Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Tarsonis]

Not unknown, but Judeans would have looked down on that as hethenry.

As would eating non-kosher food, not getting circumcized, and the idea of the Eucharist.

much of which wasn't settled until 20 years after Christ's death.

[Salus Maior]

As would eating non-kosher food, not getting circumcized, and the idea of the Eucharist.

much of which wasn't settled until 20 years after Christ's death.

And a lot of it is evident in Christ's teaching. And it shows that Christianity was not so bound to Judean sensibility as you think it is.

[Tarsonis]

much of which wasn't settled until 20 years after Christ's death.

And a lot of it is evident in Christ's teaching. And it shows that Christianity was not so bound to Judean sensibility as you think it is.

Not bound to it, but it is born of it. it's quite evident that the first Christians saw themselves as Jews, and mainly recruited Jews and helenized Jews in the early years. By Jerusalem, the introduction of Gentiles had grown to be a significant quandary which needed answers. I don't know why you're trying to argue they weren't, this is standard doctrine and history.

[Luminesa]

That's not how biconditionals work.

Let me make it simpler for you.

If taxation without representation is unfair, then so is representation without taxation.

The church has been influencing the state for centuries, while not being charged a single cent, penny, dime, or dollar of tax.

Henceforth, to make it fair, the church must be taxed.

I was looking at this idea, and I was thinking "enjoy not collecting any money in taxes." Back to square one.

How so? It is literally easy to calculate how much revenue a church makes.

Honey I understood what you meant, but the original statement is not how a biconditional works. And frankly this is still not how a biconditional works. Putting "if" and "then" doesn't automatically make something a biconditional. So you can take several seats before you talk like you gonna step to people, cause frankly, we have enough unearned sass in this thread.

[Suriyanakhon]

I'm reminded of a story about Buddha, in which he was questioned why he ordained only males to be priests, if gender was an illusion as he taught. His response was basically necessity. If he had held women up to the same level as men, in that society, the message would have died as they would all be put to the sword. A new movement can only rock the boat so much before the establishment hits back. Holding women to be in equal station of men, and having power of instruction over men, would be very challenging to the cultural order, and bring considerable wrath.

I just want to point out that this story is untrue, and some of the oldest Buddhist scriptures we have are poems that were ascribed to female arahants (who would have, by necessity, been ordained). Women have been allowed to ordain in all monastic traditions historically.

[Luminesa]

Perhaps, but insistence on remaining male priests only is not so much that there's a moral necessity (though some will make that claim sure), but really that the Church doesn't have the purogative to change it. Christ instituted an all male priesthood at the beginning. Whether this was meant to have theological significance or was merely just accordance with the times, doesn't really matter. Absent new revelation from God, the Church has no basis to open the priesthood to women. All we know is what was done, so that is what we must keep doing so as to not override God's will.

It's not that nobody can think of reasons why it can or should be done, it's just not in the realm of their authority to do so. If God were to peel back the heavens and say "one more thing guys, female clergy are groovy" there'd be little hesitation to start ordination of women. But until that happens, this is what we got.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it has ever worked. The Christian Church has gone through twenty centuries worth of changes from what it originally was in the times of Peter and the Apostles, to the point that early Christians would scarce recognize it. To say we can't change something about the Church because God hasn't told us to yet is tantamount to embracing the Protestant heresy of the 'Great Apostasy' by suggesting any change brought about to the Church in the past 2,000 years is essentially "overriding God's will", which is nonsense. You are right that there is no pressing need to change it to avert disaster or whatnot but this doesn't mean the status quo should be maintained at all costs. The Church doesn't have to change it's stance on this issue, no. It doesn't even necessarily need to change it's stance on this issue, no. But it should change it's stance on this issue. Whether the clergy is exclusively male or is open to both sexes isn't, frankly, relevant to the Church's ultimate mission. That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

A bit of an overstatement, there are definitely things early Christians would recognize. Devotion to Mary, the Eucharist, much of our Angelology, the connections between the OT and NT, etc.

[Tarsonis]

I'm reminded of a story about Buddha, in which he was questioned why he ordained only males to be priests, if gender was an illusion as he taught. His response was basically necessity. If he had held women up to the same level as men, in that society, the message would have died as they would all be put to the sword. A new movement can only rock the boat so much before the establishment hits back. Holding women to be in equal station of men, and having power of instruction over men, would be very challenging to the cultural order, and bring considerable wrath.

I just want to point out that this story is untrue, and some of the oldest Buddhist scriptures we have are poems that were ascribed to female arahants (who would have, by necessity, been ordained). Women have been allowed to ordain in all monastic traditions historically.

