Should Women be Pastors?

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen said:
What do you mean by loose connection [between St. Peter and St. Ignatius]?

Fidei responded:
I didn’t think that it was cryptic…St. Evodius followed St. Peter directly and immediately after him, St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius in 68 A.D.  The antiquity of St. Ignatius [during the Apostolic age] bears a strong witness to the doctrine that can be gleaned from his writings.

Acumen said:
I'm not sure the doctrine of the Bishop administering the Eucharist was present prior to Ignatius' directive.  If it were, then why the apparent need to address the issue?

Fidei responded:
First, deviance from Truth is always present, so there is always the need to reaffirm sound doctrine…that’s why the Bishop is integral to the Faith.

Now, is it possible that there were Eucharistic Liturgies [house Churches] in the first decade or so that did not have the Bishop/Presbyter as celebrants exclusively?  Maybe and even likely; but the point is that during the ‘Age of the Apostles’ this point was settled and passed on as Apostolic Faith.

Acumen said:
Or maybe it was opposed and we don't see the responses?  Or maybe it wasn't an issue deserving of opposition?  Or perhaps there was no need to respond because Ignatius was already being delivered to the wild beasts, so just let the man speak his peace?  There could be a lot of "maybes" because we just don't have sufficient historical data to piece it together with any degree of finality.

Fidei responded:
In truth, all of the historical data supports the fact that the Bishop is [became] the ordinary of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The ‘silent opposition’ would reduce this doctrine down to the level of insignificance, because the Early Church was vigilant with preserving the faith and would not have remained silent on a significant issue. 

As for ‘letting the man speak his peace’, I’m sorry but that is ridicules.  These letters were read and revered in the early Church and because of their widespread circulation and antiquity, they were seriously considered for the Canon of Scripture and remained universally accepted as an authentic witness to the Faith of the early Church, up until the 16th century and even after that many still held them in high esteem among many of the Protestant Church.

Acumen said:
When asked, “What is your opinion as to why St. Ignatius “was reconfirming the authority of the bishop to the churches?” you responded, personally, I think he was experiencing church conflict with heretics.

Fidei responded:
That’s my point.  He would be reiterating St. Paul’s charge to the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”  I don’t want to reiterate my previous post, but if it were novel to limit the Bishop in the role of Presider, someone would have shouted; “You don’t have to be a Bishop to administer a valid Eucharist.”  Instead, from St. Justin Martyr to the Apostolic Constitutions and beyond, we see nothing but affirmations that the Bishop is the ordinary.

Acumen said:
Like I said previously, the passage in Matthew elucidates the point.  The words "take and eat" were used, and therefore the action emphasized is "receiving" the contents of the meal, not administering it.  My point about "first things first" is just a matter of sequence.  It is more logical to presume to the "do this" referred to receiving the body and blood as a form of admittance into covenant because that's what they were doing at the time Jesus said it.  The disciples weren't administrating it, they were taking it.   Jesus made no specific mention in terms of administrating it to the church body, but rather "do this in remembrance of me."  The direct point of reference was the group of disciples because they were at the supper table.  Again, this appears to be the most literal and straightforward read of the passage.       

Fidei responded:
I think I understand your point, but don’t understand its relevance unless you contend that they were not to ‘administer’ [sic] it later; which you don’t seem to believe. 

Thanks and talk to you later!

Fidei

[Acumen]

Fidei,

I didn’t think that it was cryptic…St. Evodius followed St. Peter directly and immediately after him, St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius in 68 A.D.  The antiquity of St. Ignatius [during the Apostolic age] bears a strong witness to the doctrine that can be gleaned from his writings.

And that's what I thought you meant, but there was also the possibility of "loose connection" in terms of historical evidence -- so I had to be sure.

Acumen:  I'm not sure the doctrine of the Bishop administering the Eucharist was present prior to Ignatius' directive.  If it were, then why the apparent need to address the issue?

Fidei:  First, deviance from Truth is always present, so there is always the need to reaffirm sound doctrine…that’s why the Bishop is integral to the Faith.

And essentially that's the rub.  We see this idea first in Ignatius' letter, not in the scriptures.  We have no reason to believe this was taught as "sound" doctrine prior to Ignatius' need to address this topic.

