Interesting. I will pick up that book and respond later today - I have to get going.
But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137325#msg137325 date=1304523498] And I agree to that, except all those dressed must be able to continue to communion.
oh of course...that was never a problem. normally we start low but than increase....never lose deacons or even people. this year actually we were surprised by the number of people that were there. ya3ny Anba David was were and we were giving communion to the men and women in the same time (2 sets) and they managed to say half of panouti panouti in cop ar and en proceeded also the the gospel in annual tune (that is in many books but no one says).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137344#msg137344 date=1304535459] we only say banoudi in Coptic and Arabic.
Do you have it in Eng?
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/965 it's all just psalms parts. this is not my latest version but it is good. the one i have in the book have bible references to almost every word....and yeah....read the footnote.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Why not? As more and more Gentiles entered the Christian fold, is it hard to believe that there would be an increasing incorporation of local cultural norms? Look at the numerous Orthodox Churches today. Each has maintained their individual ethnic and cultural norms while maintaining the Orthodox faith. Look at the book of Acts. We see the change from a strictly 'Jewish' Christianity to a more 'Gentile' Christianity. That is something that was discussed in the first Church Council headed by St. James.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
As the number of Christians increased, larger buildings were needed to accommodate them. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it made it significantly easier for Christians to congregate in larger numbers in more public places.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137333#msg137333 date=1304527988] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137330#msg137330 date=1304527004] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347] Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . . I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
Teaching sunday school is far removed from the priesthood and has nothing to do with the sacraments in any way. You are generalizing leadership and equating any kind of position to that of one with authority. Who does the sunday school teacher have authority over? The one who put her in that position or the children she teaches? In this position she has no authority, even over a reader deacon. The point you are making makes no sense. It seems very forced and far fetched.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137350#msg137350 date=1304537379] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137333#msg137333 date=1304527988] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137330#msg137330 date=1304527004] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347] Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . . I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
Teaching sunday school is far removed from the priesthood and has nothing to do with the sacraments in any way. You are generalizing leadership and equating any kind of position to that of one with authority. Who does the sunday school teacher have authority over? The one who put her in that position or the children she teaches? In this position she has no authority, even over a reader deacon. The point you are making makes no sense. It seems very forced and far fetched.
Please read carefully before responding. I said my Sunday school LEADER. Meaning I am a Sunday school servant along with other servants and she oversees the 3-6 grade classes. Meaning she has authority over me and other men. Meaning she tells us what to do. I don't really know how to make it any clearer?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137349#msg137349 date=1304537212] + Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Why not? As more and more Gentiles entered the Christian fold, is it hard to believe that there would be an increasing incorporation of local cultural norms? Look at the numerous Orthodox Churches today. Each has maintained their individual ethnic and cultural norms while maintaining the Orthodox faith. Look at the book of Acts. We see the change from a strictly 'Jewish' Christianity to a more 'Gentile' Christianity. That is something that was discussed in the first Church Council headed by St. James.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
As the number of Christians increased, larger buildings were needed to accommodate them. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it made it significantly easier for Christians to congregate in larger numbers in more public places.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925] Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
So...
The whole point was not to conform to society! I doubt they did so early on. Especially in an area as important as this. What Constantine admired about the Christians, as did many others, is they were so against the main stream. Especially in terms of the honor system and gender roles.
As for the last point, if leadership was based merely on wealth and influence then gender is meaningless.
There was definitely a structure in the first and second centuries St. Ignatius of Antioch writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 8)
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
As for Women being Apostles and deaconesses, what is the problem with that? They participate in the liturgy (as we all do, laity, deacons and priests), and certainly can and are sent by God to preach (which is what Apostle means). If anything he has no proof that that there were presbytera (women priests) or episcopa (women bishops). Does he have any proof of this. If anything the burden of proof falls upon him. There were prophetesses, women apostles, and deaconesses. The greatest saint in our church is a woman (the Theotokos), but even she wasn't a bishop.
I hope Fr. Peter has enough time to weigh in on the matter.
