[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137426#msg137426 date=1304636260] 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.
Please quote me when you claim I am being absurd and playing a game of semantics. Maybe if you read this from the beginning you would realize I clearly stated I would play devil's advocate to hone my argument. So any potential flaw, I will point out - no matter how absurd it may seem. Scholars raise points that may be absurd - I don't believe in just brushing things off as absurd but logically pointing out why.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137413#msg137413 date=1304611953] + Irini nem ehmot,
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)
In addition to these quotes, a few from our own revered Orthodox Fathers:
"The Church has never appointed women presbyters or priests." ~"Panarion" by St. Epiphanius (4th century)
"The appointment of women priests to stand before goddesses is a delusion of Hellenic godlessness, and not a decree of Christ." ~Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375)
"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal (priestly) office." ~Tertullian (Latin Father, end of the 2nd century)
"When the Master prayed over the bread and the cup, and blessed them saying, 'This is My Body and Blood," He did not allow women to stand with us." ~Apostolic Church Order (2nd century)
I reference these quotes for a reason: though they were not written in the first century, they certainly describe a truth that stood true until their time, which was much closer in proximity than our own time. If there was a rank instituted into the Church in the first century, people would certainly be most cognizant of it in the second century, as there would have been some who lived in both centuries and would be able to speak against a word that improperly described a previous truth. One must similarly recognize that there were women in these ages that wrote their experience in the Church, as Egeria, the Spanish nun and pilgrim, did in the end of the 4th century.
If a practice was begun early in the institution of a groups inception, the practice would be seen universally throughout the group's growth passed its place of inception. If there was an aberration from this, it would occur in a few, but not all, of the group's areas of extension. As we see no women presbyters or priests anywhere, and since it is widely recorded to be the case as written accounts of the Church's life continued, it would historically be sensible to say that such a rank never existed, nor was ever instituted. The surmisings of a few contemporaries as to whether or not women were once put into this rank lays on their shoulders to prove: namely, that such documentation of a practice as this was burned.
Those living in closer proximity of time carry with them more strength in their historicity than those further in temporal proximity.
Thanks for the quotes. Sure the 2nd century quotes are valuable. The question is how valuable? The counter-argument is that "sure women did not play a role in the priesthood, but that was later." The argument is that things changed from how Paul and Jesus originally intended. They argue that later Roman influence and a return to a patriarchal society crept into the church and the gender roles that Jesus and Paul worked to abolish was undone. What is there to make us believe that that was how it always was? That is my question.
That is why I ask for solid evidence that during Paul's time the church never allowed women to be priests. When Paul does mention the sacrament of the Eucharist, he does not speak of any roles or duties a specific person has (if I recall correctly).
Allow me to say that whatever evidence you present to your professor will, in all likelihood, fall on deaf ears. It is difficult to convince another of an opposing viewpoint, particularly when their conviction is strengthened by their professorial position. Is your grade based on your oral argumentation, or is this more of a discussion that will be occurring in office hours in order to sway him of his historical beliefs?
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=11375.msg137456#msg137456 date=1304655174] Allow me to say that whatever evidence you present to your professor will, in all likelihood, fall on deaf ears. It is difficult to convince another of an opposing viewpoint, particularly when their conviction is strengthened by their professorial position. Is your grade based on your oral argumentation, or is this more of a discussion that will be occurring in office hours in order to sway him of his historical beliefs?
You are probably right. My grade does not depend on this. I am going to be speaking with him during office hours. God willing, he becomes a bit more open-minded.
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=11375.msg137458#msg137458 date=1304655998] God be with you.
Thank you. With your help and others I have learned a lot myself. So even if I do not convince him of anything, I am confident he will not be able to sway me the wrong way.
For a person to be convinced with the Orthodox teaching, he/she must be humble and submit oneself to the Church. If there is no belief of the Church's authority, then it is impossible to change one's mind no matter how much evidence you provide.
