First and foremost, I want to reiterate that I am opposed to
ordination of women, but not for any of the usual reasons.
1. arguments based on women's role in the divine order of
creation all center on Genesis 3:16, which is part of the
curses after The Fall, and no part of the original plan.
2. complaining that people take "neither male nor female"
out of context, as an early condemner of this practice complains,
ignores that Paul's other remarks have to be taken out of
context to be across the board applicable, and when done so
create certain conflicts that are only resolvable by economia
allowing what is usually forbidden, the forbidding being for
specific reasons. Timothy was apparently a very young man,
yet Paul said not to have bishops who are not older. Apparently
the issues about women were deceivability, how it looks to
the pagans, potential for impropriety, etc. the famous silent
in church mentions that women who want to learn something
should ask their husbands at home. so apparently some
disruptive heckling pretended to be questions, or unintended
disruption by asking and then the whole meeting turning to a
discussion, had been occurring. Yet Paul says that a woman's
head should be covered if she prays or prophesies in the
Church so clearly not all speech was prohibited. I Cor 11:4,5
speaks first of men praying and prophesying in church, then
of women, and assumes this will be done, the issue is clothing
while doing so.
3. theological arguments, that the priest represents Christ and
therefore must be male, are strikingly lacking in ALL the early
condemnations of women's ordination I have found so far.
I can't find any mention of the concept in the canons either.
Complex arguments about the priest represents Christ so must
be male because the Church is symbolically female, and is His
bride, then arguing that female ordination would validate
lesbianism, ignores that such extreme analogies would have
male ordination validate bisexuality, because the Church
consists of both sexes.
I repeat, THIS IS NEVER BROUGHT UP BY THE EARLY
CONDEMNERS OF WOMEN'S ORDINATION. Rather, it is
the issue of such a woman being presumptuous, against the
laws of God (see argument 1, this fails, and any argument
based on male priesthood in Mosaic Law ignores that we do
not have the Aaronic priesthood any more, see Hebrews on
the Melchizedec priesthood of Jesus Christ, our new and
permanent High Priest, and "where there is a change of
priesthood there is a change of law"), and of man (irrelevant).
As for presumption, this is always about sex role, women
shouldn't teach or rule over men, and ignores that God Himself
put Deborah in charge as judge over Israel Judges 4:4.
All the arguments against women priests focus on NON theological
issues. Period.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT SACRAMENTS ANY SUCH
PERFORMED WERE INVALID. The only resemblance to this
refers to women who were heretics, false prophets, etc., and
this would be the same invalidity issue regardless of sex. where
no heresy or demonic deceptions were at issue, no argument of
invalidity existed.
Neither did any canon forbidding women to be presbitydes or
female presidents, or to go to the altar, require that anything
done by such female presidents in the past be redone. This would
have been an issue because they obviously sill existed in some
places.
My own reasons for opposing female ordination are strictly
pragmatic, and because the people arguing for this are usually
stating political arguments, representation of women in the priesthood
and often have a neo pagan or other New Agey agenda as well.
The issue is so packaged now with undesirable stuff, that it would
appear to weak minds or to the unlearned to validate the rest of it.
Women who are evil are harder to get rid of than are men who
are evil. And as St. Paul observes, women can often be more
easily deceived.
There is also the issue of menstruation, which may be a temporary
defilement, but would be irrelevant regarding post menopausal
women priests.
the Early Church, from Apostolic to 200 years later and few
places later, is the presence of condemnations of them.
The Council of Laodicea c. AD 341 to 383, canons 11 and 44.
Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church.
Various writers stumble all over themselves to explain this, in ways
that avoid admitting these were ordained priests, leaving out any
reference to Justin Martyr's description of church services, which
tells us exactly what the "president" or presider over the service did.
"Bread, wine and water are then brought to the president, who offers the eucharistic prayer. "
Justin Martyr http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
Justin Martyr http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
So the president was the one who performed the Eucharistic sacrifice!
That means that if a woman was the president in that church service, she was
the one performing the Eucharistic sacrifice!
Someone argued that Justin Martyr didn't say they were women, but he didn't
have to, the OFFICE and its function was all that was discussed. THAT OFFICE
WAS ONE OF EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
THEREFORE, IF A WOMAN WAS A PRESIDENT IN THE CHURCH SERVICE,
SHE WOULD OFFER THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Laodicea did not say, that presbitydes shall not offer the Eucharist. IT SAID
WOMEN SHALL NOT BE PRESIDENTS ANY MORE, THAT THERE SHALL BE
NO MORE PRESBITYDES.
Canon 44
Women may not go to the altar.
The notes that follow, from modern writers, relate this to going to the altar
to receive Holy Communion, but clearly the Trullo Council rule prohibiting
laymen from entering the altar shows this means actually entering the altar
location itself, the altar space itself, which only priests and deacons could
do, the sole exception of a layman being the emperor.
the notes relate this forbidding for women to approach the altar, to the
practice of allowing them to receive Holy Communion during menstruation,
which occurred off and on East and West, the premise for allowing this
being that Christ's Blood cleanses from all defilement incl. menstrual.
In the days before kotex and tampons, when only a strapped on rag would
be of use, smell and perhaps occasional leakage would make the condition
evident.
But since the notes relate women being forbidden to enter the altar (or
altar space) since laymen are also prohibited, it follows that we are not
talking about mere walking up front to meet the priest outside but near
the altar space, to receive Holy Communion.
Given the total lack of theological arguments only a flat out prohibition,
and no requirement that sacraments and ordinations such a presbitydes
had done be redone, it is clear that the actions of then current women
priests were not considered invalid. They were just prohibited from
then on.
So far my research hasn't found where the theological iconing argument
started, I suspect it is real recent.
No comments:
Post a Comment