I believe it's something out the Chinese traditions because the people he refers to are the Confuscists. I'm not an expert by any means, and it has been a minute since Buddhism was relevant to my studies, but i do remember at least one sect putting the story forth, even if it's more apocryphal than orthodox

[Salus Maior]

And a lot of it is evident in Christ's teaching. And it shows that Christianity was not so bound to Judean sensibility as you think it is.

Not bound to it, but it is born of it. it's quite evident that the first Christians saw themselves as Jews, and mainly recruited Jews and helenized Jews in the early years. By Jerusalem, the introduction of Gentiles had grown to be a significant quandary which needed answers. I don't know why you're trying to argue they weren't, this is standard doctrine and history.

My point ultimately is that I strongly disagree with your idea that the male priesthood only exists because God was worried His Gospel wouldn't be listened to if He made women Apostles (even though there were women teachers and disciples in the early Church and during Jesus's ministry). That would make it seem as though the priesthood as it exists and has existed is a concession to humanity's evil, which I wholly reject. I think the Gospels are rather clear that Christ isn't making concessions to the evil in people as God was doing with the Mosaic law. And further, Jenny is right in saying that such an argument is grounds for change, considering we're not bound to that particular social bias when it comes to women in leadership and positions of respect anymore, and God knew we wouldn't be at this point and it wouldn't make any sense that we continue a tradition that isn't really holy (because, again, your argument makes it a concession to a once existing bigotry rather than something good and holy).
I would argue, though I don't have a fully formed answer for this, that there is a positively good and holy reason that Christ chose men for the role of Apostle and priest that does not concede to the evil in people nor degrade women as a reminder that they were a once disrespected and un-listened-to class of people. I suppose for the time being I'm taking a page out of the Eastern Orthodox book and leaning into the mystery for this one.

[Tarsonis]

Not bound to it, but it is born of it. it's quite evident that the first Christians saw themselves as Jews, and mainly recruited Jews and helenized Jews in the early years. By Jerusalem, the introduction of Gentiles had grown to be a significant quandary which needed answers. I don't know why you're trying to argue they weren't, this is standard doctrine and history.

My point ultimately is that I strongly disagree with your idea that the male priesthood only exists because God was worried His Gospel wouldn't be listened to if He made women Apostles (even though there were women teachers and disciples in the early Church and during Jesus's ministry). That would make it seem as though the priesthood as it exists and has existed is a concession to humanity's evil, which I wholly reject. I think the Gospels are rather clear that Christ isn't making concessions to the evil in people as God was doing with the Mosaic law. And further, Jenny is right in saying that such an argument is grounds for change, considering we're not bound to that particular social bias when it comes to women in leadership and positions of respect anymore, and God knew we wouldn't be at this point and it wouldn't make any sense that we continue a tradition that isn't really holy (because, again, your argument makes it a concession to a once existing bigotry rather than something good and holy).
I would argue, though I don't have a fully formed answer for this, that there is a positively good and holy reason that Christ chose men for the role of Apostle and priest that does not concede to the evil in people nor degrade women as a reminder that they were a once disrespected and un-listened-to class of people. I suppose for the time being I'm taking a page out of the Eastern Orthodox book and leaning into the mystery for this one.

That's something I had not considered.

[Suriyanakhon]

I just want to point out that this story is untrue, and some of the oldest Buddhist scriptures we have are poems that were ascribed to female arahants (who would have, by necessity, been ordained). Women have been allowed to ordain in all monastic traditions historically.

I believe it's something out the Chinese traditions because the people he refers to are the Confuscists. I'm not an expert by any means, and it has been a minute since Buddhism was relevant, but i do remember at least one sect putting the story forth, even if it's more apocryphal than orthodox

All of the East Asian monastic lineages allow for women to be ordained, it would be a bit odd for such apocrypha to exist since it would contradict the existence of multiple nuns throughout the Chinese version of the Tripitaka.

[Tarsonis]

I believe it's something out the Chinese traditions because the people he refers to are the Confuscists. I'm not an expert by any means, and it has been a minute since Buddhism was relevant, but i do remember at least one sect putting the story forth, even if it's more apocryphal than orthodox

All of the East Asian monastic lineages allow for women to be ordained, it would be a bit odd for such apocrypha to exist since it would contradict the existence of multiple nuns throughout the Chinese version of the Tripitaka.