The Pharisees and the priests rejected Jesus because they loved man's glory than the glory of God. In the same way anyone who benefits from opposing the Church will not leave that benefit unless there is a change of heart.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137460#msg137460 date=1304656730] For a person to be convinced with the Orthodox teaching, he/she must be humble and submit oneself to the Church. If there is no belief of the Church's authority, then it is impossible to change one's mind no matter how much evidence you provide.
The Pharisees and the priests rejected Jesus because they loved man's glory than the glory of God. In the same way anyone who benefits from opposing the Church will not leave that benefit unless there is a change of heart.
Sure, I cannot change anyone's heart. But I cannot let him believe that whatever he tells the class is going to be acceptable. He knows I am Coptic Orthodox - I have already told him and discussed previous issues with him. Thus, I feel I have a duty to engage with him.
Pray for me that I may become more knowledgeable as to address his claims during class (as opposed to during office hours) so that the other students see the other side and aren't simply indoctrinated.
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.
I do not mean to take the thread away from its aim, but in which Father of the Church did you find this explanation from? This is certainly not the reasoning given by the Fathers of the Church that I have read on the matter, and I would assume that the widely renowned ones would be most certainly accustomed with the idea of multiple ascensions if that were true. I'm curious where you read this from.
For example, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom:
"'Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God.'
Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then says He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departs into the heavens."
. . .Therefore, before His Resurrection from the dead, He had intercourse indiscriminately with the righteous and with sinners, and never frightened away any that came unto Him. . . But at that time, by His Providence, men who were still unclean, and who were polluted both in mind and body, were suffered without hindrance to touch the holy Flesh Itself of our Saviour Christ, and to gain every blessing thereby; but when, after having completed the scheme of our redemption, He had both suffered the Cross itself, and death thereon, and had risen again to life, and shown that His Nature was superior to death, henceforward, instead of granting them a ready permission, He hinders those who come to Him from touching the very Flesh of His holy Body; thereby giving us a type of the holy Churches, and the mystery concerning Himself, just as also the Law given by the all-wise Moses itself did, when it represented the slaughter of the lamb as a of Christ; for no uncircumcised person, said the Law, shall eat thereof, meaning by uncircumcised impure -- and humanity may justly be deemed impure in its own nature. For what is the nature of man, as compared with God's inherent purity?We may not, therefore, while we remain uncircumcised, that is, impure, touch the holy Body, but only when we have been made pure by the true circumcision of the Spirit, as Pail saith. Ans we cannot be spiritually circumcised if the Holy Spirit hath not taken His abode in us by faith and Holy Baptism. Surely, therefore it was meet that Mary should for a while be restrained from touching His sacred Body, as she had not yet received the Spirit. For even though Christ was risen from the dead, still the Spirit had not yet been given to humanity by the Father through Him. For when He ascended to God the Father, He sent the Spirit down to us wherefore also He said: It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter cannot come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. As, therefore, the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent down to us, for He had not yet ascended to the Father, He repulses Mary as not yet having received the Spirit, saying: Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto the Father; that is to say, I have not yet sent down unto you the Holy Spirit. Hence the type is also applicable to the Churches. Therefore, also, we drive away from the Holy Table those who are already catechumens, when they have not as yet been enriched with the Holy Spirit. . .
I hope that settles any confusion. St. Cyril is quite clear.
Thank you, dear brother Unworthy1, for posting that as well. I have read St. Cyril's explanation before, but was curious as to who Stavro was referencing for the explanation he stated
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137420#msg137420 date=1304617853] + Irini nem ehmot,
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.
It is a personal reflection, not a dogma, that I found echoed in contemporary teachers in the Church such as Fr. Marcos Milad of Alexandria. Personal relfections do not have to be referenced by a Father and are to be accepted or rejected as long as they are not heretical or promote false teachings. It makes sense and it is in line with the types of Christ in the OT that are fullfilled in Him. The Sunday of the Resurrection lies on the day of the first fruit feast.
But it was cannot be because of gender at all that the Lord forbad Mary Magdalene from touching him. In fact, women behold and touch the Lord in the Eucharist as much as men do, with their lips and with the tongues and mouths. They used to take the body in their hands in the Eucharist before consuming it. It is the glorified body as well. There is evidence in Matthew 28:5-9 that women, among the followers of Christ, have embraced his feet and worshipped him, and touched him.
