Women in the Priesthood

[mikew262]

mlchance:

Even if that were true, it still demonstrates nothing, since the text doesn’t say Junia/Junius is an apostle.

No, it isn’t an early Christian writing. It is a Gnostic text, and the Gnostics were not Christians.

– Mark L. Chance.

In the original greek text, it uses the female form of the name, Junia, and yes it does say she was an apostle. Granted, Paul does not say that she was an original apostle or not.

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

Are you doing any research before you respond?

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

I think you haven’t fully considered the consequences of your position here. It implies the rejection of not only scripture, but also the entirety of the writings of the church fathers who in all their writings somehow failed to mention the existence and acceptance of female clergy.

The implied rejection of the canon of scripture as complete is also an implicit rejection of the authority which compiled it and defined it as such. In other words, your argument supports female clergy at the expense of the church for whom they would be clerics.

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to find another tack that can somehow encompass the fact that female clergy are something entirely new to not only the Apostlic, but also Judaic tradition since their very beginnings, and yet doesn’t subtly undermine those very traditions.

Good luck with that.

 

[Melissa]

mikew262:

Gnostics were considered early Christians.

Actually, no–Gnostics were just a group of heretics.

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

and yes it does say she was an apostle.

I admit to not being familiar with the original language, but I read “they are men of note among the apostles” to mean that they were regarded highly by the apostles, not that they were apostles.

Gnostics were considered early Christians.

Fair enough. A heretical sect that differed with the Apostolic church as to the nature of Christ and reality, and had pre-Christian origins toward which they bent their Christianity, but a heretical Christian sect nonetheless. Moreover, they have complete authority over the teachings of Gnosticism.

Nonetheless, being heretics, they had (and have) nothing definitive nor authoritative to say about Christianity or her teachings.

 

[mikew262]

Melissa:

Actually, no–Gnostics were just a group of heretics.

No, that is incorrect. They are considered heretics now, but not in the very early days of Christianity. Did you not see my link?

 

[mikew262]

marcadam:

I admit to not being familiar with the original language, but I read “they are men of note among the apostles” to mean that they were regarded highly by the apostles, not that they were apostles.

Nonetheless, being heretics, they had (and have) nothing definitive nor authoritative to say about Christianity or her teachings.

Among means they were one of them. However, maybe not among the original 12.

Agreed, the current church does not recognize gnostic scripture. However, why would anybody write this text if their weren’t some truth to it? Doesn’t it make you wonder just a little?

 

[mikew262]

marcadam:

I think you haven’t fully considered the consequences of your position here. It implies the rejection of not only scripture, but also the entirety of the writings of the church fathers who in all their writings somehow failed to mention the existence and acceptance of female clergy.

The implied rejection of the canon of scripture as complete is also an implicit rejection of the authority which compiled it and defined it as such. In other words, your argument supports female clergy at the expense of the church for whom they would be clerics.

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to find another tack that can somehow encompass the fact that female clergy are something entirely new to not only the Apostlic, but also Judaic tradition since their very beginnings, and yet doesn’t subtly undermine those very traditions.

Good luck with that.

I am not rejecting the scripture as it is. I’m not even sure female priests are right for the church. All I’m saying is that it is plausable, due to the culture at the time, for the authors to have downplayed the roles of women in early Christianity.

As I mentioned in other posts, the gnostic gospels emphazise the importance of women in the early church. Gave women the same status as men in many cases. Yes, the gnostic gospels have been labeled heresy by the church. Could one of the reasons be the importance that women had in them? This would definitely fly into the face of that current culture.

Look at this from a historical view not just from a pure catholic viewpoint.

 

[JSmitty2005]

This thread is a joke. JP2 infallibly declared that women can NEVER be ordained. Get over it. Just think about the very nature of the priesthood. Priests function *in persona christi * in their vocation and therefore are married to the Church, Christ’s Bride. If a woman were married to the Bride of Christ, this would result in a lesbian relationship, and like all homosexual relationships would be sterile. Also, historical/cultural “context” has nothing to do with women and the priesthood. To suggest that Christ was bound by the culture of the time is downright blasphemous. He is GOD for crying out loud! I’m sure I’m probably repeating things that others have said, but I’m not gonna read through 200+ posts!