If anyone has any evidence that would be beneficial, please provide it :)
I will continue researching and prepare for the 'showdown' on Tuesday. The professor has been bashing Orthodoxy all quarter so I am taking this as an opportunity to defend the faith.
You are waisting your time and enter into a debate that is, in my view, fruitless. Priesthood in the OT as well as the NT is preserved from men.
Through man came the woman. Meaning that her life or existence is dependent on him.
Through man came salvation, the 2nd Adam, who brought life back to her after her fall.
Man is entrusted with the rituals through which the sacraments are performed and salvation is attained.
There is no evidence AT ALL of a priestess woman.
Yes there were deaconesses but do not have a priestly rank.
Yes there were apostle women but with no priestly rank
Yes there were prophetesses but with no priestly rank
Yes there were women who facilitated the spread of the Word but with no priestly rank.
Even the Virgin had no priestly rank.
Women can prophesy as much as they want, can spread the word to the whole world and can change the hearts by the millions. However without priesthood their labor is in vain.
Sacraments are essential for salvation and cannot be performed unless there is a priest, deacon and laity but the first two must be males.
There is nothing in the Bible, Holy Tradition, Liturgical prayers, Church cannons that point to any priestly function assigned to the woman.
I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this but the second verse you presented for women priests: 2) 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Does not have anything to to with priest hood?
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1Co 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 1Co 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. I think its very clear this passage has absolutely nothing to do with priesthood but rather women cover their heads with veils in church....
You have not provided any evidence. Rather you are pointing to a lack of evidence.
Anyone can play the same card and say there is a lack of evidence in the New Testament of the priestly rank ascribed to strictly males.
How can you provide evidence that does not exist? This is silly.
My counterargument would be: Show me a priestess either in the OT, NT, Tradition, or in the Church canons.
Either you lack reading comprehension skills or you are admitting there is no evidence for the priesthood being reserved to MEN in the New Testament. Which one is it?
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=11375.msg137402#msg137402 date=1304593097] I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this but the second verse you presented for women priests: 2) 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Does not have anything to to with priest hood?
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1Co 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 1Co 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. I think its very clear this passage has absolutely nothing to do with priesthood but rather women cover their heads with veils in church....
I would have to agree a little with imikhail. The burden of proof is also on your professor to show that there were, in fact, female priests that served in the early Church and then, gradually were phased out.
That being said, I have some food for thought. Let's look at Christ pre- and post-Resurrection. You agree that pre-Resurrection, Christ had no problem with women touching him (as is evident by woman with the issue of blood, the sinful woman who anointed His feet with oil, Mary anointing Him with oil, etc.). However, post-Resurrection, that is not the case at all. When Mary Magdalene reached out to touch Him, He didn't allow her. Why? Yet, Thomas was allowed to. Why? What changed?
Post-Resurrection, Christ breathed in the face of His disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit and that whatever they bound on earth was bound in heaven and whatever was loosed on earth was loosed on heaven (a priestly function). No women were mentioned as receiving this special gift of the Spirit. Why?
Anba bola gave you a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch about the role of bishops. Here is something from St. Clement of Rome, one of the Apostolic Fathers.
[quote=St. Clement of Rome's First Epistle to the Corinthians] Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,190 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,191 (191 i.e., the apostles.) or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate192 (192 Or, “oversight.”) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.193 (193 Literally, “presented the offerings.”) Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. (Emphasis mine)
From Justin Martyr another Apostolic Father
[quote=Justin Martyr The First Apology] Chapter LXV.—Administration of the sacraments.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.1908 (1908 The kiss of charity, the kiss of peace, or “the peace” (ἡ εἰπήνη), was enjoined by the Apostle Paul in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Romans, and thence passed into a common Christian usage. It was continued in the Western Church, under regulations to prevent its abuse, until the thirteenth century. Stanley remarks (Corinthians, i. 414), “It is still continued in the worship of the Coptic Church.”) There is then brought to the president of the brethren1909 (1909 τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν. This expression may quite legitimately be translated, “to that one of the brethren who was presiding.”) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Emphasis mine)
When Mary Magdalene reached out to touch Him, He didn't allow her. Why? Yet, Thomas was allowed to. Why? What changed?
