Women Priests

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It was these twelve who commissioned the diaconate (Acts 6) by prayer and the laying-on of hands ... and it was they who established the 'priesthood' as 'a council of elders' (presbyteroi - priests) and 'overseers' (episkopoi - bishops) ... and it was they who authorised bishops to ordain ...

ok, I'm looking at your source, Thomas:

They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them....So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

~Acts 6:6-7

An insistence on the Twelve would appear to be unwarranted. Additional priests were involved in the ministry.

Note that in Acts 6, the functions of the additional priests were not specifically sacramental. In other words, the notion of priesthood is different from a more traditional view of someone who has unique qualifications to do sacramental work. In this context, "obedient to the faith" means simply that faith and a willingness to be of service is all one needs to qualify as priest. See it in context here:
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: ACTS 6

To my way of thinking, Jesus ushered in the universal priesthood of all believers in accordance with a New Covenant. I don't recall the Covenant having an exclusionary clause for women.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

There is more than one account of the historical Jesus.

That's the Catch-22 though, isn't it? As I understand it, there's no account more credible than Scripture, I mean, if its hard enought to affirm Scripture, then any other account must come under greater suspicion, surely? Many were later fabrications ... I can't really comment on the textquoted without knowing something about it.

+++

Originally Posted by seattlegal

... having no women priests would mean that the church authorities couldn't blame women for bad doctrines/actions, like Adam blamed Eve in the Garden of Eden.

And there were some outrageous cases ... the idea that Eve brought Adam down was one that persisted for centuries. One of the early stylite preachers, who attracted vast crowds, would fly into a rage is he saw a woman...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

(You've also got to admit that the Hellenistic Greek culture was highly misogynistic, as well. Women church leaders would likely be quite vulnerable to violence there.)

Moreso under Roman rule, too.

+++

Originally Posted by wil

It is my understanding that there were 12 at the table, but many more watching, no?

As far as I know, no. There's no mention of an audience in the texts.

Originally Posted by wil

Also the 'instituted the Eucharist' I thought it was a uniquely Christian experience, until I attended shabbot and passover and found out the the sharing of wine and bread was a quite normal event.

That's the way Jesus works ... but the point is what is signified, not the meal in itself. Scholars of Comparative Relion (the Perennialist School) agree that the Eucharistic meal is unique to the Christian tradition. There are the feasts that accompany the Greek Mysteries, the meal enjoyed by Mithras and Sol, etc., but their symbolism and significance falls far short of the understanding of the Eucharist.

Originally Posted by wil

Now the body and blood analogy, that may have been new, or it could be that teachers used various analogies over time. But I see it as much more metaphorical than literal.

Jesus lost many of His own following when He told them it was literal, and they refused it.
John 6:
54-58 "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

and laster ...

61 "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"

67-68 "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?"

The whole chapter should be read as a piece, really.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Jesus lost many of His own following when He told them it was literal, and they refused it.
John 6:
54-58 "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Thomas, since we are the Body of Christ, what you believe is being advocated here would seem to have at least two fairly significant implications: Instead of consuming communion wafers and wine/grape juice, we should be (1) cannabalizing each other, and/or (2) cannabalizing ourselves. That is, if we stick with a literal view.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

ok, I'm looking at your source, Thomas:

They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them....So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

~Acts 6:6-7

An insistence on the Twelve would appear to be unwarranted. Additional priests were involved in the ministry.

Scholarship treats this as a confrontation between Aramaic-speaking Jews (the Apostles and their followers) and Hellenised Jews of the diaspora who spoke Greek (the 'Hellenists' and 'Hebrews' of v1).

The twelve resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all (v5) who elected seven men of the Hellenist party (all seven are named and documented in Hellenistic sources) and they come forward and are commissioned by the Apostles (v6).

The 'great many of the priests were obedient to the faith' implies that the Hellenist party were happy to accept the authority of the Twelve, in spiritual and temporal matters.

Sorry, but this reinforces the argument of tradition.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Note that in Acts 6, the functions of the additional priests were not specifically sacramental.

Well it's not specified at all, is it? The author assumes one knows what a priest does, as they officiate at sacred ceremonies, by they Jewish or pagan.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In other words, the notion of priesthood is different from a more traditional view of someone who has unique qualifications to do sacramental work.

I don't see why?

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In this context, "obedient to the faith" means simply that faith and a willingness to be of service is all one needs to qualify as priest.

No, it quite definitely signifies obedience to the twelve.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

To my way of thinking, Jesus ushered in the universal priesthood of all believers in accordance with a New Covenant. I don't recall the Covenant having an exclusionary clause for women.

To me, the New Covenant ushered in is theosis, or filiation, or deification — the intimate union between God and creature — and one is not required to be a priest to aspire to such.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, (obedience to the faith) quite definitely signifies obedience to the twelve.

Hello again Thomas,

Please cite Biblical support for the notion of obedience to the twelve.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Thomas, since we are the Body of Christ, what you believe is being advocated here would seem to have at least two fairly significant implications: Instead of consuming communion wafers and wine/grape juice, we should be (1) cannabalizing each other, and/or (2) cannabalizing ourselves. That is, if we stick with a literal view.

No, because the Body of Christ is constituted by those who are in communion with Him, He is its head, and we its members.

We subsist because of Him, not because of ourselves, or each other.