Fair enough. But what do you make of the quote from St. Cyril then? It seems to contradict this thought.
As for the communicants partaking of the Body of Christ during the Eucharist, I would think there is a difference between consuming the Body, which all communicants can do, and handling/touching the Body, which only the serving priest can do. I am aware that in the early Church, communicants would take the Body in their hands and consume it themselves, but they would do so while holding a napkin, as we still do in our Church today. This practice ceased, as I understand, because individuals would not consume the Body, but rather, would take it home as a pious (albeit, misguided) act.
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.
I cannot accept that there were two ascensions.
By definition, ascension is only physical that is the Lord ascended in His human body. This did not happen till the 40th day after resurrection.
So, whether this is reflection or not, it does not make sense.
Although I am interested in this discussion - please create a new thread.
If a new comer wants to join the discussion on the ascension but has no interest in reading on women's leadership in the church, they will miss the opportunity b/c they will not open this thread. If a person is interested in reading about the women and the church they will think it inappropriate to continue discussion because the topic shifted so dramatically.
Edit: I put the quote up to end discussion, not continue it.
Fair enough. But what do you make of the quote from St. Cyril then? It seems to contradict this thought.
I am not sure it contradicts my opinion. It offers another explanation and it is indeed avery valuable point of view as befitting St. Cyril. to whom the divine gifts are to be given and an extraordinary view on the meaning of the temple of the Holy Spirit in our bodies and what great advantages it bestows on us. I believe St. Cyril explains the scripture in this instance and expounds its meaning to address the issue of partaking in the sacraments of the Church, limiting this great honor to those who the Holy Spirit abides in through Baptism. He is not, it seems to me, concerned with offering a detailed explanation of the resurrection events.
The Lord afterwards asks Thomas to touch him, and Thomas does not have the Holy Spirit yet. In fact, the disciples touch him as well, among them women, and embrace his feet, and they did not have the Spirit yet.
My main objection is to attribute the act of forbidding Mary from touching the Lord to her gender.
There is no difference between consuming and touching, for the act of touching is inherent in partaking in the Holy Body. Did they take the body in napkin or in their bare hands? I am not sure, will have to look it up.
My main objection is to attribute the act of forbidding Mary from touching the Lord to her gender.
This is absolutely wrong. God does not have partiality when it comes gender for all are one in Christ.
Touching the Lord's body had nothing to do with priestly ranking nor communion. Mary Magdalene was doubting His resurrection and initially she though He was a ghost and that is why she wanted to touch Him.
There is no difference between consuming and touching, for the act of touching is inherent in partaking in the Holy Body. Did they take the body in napkin or in their bare hands? I am not sure, will have to look it up.
The communion, the Body, used to be given to bare hands and people used to take it to their homes.
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137490#msg137490 date=1304705857] + Irini nem ehmot,
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
No, it is not an innovation. Church canons forbid the practice.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137492#msg137492 date=1304706866] The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
That's not entirely true. St. Thomas was told by the Disciples that He is risen. At least 10 people told him to his face. I don't see that as being any different than Mary Magdalene's situation. Remember the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus? They also saw Christ and didn't believe until He broke bread.
Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
No, it is not an innovation. Church canons forbid the practice.
But you said earlier,
The communion, the Body, used to be given to bare hands and people used to take it to their homes.
So which is it?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137492#msg137492 date=1304706866] Did St Thomas actually touch Him?
Good question. Some people say he did, others say he didn't. I think whether he did or not is moot though. Christ still permitted Thomas to touch Him and still forbade Mary Magdalene from doing the same thing.
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
I must apologize once again for asking, but what Patristic support do you have to validate this claim? Is this personal opinion?
The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
"Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her."
Some of The disciples themselves did not believe even upon seeing Christ. St. Cyril of Alexandria comments about this at length, but I am not near my computer to be able to post that excerpt.