Mary Magdalene was not allowed to touch the Lord for a reason other than her gender.
The reason is clear from the Lord's words in the same verse in which He asks her not to touch Him "He has not ascended to Father yet."
The Lord Christ, who is the first fruit of the resurrected humans and the has the first fruit of the glorified human nature, had to ascend to the Father to offer the first fruit of the Cross and Resurrection to the Father, as St. Paul teaches us In Hebrew 9:12. This is foreshadowed by the feast of the first fruits in the Old Testament in which the first fruits are offered to the priest before it is used for anything else. Mary could not touch the Lord because the first fruits have to be offered to the Father first, to whom the Lord has yet to ascend to.
This ascension is not the final ascension at the conclusion of the blessed 40 days that the Lord spent with the disciples. It is the ascension right after the resurrection.
The disciples and all other believers could touch the Lord after this ascension. In fact, they touch him every liturgy in their mouths when they partake of His Body and Blood.
Just wanted to clarify this point, regardless of my rejection of Women Priesthood.
Women Priesthood is a heresy that is supported by secular agendas such as feminism but has no basis in the Truth. Professors sometimes, actually most of the time, are part of these groups and they use academics to present their false teachings as the truth. Academics and science is a product of humanity with all the shortcoming of the corrupt humanity.
Either you lack reading comprehension skills or you are admitting there is no evidence for the priesthood being reserved to MEN in the New Testament. Which one is it?
Well it cannot be both, which one do you think? I will leave the answer to your great critical thinking skills.
Psss Read my post again, may be this time you will get the answer.
This is the first I've heard of two ascensions. Do you have any Patristic evidence of it occurring? The verse in Hebrews doesn't seem to prove it one way or another.
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;(1 Tim 3:2)
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. (Titus 1:5-6)
“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim 3:12)
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” Yet there was 120 men and women in the room they chose 2 men. · “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim 2:12) · “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says… for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
This is getting to be absurd. Unworthy1 has fallen into this semantics mindset. Leader, teacher, or whatever, what St Paul is speaking of is within the church, as in the priesthood. Nobody becomes ordained to teach sunday school.
The ante-nicene and post nicene fathers wrote many things on authority and ordination within the church. It has been and always will be restricted to men. Despite the spirit of the age trying to tell us otherwise.
Either you lack reading comprehension skills or you are admitting there is no evidence for the priesthood being reserved to MEN in the New Testament. Which one is it?
Well it cannot be both, which one do you think? I will leave the answer to your great critical thinking skills.
Psss Read my post again, may be this time you will get the answer.
Since you are putting me in a position to choose. I choose the former
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137418#msg137418 date=1304616107] I am posting this challenge:
Give me any verse or an event in the whole Bible that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one Church canon in the Oriental Orthodox Church that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one evidence throughout the whole Orthodox Church history that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
What do I mean by clearly? That it is beyond doubt that a woman could be a priestess just as it is very clear that a man can be a priest
If you cannot, then a woman CANNOT be in the priestly rank.
Nice straw man. I ask you to provide evidence that the priestly rank was reserved to men - you provide none, but ask me to. But I will present a positive argument - again! The whole argument basically rests upon the apostle Junea (although there are other components this is the most crucial). She is called an apostle by Paul and confirmed by the fathers that I mentioned (John Chrysostom, Theoderet, Origen).
An apostle is a leader, a teacher, an evangelist, and most importantly they are SELECTED and ordained. Our church authority rests upon apostolic succession. That is how we say we are Orthodox and other "christians" are heretics.
I will spell it out if you have not gotten it. If Junea is truly an apostle then she shares in the same duties as the other apostles - teaching and more critically the priesthood.
Now I put the challenge back to you: Provide me a counter-argument and show that the priesthood was not allowed for women and was reserved only for males. Use only the New Testament.
