussion, that all.

As I stated earlier, I’m not sure I’m ready for women priests either. However, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t do a fine job. I’ve listen to several Protestant female ministers in the past, and I found them compassionate and more than competent to effectively spread the Word of God.

 

[mikew262]

Well, I’ve tried to prompt a little discussion about reasons why women could possibly be qualified to be priests. The discussion did come and the majority of it was in defense of current catholic doctrine.

You all are to be commended on the staunch defense of catholic doctrine and tradition. Nobody budged. I consider myself a reasonably good catholic, who sometimes questions certain things. It keeps my mind fresh.

Keep up the good fight and be thankful God is in your life.

 

[mercygate]

mikew262:

Well, I’ve tried to prompt a little discussion about reasons why women could possibly be qualified to be priests. The discussion did come and the majority of it was in defense of current catholic doctrine.

You all are to be commended on the staunch defense of catholic doctrine and tradition. Nobody budged. I consider myself a reasonably good catholic, who sometimes questions certain things. It keeps my mind fresh.

Keep up the good fight and be thankful God is in your life.

Questioning sharpens our faith. Iron sharpens iron. The accusation Protestants often level against us is that we “park our brains at the door.” Uh-uh. One of my favorite quotations is from Augustine: *Non nota non possumus amare. *We cannot love what we do not know. Grappling with our questions is a way of loving God with our mind – a charge of the first and great Commandment.

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

Ok, despite several references I’ve given you, you still say gnostics were not part of the early Christian faith. Believe what you want.

Oh, but we can all play the reference game:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era…

Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtless syncretism of well nigh all religious systems in antiquity, it has in reality one deep root-principle, which assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and growth; this principle is philosophical and religious pessimism…

When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with aprocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, unfit, indeed, for the vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and the elect. So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof.

They were not heretics “later on”-- they were heretics from the very beginning.

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

In relation to today’s Christian, yes I suppose you could say they were “pre-Christian”. However, in the very early days of Christianity, they were recognized as a Christian sect. Yes, later they were branded as heretics.

I’m sorry, but in all charity, and as I posted elsewhere, you are incorrect on several facts. First, they were not “branded” or “labelled” heretics; they were heretics in fact. Therefore, any such “recognition” of them as a Christian sect was external to Christianity, and a confusion that the Gnostics themselves wished to perpetrate. There was no such recognition by the apostolic church, which in this context, is the only recognition that counts.

Finally, I say “pre-Christian” in relation to christ himself, as the syncretistic metaphysic described by the word “Gnosticism” existed (yes, in fact) before the Incarnation.

If we cannot agree on these facts, then there is no point in continuing this discussion, which, as I recall from somewhere back in the sands of time, had something to do with the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. What several of us have attempted to show is that your attempt to bring debunked extra-Christian (and once again, Gnosticism is in fact extra-Christian, as are their texts) philosophies to bear upon this discussion is invalid.

I’m quite sure I have nothing more to say, since I am not quite that fond of disputation for it’s own sake.

 

[mikew262]

marcadam:

I’m sorry, but in all charity, and as I posted elsewhere, you are incorrect on several facts. First, they were not “branded” or “labelled” heretics; they were heretics in fact. Therefore, any such “recognition” of them as a Christian sect was external to Christianity, and a confusion that the Gnostics themselves wished to perpetrate. There was no such recognition by the apostolic church, which in this context, is the only recognition that counts.

Finally, I say “pre-Christian” in relation to christ himself, as the syncretistic metaphysic described by the word “Gnosticism” existed (yes, in fact) before the Incarnation.

If we cannot agree on these facts, then there is no point in continuing this discussion, which, as I recall from somewhere back in the sands of time, had something to do with the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church. What several of us have attempted to show is that your attempt to bring debunked extra-Christian (and once again, Gnosticism is in fact extra-Christian, as are their texts) philosophies to bear upon this discussion is invalid.

I’m quite sure I have nothing more to say, since I am not quite that fond of disputation for it’s own sake.

I’ve showed you proof to the contrary, however, I agree with you in that there is no sense in further discussing it.

 

[mikew262]

marcadam:

Oh, but we can all play the reference game:

They were not heretics “later on”-- they were heretics from the very beginning.

You have your references, I’ve showed you mine. They’re are recognized as heretics now by the church, and I guess that is what really is important, huh?

 

[mercygate]

mikew262:

You have your references, I’ve showed you mine. They’re are recognized as heretics now by the church, and I guess that is what really is important, huh?