The issue of the two on the road to Emmaus and Mary Magdalene not recognizing Him initially is a matter for a separate thread, which has a great deal of exegesis related to it.
On a separate, yet more general, note: if claims are to be made in any thread, they should be substantiated by the collective understanding of our Church Fathers. Personal musings are just that and we must be careful not to present them as the belief of the Orthodox Church as a whole, lest we teach something wrongly and misguide the youth.
I must apologize once again for asking, but what Patristic support do you have to validate this claim? Is this personal opinion?
Read the accounts in the Gospels and you will not find that St Thomas went to the tomb, did not see Jesus after His resurrection except when He appeared to the disciples on the 8th day, did not talk with angels.
The second part of your question is answered through simply reading the Gospels accounts of the resurrection.
On a separate, yet more general, note: if claims are to be made in any thread, they should be substantiated by the collective understanding of our Church Fathers. Personal musings are just that and we must be careful not to present them as the belief of the Orthodox Church as a whole, lest we teach something wrongly and misguide the youth.
What and where is the personal musings you are referring to?
That's not entirely true. St. Thomas was told by the Disciples that He is risen. At least 10 people told him to his face. I don't see that as being any different than Mary Magdalene's situation. Remember the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus? They also saw Christ and didn't believe until He broke bread.
Ok. I have mentioned three specific encounters through which St Mary Magdalene had the opportunity to believe:
Empty Tomb,
Angels preaching her of the Resurrection
Christ Himself speaking with her and calling her by name and she recognized Him
St Thomas had none of these encounters except the information from the disciples.
Forgive me, imikhail. I hope that my posts do not come across as personal attacks towards you nor towards any specific person on the forum. I will clarify what I meant earlier; it is my mistake that I was unclear before.
I do not contest that Thomas did not go to the tomb, but your statement was "St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection." This is untrue, as he saw the resurrected Christ, albeit the fact that it was on the eighth day. This is a point of semantics, but we must be sure to be absolutely clear as to what it is that we write.
The claim that I was referring to was your line stating that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe." This is why I stated:
"The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
'Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.'"
My question was what your basis was that she did not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe."
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=11375.msg137507#msg137507 date=1304714624] The claim that I was referring to was your line stating that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe." This is why I stated:
"The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
'Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.'"
My question was what your basis was that she did not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe."
Comments
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.
Please quote me when you claim I am being absurd and playing a game of semantics. Maybe if you read this from the beginning you would realize I clearly stated I would play devil's advocate to hone my argument. So any potential flaw, I will point out - no matter how absurd it may seem. Scholars raise points that may be absurd - I don't believe in just brushing things off as absurd but logically pointing out why.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
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.
Thanks for the quotations, Cephas.
In addition to these quotes, a few from our own revered Orthodox Fathers:
"The Church has never appointed women presbyters or priests." ~"Panarion" by St. Epiphanius (4th century)
"The appointment of women priests to stand before goddesses is a delusion of Hellenic godlessness, and not a decree of Christ." ~Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375)
"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal (priestly) office." ~Tertullian (Latin Father, end of the 2nd century)
"When the Master prayed over the bread and the cup, and blessed them saying, 'This is My Body and Blood," He did not allow women to stand with us." ~Apostolic Church Order (2nd century)
I reference these quotes for a reason: though they were not written in the first century, they certainly describe a truth that stood true until their time, which was much closer in proximity than our own time. If there was a rank instituted into the Church in the first century, people would certainly be most cognizant of it in the second century, as there would have been some who lived in both centuries and would be able to speak against a word that improperly described a previous truth. One must similarly recognize that there were women in these ages that wrote their experience in the Church, as Egeria, the Spanish nun and pilgrim, did in the end of the 4th century.
If a practice was begun early in the institution of a groups inception, the practice would be seen universally throughout the group's growth passed its place of inception. If there was an aberration from this, it would occur in a few, but not all, of the group's areas of extension. As we see no women presbyters or priests anywhere, and since it is widely recorded to be the case as written accounts of the Church's life continued, it would historically be sensible to say that such a rank never existed, nor was ever instituted. The surmisings of a few contemporaries as to whether or not women were once put into this rank lays on their shoulders to prove: namely, that such documentation of a practice as this was burned.