I dunno what to tell you the story was a centerpiece in a class I took on religion and gender, and the professor who taught it was a zen Buddhist, so I know it exists. That said I took that class a decade ago and i don't remember much much about the meta details.

[Salus Maior]

That's something I had not considered.

Huh, I stumped the Yale grad.

[Suriyanakhon]

All of the East Asian monastic lineages allow for women to be ordained, it would be a bit odd for such apocrypha to exist since it would contradict the existence of multiple nuns throughout the Chinese version of the Tripitaka.

I dunno what to tell you the story was a centerpiece in a class I took on religion and gender, and the professor who taught it was a zen Buddhist, so I know it exists. That said I took that class a decade ago and i don't remember much much about the meta details.

Found your problem.

[Sordhau]

What do you think of Paul's letter to Timothy?

There is no conclusive proof that the First Epistle to Timothy was written by Paul. Most scholars reject a Pauline origin and believe it was written after Paul's death. Either way it's content reflect the state of the Church of Ephesus and, much like Corinthians, is situational in it's contents.

we can't go back and say, oh yeah infant baptism were gonna switch to adult baptism only. That would effectively invalidate the Church's claim to orthodoxy over the last 2000 years.

No it wouldn't. Opposition to infant baptism is usually related to matters of safety; wanting to make baptism safer for the baptized is not a reflection of unorthodox teaching but of a change in social values.

The same is true of Priests, to say Female priests are OK now, would mean that the practice was always ok and thus the Church is invalid for teaching and practicing heresy of only having male priesthood.

Again, this isn't true. The Church can still do wrong, and has multiple times. This doesn't make it invalid; it makes it misguided. The Church cannot be invalid. God Himself said this would never happen. The Church did not become invalid when it started burning heretics to death, nor did it become invalid when it stopped doing so. The Church, too, can err.

This is the same problem we have with lobbying the Church on LGBT issues, the Church has very little latitude to change something like that, absent divine revelation.

This argument is completely arbitrary. There is no consistency in what you say we can or cannot change about the Church; it's completely random.

You're talking about a practice that was done at the time of Christ, and continued unbroken for 2000 years.

The Church had no problem waging holy wars for several centuries after the preceding centuries had been relatively peaceful. Just the same we do not view this crusader period as being a fallen point in the Church's history, so where the Hell is the line drawn on what is and is not acceptable to change? Because I'm really not seeing one. I'm seeing "we shouldn't change it because change is bad" even though we've been changing for 2,000 years.

The Church cannot decide that it's time to change that merely because it wants to or because women desire to become priests and social norms tell us that should be okay.

The Church can decide that. God bestowed the Church with a right to organize itself as it's leaders deemed necessary when He gave the keys to Peter, who built the Church institutions we we know them today. At no point did either Christ or Peter say it can't be altered to be more inclusive toward the other half of the total human population.

Again, God peeling back the sky and saying "btdubs guys Female priests in the clergy is chic now," is the only way that is gonna happen.

No it isn't. This is the same hand-sitting bullshit conservative speakers have been spouting since the dawn of debate. "We can't change the way things are because we've always done it this way!" isn't an argument. It has never been an argument. It will never be an argument. It is cowardice. Theological Ludditism.

The "God didn't expressly condemn it so it must be ok" argument isn't a strong or compelling one.

When the counter argument is the theological equivalent of "God hates sausage pizza because while He ordered both He only ate the pepperoni pizza and so we can't ever eat sausage pizza and must only ever eat pepperoni pizza or else we're making God made" there isn't really much of a need for a strong or compelling rebuttal.

There are plenty of things we know are wrong that Jesus did not expressly preach about

Yes, because most of those things were condemned before Jesus walked the Earth and the rest can be inferred through simple logic. Corporations are bad because they're motivated by greed, et cetera.

(and of course, you don't know if He didn't say anything about it because not everything Jesus said is written down,

I'm not going to hand-wring over things He might have said when we have no evidence of Him even touching upon the topic. That's just pointless speculation, kind of like condemning female clergy when it was never expressly stated to be forbidden.

hence the necessity for Holy Tradition, which you've completely ignored in this whole discourse despite its importance

I've been ignoring it because 'appeal to tradition' is just as fallacious as 'appeal to novelty'. Sacred Tradition isn't a club you can just bludgeon your opponents with until they admit they're wrong.

For example, does God have anything against child marriage?

Considering marriage in Ancient Israel was forbidden for anyone younger than 18 I'm going to say yes.

Peter: Prince of the Apostles, and notably graceful and humble and not a complete mess of a man even directly before his death.