Mike, it *is *important that they were recognized as heretics early on. Think about it. Guarding the deposit of faith is one of the primary tasks of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

Ok, despite several references I’ve given you, you still say gnostics were not part of the early Christian faith. Believe what you want.

Your references utterly lack authority. That is why the Catholics in this discussion dismiss them out of hand. They are in the category only of “somebody once wrote that …”, and are not anything close to references.

The Church says they weren’t; the New Testament contains letters to counter their influence, clearly perceived as coming from the outside of the Faith. Their own stated beliefs are incompatible with Christianity.

More to the point, consideration of their assertions adds nothing to those pertinent to “Women in the Priesthood.” It is, was, and remains, impossible.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Melissa]

It’s generally accepted that St. Paul was writing in 1 Timothy specifically against the teachings of the gnostics and other heretics, and more directly against gnostics in 1 Timothy 6:4-5, and that 1 John was written to reassure those who’d been unsettled by the gnostics–while these references aren’t quite as clear as the more definite writings toward the end of the second century, the overall record from within is pretty clear that gnosticism was never part of Christianity, even if those from the outside were (and still are) confused.

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

Your references utterly lack authority.
Gerry

Why, because the references weren’t catholic?

 

[mikew262]

Melissa:

It’s generally accepted that St. Paul was writing in 1 Timothy specifically against the teachings of the gnostics and other heretics, and more directly against gnostics in 1 Timothy 6:4-5, and that 1 John was written to reassure those who’d been unsettled by the gnostics–while these references aren’t quite as clear as the more definite writings toward the end of the second century, the overall record from within is pretty clear that gnosticism was never part of Christianity, even if those from the outside were (and still are) confused.

I surrender. Yes, I know St. Paul was against gnostics; this isn’t in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Gnosticism was a sect of very Christianity. Obviously it wasn’t adopted, it was eventually proclaimed heresy. Conflicting references have been presented. Which one is really correct? Who knows. What really is important is what each of us accept now. I suspect we have exhausted this discussion.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

Why, because the references weren’t catholic?

That is an excellent start at why. They are not even Christian, to boot.

Some are impressed by the sociological approach to religion, where it is considered just a quaint outgrowth of human activity. Such an approach contrives to concoct a temporal, social (that is to say, pseudo-) scientific approach to religious practise, devoid of any supernatural component (and therefore utterly rejecting, a priori, revelation). Such considerations have no place in Catholic discourse (except concerning how to counter their pernicious influences), and nothing to offer to the question of “women in the priesthood”, or any other matter of faith.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Melissa]

mikew262:

I surrender. Yes, I know St. Paul was against gnostics; this isn’t in dispute. What is in dispute is whether Gnosticism was a sect of very Christianity. Obviously it wasn’t adopted, it was eventually proclaimed heresy. Conflicting references have been presented. Which one is really correct? Who knows. What really is important is what each of us accept now. I suspect we have exhausted this discussion.

You’ll pardon me for being a wee bit perturbed. You knew before raising the subject that gnosticism was condemned in Scripture. There’s no “eventually” about it–gnosticism was condemned as non-Christian by Christians from the very beginning. The fact that the gnostics (like many other heretics) tried to obfuscate the fact that they were outside Christianity doesn’t mean that they were ever truly a part of Christianity.

I’m going to choose to believe that God does not teach error, and that the Scriptural condemnation of gnosticism means that gnosticism was never Christian.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I have a question. At what point does heresy cross the line into not being Christian? Protestantism is a heresy, but we still consider them Christians…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

JSmitty2005:

I have a question. At what point does heresy cross the line into not being Christian? Protestantism is a heresy, but we still consider them Christians…

A rather complex question, best resolved by reference to the Cathechism. Basically, the line is crossed when it turns into apostasy, the espousal of a belief that is denies a basic Christian truth. In broad terms, heretics are Christians beset by error, and apostates have gone over to another faith, although many delude themselves (and can harm others) by clinging to the title “Christian.”

Take an article of the Creed, like belief in the forgiveness of sins. Protestants are in error in that they deny the Sacrament of Penance as an instrument of that forgiveness, but they do believe in the forgiveness of sins. Were someone to deny that forgiveness of sins existed, or was necessary, they would cross the line.

Those who support the ordination of women are entrapped in heresy. Some, though not all, justify the support through the espousal of beliefs that constitute apostasy.

Blessings,

Gerry