Now, is it possible that there were Eucharistic Liturgies [house Churches] in the first decade or so that did not have the Bishop/Presbyter as celebrants exclusively?  Maybe and even likely; but the point is that during the ‘Age of the Apostles’ this point was settled and passed on as Apostolic Faith.

I think you're overlooking the sobriety of this point.  The fact that the early churches were located in the homes of individuals speaks volumes about the possibility of this doctrine's existence current to that time.  If it were unlikely that bishops couldn't superintend all christian activities due to the wide dispersion of church locations in the homes of individuals, then it invalidates the applicability of the doctrine to the early christian church.  We are left with Ignatius starting a new trend or reaffirming a new trend set by others by instituting principles of church order to treat a menacing problem.

As for ‘letting the man speak his peace’, I’m sorry but that is ridicules. 

I only listed it as one among the many in a realm of possibilities in order to illustrate a point about the nature of ancient history.  Don't get hung up on the details, it wasn't meant to be a serious consideration.

These letters were read and revered in the early Church and because of their widespread circulation and antiquity, they were seriously considered for the Canon of Scripture and remained universally accepted as an authentic witness to the Faith of the early Church, up until the 16th century and even after that many still held them in high esteem among many of the Protestant Church.

I view them in the same light.

I think I understand your point, but don’t understand its relevance unless you contend that they were not to ‘administer’ [sic] it later; which you don’t seem to believe.

Really?  Because I think it speaks directly to the necessity of a bishop or a priest as the only ranks of authority in the christian church to administer the eucharist.  I see nothing in the passage that demonstrates the eucharist must be administered by anyone in the church in any position of special, ordained authority.  And to illustrate my point more forcefully, I would have no problems if my cousin El invited me to his house to hold the eucharist there just among us layfolk church members without the presence of a priest or bishop, at least based upon what we see in scripture. 

-Acumen

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen said:
And essentially that's the rub.  [I'm not sure the doctrine of the Bishop administering the Eucharist was present prior to Ignatius' directive.] We see this idea first in Ignatius' letter, not in the scriptures.  We have no reason to believe this was taught as "sound" doctrine prior to Ignatius' need to address this topic.

And then responding to this, “Now, is it possible that there were Eucharistic Liturgies [house Churches] in the first decade or so that did not have the Bishop/Presbyter as celebrants exclusively?  Maybe and even likely; but the point is that during the ‘Age of the Apostles’ this point was settled and passed on as Apostolic Faith. “You said, I think you're overlooking the sobriety of this point.  The fact that the early churches were located in the homes of individuals speaks volumes about the possibility of this doctrine's existence current to that time.  If it were unlikely that bishops couldn't superintend all Christian activities due to the wide dispersion of church locations in the homes of individuals, then it invalidates the applicability of the doctrine to the early Christian church.  We are left with Ignatius starting a new trend or reaffirming a new trend set by others by instituting principles of church order to treat a menacing problem.

Fidei responded:
There was no clear distinction between episkopoi and presbuteroi during the first century; there were not parishes to oversee because the Bishop was generally the ordinary for each Church.  But Churches did grow and so did the role of Bishop/Overseer.  St. Clement of Rome’s first Epistle to the Corinthians has him stating that “[you] walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honor to the presbyters among you.” [Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1.5].  So, by the 90’s, there appears to be some distinction between Priests and Bishops.  This, for the record, was written a decade earlier that St. Ignatius’s letter to the Smyrnaeans, and by St. Clement of Rome, the third successor to St. Peter in the Roman Church.

Our task is not to simply glean what someone did in the Apostolic Age [house Churches that may or may not have been led by an ordained individual], but find and illustrate that this ‘sound doctrine’ [at least for presiding over the Eucharistic Liturgy] was approved, lasting and passed on authentically.  And if this is “a new trend set by others by instituting principles of church order to treat a menacing problem,” and it finds approval from those who had been trusted with the care of the Churches, and history is ‘silent’ with regards to opposing the information contained in these publicly read letters of St. Ignatius, then what conclusion can we draw?

