[MR] Women and the Early Church

[EoganOg at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/5/02 4:22:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, Velsthe1 at aol.com 
writes:

> 
> You're kidding right? Between the well known phrase "History is written by 
> the victors". Lets try some biblical history here. 

[story about Moses snipped]

Bugger-all, it's not conspiracy theory, it's learning from history. 
> 

If you want to beleive that the early church ordained women, and the later 
church, after deciding not to allow women's ordination, covered up or 
destroyed the evidence that it was ever done, fine.  Go ahead.  You can call 
it "learning from history."  I'll still call it "conspiracy theory."


> >Firstly, the definition of infalibility that the
> >Catholic Church uses is "incapable of error."  
> I dunno, it would still sound to me only people incapable of error would be 
> free from guilt or sin. 
> 

Yet that is not what it means.  If you want to know what the Catholic Church 
means by "Papal Infallibility" then don't go looking in Websters.  Don't ask 
some guy off the street what he thinks the term means.  Go look in the 
Catechism.  Find out what the Church means by it.  They do not mean "free 
from sin" at all, in the slightest.



> >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.  
> I fear you may have just undermined yourself, and spoken heresy. Papal 
> infallibility DOES mean the Pope is never wrong, and everything that comes 
> from him is given to him from the lips of God. That is who the mystic of 
> the Papacy. The Pope is the mouthpeice of God on earth and that is why 
> whatever comes from the Papal See IS infallible.

Again, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches at all, in the slightest. 
 It is never what they have taught.  The Pope does not have things revealed 
to him by divine revelation.  He has to study and come to his conclusions 
just like anyone else.  Infallibility means that he is prevented from 
teaching error.  It does not mean that he always has the right answer "given 
to him by the lips of God."

If you really want to talk with me about Papal Infallibility, e-mail me 
privately.  It is irrelavant to the evidence of early women in the 
priesthood, and I doubt many on the Merry Rose want to get involved in a 
religious debate.  But first read:  
http://albanach.org/apologetics/infalibility.html


> Women as priests being wide-sread, probably not. But it does appear that 
> your point of arguement is that it never happened, ever. 

My "point of arguement" is that there is not enough evidence to support that 
it happened.  And believing that it did without it being documented, and then 
holding those who don't agree with you to be "close minded" is just foolish.


> To be heretics, they have to be in the church to begin with, yes? Did the 
> official line of the church allow women priests, no. Does that mean it 
> never happened, of course not. Consider the raw geography involved, 
> populations scattered to the four winds. 

If I understand correctly, your argument now is that since we are talking 
about a large population over a large geographical area, then the odds are 
that somewhere, someone was ordaining women priests?

That idea might be enough for someone to begin to base a theory on, but 
without more supporting evidence it is meaningless.


> I think that may be another point of confusion. Your arguement is that a 
> heretic is a heretic from the first time they have a thought against the 
> official teachings of the church. Many of the rest involved in this 
> discussion would probably say that soemone isn't a heretic until they are 
> 

If I, as a non-ordained lay person get up next Sunday wearing a Batman 
costume, rush up to the atar and begin to denounce the Pope as the 
anti-Christ, and to tell everyone that Jesus was really a space-alien, am I a 
heretic before or after word of my mad ravings reaches Rome and they denounce 
me?

I think there is a point here that people are missing.  In the various 
writings "Against Heresies" that early Fathers of the Church have written, 
such as Irenaeus, the groups that are being denounced as heretical are 
condemned for a whole slew of heresies, and their involvement of women in 
priestly functions is almost incidental.  You can scour through the entire 
Catholic Encyclopdia and you won't find one heretical group mentioned whose 
only heresy was the ordination of women.  So it isn't as if some normal, 
faithful church somewhere in East Pampootie decided to try ordaining women 
and then were labelled heretical because of that.

You seem to be grasping at straws here.  All I'm saying is that when people 
present to you a version of history that is radically different from the 
accepted norm, take a real hard objective look at their documented evidence.  
Be critical, don't just accept their theories spoon-fed.  See if you think 
their evidence holds up.  In this particular case, it does not.

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/20020305/b80dcf1a/attachment-0023.htm>