Church Fathers Against Women's Ordination

Canterbury Tales ^ | 3/31/2006 | Father Peregrinator

[sionnsar]

Tertullian, in The Prescription of Heretics 41, says: "How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize." In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:"It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest."

St. Irenaeus, Against Haereses 1. 31. 2 "After this he gave women mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then he took another chalice much larger than that on which the deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller... to the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller chalice and overflowed."

Firmilian, in Epistle 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess. "That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things... she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord."

Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles... . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."

St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: "If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary... . She was not even entrusted with baptizing... Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman's insanity?" In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white."Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, '' [Gal. 3:"28]

St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said "Feed my sheep" only to Peter. "Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church... let the entire female sex retire." And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: "Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it."

St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. "They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood."

Biretta tip to David MacDonald.

[sionnsar]

Woman's Ordination and the Authority of Scripture

Published by Father Peregrinator.   

Do we undermine the infallibility and authority of God's Sacred Scriptures when we remain in communion with bishop's who not only approve of women's ordination, but also ordain women to the Priesthood?

How can we really suppose people to take us seriously about morality and the current debate over homosexuality? We constantly appeal to Scripture concerning the homosexual crisis and yet when it comes to the several verses that speak to women's ordination, even the so-called "orthodox" Anglicans blush and change the subject. Nobody wants to talk about it, especially as it touches the Anglican Network.

Why can't we be consistent? We either truly follow the Lord or we don't. We can't pick and choose.

Saint Paul teaches that women in formal church settings are to keep silent (1 Cor 14:34-35). How then can a woman preach?

Saint Paul says that women should learn in silence in formal church settings on account of the creation order. (1 Timothy 2:12-15) Note this is not a cultural argument but an argument based on creation.

Saint Paul prohibits women from teaching and holding authority over men in formal church settings. (1 Timothy 2:12-15) All clergy both teach and hold authority.

Saint Paul does not include women in the criteria for Christian ordination. (Titus 1:5-, 1 Timothy 3:1-12,14-15) Note that clergymen are to be a man of one wife not a woman of one husband. If we are going to swip-swap words as if gender doesn't matter, why not also say that a priest should be the man of one husband and let Gene Robinson alone?

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not choose any women to be Apostles. Obviously, St Mary Magdalene would have been a great lady Apostle because she had witnessed the empty tomb first hand. And yet she was not an Apostle. Same goes for the Blessed Mother who witnessed the crucifixion and held a prominent role at Pentecost. Men and men alone were chosen by Christ.

Further, the Apostles did not consider female candidates when choosing a replacement for Judas, or when choosing seven deacons. (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:14-26; Acts 6:3)

And lastly, the Old Testament knows nothing of female clergy, save for those wicked and pagan religions that surrounded them.

It is dishonest for us to fudge Scripture in one area (women's ordination) and then protest so strongly against those who consistently continue to fudge the Scriptures in another way (homosexual marriage and ordination). Either you follow the religion revealed by Christ or you don't. If you want to be biblical, if you want to be consistent: You cannot honestly support (or ignore) the dangers of women's ordination.

[sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[SuzyQue]

For a note of levity, and in true synchronous fashion, I just received this email:

 

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

10. A man's place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Ping for later use

[altura]

Sorry to disagree. I often disagree and am often sorry, but I do it anyway.

Bringing the issue of women's ordination into our problems with ECUSA marginalizes us and distracts from our (my) real issues.

Women are priests now (and good ones - we've had two and they've both been better than the previous two, who were men)

It's an old argument and it's been defeated. The Episcopal Church will never go back. Of course, if you want the church to splinter and you want to go elsewhere, fine.

If you think there's a chance for the Church, then drop this antique issue, which I happen to think is wrong.

To equate women priests with immoral priests and bishops is ridiculous. I've been mad at the National Church for ten years. They won't come out against abortion but come out against the death penalty.

If we want a real cause, how about pushing for no abortion?

[Gamecock]

I think the church fathers were right, but for the wrong reason. From your posts they seem to have been misogynists.

The reason is Biblical, not because women are evil. The deeper underlying issue is not relying on Scripture as the rule of faith. Once you start chipping away at infallibility you start winding up with all sorts of heresy.

One day you are ordaining women, then abortion is a choice, and before you know it you have homosexual Bishops.

Just look at the ELCA, UMC, PC(USA) etc. Fortunately, the Southern Baptists were teetering on the edge of apostasy, blinked and backed away.

[SuzyQue]

I agree with you, pretty much 100%. It's not a gender issue; it's a traditional vs. post-modernist, a leftist vs. middle of the road, etc. Leftist priests are leftist priests, regardless of gender.

However, if you haven't already, you will find that is not a particulary popular stance here.

[altura]

Oh, I fully expect to be vilified.

Our current priest has told me sickening stories about how she has been treated by so-called Christians, including priests.

I cannot align myself with people who would behave that way, but neither do I like the liberal slant of the Episcopal church on a lot of political issues.

I understand that Bishop Jenkins, who has recently accepted a nomination for presiding Bishop, may be a good man who will genuinely try to bring the warring factions together.

He can't be any worse than Frank who totally capitulates and probably agrees with the militant left who, I think, actually want to drive conservatives out of the church.

