Reply to New Archbishop of Canterbury

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "New Archbishop of Canterbury"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]St. Paul: [i]A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...[/i]
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady [i]arch[/i]bishops![/quote]

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing![/quote]

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:

"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

https://www.weighted-glory.com/2019/01/john-chrysostom-apostle-junia/

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Yes the church fathers were very sexist. Which is why his affirmation of the apostle Junia is all the more relevant.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [b]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[/b] 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.[/quote]

Rough. A mention at 500-year-intervals does not 500 years of church history make.[/quote]

Not PP: The current administrations attempts to erase our own history show how weak the arguments of church in the history actually are. We have no real way of knowing what happened. All we have is how the teachings of Jesus Christ and how they can be applied in the current moment. It's already been decided that there was nothing in scripture to preclude women from ministry. Why should anything else matter? Everything else is just excuses.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics