Women Priests

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Francis king

netti netti- in ur second post, you quoted some text...

It's from the Urantia Book, Francis.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

They (Celtic abbesses) were also adept and powerful swordsmen and warriors as well as being ordained priests.

Are you sure? This sounds like the gift of the gab, to me.

Thomas

[path_of_one]

I'm curious about the Celtic abesses too. Are you referring to those that took up Christianity shortly after the Druidic period? Druids could be female and some were reportedly quite the warrior as well as the priest/ess.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 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... !!

After St. Patrick began his ministry in Ireland circa 526 AD, those that followed were both Abbots and Abbesses who, ordained as catholic priests and educated in literature and history, built small Havens throughout the British Isles and deep into Europe, called Abbies. Besides the task of translating every piece of literature that could be found into multiple languages for preservation, the Abbots and Abbesses were called upon to educate the children of the Barons and lords through out the various lands, which they did quite well.

In fact they did so well that the Vatican sent a troupe of Bishops, Arch Bishops and Guards to meet and re-aquant with the Catholic Church in Ireland, to thank them for the outstanding service they were providing to the church and whole of humanity.

So, when they arrived and went into the hall to meet with all the priests gathered for the meeting, imagine the surprise to find out that 50 % of these priests doing such literical and humane miracles were...women???!!!!!

The Head Arch Bishop ordered the immediate stripping of the women of their vestments, and the execution of anyone who resisted, by which point, the Abbesses, unsheated their own double edged broad swords from under the same said vestments, and dispatched the Guards. Then turned on the Bishops with less than holy grins.

[Quahom1]

Needless to say, word was sent back to the vatican which wisely determined that the Abbesses were doing God's work, and were to remain ordained. This would remain with the Celtic order until the raids of the Vikings in Ireland circa 1000 AD. With the end of the Irish rule, so went catholicism for a time, and the last of the Abbesses.

A good book that give excellent and accurate details of this time is titled "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill.

"Thomas Cahill tells the story of how Europe evolved from the classical age of Rome to the medieval era. Without Ireland, the transition could not have taken place. Not only did Irish monks and scribes maintain the very record of Western civilization -- copying manuscripts of Greek and Latin writers, both pagan and Christian, while libraries and learning on the continent were forever lost -- they brought their uniquely Irish world-view to the task."

"...a distinctively Irish Christianity developed that emphasized monastic abbots/abbesses rather than bishops. This was largely a result of the radical changes in Irish power structures during the 5th century. The old provinces were gradually being replaced by a less static dynastic structure that did not favour an episcopal system based around the traditional centres of power (such as Tara Hill). The monasteries gained such control that some episcopal settlements, such as Armagh, became monastic centres."

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

I'd be interested in the historial refs, if you have them.

But it sounds about what you'd get in the period right after classical Druidry.

Celtic society was fairly egalitarian between men and women, and women were frequently taught to fight too. Celtic Christians had a lot of differences from Roman Catholics- they hadn't quite let go of Druidic beliefs and the traditional Celtic social practices. Not sure that they ever did...

ETA- never mind about the refs- just saw that you posted them. LOL

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Are you sure? This sounds like the gift of the gab, to me.

Thomas

No indeed Thomas, I would not "expound and expand" upon with is historical fact. I provided one author who has references listed in the back of the book. Once I am home, I'll provide more references if you are still curious.

You have to remember, the church of Rome and the church of Ireland grew up seperately, and Rome did not have much influence on Ireland for hundreds of years.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

This thread is a fascinating read, instructive and insightful.

I just have one question; how did it end up on the News board?

Like, maybe shouldn't it be on the History board, or maybe even B&S or even Abrahamics, possibly Comparative? It just seems out of place with the other threads on this board.

BTW, Kudos to you Q for bringing up the Irish connection!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by 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.

I looked into this superficially and its seems the institutions were fairly clear about differences between priests and Abbesses. Specifically, it seems Abbesses did not have "sacramental ordination" and could not exercise "sacramental prerogatives."

[Thomas]

Let me first say, as a holder of an Irish passport I love the idea of the Irish saving Europe, and to hear an Irishman tell it, you'd swear it was true ... but let's not go overboard. I know of John Scottus Eriugena reintroducing Plato and St Maximus to his king ... but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and one educated Irishman doesn't make a renaissance.

Let us also remember that the 'Celtic Christian' was effectively a Christian who maintained a certain lyricism of heart ... whilst the Fathers of the East went to the Desert, in the absence of deserts the Fathers of the West went to the wild headlands and islands to establish their communities.