[quote author=Abanoub737 link=topic=11375.msg137425#msg137425 date=1304627293] I just wanted to bring some things up:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;(1 Tim 3:2)
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. (Titus 1:5-6)
“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim 3:12)
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” Yet there was 120 men and women in the room they chose 2 men. · “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim 2:12) · “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says… for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
Finally, some acceptable evidence. These quotes are spot on. However, this does not mean women were excluded altogether. This is interesting because from what I understand the ranks of division of bishop/priest/deacon came after Paul. . .
Comments
But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
And I agree to that, except all those dressed must be able to continue to communion.
oh of course...that was never a problem. normally we start low but than increase....never lose deacons or even people. this year actually we were surprised by the number of people that were there. ya3ny Anba David was were and we were giving communion to the men and women in the same time (2 sets) and they managed to say half of panouti panouti in cop ar and en proceeded also the the gospel in annual tune (that is in many books but no one says).
Do you have it in Eng?
we only say banoudi in Coptic and Arabic.
Do you have it in Eng?
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/965
it's all just psalms parts. this is not my latest version but it is good. the one i have in the book have bible references to almost every word....and yeah....read the footnote.
I meant do you have it recorded in English
not in one file no. i can see if i can get a live one
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Why not? As more and more Gentiles entered the Christian fold, is it hard to believe that there would be an increasing incorporation of local cultural norms? Look at the numerous Orthodox Churches today. Each has maintained their individual ethnic and cultural norms while maintaining the Orthodox faith. Look at the book of Acts. We see the change from a strictly 'Jewish' Christianity to a more 'Gentile' Christianity. That is something that was discussed in the first Church Council headed by St. James.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
As the number of Christians increased, larger buildings were needed to accommodate them. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it made it significantly easier for Christians to congregate in larger numbers in more public places.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
So...
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137330#msg137330 date=1304527004]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347]
Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . .
I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
Teaching sunday school is far removed from the priesthood and has nothing to do with the sacraments in any way. You are generalizing leadership and equating any kind of position to that of one with authority. Who does the sunday school teacher have authority over? The one who put her in that position or the children she teaches? In this position she has no authority, even over a reader deacon. The point you are making makes no sense. It seems very forced and far fetched.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137333#msg137333 date=1304527988]
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137330#msg137330 date=1304527004]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347]
Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . .
I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
Teaching sunday school is far removed from the priesthood and has nothing to do with the sacraments in any way. You are generalizing leadership and equating any kind of position to that of one with authority. Who does the sunday school teacher have authority over? The one who put her in that position or the children she teaches? In this position she has no authority, even over a reader deacon. The point you are making makes no sense. It seems very forced and far fetched.
Please read carefully before responding. I said my Sunday school LEADER. Meaning I am a Sunday school servant along with other servants and she oversees the 3-6 grade classes. Meaning she has authority over me and other men. Meaning she tells us what to do. I don't really know how to make it any clearer?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
But my first response is that I doubt that these male-female relationships were picked up from the Romans - at least in the first century. The early Christians were so radically different from the Romans and went against most cultural norms. This is what attracted the Romans and mainly Constantine to them. I don't think it was later that they adapted to Roman culture.
Why not? As more and more Gentiles entered the Christian fold, is it hard to believe that there would be an increasing incorporation of local cultural norms? Look at the numerous Orthodox Churches today. Each has maintained their individual ethnic and cultural norms while maintaining the Orthodox faith. Look at the book of Acts. We see the change from a strictly 'Jewish' Christianity to a more 'Gentile' Christianity. That is something that was discussed in the first Church Council headed by St. James.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
Secondly, when did the shift from praying in homes to public buildings happen?
As the number of Christians increased, larger buildings were needed to accommodate them. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it made it significantly easier for Christians to congregate in larger numbers in more public places.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137340#msg137340 date=1304530925]
Thirdly, this passage makes it seem that there was no inherent difference (role) for men and women. But rather it was a product of circumstances. When women had the money and houses, they had influence and some leadership. When they were no longer needed, men dominated. . .
So...
The whole point was not to conform to society! I doubt they did so early on. Especially in an area as important as this. What Constantine admired about the Christians, as did many others, is they were so against the main stream. Especially in terms of the honor system and gender roles.
As for the last point, if leadership was based merely on wealth and influence then gender is meaningless.