My priest did not agree with the ordination of Gene Robinson; he's not just gay, he's lived a sinful lifestyle, he's proud of it, and besides that, he's a drunk.

In other words, a perfect Bishop for the left.

[Conservative til I die]

Bringing the issue of women's ordination into our problems with ECUSA marginalizes us and distracts from our (my) real issues.

Women are priests now (and good ones - we've had two and they've both been better than the previous two, who were men)

It's an old argument and it's been defeated. The Episcopal Church will never go back. Of course, if you want the church to splinter and you want to go elsewhere, fine.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but to me, that sounds like a bit of a cop-out. As if a grave error, accepted for long enough will no longer be an error? Or still be considered an error, but one that must be accepted anyway. It doesn't make much logical sense to me.

[Conservative til I die]

The reason is Biblical, not because women are evil. The deeper underlying issue is not relying on Scripture as the rule of faith. Once you start chipping away at infallibility you start winding up with all sorts of heresy.

I'm not sure if you're criticizing the Church Fathers here or not. Is it because you feel that while coming to a Biblical conclusion, your reading of their motivation does not agree with you? Or because they were Catholics?

Or are you just making a general point about Scripture and Faith?

[Conservative til I die]

Oh, I fully expect to be vilified

I think you're going to be surprised when people are going to simply dispute your point rather than call for your head.

Don't victimize yourself.

[Gamecock]

***I'm not sure if you're criticizing the Church Fathers here or not.***

Nope

***Is it because you feel that while coming to a Biblical conclusion, your reading of their motivation does not agree with you? Or because they were Catholics?***

In this case they seem to be hostile to women. Being Catholic has nothing to do with it, in this case anyway. ;-)

***Or are you just making a general point about Scripture and Faith?***

Pretty much. No hidden agenda.

[altura]

I'm not. However, I have advanced this viewpoint before and been royally screwed over, so that's why I expect it.

As far as being a copout, I don't get your point.

I think women priests are fine.

I don't think avowed practicing homosexuals who have cheated on their wives should be made bishops.

I don't think advocating abolishment of capital punishment while accepting abortion is fine.

I don't think taking an active liberal position against the war is fine.

To be a woman is not inherently sinful--that's stupid. There are many women who should never be made priests or bishops.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin, but I don't think it's an excuse for sinful behavior.

[BelegStrongbow]

Who is 'us', anyway, altura?

The issue was raised by the revisionists, and was the original source of schism. The result (the APCK, the ACA, the APA and the ACC) derives from the 1977 deceit and the cowardly GC of that year. This has not acually gone away, nor are orthodox Anglicans 'bringing' it into the discussion. It was otherwise sensible ECUSAns who stopped fighting that battle who let the issue go into silence. For us, who were left by ECUSA, it has never gone away and it remains the original source of dispute.

Just so you know.

[Conservative til I die]

As far as being a copout, I don't get your point.

I think women priests are fine.

OK. I actually hadn't considered that you were in favor of women's ordination. In that case it's not a copout, but it is a grave error.

To be a woman is not inherently sinful--that's stupid.

I don't think anyone's advancing that position; however, they still should not be priests.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin, but I don't think it's an excuse for sinful behavior.

I don't know how to follow-up this statement, since it seems we're on different wavelengths as it involves moraility, but if homosexuality is not sinful, how can any homosexual acts be sinful?

[A.J.Armitage]

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

And there we have the reason why women pastors is just a stupid idea from every angle. If that's how much you care what Scripture says, simple honesty demands leaving Christianity altogether.

[A.J.Armitage]

Women are priests now (and good ones - we've had two and they've both been better than the previous two, who were men)

I'm sure lots of non-Levites would have been better than the priests Israel actually had much of the time. So what?

It's an old argument and it's been defeated. The Episcopal Church will never go back.

Monotheism is an old argument and it's been defeated. The elders of Israel already burn incense in adoration of images of creeping things in the Temple and they worship Tammuz and the Sun there.

The Temple will never go back? Then God will destroy the Temple.

[altura]

Let me 'splain it to you.

A homosexual who is celibate is not engaging in sinful behavior.

A homosexual who is not promiscuous but committed to one partner...I can't find that sinful.

A homosexual who commits adultery on his wife, leaves his wife and family and takes up an affair with another man is sinful, but it would also be sinful if the affair was with another woman.

[SuzyQue]

And there we have the reason why women pastors is just a stupid idea from every angle.

Because you don't see the humor in a humorous email?  Perhaps too close to the truth?

If that's how much you care what Scripture says, simple honesty demands leaving Christianity altogether.

This is an odd statement.  Care to explain what you mean?

[A.J.Armitage]

Because you don't see the humor in a humorous email?

Every point is a mocking inversion of an argument against female pastors, all of which the author obviously regards as risibly weak. That particular point was a direct attack on Scripture.

As I said then, if you think Scripture uses laughable arguments, open apostasy is just more honest than going on and doing Church of any kind -- which would still mean no women pastors.

(Just so I'm clear, let me clarify that I emphatically do believe that women should be priests, since I believe in the priesthood of the believer. The issue is positions of authority within the Household of Faith, which some would call the priesthood but I would call elderhood.)