Acumen said:
To my statement, “I think I understand your point, but don’t understand its relevance unless you contend that they were not to ‘administer’ [sic] it later; which you don’t seem to believe”. You said, “Really?  Because I think it speaks directly to the necessity of a bishop or a priest as the only ranks of authority in the Christian church to administer the Eucharist.  I see nothing in the passage that demonstrates the Eucharist must be administered by anyone in the church in any position of special, ordained authority.  And to illustrate my point more forcefully, I would have no problems if my cousin El invited me to his house to hold the Eucharist there just among us lay folk church members without the presence of a priest or bishop, at least based upon what we see in scripture.

Fidei responded:
You stated in an earlier post to my understanding of your logic, “I think that the Bible means to convey that anyone can administer communion, because there is no explicit command to the contrary” by saying that “I wouldn't never say such things.  To use that sort of reasoning, one could say that incest between father and daughter is permissible because there is no explicit command to the contrary.  My initial point is there is no biblical support for a priest administering the Eucharist, not that things are permissible if the bible doesn't point out the contrary.

Yet you betray this logic on the very point of our discussion.  Patri-insest is not allowed, even though Sacred Scripture is silent on the matter, but the celebration of the Eucharist without a Bishop is allowed because Sacred Scripture is silent on the matter.  Or, maybe you’re only saying there is no Biblical support for a priest administering the Eucharist, and I respond that it was only to the Apostles that the command was given.  You then retort that there was no command to perpetuate the rite; which I have stated was the first time I ever heard that argument.  And I think it is because it is a weak point [and incorrect according to history] and not supported by anyone in my recollection.  So, if you have any reference beyond yourself, please forward it to me to view.

Again, do you treat Sacred Scripture as a volume of systematic theology?

Thanks and talk to you later!

Fidei

[Acumen]

Fidei,

You stated in an earlier post to my understanding of your logic, “I think that the Bible means to convey that anyone can administer communion, because there is no explicit command to the contrary” by saying that “I wouldn't never say such things.  To use that sort of reasoning, one could say that incest between father and daughter is permissible because there is no explicit command to the contrary.  My initial point is there is no biblical support for a priest administering the Eucharist, not that things are permissible if the bible doesn't point out the contrary.

Yet you betray this logic on the very point of our discussion.  Patri-insest is not allowed, even though Sacred Scripture is silent on the matter, but the celebration of the Eucharist without a Bishop is allowed because Sacred Scripture is silent on the matter. 

I confess that I had to read this a few times.  You followed the discussion really well, but I may have chosen the wrong way of clarifying my point.  My response to you that "I would never say such things" was a response to the logic of your statement and its applicability to all similar situations.  I don't believe that all things are permissible until the scriptures say otherwise as an absolute guide or philosophy for permissible conduct.  My principle example was using the only incestual relationship not explicitly condemned in the OT.  We know it's wrong for a number of other biblical reasons, but Moses didn't specifically address it as a point of incestual sin.  This is one example that demonstrates this philosophy is not absolutely right, NOT that the philosophy is always wrong.  Also, concerning the Eucharist, Jesus commanded the disciples to eat and drink the contents in memory of him.  Jesus also said that those who don't eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man will have no life.  From these passage, we conclude that we must partake in the communion (regardless whether we determine who rightfully administers it) because our lives depends upon it.         

You then retort that there was no command to perpetuate the rite; which I have stated was the first time I ever heard that argument.  And I think it is because it is a weak point [and incorrect according to history] and not supported by anyone in my recollection.  So, if you have any reference beyond yourself, please forward it to me to view.

I never said that there was no command to perpetuate the rite.  If I did, I would be very surprised because I'm aware that Jesus commanded it based upon his teachings in the synogogue.

Again, do you treat Sacred Scripture as a volume of systematic theology?

Yes.

-Acumen

[fidei in nuce]

Acumen

Since it appears that we all agree that Christ instituted the Eucharist [or the ordinance of Communion if you prefer], that it was to be perpetuated for our salvation and that by the end of the first century, the Bishop was the ordinary and/or Presider, we are left with at least two questions that remain pertinent to our topic of “should women be pastors”.  What are we to make of the interval between the close of the Gospels and/or the Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians and the record of SS. Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch?  This may be another topic thread on Apostolic Succession. 