Those living in closer proximity of time carry with them more strength in their historicity than those further in temporal proximity.
Pray for my weaknesses,
childoforthodoxy
That is why I ask for solid evidence that during Paul's time the church never allowed women to be priests. When Paul does mention the sacrament of the Eucharist, he does not speak of any roles or duties a specific person has (if I recall correctly).
Allow me to say that whatever evidence you present to your professor will, in all likelihood, fall on deaf ears. It is difficult to convince another of an opposing viewpoint, particularly when their conviction is strengthened by their professorial position. Is your grade based on your oral argumentation, or is this more of a discussion that will be occurring in office hours in order to sway him of his historical beliefs?
You are probably right. My grade does not depend on this. I am going to be speaking with him during office hours. God willing, he becomes a bit more open-minded.
God be with you.
Thank you. With your help and others I have learned a lot myself. So even if I do not convince him of anything, I am confident he will not be able to sway me the wrong way.
The Pharisees and the priests rejected Jesus because they loved man's glory than the glory of God. In the same way anyone who benefits from opposing the Church will not leave that benefit unless there is a change of heart.
For a person to be convinced with the Orthodox teaching, he/she must be humble and submit oneself to the Church. If there is no belief of the Church's authority, then it is impossible to change one's mind no matter how much evidence you provide.
The Pharisees and the priests rejected Jesus because they loved man's glory than the glory of God. In the same way anyone who benefits from opposing the Church will not leave that benefit unless there is a change of heart.
Sure, I cannot change anyone's heart. But I cannot let him believe that whatever he tells the class is going to be acceptable. He knows I am Coptic Orthodox - I have already told him and discussed previous issues with him. Thus, I feel I have a duty to engage with him.
Pray for me that I may become more knowledgeable as to address his claims during class (as opposed to during office hours) so that the other students see the other side and aren't simply indoctrinated.
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.
I do not mean to take the thread away from its aim, but in which Father of the Church did you find this explanation from? This is certainly not the reasoning given by the Fathers of the Church that I have read on the matter, and I would assume that the widely renowned ones would be most certainly accustomed with the idea of multiple ascensions if that were true. I'm curious where you read this from.
For example, here is an excerpt from a homily by St. John Chrysostom:
"'Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God.'
Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then says He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departs into the heavens."
Childoforthodoxy
Thanks for the quote. I figured there was only one ascension, which is why I too was curious where the notion of multiple ascensions came from.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
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.
It is a personal reflection, not a dogma, that I found echoed in contemporary teachers in the Church such as Fr. Marcos Milad of Alexandria. Personal relfections do not have to be referenced by a Father and are to be accepted or rejected as long as they are not heretical or promote false teachings. It makes sense and it is in line with the types of Christ in the OT that are fullfilled in Him. The Sunday of the Resurrection lies on the day of the first fruit feast.
But it was cannot be because of gender at all that the Lord forbad Mary Magdalene from touching him. In fact, women behold and touch the Lord in the Eucharist as much as men do, with their lips and with the tongues and mouths. They used to take the body in their hands in the Eucharist before consuming it. It is the glorified body as well. There is evidence in Matthew 28:5-9 that women, among the followers of Christ, have embraced his feet and worshipped him, and touched him.
Fair enough. But what do you make of the quote from St. Cyril then? It seems to contradict this thought.
As for the communicants partaking of the Body of Christ during the Eucharist, I would think there is a difference between consuming the Body, which all communicants can do, and handling/touching the Body, which only the serving priest can do. I am aware that in the early Church, communicants would take the Body in their hands and consume it themselves, but they would do so while holding a napkin, as we still do in our Church today. This practice ceased, as I understand, because individuals would not consume the Body, but rather, would take it home as a pious (albeit, misguided) act.
By definition, ascension is only physical that is the Lord ascended in His human body. This did not happen till the 40th day after resurrection.