PS - you’re wrong about the Gnostics, they hated women

 

[mikew262]

JSmitty2005:

This thread is a joke. JP2 already infallibly declared that women can NEVER be ordained. Get over it. Just think about the very nature of the priesthood. Priests function *in persona christi * in their vocation and therefore are married to the Church, Christ’s Bride. If a woman were married to the Bride of Christ, this would result in a lesbian relationship, and like all homosexual relationships would be sterile. Also, historical/cultural “context” has nothing to do with women and the priesthood. To suggest that Christ was bound by the culture of the time is downright blasphemous. He is GOD for crying out loud!

PS - you’re wrong about the Gnostics, they hated women

Are you not reading what I write? I never said Christ was bound by the culture, the early scripture writers could’ve been.

Priests are not married to the church, they are not Christ’s bride. They are his representative on earth. Nuns wear the wedding ring, thus the bride.

While your link did support Gnostics hating women. I have other references that says that is not true. There were differrent sects of Gnostics, so that may explain the difference. Many of the gnostic scriptures emphasize the importance of women in the early church.
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

BTW, I’m not arguing for women to become priests. I’m not sure I’m ready for that myself. What my original premise was is that women MAY have had a bigger role in early Christianity than our scripture writers gave them credit for, and if acceptable proof ever came to light (which it probably never will), that could provide justification for a greater role for women.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mikew262:

Are you not reading what I write? I never said Christ was bound by the culture, the early scripture writers could’ve been.

Not all of it. I only read the last couple. The Scriptures are the Word of God. In other words, He is the ultimate author. If the things contained therein do not comply with today’s politcally correct sensibilities, I’m going to side with Scripture. However, there isn’t really any misogynist material in them anyways.

mikew262:

Priests are not married to the church, they are not Christ’s bride. They are his representative on earth. Nuns wear the wedding ring, thus the bride.

Priests ARE married to the Church (not Christ). I’ve heard several people on EWTN say this including Johnette Benkovic and Father Mitch Pacwa. Priests used to wear rings to signify this. Now, only bishops do. Priests are not merely His representatives, they are “in the person of Christ.” That’s why they can forgive sins and say Mass. The nuns wear rings to signify that they are married to Christ.

mikew262:

While your link did support Gnostics hating women. I have other references that says that is not true. There were differrent sects of Gnostics, so that may explain the difference. Many of the gnostic scriptures emphasize the importance of women in the early church.
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

Gnostics were not part of the Early Church! Have you read any writings of the Fathers (ie. - Ignatius of Antioch) and how much they had to fight these heretics? Christ promised that His one Church founded on Peter would be led into all truth and that the gates of Hell would never prevail. It seems as though some people would like to go back and remake the Church with a motley of different opinions to ensure diversity, since that’s the fad these days. This cannot be done. Christ said that ONE Church would get it ALL right. He did not say that some groups would get a little right and a little wrong and then all of the groups would get together and form one big happy family. This reminds me of modern Protestantism.

By the way, you didn’t address my reference to JP2’s INFALLIBLE statement on this issue.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

No, that is incorrect. They are considered heretics now, but not in the very early days of Christianity. Did you not see my link?

I did. It states that gnostics had a:

“Belief that the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) was a defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. He was viewed as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to committing genocide.”

There was no time in the history of Christianity that one could prefess that and be a Chrsitian. And there never will be.

As for the site itself, it’s got a real problem, it seems, with the so-called “scandal of particularity” – that Jesus Christ is unique, Lord, God and man, and the Second Person of the Trinity. Not a great source for authoritative (even scholarly) Christian insight, and certainly not one that could shed light on the given characteristics of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mikew262]

JSmitty2005:

By the way, you didn’t address my reference to JP2’s INFALLIBLE statement on this issue.

This is church doctrine. I can’t argue it. I may not agree with it, but I can’t argue it.

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

I did. It states that gnostics had a:

There was no time in the history of Christianity that one could prefess that and be a Chrsitian. And there never will be.

Gerry

Well, they were at one time, part of the early christian movement. There are many references to support that. Not much else I can say.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Mike,
I understand where you’re coming from. When I started getting “religious,” I was very interested in the Gnostics. They seemed so intriguing. Gnosticism has a kind of novelty to it, an appeal, since it’s so secretive. However, after researching the writings themselves along with the writings of the real Christians, it is quite obvious that the Gnostic writings are frauds and that their theology is not what was intended by Christ.

mikew262:

Well, they were at one time, part of the early christian movement. There are many references to support that. Not much else I can say.

