[MR] Women and the Early Church

[EoganOg at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/02 10:40:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Velsthe1 writes:

I wrote:

> >Show me where one Pope has exercised his infallibility 
> >and then another Pope has reversed it.  It has not 
> >happened.  
> 

Vels replied:


> That would be becuase Papal Infallibility is a relatively new idea, first 
> being declared as dogma after 1600. 

Papal Infallibility was *defined* at the first Vatican council in 1870.  
However, it would be a mistake to assume that it was a "new idea" at the 
time.  You can find it in church records and in practice throughout the 
history of the Church.  In 256 Cyprian of Carthage wrote "Would heretics dare 
to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and 
whither no errors can come?"  This is a definition of papal infallibility in 
a nutshell.

In any case, even *if* it were a new idea in 1870 (which it was not), it 
still is being applied to the entire Papacy, from St. Peter right up to now.

>     If you wish I can send you copies of various Catholic marriage cannon 
> laws that have been revoked and modified in the last 30 years. Both items 
> (original writing and revokation) by Popes.

You can if you like.  But cannon law is not doctrine.  Cannon law can change 
over time.  In fact, it is the responsibility of the Church to enact or 
repeal certain cannon laws depending on the circumstances and what would be 
better for the faith.  But cannon law is not doctrine.  You can't prove that 
a Pope has ever infallibly declared another Pope's infallible statement to be 
wrong by showing where cannon law has changed.  It's comparing apples to 
brazil nuts.


> >Infallible does not mean "righteous."  
> (courtesy of Miriam-Webster Online)
> -in·fal·li·ble 1 : incapable of error : UNERRING 2 : not liable to mislead, 
> deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN 
> -righ·teous 1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt 
> or sin 
> ...Sounds rather synonomous by Websters definition.
> 

Not at all.  Firstly, the definition of infalibility that the Catholic Church 
uses is "incapable of error."  Specifically, papal infalibility means a very 
specific thing.  It means that he, as the leader of the Church, is incapable 
from teaching in error on matters of faith and morals.  There are a lot of 
things it does NOT mean.

It does NOT mean that he is incapable of teaching in error on anything other 
than faith and morals.  He can't teach infalibly on geometry, or economics.

It does NOT mean that he always knows what is right.  It is a negative 
protection, preventing him from teaching wrong.  There is a difference.  He 
doesn't have an angel whispering answers in his ear.  If he doesn't know, he 
doesn't know.  But when he does know, and publicly proclaims it to the entire 
church, he is prevented from teaching error.

It does NOT mean that he is sinless.  And this is the mistake that you are 
making by saying infalibility is synonimous with righteousness.  A Pope could 
be a very great sinner in his private life, and yet when he is teaching on 
faith and morals could still not teach error.  No one has ever claimed the 
pope to be sinless.  Again, apples and oranges.

Again, I wrote (regarding women's ordination, which we are slowly moving away 
from):

> >Then show me some evidence that tells me I am wrong, 
> >and that the early Church did indeed ordain women to 
> >the priesthood.  
> 


Vels replied:


> It was attempted. But the evidence was refuted, essentially, on the grounds 
> that all evidence was of people with an agenda and could not be 
> corraborrated with other texts and sources recording the time-- Catholic 
> Records. 

No, I think I did a pretty good job of refutng the evidence because the 
evidence simply did not prove what people were claiming it did.  We can go 
over it all one more time if you like, but I don't see the need to.

>  
> Which you have refuted what little evidence was availible, on the grounds 
> that the Catholic Church's documentation does not agree. Since the Catholic 
> Church said women may not be priests at some point, whatever record there 
> may have been has either been erased or written off and a heresy. 

Are we espousing a conspiracy theory here?  "Since the Catholic Church, at 
some point in history, declared women preists to be a no-no, then the 
Catholic MIB perpetrated a cover-up wherin all historic records of women 
priests were destroyed."
Uh-huh.....

All I'm doing is looking at the evidence as presented.  If your evidence 
doesn't hold up, no need to cry foul about it.  No conspiracy neccesary.


Just becuase it is labeled heresy before, during, or after the fact does not 
mean it 
> never happened. The Council of Bishops has done very little proactively in 
> their entire history, the main exception would be the Vatican Two council. 
> One might surmize then, that for there to be a prohibition against women as 
> ordained clerical persons, then someone had to have tried it at least once, 
> 

And what if it were declared heretical *as it was happening*.  Contemporary 
records show this was considered heretical from early on.

And, as I have said before, if you want to set out to prove that early 
heretical sects ordained women priests, you may have more luck.  People's 
mistake is in thinking that this means womens ordination was somehow widely 
accepted.  And just as a note, so far what has been presented suggests only 
that heretical sects were encouraging women to assist at the altar and take 
on priestly roles.  No ordination has been mentioned so far, so that would 
require an assumption.

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/20020304/6bffa0a6/attachment-0023.htm>