[MR] Women and the Early Church

[Betty Eyer]

--- EoganOg at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/1/02 8:37:02 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, sfdowns at pinn.net 
> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is going to do a study of Church history
> should familiarize 
> themselves with these terms, that are not subjective
> but rather precise.
> 
Precisely when did they become precise?  There is a
error either accidental or deliberate in your
arguement that implies that the teachings of the
church sprung full blown at some time after the death
of Christ and were accepted univerally and
unwaiveringly from that day to this except by rebels
who deliberately deny the established norm. But the
opposite is much more the case.  What is or is not the
truth accepted by the church evolved step by step over
time and continues to do so.  

The Pope was not accepted to be the Bishop of Rome
until well into the second century and the concept
that this power was handed down "from the chair" or
"ex cathedra" not until 258.  The accepted books of
the bible, their order and valid translations were not
codified with any permanence until the council of
Florence in the 1400's and the council of Trent in
1587. In fact throughout the SCA period there were
reversals of opinion on the very basic issue of what
constituted the true Bible within the Church.  The
conditions under which the Pope is considered to be
infallible were not codified until the 1860's and in
fact throughout the SCA period Popes were known to
reverse the decisions of previous Popes. 

The first Nicean council of 325 was held in response
to the Arian heresy, a heresy started by a real live
official bishop.  His beliefs were determined to be
heresy after extended discussion and controversy; we
can assume that if there was lengthy discussion that
some real live offical bishops AGREED with some or all
of his teachings.  The decision was made by a vote of
Bishops in Norther Africa and Egypt, not by an
infallible edict of the Pope.  

If a bishop, ordained in an "official" process,
disagrees with another duly ordained bishop, who is
the heretic?  Well, the one that loses the battle from
the perspective of history, of course.  So does that
mean that the heretic was never really a bishop? 
Let's apply this logic to our time - Marion Barrry was
never a mayor because convicts can not be mayors.  But
we all know that he was a mayor and later a convict. 
So it seems to me that a woman or a man who was
married could have been ordained a priest by an
official bishop, and accepted as being a true priest
for some time and then later deposed when the power
structure took action on the case. This does not mean
that the act never took place or that the people
involved and their followers did not consider
themselves to be followers of the one true church. 
They were not necessarily denying or rebeling against
authority - they could have been acting on a
difference of opinion or interpretation which they
held to be correct and which was later determined to
be heresy. 


>  "Catholic" was
> adopted as the name of the 
> church because the term means "universal." 
 
The terms "catholic" or "Roman" were not necessary
until  such time that it was needed to differentiate
between that christian church and any others, the
"Greek" Church, for instance, or those of heretics. 
And the Greek church also likes the word Orthodox.
Sort of ironic, huh? 

> "Heresy" is then a contradiction or perversion of
> that teaching.  St. Thomas 
> defined heresy as "a species of infidelity in men
> who, having professed the 
> faith of Chrst, corrupt its dogmas."  
> 
It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you
accused others of in a previous post - applying modern
concepts to history.   You can't apply the teachings
of Aquinas to the Church of 700.  By using him as a
reference for the definition of heresy, you are saying
that those who were determined to be heretics before
his time were, indeed, determined to be so
subjectively. 

And St. Thomas, smack in the middle of the SCA period,
was still in the process of helping the church define
what that church believed.  Saint Francis, also in the
midst of the SCA period,  was actually considered in
his time a rebel and reformer of the Church and had
difficulty establishing his order because of his vow
of poverty.  There were those, at times all the way up
to and including the Pope,  who considered him "wrong
thinking", but he won the battle of history and so we
consider him orthodox.  



=====
Magdalena de Hazebrouck-Purpure, a fess fusilly argent between three torches or. While Joshua was near Jericho, he raised his eyes and saw one who stood facing him, drawn sword in hand.  Joshua went up to him and asked "Are you one of us or of our enemies?" He replied, "Neither.  I am the captain of the host of the Lord and I have just arrived in this valley." Joshua 5, 13-14.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com