Methodist split - Florida update

brutally honest

Senior Member


It's too late to get in the details, but none of these links are authoritative. The first link is an internet bulletin board discussion. The Wikipedia link about "Pope" Joan starts off with the admission that it's just a legend.
 

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member
Just not true. I'm not an expert on Orthodoxy, but I know they do not ordain women. St. John Chrysostom, who is revered in the West as well as the East, said, "The office of bishop excludes all women and most men."

There were women who served as deaconesses but never as priests or bishops.

Ordination of Women - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America (oca.org)

https://womenpriests.org/ecumenism/orthodox-the-orthodox-churches/

https://womenpriests.org/articles-books/fahey-eastern-orthodoxy-and-the-ordination-of-women/

There is a very large and distinct difference between the "official" positions of the particular Church and the lesser known facts in the church's history.

Women were a part of the leadership in the Eastern Orthodox churches. Their rules for ordination to this day do not preclude the ordination of women. Yes, most of the Orthodox churches accept women as deacons (traditionally recognized as a role subject to Bishops, but not subservient to Priests) but not priests. It is also true that a woman served as the priest for two congregations of the Russian Orthodox church between 1919 and 1925. The woman was considered for Bishop before the first Stalin purge after the death of Lenin.
 

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member

Sorry, I never met this Bart Ehrman. Seems to be a nice guy. I noted, looking at his bio, that he got his MDiv and TheoDr at Princeton. Same place my wife got her MDiv. Nice school in a pleasant part of NJ. None of that makes his more accurate than other scholars. By the way I had no idea that the UNC had a "religious studies" department. Good for them.

I do note that you specifically cite Ehrman's argument on who was the FIRST Bishop of Rome. I did NOT myself make the argument that Grapt'ne' (another alternate spelling) was first Bishop of Rome, but I have posted URLs citing Phoebe as first. That is a different argument from the history of ordained women in the Church.
 

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member
They were excommunicated, and so were the "bishops" who ordained them.

From the "FAQ" section of your link:


Have You Been Excommunicated?
Response Regarding Excommunication Decree
Roman Catholic Womenpriests reject the penalty of excommunication issued by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on May 29, 2008 stating that the “women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated latae sententiae.” Roman Catholic Womenpriests are loyal members of the church who stand in the prophetic tradition of holy obedience to the Spirit’s call to change an unjust law that discriminates against women. Our movement is receiving enthusiastic responses on the local, national and international level. We will continue to serve our beloved church in a renewed priestly ministry that welcomes all to celebrate the sacraments in inclusive, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered communities wherever we are called.


Do you want an argument on politics in the church? I don't. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is divided on the ordination of women. Many of the women who were ordained still serve churches, in spite of the political excommunication. My argument is NOT whether the Vatican approves (this week) of women priests. My only argument is that women clergy DO exist and were a part of the church from it's earliest days. THAT argument is truth.
 

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member
It's too late to get in the details, but none of these links are authoritative. The first link is an internet bulletin board discussion. The Wikipedia link about "Pope" Joan starts off with the admission that it's just a legend.


Friend EVERYTHING from the first 12 hundred years of the church is "legend" all of the history is based on incomplete records, indirect references, and traditions not put in writing until decades - if not centuries - after the fact. What cannot be disputed is that the very earliest records that survive describe both men AND WOMEN in leadership roles within the early church. The roles of women in clergy is long documented, and NOT some modern invention.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
My only argument is that women clergy DO exist ...

Agree.


... and were a part of the church from it's earliest days.

Disagree. If this were true, you could cite an authoritative source. All your sources are either very dubious (Wikipedia, internet bulletin board) or have an agenda (womenpriests.org.)

Using this as an excuse is very weak.

There is a very large and distinct difference between the "official" positions of the particular Church and the lesser known facts in the church's history.
 

Madman

Senior Member
There appears to be an ignorance of the priesthood, bishops, and deacons, and the rolls they fulfill.

Consecrating a “female” bishop, or ordaining a female “priest” causes confusion among the laity in respect to those offices.

The ancient Church, while having women in many vital roles, in the life and ministry of the laity, do not have ordained roles where it pertains to the alter.