I was being poetic. I know priests are still human beings, thank you.

Not bound to it, but it is born of it. it's quite evident that the first Christians saw themselves as Jews, and mainly recruited Jews and helenized Jews in the early years. By Jerusalem, the introduction of Gentiles had grown to be a significant quandary which needed answers. I don't know why you're trying to argue they weren't, this is standard doctrine and history.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying you're viewing the development of early Christianity through the extremely narrow lenses of First Century Judeans, which makes no sense at all given that Christianity as we know it didn't truly begin to develop until after it had spread to Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, and the "core" of the Greco-Roman world. Jews in the First Century AD very much would have knowledge of female priests considering literally all their neighbors--Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans--had priestesses. It would have been a foreign concept, yes, but not an inconceivable one. This is the point Salus is trying to make. 1st Century Judea was not a vacuum.

[Salus Maior]

No it isn't. This is the same hand-sitting bullshit conservative speakers have been spouting since the dawn of debate. "We can't change the way things are because we've always done it this way!" isn't an argument. It has never been an argument. It will never be an argument. It is cowardice. Theological Ludditism.

hence the necessity for Holy Tradition, which you've completely ignored in this whole discourse despite its importance

I've been ignoring it because 'appeal to tradition' is just as fallacious as 'appeal to novelty'. Sacred Tradition isn't a club you can just bludgeon your opponents with until they admit they're wrong.

I think you're conflating your politics with your religion. Tradition happens to be a valid argument when we are inheriting a revelation that happened in the past. Jesus was here once, He had His Apostles, and His Apostles passed down the fullness of His message down the generations through Apostolic Succession. We have one revelation of God incarnate and that's all we have. That's why tradition is so guarded so we don't lose the fullness of His message and that's why capital T Tradition exists as a constitutional concept in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. This is fundamentally different from asshole politicians trying to keep their rich friends from being taxed or wanting to punish people they don't like. There's no God in that, there's no gospel in that, there's no authority in that, that's just political bs born from human frailty and its completely incomparable to Tradition.

What has been passed down from the Apostles to us in the fullness of Holy Tradition is authoritative, just as authoritative as anything you'd read in the Bible. And it in fact completes and keeps the Bible in its proper context and fullness of understanding. Appealing to Holy Tradition is authoritative to Orthodox and Catholics and that's the simple truth of the matter.

Considering marriage in Ancient Israel was forbidden for anyone younger than 18 I'm going to say yes.

If we're going to appeal to the Old Testament, then the priesthood then was also male only.

Edit: Also, fact checking now, I'm not finding anything suggesting that the Old Testament required age for marriage is 18.

[Sundiata]

One of the most important things we can do as Christians today is give to the poor, especially for the wealthy. There is more than enough in the world for us all to have the necessities of life. If you're not giving then you are recieving. We can all give so much more.

[Prima Scriptura]

Is it rude to use the title “reverend” instead of “father” when talking to a Catholic Priest?

[Salus Maior]

Is it rude to use the title “reverend” instead of “father” when talking to a Catholic Priest?

I don't think so? It's not common but I've heard it before.

[Old Tyrannia]

Is it rude to use the title “reverend” instead of “father” when talking to a Catholic Priest?

Rude or not, it's incorrect. "The Reverend" is a style to be used with the person's name, never as a form of address on its own.

[Zilam]

Is it rude to use the title “reverend” instead of “father” when talking to a Catholic Priest?

Rude or not, it's incorrect. "The Reverend" is a style to be used with the person's name, never as a form of address on its own.

Correct, and depending on their actual "rank", you might qualify to say something like "The Most Reverend Bishop So and So"

[Sundiata]

CNN: Pope Francis visiting Canada to apologize for Indigenous abuse in Catholic residential schools.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/americas/pope-francis-canada-visit-intl/index.html

[Zilam]

There is no conclusive proof that the First Epistle to Timothy was written by Paul. Most scholars reject a Pauline origin and believe it was written after Paul's death. Either way it's content reflect the state of the Church of Ephesus and, much like Corinthians, is situational in it's contents.

"Most Scholars" reject Pauline authorship on very flimsy basis. The most compelling argument they have is that Paul used different words than what he used in other letters. This isn't very convincing, however, because:

1) the audience is completely different than the previous letters. Do you speak to your friends and your employer (if you have one) with the same exact language? Do you write formal and less formal email using the exact same language? I know I don't. But that doesn't mean that an email to a client and an email to friend are not from the same source because 85% of the word usage is different between the two.