So, whether this is reflection or not, it does not make sense.
If a new comer wants to join the discussion on the ascension but has no interest in reading on women's leadership in the church, they will miss the opportunity b/c they will not open this thread. If a person is interested in reading about the women and the church they will think it inappropriate to continue discussion because the topic shifted so dramatically.
Edit: I put the quote up to end discussion, not continue it.
Thank you.
The Lord afterwards asks Thomas to touch him, and Thomas does not have the Holy Spirit yet. In fact, the disciples touch him as well, among them women, and embrace his feet, and they did not have the Spirit yet.
My main objection is to attribute the act of forbidding Mary from touching the Lord to her gender.
There is no difference between consuming and touching, for the act of touching is inherent in partaking in the Holy Body. Did they take the body in napkin or in their bare hands? I am not sure, will have to look it up.
Interesting discussion though.
Touching the Lord's body had nothing to do with priestly ranking nor communion. Mary Magdalene was doubting His resurrection and initially she though He was a ghost and that is why she wanted to touch Him.
The communion, the Body, used to be given to bare hands and people used to take it to their homes.
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe. No, it is not an innovation. Church canons forbid the practice.
Did St Thomas actually touch Him?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137492#msg137492 date=1304706866]
The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
That's not entirely true. St. Thomas was told by the Disciples that He is risen. At least 10 people told him to his face. I don't see that as being any different than Mary Magdalene's situation. Remember the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus? They also saw Christ and didn't believe until He broke bread.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137492#msg137492 date=1304706866] No, it is not an innovation. Church canons forbid the practice.
But you said earlier, So which is it?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137492#msg137492 date=1304706866]
Did St Thomas actually touch Him?
Good question. Some people say he did, others say he didn't. I think whether he did or not is moot though. Christ still permitted Thomas to touch Him and still forbade Mary Magdalene from doing the same thing.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137490#msg137490 date=1304705857]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
St. Thomas also doubted the resurrection, yet Christ permitted him to touch Him. Explain the difference. I agree all are one in Christ. However, by your reasoning, there is no reason not to have female priests. Priests handle the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? Or is the fact that lay people can no longer touch the Body an innovation?
The difference is in the details .. St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection, did not talk with the angels, did not go the tomb. St Mary Magdalene had several opportunities to believe. In fact she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
I must apologize once again for asking, but what Patristic support do you have to validate this claim? Is this personal opinion?
The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
"Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her."
Some of The disciples themselves did not believe even upon seeing Christ. St. Cyril of Alexandria comments about this at length, but I am not near my computer to be able to post that excerpt.
The issue of the two on the road to Emmaus and Mary Magdalene not recognizing Him initially is a matter for a separate thread, which has a great deal of exegesis related to it.
On a separate, yet more general, note: if claims are to be made in any thread, they should be substantiated by the collective understanding of our Church Fathers. Personal musings are just that and we must be careful not to present them as the belief of the Orthodox Church as a whole, lest we teach something wrongly and misguide the youth.
Childoforthodoxy
The second part of your question is answered through simply reading the Gospels accounts of the resurrection.
Empty Tomb,
Angels preaching her of the Resurrection
Christ Himself speaking with her and calling her by name and she recognized Him
St Thomas had none of these encounters except the information from the disciples.
I do not contest that Thomas did not go to the tomb, but your statement was "St Thomas never saw Jesus after resurrection." This is untrue, as he saw the resurrected Christ, albeit the fact that it was on the eighth day. This is a point of semantics, but we must be sure to be absolutely clear as to what it is that we write.
The claim that I was referring to was your line stating that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe." This is why I stated:
"The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
'Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.'"
My question was what your basis was that she did not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe."
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=11375.msg137507#msg137507 date=1304714624]
The claim that I was referring to was your line stating that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe." This is why I stated:
"The gospel account says the following after she herself believed and exclaimed Rabboni:
'Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.'"
My question was what your basis was that she did not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe."
THANK YOU!
Up to the 2nd and early 3rd centuries, this was allowed. But later, canons forbid it.