Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... 2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!
Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!
That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.
Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:
15
"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."
You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.
What does "apostle" mean to you? Wouldn't it cover priestly duties? I'm giving evidence of women's ordination in church history, because it was hard to tell whether your argument was against WO generally or against women being priests or just bishops, though it's not quite clear who does what from the NT. The early church father John Chrysostom affirms that Junia was a great female apostle.
Anyway, I don't think it's a big logical leap to suggest that if female ordination was routinely carried out in the early church, and a female apostle is mentioned by St. Paul and affirmed by an early church father, then a female bishop would not be a departure from historical Christianity. Just because it's uncommon doesn't make it invalid.
I certainly wouldn't contradict John Chrysostom on the issue. He gives clear teaching on the matter. Keep reading the church fathers and you'll get a clear picture of the situation.
Yes the church fathers were very sexist. Which is why his affirmation of the apostle Junia is all the more relevant.
Why trust him on affirmation of Junia as an apostle, but not on sex distinctions in the priesthood? This is the very definition of decontextualizing historical sources and quote mining. And why do you need Chrysostom's support anyway? Do you take the NT and the church fathers to be authoritative for your understanding of Christianity?
No, I'm not quote mining. You're making the common logical fallacy of assuming that I must agree with a source entirely or else I can't use it to support my argument, but that is just false. I personally consider what John Chrysostom says here about apostles to be more relevant than what he says elsewhere about priests because he was reiterating exactly what the apostle Paul says in the New Testament: that Junia was celebrated by the early church as an apostle. We see it in the first century new testament epistle, and then again in the 5th century, so we have 500 years of church history that affirm female apostleship, a top church leadership role. This may seem uncontroversial considering it's in the New Testament, but it's an important point to make, since many modern people tend to erase or deny female apostleship and female church leadership. However, Chrysostom's ideas about priests and priestly roles aren't as relevant to me, since there are no priestly roles mentioned in the new testament by St. Paul - priesthood as described by Chrysostom was actually a departure from the early church structure, and not found in early Christian documents such as the didache. Paul mentions apostles, overseers, deacons, prophets, and teachers, as does the didache. Paul directly addresses specific women as being among the apostles, deacons, prophets, and teachers. It's hard to make a well founded argument to exclude women from the priesthood, a later role, considering they were so active in the early church in so many different leadership roles.
So much ignorance here. Presbyterous is what is translated as either priest or elder in the NT. So when Paul writes presbyterous, we receive it as priest or elder in English. The idea that Paul and Chrysostom are at odds over presbyterous is inaccurate. The fact that NT presbyterous (elder) is sometimes translated priest AND that OT hiereus (from the Septuagint) is ALSO translate priest DOES lead to confusion. The NT presbyterous is not representing the people to God, he is declaring God to the people; whereas the OT hiereus actually was representing the people to God.
The ignorance is all on your behalf! The sacerdotal role of priests as we them know today is simply not represented in the New Testament. Most bible translations are careful not to translate presbyter as "priest" but as elder or overseer, so people don't make the same obvious mistake you have; the English term "priest" was derived after the long established Roman Catholic priesthood tradition in the late middle ages. Modern bible translators do a good job translating the original meaning of the greek text to "elders" or "overseers" so people don't read things into the text anachronistically, as you have. Anglicans are defined as protestants first. We accept the sacraments and apostolic succession, but strongly believe in the priesthood of all believers emphasized by the protestant reformers.
Where do we disagree? I do not advocate a sacerdotal role for priests in the NT. I agree that good modern English translations have unburdened themselves from the word "priest", but it was nevertheless the dominant English translation of presbyter well into the 20th century. And priest is in fact etymologically descended from presbyteros (Gk.) / presbyter (Latin). Chrysostom is certainly more sacerdotal than I am comfortable with, but not outside the bounds of orthodoxy. After all, as the prayer book says, we are at communion making "the memorial that thy son hath commanded us to make" (ref. the words of Jesus in Mt., Mk., Lk.) and our "spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament" (Ref. 1 Cor. 10 on the nature of such things).
You say you accept the sacraments, but from whom do you accept them? From an ordained minister, if you are Anglican, whether you want to call him a priest or not. You're not just grabbing some Welch's from a corner table like a Baptist.
Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... 2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!
Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!
That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.
Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:
15
"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."
You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.
What does "apostle" mean to you? Wouldn't it cover priestly duties? I'm giving evidence of women's ordination in church history, because it was hard to tell whether your argument was against WO generally or against women being priests or just bishops, though it's not quite clear who does what from the NT. The early church father John Chrysostom affirms that Junia was a great female apostle.