There are people today that claim to be Christians that aren’t (like Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses). Professing themselves as Christians doesn’t necessarily mean that they are following Christ’s teachings. Plus, they didn’t have apostolic succession from what I understand. Even if they did, they were not in the line of St. Peter, so I’ll stick with the Rock. St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John the apostle fought their heresy. I think I’ll side with him as well since he was taught by one of the apostles. He may have even had contact with St. Peter because Peter was bishop of Antioch before going to Rome.

Sincerely,
Jon

PS - thank you for serving in our country’s military

 

[JSmitty2005]

mikew262:

Well, they were at one time, part of the early christian movement. There are many references to support that. Not much else I can say.

There are people today that claim to be Christians that aren’t (like Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses). Professing themselves as Christians doesn’t necessarily mean that they are following Christ’s teachings. Plus, they didn’t have apostolic succession from what I understand. Even if they did, they were not in the line of St. Peter, so I’ll stick with the Rock. St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John the apostle fought their heresy. I think I’ll side with him as well since he was taught by one of the apostles. He may have even had contact with St. Peter because Peter was bishop of Antioch before going to Rome.

 

[Melissa]

mikew262:

No, that is incorrect. They are considered heretics now, but not in the very early days of Christianity. Did you not see my link?

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.

 

[JSmitty2005]

There’s a good book that deals with the Gnostics called, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett. It’s about Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons. It’s published by Ignatius Press.

PS - notice that the pronoun used for Church is “Her” (aka the Bride of Christ)

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

Among means they were one of them.

Fair enough… that was my misreading. However, your assertion is nonetheless not definitive: witness.

Agreed, the current church does not recognize gnostic scripture. However, why would anybody write this text if their weren’t some truth to it? Doesn’t it make you wonder just a little?

Once the issue was presented to it, the church definitively rejected it. It has never been a part of the canon of scripture. There may be some truth contained within it along with an admixture of error, as with all profane texts, but antiquity is no guarantee of veracity. I’m not a scholar of either Classics or Patristics, so I know as much as I feel I need to know, which is that the faith of the early church as transmitted by her fathers was antithetical to that of the Gnostics. If a source I trust suggests that the ancient censured gnostics have something of value to teach me today, I’ll look into it; but modern-day gnostics aren’t a source that I trust. Not that I couldn’t, just that I have no reason to at this time.

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”.

 

[marcadam]

mikew262:

I am not rejecting the scripture as it is. I’m not even sure female priests are right for the church. All I’m saying is that it is plausable, due to the culture at the time, for the authors to have downplayed the roles of women in early Christianity.

But this is nonetheless a pointed rejection, for two reasons.

First, as has been mentioned elsewhere, you are seeking direct proof of something that simply cannot be presented. Suppose for the moment that the situation of women in the early church (the part that would go on to survive for 2000 years) is exactly how it appears in all the textual evidence that we have, scriptures and patristics. In this milieu, the respective roles of men and women are unquestioned, and yet you are asking for a specific declaration of doctrine that has not yet been challenged.

Of course, it was in small ways by various heretical sects, and the response was always in the negative. But it seems like the kind of evidence for which you pine would be that which would contradict all the evidence we have; that is, the evidence which would prove you correct. On our side, the “only” evidence we have is the omission of this idea from every known text available to us. Hmm.

The second reason is that this is no small omission, cannot be a simple “downplaying of roles”. There were certainly ministerial roles for women to play in the early church (see previous link) but the difference between those and the ordained ministries is not one of degree but of kind. If Christ did provide in some way for a female presbyterate, the omission of this fact from the entire New Testament and all the Church fathers would be vast to say the least. To say a bit more: it would mean that the entire early Church engaged in some sort of conspiracy to deny not just women their rightful ministry, but to deny Christ himself the authority that was his alone to build it or not.

Christians trampling Christ–do you begin to see how your simple, seemingly innocent suggestion has raised such passions?

As I mentioned in other posts, the gnostic gospels emphazise the importance of women in the early church. Gave women the same status as men in many cases.

And as has been noted in many other posts–

Yes, the gnostic gospels have been labeled heresy by the church.

Oh good, I see you’ve read them

Could one of the reasons be the importance that women had in them? This would definitely fly into the face of that current culture.

It probably had more to do with the contradictory theology; even so, this assertion is only a statement of the obvious. Even more, if the role of women in those narratives is in fact improper, then it would be odious to them. So what?

Look at this from a historical view not just from a pure catholic viewpoint.

Why limit myself to a historical view, when I have the universal (catholic) one?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

Well, they were at one time, part of the early christian movement. There are many references to support that. Not much else I can say.

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