Additionally, it is well known that Paul used others to write on his behalf. He even points this out himself in Galatians by writing the end of the letter and saying " See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand." (Gal 6: 11). So, he dictated the content while a secretary wrote it down for him. Might it be likely then, that using different secretaries would mean different language being used?

Additionally, the very earliest church fathers accepted the letters as authentic and quoted them in their own writings. They knew forgeries well, and handled them accordingly, and this letter was not one of those forgeries.

I mean, this is intro to biblical criticism level stuff. This is is the most convincing argument that anti-Paulists have, and its so easily refuted.

As for the claim that this was situational, that is something you need to prove, because that is not at all specified in the text. In fact, the most controversial claim in 1 Timothy (2:12) Paul says " I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." It doesn't say "Hey, I told the people in the church of Ephesus that the women need to not teach anyone".

Further, the part that really destroys the idea that its situation is the text itself, which says

"Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or dissension.

Likewise, I want the women to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty, and with self-control, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess to worship God.

A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control."

No where does this say this is specific to Ephesus. Rather, it explicitly gives Paul's wishes for men and women EVERYWHERE, meaning beyond just those at the Church of Ephesus.

To recap:

There is no convincing reason to believe this letter came from any source other than Paul, and the text no where states that the content is specific to one church.

So, you'd have to then believe that Paul did not have apostolic authority, therefore removing his 13 letters, plus the books of Luke and Acts which were authored by a student of Paul.

You'd also have to question Peter. Peter equated Paul's writings with the scriptures of the OT. So bye bye to his letters, plus the Gospel of Mark, a student of Peter. Most scholars believe that Matthew is a copy of Mark because of Q, or something. So remove his Gospel. That leaves us with John, James, 1,2,3 John, Jude and Revelation. According to "most scholars" we can't trust any of John's writings, because they come at such a late date. So that leaves James and Jude. James and Jude were relatives of Jesus, and "most scholars" would assume that they couldn't write in Koine Greek, as they were uneducated Galileans.

Ta-Da! Nothing left!

At a certain point, I have to ask you: why even try to be a Christian anymore? You might as well throw the whole thing away if you are going to cut away huge sections of Scriptures out because they don't fit into your 21st century worldview.

[New Visayan Islands]

Rude or not, it's incorrect. "The Reverend" is a style to be used with the person's name, never as a form of address on its own.

Correct, and depending on their actual "rank", you might qualify to say something like "The Most Reverend Bishop So and So"

Alternatively, one could use “Your Excellency” in addressing bishops. Not sure about “Your Grace,” though I suspect it to be Anglican use.

[Salus Maior]

One the subject of women and the early Church, it's also worth noting that there was another source of authority that existed in the early church that didn't last, that of prophets. I chatted a bit with a friend of mine who is a Catholic Biblical scholar and he noted that prophets were preaching alongside the Apostles (and sometimes to the Apostles as shown in Acts) and many of these people were women. This suggests that, again, there were women did wield authority over men and were respected though in a different capacity to the Apostles and their successors. This again supports my position, that the priesthood is not established as it is because of a bias against female authority.

Granted, the gifts of the spirit ceased and Montanus kind of ruined the position of prophet, but my friend posits that the position of prophet did continue and could be seen as being embodied by the likes of St. Catherine of Siena when she told the Pope to get his butt back to Rome from Avignon.

[Sordhau]

o, you'd have to then believe that Paul did not have apostolic authority, therefore removing his 13 letters, plus the books of Luke and Acts which were authored by a student of Paul.

You'd also have to question Peter. Peter equated Paul's writings with the scriptures of the OT. So bye bye to his letters, plus the Gospel of Mark, a student of Peter. Most scholars believe that Matthew is a copy of Mark because of Q, or something. So remove his Gospel. That leaves us with John, James, 1,2,3 John, Jude and Revelation. According to "most scholars" we can't trust any of John's writings, because they come at such a late date. So that leaves James and Jude. James and Jude were relatives of Jesus, and "most scholars" would assume that they couldn't write in Koine Greek, as they were uneducated Galileans.

Ta-Da! Nothing left!

At a certain point, I have to ask you: why even try to be a Christian anymore? You might as well throw the whole thing away if you are going to cut away huge sections of Scriptures out because they don't fit into your 21st century worldview.

Your post was fine until this point where you decided to be snide and create strawman arguments where you question the sincerity of my faith in just about the most condescending way you possibly could have. If you can find it within yourself to remove your head from your ass then maybe one day we can have an actual debate in good faith, but until then I have no incentive to engage with you any further.