Anyway, I don't think it's a big logical leap to suggest that if female ordination was routinely carried out in the early church, and a female apostle is mentioned by St. Paul and affirmed by an early church father, then a female bishop would not be a departure from historical Christianity. Just because it's uncommon doesn't make it invalid.
I certainly wouldn't contradict John Chrysostom on the issue. He gives clear teaching on the matter. Keep reading the church fathers and you'll get a clear picture of the situation.
Yes the church fathers were very sexist. Which is why his affirmation of the apostle Junia is all the more relevant.
Why trust him on affirmation of Junia as an apostle, but not on sex distinctions in the priesthood? This is the very definition of decontextualizing historical sources and quote mining. And why do you need Chrysostom's support anyway? Do you take the NT and the church fathers to be authoritative for your understanding of Christianity?
No, I'm not quote mining. You're making the common logical fallacy of assuming that I must agree with a source entirely or else I can't use it to support my argument, but that is just false. I personally consider what John Chrysostom says here about apostles to be more relevant than what he says elsewhere about priests because he was reiterating exactly what the apostle Paul says in the New Testament: that Junia was celebrated by the early church as an apostle. We see it in the first century new testament epistle, and then again in the 5th century, so we have 500 years of church history that affirm female apostleship, a top church leadership role. This may seem uncontroversial considering it's in the New Testament, but it's an important point to make, since many modern people tend to erase or deny female apostleship and female church leadership. However, Chrysostom's ideas about priests and priestly roles aren't as relevant to me, since there are no priestly roles mentioned in the new testament by St. Paul - priesthood as described by Chrysostom was actually a departure from the early church structure, and not found in early Christian documents such as the didache. Paul mentions apostles, overseers, deacons, prophets, and teachers, as does the didache. Paul directly addresses specific women as being among the apostles, deacons, prophets, and teachers. It's hard to make a well founded argument to exclude women from the priesthood, a later role, considering they were so active in the early church in so many different leadership roles.
So much ignorance here. Presbyterous is what is translated as either priest or elder in the NT. So when Paul writes presbyterous, we receive it as priest or elder in English. The idea that Paul and Chrysostom are at odds over presbyterous is inaccurate. The fact that NT presbyterous (elder) is sometimes translated priest AND that OT hiereus (from the Septuagint) is ALSO translate priest DOES lead to confusion. The NT presbyterous is not representing the people to God, he is declaring God to the people; whereas the OT hiereus actually was representing the people to God.
The ignorance is all on your behalf! The sacerdotal role of priests as we them know today is simply not represented in the New Testament. Most bible translations are careful not to translate presbyter as "priest" but as elder or overseer, so people don't make the same obvious mistake you have; the English term "priest" was derived after the long established Roman Catholic priesthood tradition in the late middle ages. Modern bible translators do a good job translating the original meaning of the greek text to "elders" or "overseers" so people don't read things into the text anachronistically, as you have. Anglicans are defined as protestants first. We accept the sacraments and apostolic succession, but strongly believe in the priesthood of all believers emphasized by the protestant reformers.
Where do we disagree? I do not advocate a sacerdotal role for priests in the NT. I agree that good modern English translations have unburdened themselves from the word "priest", but it was nevertheless the dominant English translation of presbyter well into the 20th century. And priest is in fact etymologically descended from presbyteros (Gk.) / presbyter (Latin). Chrysostom is certainly more sacerdotal than I am comfortable with, but not outside the bounds of orthodoxy. After all, as the prayer book says, we are at communion making "the memorial that thy son hath commanded us to make" (ref. the words of Jesus in Mt., Mk., Lk.) and our "spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament" (Ref. 1 Cor. 10 on the nature of such things).
You say you accept the sacraments, but from whom do you accept them? From an ordained minister, if you are Anglican, whether you want to call him a priest or not. You're not just grabbing some Welch's from a corner table like a Baptist.
So in summary, you don't believe that the overseer role described in the New Testament is a sacerdotal role, and yet you also claim to read the sacerdotal modern priesthood into the New Testament anachronistically, even though there is no evidence that concept existed in the early Christian world. Then you claim that Paul and Chrysostom had consistent ideas about New Testament priesthood, except you already refuted that by saying that Paul doesn't describe sacerdotal priesthood whereas Chrysostom does, and your argument is solely based on the English word for "priest" being derived from the koine Greek term for "overseer" over 1000 years later. Then you claim I'm drinking grape juice on Sunday. I think you must be drinking koolaid. You are simply all over the place!
Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... 2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!
Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!
That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.
Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:
15
"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."
You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.