The other is to what degree Sacred Scripture teaches that women can be pastors and as we have already discussed, this depends partly on what the role of a pastor is specifically in Sacred Scripture [women played important roles, but what roles specifically] and I would add, how those passages have been understood by the faith community of the Early Church.  Some might suggest that brings Catholic Tradition into the equation, but I would contend that to not do this separates the Book from its moorings and places any interpretation in a very subjective view.  This now brings up the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, which too would be another thread.

So, my point is I don’t know where to go with this issue from this juncture.  I haven’t heard from Grace in some time on this issue, but I still think that it has not been settled as to why the historical record shows a clear absence of woman ‘Pastors’ until the period of Modernism and women’s emancipation.  This, to my understanding, cannot easily be thrown off as ‘enlightenment’ without implicating the Apostolic and Early Church as having their doctrine influenced by socio-cultural pressures.  Others may not agree.

I am open for suggestions, but any tract down Sola Scriptura or Apostolic Succession will not lead us back to this topic for a very long time.  I think it would be prudent to discuss in what way Sacred Scripture identifies a ‘Pastor’, asking what authority does that entail and what duties are encompassed by one who has been chosen by the Holy Spirit.  How does that sound?

Fidei

[suzukihime]

I'm sort of confused, and wouldn't mind some instruction as to why a discussion on the possiblitiy of Women pastors has become a topic on the Eucharist???


Ah, but a little redirect... (You have probably already covered it, but I have a question on it anyway)

What is so abhorrent about a woman being a pastor or evangelist?

[fidei in nuce]

New Member,

In Catholic theology, the role of the ministerial priesthood is first and foremost, to [in persona Christi], offer the once-only sacrifice of the Son to the Father.  If there is truly no Eucharist, there is no Catholic Church and obviously, no ministerial priesthood.  So, the role of the “pastor” is crucial as to whether or not a woman may take that vocation, and according to Apostolic Tradition, this is not possible.  This is a distinction that does not exist in most, if not all Protestant communities, though many still do not allow woman on the grounds that a woman must not have authority over a man.

There is nothing “abhorrent about a woman being a pastor or evangelist”, according to Catholic doctrine and revelation, it is simply not within the power of the Church to ordain women.  If you have read the posts, you may notice that this is the dilemma in inter-denominational discussions, because what a ‘pastor’s’ role may be, influences the conclusion.  I am also aware how this looks to the outside world—discrimination.  But we would contend that it is not unjust for men alone to serve as priests, any more than the Samaritans could argue that it is unjust that salvation is from the Jews alone.  If you are of another faith, or an agnostic or atheist, any hope of understanding this issue is only within the perspective of the parameters I have mentioned.  Thanks for asking!

Fidei   

[gracebyfaith]

Fidei!
I'm back for a minute )  I just caught up on Acumen
and your posts for this thread.  Your endurance to
keep hashing this out is admirable.

I'm not sure how much I can contribute.  I realize my
responsibilities at home and such are really demanding,
and give me little time to spend for debating Scriptures.
For me to respond in debate, I'm sure, takes more time
than it would for you.

I enjoy learning and this forum is very educational for
me.

I'm hoping to get back on here and respond to your
last post.  You've both summed it up and really are back
to your original question of what does a pastor's role
consist of.  It's definitely not the same as that of a
Catholic "priest."

I would be very interested in a thread re "Sola Scriptura,"
maybe there is one already started??

It's good to see you and Acumen are still maintaining a
great level of mutual respect in your discussions ;o)  It
makes for a pleasant experience, and very Christian - keep
it up.



Sincerely,
Grace by Faith

[metis]

Just to mention that we have the same issue in Judaism.  The Orthodox will not ordain a woman to be a rabbi whereas the Conservatives and Reform may.  Personally, I tend to reflect more of the Reform stand on this issue since I really don't see why it's altogether that important in today's day and age just to have men teaching the congregation, and I tend to think that the past prohibition on women was probably just a reflection of the society of the day. 

Shalom,
Vern