But nor am I proposing cannibalism ... which would actually reduce the Eucharist to a mere magical ritual ... I think the point of the chapter is far more than that, but immediately it's about acceptance, and not simply acceptance but metanoia, a change of heart, and the point remains valid, we have to accept Christ on His terms, and not ours.

Reformation theology reduces baptism to a mere sign ... a rite of passage ... Orthodox doctrine insists the Holy Spirit is active and present in and on the person baptised (according to the degree they allow). Ever since then, the liberal trajectory has been to rationalise and reduce Christianity to effectively little more than ethical humanism. It is stripped of its Mystery.

The Eucharist is no mere sign, a metaphor for something inward and indeterminate, but a real thing, transmission of being at the level of one's nature, not one's individuality.

Eucharistic Theology is a deep and profound subject, and I'm not really willing to discuss it in open forum.

John 15:5:
"for without me you can do nothing."
This, to me, is what it all boils down to. We don't want to admit that, We are prepared to give Christ anything, except ourselves ... and that's the only thing He wants, so He can give it back anew, and glorified.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Please cite Biblical support for the notion of obedience to the twelve.

Acts 6:6
"These (the seven chosen by multitude from among the Hellenists) they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. (the imposition of hands was a Jewish ritual of expressing the transfer of authority and power)."

6:7 sums up the results of the apostle's actions:
"And the word of the Lord increased;
and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly:
a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith."
By this we can assume that the Hellenic Christians came under the direct authority of the apostles — it is they to whom the Faith is entrusted.

Here St Luke sums up this segment. The result of the apostle's handling of the dispute is a positive outcome 'And the word of the Lord increased' which echoes a sentiment expressed at a similar summing up previously: "And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved." (2:47)

If not as above, then v7 is actually meaningless from the Lucan viewpoint.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, because the Body of Christ is constituted by those who are in communion with Him, He is its head, and we its members.

Either we are part of the living body or we are lifeless appendages. Which is it?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Acts 6:6
"These (the seven chosen by multitude from among the Hellenists) they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

(the imposition of hands was a Jewish ritual of expressing the transfer of authority and power)."

We can probably assume that the transfer of authority and power accomplished by the Laying on of Hands procedure was accepted as such by the seven members of the Hellenist party who participated in this ritual.

Now, would the seven members of the Hellenist party thereafter exercise the same authority and power as the Twelve as a result of the transfer they had accepted from the Twelve, who intended to invest them (the seven members of the Hellenist party) with that authority and power ?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Acts 6:6
"These (the seven chosen by multitude from among the Hellenists) they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. (the imposition of hands was a Jewish ritual of expressing the transfer of authority and power)."

I could just see gossip and rumors flying surrounding a female in authority in this regard--she 'slept' her way to her position via the literal laying on of hands!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Either we are part of the living body or we are lifeless appendages. Which is it?

We are part of the Body, as long as we are in communion with the Body, which means acceptance of the rule of the Magisterium with humility ... and as soon as we set ourselves in opposition to that Body, we exclude ourselves from it.

You might want to look at Mysici Corporis Christi — an encyclical on just that.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

We can probably assume that the transfer of authority and power accomplished by the Laying on of Hands procedure was accepted as such by the seven members of the Hellenist party who participated in this ritual.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

would the seven members of the Hellenist party thereafter exercise the same authority and power as the Twelve as a result of the transfer they had accepted from the Twelve, who intended to invest them (the seven members of the Hellenist party) with that authority and power ?

No ... by the laying on of hands they have authority invested in them by the Twelve to perform a certain function — that was the agreement — not that the Twelve should become Nineteen by the addition of seven others.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I could just see gossip and rumors flying surrounding a female in authority in this regard--she 'slept' her way to her position via the literal laying on of hands!

Oh yes! And women were not the only objects of gossip ...
Nicea: Canon 3
"The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion."
By subintroducta is meant a woman living in a celibate relationship ... obviously this might be perfectly reasonable and harmless, but undoubtedly the object of gossip and rumour.

Also I think, although I cannot cite the case, there was at least one instance of a minister living in a house full of young women ... v-e-r-y suss ...

+++

One of the notable events of the English Reformation was the 'Dissolution of the Monasteries' and this has always been explained as happening because the monasteries had fallen into the most questionable licentiousness ...

Actually it's a crock, and pure propaganda. The reality is, the emerging aristocracy wanted the estates for themselves, and some of the largest were run by the great religious houses, and more than a few by Abesses of convents who effectively administered estates the size of a county.

(They sold the idea to Henry VIII to raise funds to finance his European wars, he saw hardly a penny as all the monies were swallowed up in 'admin costs' of the new rich.)

I think I recall someone saying that in so doing, one of the last surviving strata of female authority was done away with ... only the King's mistress remained!

Thomas

[Quahom1]

It should be pointed out that there were Catholic women priests, who not only thrived for centuries as such, but are signficant in their roles of keeping pretty much the whole of Europe from losing Christianity, as well as keeping it from sliding back into absolute primitiveness and barbarism, during the 600s through the 1100s.

They were the Celtic Abbesses of Ireland. If it weren't for them, we most likely would not have any knowledge of history or culture before the Dark ages.

They were also adept and powerful swordsmen and warriors as well as being ordained priests.

v/r

Q

[Francis king]

netti netti- in ur second post, you quoted some text... what organisation is this from, and do you belong to it?

no rush for a reply... cheers...

quahom- tell us more about the Celtic Abbesses... !!