What does "apostle" mean to you? Wouldn't it cover priestly duties? I'm giving evidence of women's ordination in church history, because it was hard to tell whether your argument was against WO generally or against women being priests or just bishops, though it's not quite clear who does what from the NT. The early church father John Chrysostom affirms that Junia was a great female apostle.
Anyway, I don't think it's a big logical leap to suggest that if female ordination was routinely carried out in the early church, and a female apostle is mentioned by St. Paul and affirmed by an early church father, then a female bishop would not be a departure from historical Christianity. Just because it's uncommon doesn't make it invalid.
I certainly wouldn't contradict John Chrysostom on the issue. He gives clear teaching on the matter. Keep reading the church fathers and you'll get a clear picture of the situation.
Yes the church fathers were very sexist. Which is why his affirmation of the apostle Junia is all the more relevant.
Why trust him on affirmation of Junia as an apostle, but not on sex distinctions in the priesthood? This is the very definition of decontextualizing historical sources and quote mining. And why do you need Chrysostom's support anyway? Do you take the NT and the church fathers to be authoritative for your understanding of Christianity?
No, I'm not quote mining. You're making the common logical fallacy of assuming that I must agree with a source entirely or else I can't use it to support my argument, but that is just false. I personally consider what John Chrysostom says here about apostles to be more relevant than what he says elsewhere about priests because he was reiterating exactly what the apostle Paul says in the New Testament: that Junia was celebrated by the early church as an apostle. We see it in the first century new testament epistle, and then again in the 5th century, so we have 500 years of church history that affirm female apostleship, a top church leadership role. This may seem uncontroversial considering it's in the New Testament, but it's an important point to make, since many modern people tend to erase or deny female apostleship and female church leadership. However, Chrysostom's ideas about priests and priestly roles aren't as relevant to me, since there are no priestly roles mentioned in the new testament by St. Paul - priesthood as described by Chrysostom was actually a departure from the early church structure, and not found in early Christian documents such as the didache. Paul mentions apostles, overseers, deacons, prophets, and teachers, as does the didache. Paul directly addresses specific women as being among the apostles, deacons, prophets, and teachers. It's hard to make a well founded argument to exclude women from the priesthood, a later role, considering they were so active in the early church in so many different leadership roles.
So much ignorance here. Presbyterous is what is translated as either priest or elder in the NT. So when Paul writes presbyterous, we receive it as priest or elder in English. The idea that Paul and Chrysostom are at odds over presbyterous is inaccurate. The fact that NT presbyterous (elder) is sometimes translated priest AND that OT hiereus (from the Septuagint) is ALSO translate priest DOES lead to confusion. The NT presbyterous is not representing the people to God, he is declaring God to the people; whereas the OT hiereus actually was representing the people to God.
The ignorance is all on your behalf! The sacerdotal role of priests as we them know today is simply not represented in the New Testament. Most bible translations are careful not to translate presbyter as "priest" but as elder or overseer, so people don't make the same obvious mistake you have; the English term "priest" was derived after the long established Roman Catholic priesthood tradition in the late middle ages. Modern bible translators do a good job translating the original meaning of the greek text to "elders" or "overseers" so people don't read things into the text anachronistically, as you have. Anglicans are defined as protestants first. We accept the sacraments and apostolic succession, but strongly believe in the priesthood of all believers emphasized by the protestant reformers.
Where do we disagree? I do not advocate a sacerdotal role for priests in the NT. I agree that good modern English translations have unburdened themselves from the word "priest", but it was nevertheless the dominant English translation of presbyter well into the 20th century. And priest is in fact etymologically descended from presbyteros (Gk.) / presbyter (Latin). Chrysostom is certainly more sacerdotal than I am comfortable with, but not outside the bounds of orthodoxy. After all, as the prayer book says, we are at communion making "the memorial that thy son hath commanded us to make" (ref. the words of Jesus in Mt., Mk., Lk.) and our "spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament" (Ref. 1 Cor. 10 on the nature of such things).
You say you accept the sacraments, but from whom do you accept them? From an ordained minister, if you are Anglican, whether you want to call him a priest or not. You're not just grabbing some Welch's from a corner table like a Baptist.
So in summary, you don't believe that the overseer role described in the New Testament is a sacerdotal role, and yet you also claim to read the sacerdotal modern priesthood into the New Testament anachronistically, even though there is no evidence that concept existed in the early Christian world. Then you claim that Paul and Chrysostom had consistent ideas about New Testament priesthood, except you already refuted that by saying that Paul doesn't describe sacerdotal priesthood whereas Chrysostom does, and your argument is solely based on the English word for "priest" being derived from the koine Greek term for "overseer" over 1000 years later. Then you claim I'm drinking grape juice on Sunday. I think you must be drinking koolaid. You are simply all over the place!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