Christianity reserved priesthood to only males .. this is what God instituted.
If anyone has any evidence that would be beneficial, please provide it :)
I will continue researching and prepare for the 'showdown' on Tuesday. The professor has been bashing Orthodoxy all quarter so I am taking this as an opportunity to defend the faith.
Pray for my weakness.
Were there any priestesses in the OT?
You are waisting your time and enter into a debate that is, in my view, fruitless. Priesthood in the OT as well as the NT is preserved from men.
Through man came the woman. Meaning that her life or existence is dependent on him.
Through man came salvation, the 2nd Adam, who brought life back to her after her fall.
Man is entrusted with the rituals through which the sacraments are performed and salvation is attained.
There is no evidence AT ALL of a priestess woman.
Yes there were deaconesses but do not have a priestly rank.
Yes there were apostle women but with no priestly rank
Yes there were prophetesses but with no priestly rank
Yes there were women who facilitated the spread of the Word but with no priestly rank.
Even the Virgin had no priestly rank.
Women can prophesy as much as they want, can spread the word to the whole world and can change the hearts by the millions. However without priesthood their labor is in vain.
Sacraments are essential for salvation and cannot be performed unless there is a priest, deacon and laity but the first two must be males.
There is nothing in the Bible, Holy Tradition, Liturgical prayers, Church cannons that point to any priestly function assigned to the woman.
Anyone can play the same card and say there is a lack of evidence in the New Testament of the priestly rank ascribed to strictly males.
2) 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
Does not have anything to to with priest hood?
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
I think its very clear this passage has absolutely nothing to do with priesthood but rather women cover their heads with veils in church....
My counterargument would be: Show me a priestess either in the OT, NT, Tradition, or in the Church canons.
My counterargument would be: Show me a priestess either in the OT, NT, Tradition, or in the Church canons.
Either you lack reading comprehension skills or you are admitting there is no evidence for the priesthood being reserved to MEN in the New Testament. Which one is it?
I'm sorry if someone already mentioned this but the second verse you presented for women priests:
2) 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
Does not have anything to to with priest hood?
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
I think its very clear this passage has absolutely nothing to do with priesthood but rather women cover their heads with veils in church....
Not sure, just providing his full argument. . .
I would have to agree a little with imikhail. The burden of proof is also on your professor to show that there were, in fact, female priests that served in the early Church and then, gradually were phased out.
That being said, I have some food for thought. Let's look at Christ pre- and post-Resurrection. You agree that pre-Resurrection, Christ had no problem with women touching him (as is evident by woman with the issue of blood, the sinful woman who anointed His feet with oil, Mary anointing Him with oil, etc.). However, post-Resurrection, that is not the case at all. When Mary Magdalene reached out to touch Him, He didn't allow her. Why? Yet, Thomas was allowed to. Why? What changed?
Post-Resurrection, Christ breathed in the face of His disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit and that whatever they bound on earth was bound in heaven and whatever was loosed on earth was loosed on heaven (a priestly function). No women were mentioned as receiving this special gift of the Spirit. Why?
Anba bola gave you a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch about the role of bishops. Here is something from St. Clement of Rome, one of the Apostolic Fathers.
[quote=St. Clement of Rome's First Epistle to the Corinthians]
Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,190 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,191 (191 i.e., the apostles.) or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate192 (192 Or, “oversight.”) those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.193 (193 Literally, “presented the offerings.”) Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
(Emphasis mine)
From Justin Martyr another Apostolic Father
[quote=Justin Martyr The First Apology]
Chapter LXV.—Administration of the sacraments.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.1908 (1908 The kiss of charity, the kiss of peace, or “the peace” (ἡ εἰπήνη), was enjoined by the Apostle Paul in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Romans, and thence passed into a common Christian usage. It was continued in the Western Church, under regulations to prevent its abuse, until the thirteenth century. Stanley remarks (Corinthians, i. 414), “It is still continued in the worship of the Coptic Church.”) There is then brought to the president of the brethren1909 (1909 τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν. This expression may quite legitimately be translated, “to that one of the brethren who was presiding.”) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
(Emphasis mine)
Here's hoping this is helpful.
