[MR] Women and the Early Church

[EoganOg at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/02 6:04:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, sfdowns at pinn.net 
writes:

> The standard I asked of you was not merely precise, but precise, scientific
> definitions.  You are claiming to practice a science, yet you:
> 
> 1) Use circular reasoning.  You define the disputed terms by referring to
> other disputed terms.  What is orthodox and correct is what is Catholic,
> what is heretical is what is not Catholic.  You completely disregard the
> documentable fact that many people use these words with a different
> understanding of what they mean.
> 

Circular reasoning would be saying that the definition of heretical is "not 
Catholic" and the definition of Catholic is "not heretical."  That is not 
what I said at all.

Catholic teaching can be defined as the doctrines and dogma proclaimed by the 
Magesterium (the teaching body of bishops).

Heresy can be defined as that which goes against the teaching proclaimed by 
the Magesterium.

In each case, the standard by which any teaching is judged is the word of the 
Magesterium, the word of the Church.  Either it is, or it isn't.  Nothing 
circular about it.  Anyone can objectively examine Church records to see what 
the Magesterium does and does not teach.



> 2) Appeal to authority.  Scientists use observation to formulate hypotheses
> and experimentation to test the validity of these hypotheses and thus draw
> conclusions.  Appeals to authority are a strict no-no.
> 


I have observed that the evidence presented for the historic practice of 
ordaining women to the priesthood has been lacking.  Thus far, the majority 
of evidence I have seen has been of three main types:

1)  Early references to women being called deaconesses, priestesses and 
bishopesses.  However, in the early church, married men could be ordained.  
When they were ordained, certain privledges were granted to their wives, 
among which was the use of the feminine version of their husband's title.  
However, that title conferred no ordination nor did it imply any priestly 
duties.  It has been the consensus of historians as a whole that these women 
were the wives of deacons, priests, and bishops.  If anyone is to suggest 
otherwise, he would need to present convincing evidence that these women were 
in reality not wives of ordained men, but were ordained themselves.  So far, 
no one has done this.  Am I appealing to authority?  No.

2)  References from letters by bishops expressing concern over certain 
priests encouraging women to assist or assume roles at the altar.  Nowhere in 
these letters is there any mention made of women actually being ordained.  
There is every reason to assume that these are heretical groups, and they are 
a rare exception, not the norm.  I have only seen 2 or 3 of these letters 
thus far presented.  They may be of use to prove that certain heretical sects 
were encouraging women to take on priestly roles.  But they don't even really 
show that these heretical sects ordained women, let alone that the Church as 
a whole accepted women's ordaintion.  Likewise references from early church 
writers in treatises "Against Heresies," which very well may be referring to 
the same heretical groups.  Once again, I am only examining the evidence 
presetented on its own merits.  Am I appealing to authority?  No.

3)  Various early church records of female deacons.  These in no way prove 
the existence of female priests.  The deacon and the priest are two different 
offices.  Ordination in one does not, never has, never will confer or imply 
ordination in the other.  The Church's teaching is that women cannot be 
ordained *as priests*.  Evidence for women deacons does not prove anything 
one way or the other regarding women priests.  Again, am I appealing to 
authority?  No.

> 3) Ignore data -- the cardinal sin of scientific inquiry.  You allude to the
> Pope as infallible when there is clear evidence to the contrary -- e.g.
> Popes reversing other Popes.  You refer to Catholic "as the name of the
> church because the term means 'universal.'"  when it demonstrably isn't and
> never has been.  
> 

What?  Catholic teaching is that the Pope is infallible when exercising his 
office to teach on matters of faith and morals.  Show me where one Pope has 
exercised his infallibility and then another Pope has reversed it.  It has 
not happened.  What data are you claiming that I am ignoring?

Regarding the name of the Catholic church, are you saying that it "isn't and 
never has been" the name of the Church, or are you saying it does not mean 
"universal."  I think it is pretty straightforward that "Catholic" is the 
name of the Catholic Church, and that "catholic" means universal.  I don't 
even know what you are objecting to here, and I haven't a clue as to how it 
relates to women's ordination.

> I certainly understand the catholic church as the invisible spiritual union
> of all believers in Christ -- the Bride of Christ.   And I understand that
> the Catholic Church is a different thing altogether.
> 

This is a very modern understanding of "Christianity" as an "invisible" 
church.  It did not exist in period.  I'm not saying your beleif is right or 
wrong, or that you don't have the right to believe as you wish.  I'm just 
saying that if you want to make a study of early or medieval church history, 
you need to realize that this is not what people thought "the Church" was 
then.  It's a modern way of thinking.


> I understand that many different practices claim to be Orthodox, and I know
> what I hold to be orthodox.
> 

And what does your opinion of orthodoxy have to do with whether or not women 
were ordained as priests in the early church?


> I understand heresy to be teaching contradictory to scripture, such as
> claiming that a man other than Christ can be infallible in contradiction to
> "There is no one righteous, not even one," (Rom. 3:10, NIV) and "All of us
> have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like
> filthy rags." (Is. 64:6, NIV)
> 

Infallible does not mean "righteous."  They are two different things.  You 
can't prove the Pope is not infallible by citing Scripture as saying "no one 
is righteous."  They are two difference concepts, having nothing to do with 
eachother.


> You can talk about what people in the past said was orthodox and heretical,
> because then you're describing their stated value judgements, but as soon as
> you use these terms to describe someone's beliefs, you're making an
> unscientific value judgement. 

And how have I used these terms to talk about anyone's beliefs here?  I have 
not.  I have used these terms in this discussion of the possible ordination 
of women in the early church, in a historical context.

> I am not denying "the entire study of Church history, and indeed the history
> of early and medieval Europe," I am denying that you are doing it
> 

Then show me some evidence that tells me I am wrong, and that the early 
Church did indeed ordain women to the priesthood.  So far you have not.  You 
have nit-picked my definitions of "Catholic" and "heretical," and called into 
question Papal Infallibility.  But you have not illustrated at all that women 
were ordained into the priesthood.

I have a feeling that people are trying to turn this little discussion into a 
personal discussion of religion, and all I am trying to do is talk about 
history from the evidence we have.

Aye,
Eogan

Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020303/f2d126af/attachment-0023.htm>