+++

Let's also clarify — from the Abessess I've looked at, they seemed to have followed the normal procedure of taking the veil — becoming a nun — although obviously the educated womenfolk of the nobility because of their education and experience would have risen quicker in the order.

And an abbess did wield a fair amount of authority, and indeed comparable to a bishop, but she was not an ordained priest, and therefore can undertake none of the sacerdotal functions nor is invested with the authority and charism of the bishop on matters of faith and morals.

But ... and this is a big but ... anyone ordaining a woman would be in breach of the Faith and the ordination would be illicit and defective. The East did not ordain women ... in fact as far as I know no Christian community ordained women and if the Irish did, then that was an error.

At the Synod of Whitby — the famous meeting between the Ionian or 'Celtic' Tradition and Rome — matters under dispute were the dating of Ester (the Irish followed the Eastern rule), the monastic tonsure ... and a new idea that spread right across Europe, private as opposed to public confession.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Just thinking in print, but those Christians that came to the aid of Constantine *were* British (Constantine was raised in Britain, and even served as "little emperor" {forgot the exact title} of Britian for a time, like his father before him). Whether there is direct association with "Celtic Christianity" certainly remains to be cleared, but it does raise the interesting question.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Let me first say, as a holder of an Irish passport I love the idea of the Irish saving Europe, and to hear an Irishman tell it, you'd swear it was true ... but let's not go overboard. I know of John Scottus Eriugena reintroducing Plato and St Maximus to his king ... but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and one educated Irishman doesn't make a renaissance.

I would have to research it better, I'm going right now from memory of a PBS program some time back...but it seems to me that Ireland was the seat of western knowledge at a time when the continent was determinedly ignorant and despised any form of higher learning.

Perhaps my adjectives are a bit harsher than meant, but I hope the gist comes through. Strange, that Spain (Toledo and elsewhere) and Ireland (Tara and elsewhere) should be the beacons of knowledge in an otherwise darkened era. And while I understand the reservations some of our Jewish friends have with associating the British Isles with Judaism, I still find it intriguing the folklore that ties Ireland *and* Spain to the last king of Judah, through his daughters, escorted West into exile by the prophet Jeremiah. Funny, but the genetic trait of red hair is pretty well the exclusive domain of Ireland and Spain...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I'm curious about the Celtic abesses too. Are you referring to those that took up Christianity shortly after the Druidic period? Druids could be female and some were reportedly quite the warrior as well as the priest/ess.

Actually this began during the Druidic era (though near the end), and continued on for several hundred years.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Let me first say, as a holder of an Irish passport I love the idea of the Irish saving Europe, and to hear an Irishman tell it, you'd swear it was true ... but let's not go overboard. I know of John Scottus Eriugena reintroducing Plato and St Maximus to his king ... but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and one educated Irishman doesn't make a renaissance.

Let us also remember that the 'Celtic Christian' was effectively a Christian who maintained a certain lyricism of heart ... whilst the Fathers of the East went to the Desert, in the absence of deserts the Fathers of the West went to the wild headlands and islands to establish their communities.

+++

Let's also clarify — from the Abessess I've looked at, they seemed to have followed the normal procedure of taking the veil — becoming a nun — although obviously the educated womenfolk of the nobility because of their education and experience would have risen quicker in the order.

And an abbess did wield a fair amount of authority, and indeed comparable to a bishop, but she was not an ordained priest, and therefore can undertake none of the sacerdotal functions nor is invested with the authority and charism of the bishop on matters of faith and morals.

But ... and this is a big but ... anyone ordaining a woman would be in breach of the Faith and the ordination would be illicit and defective. The East did not ordain women ... in fact as far as I know no Christian community ordained women and if the Irish did, then that was an error.

At the Synod of Whitby — the famous meeting between the Ionian or 'Celtic' Tradition and Rome — matters under dispute were the dating of Ester (the Irish followed the Eastern rule), the monastic tonsure ... and a new idea that spread right across Europe, private as opposed to public confession.

Thomas

I presume the information you are using is from the Abbesses of Kildaire?

I'm not going to refute your opinion on history Thomas, or even your conclusions based upon your research. As always there are tracts of information that do not always compliment other tracts of information.

Based on similar but deviated historical tracts, and our own desires to see things a particular way, people come away with different perspectives on the history we decifer.

v/r

Q

[Netti-Netti]

The primary commission ... the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist ... was made to the twelve, no others. Missionary work and evangelization is not the limited to the priesthood.