The reason is clear from the Lord's words in the same verse in which He asks her not to touch Him "He has not ascended to Father yet."
The Lord Christ, who is the first fruit of the resurrected humans and the has the first fruit of the glorified human nature, had to ascend to the Father to offer the first fruit of the Cross and Resurrection to the Father, as St. Paul teaches us In Hebrew 9:12. This is foreshadowed by the feast of the first fruits in the Old Testament in which the first fruits are offered to the priest before it is used for anything else. Mary could not touch the Lord because the first fruits have to be offered to the Father first, to whom the Lord has yet to ascend to.
This ascension is not the final ascension at the conclusion of the blessed 40 days that the Lord spent with the disciples. It is the ascension right after the resurrection.
The disciples and all other believers could touch the Lord after this ascension. In fact, they touch him every liturgy in their mouths when they partake of His Body and Blood.
Just wanted to clarify this point, regardless of my rejection of Women Priesthood.
Women Priesthood is a heresy that is supported by secular agendas such as feminism but has no basis in the Truth. Professors sometimes, actually most of the time, are part of these groups and they use academics to present their false teachings as the truth. Academics and science is a product of humanity with all the shortcoming of the corrupt humanity.
Psss Read my post again, may be this time you will get the answer.
Give me any verse or an event in the whole Bible that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one Church canon in the Oriental Orthodox Church that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one evidence throughout the whole Orthodox Church history that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
What do I mean by clearly? That it is beyond doubt that a woman could be a priestess just as it is very clear that a man can be a priest
If you cannot, then a woman CANNOT be in the priestly rank.
This is the first I've heard of two ascensions. Do you have any Patristic evidence of it occurring? The verse in Hebrews doesn't seem to prove it one way or another.
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;(1 Tim 3:2)
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. (Titus 1:5-6)
“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim 3:12)
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” Yet there was 120 men and women in the room they chose 2 men.
· “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim 2:12)
· “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be
submissive, as the law also says… for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
I basically took verses from this:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/sacrament4.pdf
The ante-nicene and post nicene fathers wrote many things on authority and ordination within the church. It has been and always will be restricted to men. Despite the spirit of the age trying to tell us otherwise.
Psss Read my post again, may be this time you will get the answer.
Since you are putting me in a position to choose. I choose the former
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137418#msg137418 date=1304616107]
I am posting this challenge:
Give me any verse or an event in the whole Bible that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one Church canon in the Oriental Orthodox Church that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
Give me one evidence throughout the whole Orthodox Church history that shows clearly a functioning priestess.
What do I mean by clearly? That it is beyond doubt that a woman could be a priestess just as it is very clear that a man can be a priest
If you cannot, then a woman CANNOT be in the priestly rank.
Nice straw man. I ask you to provide evidence that the priestly rank was reserved to men - you provide none, but ask me to. But I will present a positive argument - again! The whole argument basically rests upon the apostle Junea (although there are other components this is the most crucial). She is called an apostle by Paul and confirmed by the fathers that I mentioned (John Chrysostom, Theoderet, Origen).
An apostle is a leader, a teacher, an evangelist, and most importantly they are SELECTED and ordained. Our church authority rests upon apostolic succession. That is how we say we are Orthodox and other "christians" are heretics.
I will spell it out if you have not gotten it. If Junea is truly an apostle then she shares in the same duties as the other apostles - teaching and more critically the priesthood.
Now I put the challenge back to you: Provide me a counter-argument and show that the priesthood was not allowed for women and was reserved only for males. Use only the New Testament.
Thanks.
I just wanted to bring some things up:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;(1 Tim 3:2)
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. (Titus 1:5-6)
“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim 3:12)
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” Yet there was 120 men and women in the room they chose 2 men.
· “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim 2:12)
· “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be
submissive, as the law also says… for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35)
I basically took verses from this:
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/sacrament4.pdf
Finally, some acceptable evidence. These quotes are spot on. However, this does not mean women were excluded altogether. This is interesting because from what I understand the ranks of division of bishop/priest/deacon came after Paul. . .