Interesting that the Catholic notion of the priesthood seems centered on sacramental ministry. Acts 6:6-7 refers to the appointment of the seven members of the Hellenist party who became priest after being appointed by the Twelve. The Seven's ministry was neither sacramental nor missionary.

The author assumes one knows what a priest does, as they officiate at sacred ceremonies, by they Jewish or pagan

Well, based on the apostles' conduct, the Christian notion of priesthood is a little different.

The twelve apostles had no sacramental prerogatives until after the Resurrection. The Risen Christ authorized them to do baptisms (see Matthew 28). Interestingly, after they were commissioned, the apostles apparently appointed helpers to do a lot of the baptisms. So even the sacrament of Baptism does not seem to define a "primary commission" or job function that is unique to the priesthood.

Regarding the taking of confession, it is unclear whether that is sacred ritual. Forgiveness comes from G-d - meaning any action on the part of a priest adds nothing to the act of forgives itself, which is G-d Divine Mercy in action. The priest hearing of the penitent's confession has value: it makes forgiveness "present" to the penitent in the sense of recalling and affirming G-d's activity in the world and providing a place to renewing commitment and strengthen. But what the priest is doing there is not itself the sacrament. The experiential sacrament lies in contrition and accepting forgiveness.

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.

Is unclear whether there is any Biblical support for Christian priests administering holy communion. The term Eucharist does not appear anywhere in the Bible. It seems communion wafers are a vestige of pagan sun worship rituals that used little round cakes to symbolize the Sun.

When Jesus said at the Last Supper, "Do this in memory of me," this does not strike me as giving the apostles special powers. Rather, it would appear be Jesus instructing the apostles in another form of "making present" - i.e., recalling and affirming G-d's activity in the world.

What the priest is doing when he is giving out communion wafers is principally an informational act rather than an intrinsically "sacred" act that requires certain special power or level of technical competence that make priests different from ordinary sinner. To my way of thinking, it's the personal relationship with G-d through Christ and the Holy Spirit that's sacred.

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.

I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that it was the Gospel with which they were entrusted. In fact, as we have seen in the foregoing discussion, it is unclear whether sacramental duties and capabilies actually define what it is to be a priest. I would point out that the primacy of the apostles missionary work should be even evident from their title. The term 'Apostle" comes from the Greek Ἀπόστολος, apostolos -- that is,

"someone sent out", e.g. with a message or as a delegate) were, according to the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) and Christian tradition, disciples (followers) whom Jesus of Nazareth had chosen, named, and trained in order to send them on a specific mission.

On the Wiki page about the apostles, we find a list of missionaries that the Church has historically referred to as "apostles." The list includes Mary Faustina Kowalska of old Russia, and Saint Nino of Constantinople, both of whom were nuns. Should we accept the premise that apostleship is a prototype for the priesthood, then we must accept an important logical implication: if the church will recognize women as apostles, then the Church must also recognize them as priests. But it doesn't!

I think it would be fair to say that the Church's policy is ideologically incoherent.

If the priestly involvement with sacraments is strictly an informational function of "making present" by means of interesting liturgical verbalizations and fancy rituals, then one could reasonably argue that the ordination of the priest is essentially recognizes someone whose job functions are mainly ceremonial and educational: invoking religious imagery teaching, and preaching.

From a Christian pov, the distinction between sacramental ministry and missionary ministry would appear to be an "invention."

No, it quite definitely signifies obedience to the twelve.

The terms "obedience to the apostles" is nowhere to be found in the Bible. "Obedience to the twelve" doesn't appear anywhere either. This kind of language conjures up images of power politics that are quite different from what Jesus was trying to promote. Such images are in fact highly misleading.

Again, as we have seen, the differences between the apostles and their appointees were principally differences in authority and knowledge, not differences in power or sacramental prerogative.

Here (Matthew 23:8) is Jesus speaking out against professional religionists and for equality within a religious body: "you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' because you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers." In light of such a strong statement arguing against hierarchy, why would one would insist on an elitist, power and status-oriented view of the priesthood?

It is unclear how one can argue that a transfer of power and authority between men makes men priest when this is not supported by the Bible: Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. ~Romans 1:5

The term obedience is perhaps best limited to the matter of honoring G-d and keeping His commandments. This is the obedience that follows from faith and love, not submission to a man-made ecclestiastical system. Indeed, why emphasize obedience to human organizations when we know that the Kingdom is not of this world, that Jesus is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5), and that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). . . ? ? . . . .