The short answer would be, Christ is male.
 
Last edited:

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member
Agree.




Disagree. If this were true, you could cite an authoritative source. All your sources are either very dubious (Wikipedia, internet bulletin board) or have an agenda (womenpriests.org.)

Using this as an excuse is very weak.

My brother in Christ. I note that you have focused your brief presence here on GON in efforts to promote your opinion about theological matters. I recognize that you are highly opinionated and forceful in your positions. Those are not complaints, nor objections, simply observations. Enjoy your disputations.

I am well aware of the American fundamentalist and the modern "conservative" movement positions on the history and roll of clergy including the roll of women in leadership. I am also intimately familiar with much of the actual scholarship. That work, peer reviewed and carefully analyzed, is simply not popular enough for publication on "free" internet, as such I intentionally directed you to free sites that addressed your arguments and avoided sites that would have required you to establish your qualifications and then pay to obtain access to the works. That is not an "excuse" it was simply a polite concession.

You choose to dispute the core fact, including Biblical source citations, that women have held leadership roles in Christ's church since the beginning. I now choose to abandon the field and allow you untrammeled free reign for your bias. Please, enjoy espousing your opinion. May you find God willing to smile at your shortcomings, forgive you when you miss the mark, and accept you into the Kingdom when that day comes to you. Until that day, go with God.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
Is Christ male?

It would be interesting to consider. Perhaps in light of more fundamental matters.

One could be prompted to seek out whether our understandings, as if any remain of conflating male and female to meaning only and strictly "man and woman" as equal in understanding, is true.

The book of beginnings would be a place to start.

We may find "male and female" is not "male or female".




Matters of identity (and identifying) are not only fundamental but crucial. Self identity, "other" identity (and identifying) are matters in which we find ourselves continuously engaged.

God knows what we shall find.


Heavy sigh.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
I am well aware of the American fundamentalist and the modern "conservative" movement positions on the history and roll of clergy including the roll of women in leadership.

There's nothing "American" or "modern conservative" about it. There are 2,000 years of history behind it.
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
I am also intimately familiar with much of the actual scholarship. That work, peer reviewed and carefully analyzed, is simply not popular enough for publication on "free" internet, as such I intentionally directed you to free sites that addressed your arguments and avoided sites that would have required you to establish your qualifications and then pay to obtain access to the works. That is not an "excuse" it was simply a polite concession.


This sounds suspiciously like, "I did my homework, Teacher. Really, I did. But my dog ate it."
 

brutally honest

Senior Member
You choose to dispute the core fact, including Biblical source citations, that women have held leadership roles in Christ's church since the beginning.

It's not a fact. It's fantasy. Your citations are not Biblical. You've asserted -- twice -- that there was an early female "bishop of Rome", but you have not listed any support for that. As I noted above, even your Wikipedia link about "Pope Joan" calls it a myth.
 
Last edited:

brutally honest

Senior Member
Sorry, I never met this Bart Ehrman. Seems to be a nice guy. I noted, looking at his bio, that he got his MDiv and TheoDr at Princeton. Same place my wife got her MDiv.

If your wife has an MDiv from Princeton, she knows who Bart Ehrman is.

Is your wife a pastor? A UMC pastor?
 

brutally honest

Senior Member

I took another look at this site and was completely not shocked to find that the same group also runs this site:

https://ishomosexualitynatural.com/

What is their conclusion?

SPOILER ALERT:

“Scientific studies and human experience confirm that for some people a bonding between two men or between two women proves for them to be perfectly in harmony with nature. In their specific case it is perfectly natural.”
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
I agree, but appointing women pastors seems to be the preliminary step in accepting homosexuality. All the Mainline denominations did that first.
I thought some of the most evangelical conservative Churches had women pastors that in no way appears to them heading in the direction of accepting homosexuality.

If one thing affects heading in that past, what about Churches that now allow women to wear fancy clothes, hair dos, and jewellery? Churches that let women dress like men, etc. Could that not be the first thing that is leading to Churches accepting homosexuality?
 

GeorgiaBob

Senior Member
Is being called by God to preach the same thing as ordination?

Almost.

If someone is recognized by a congregation (gathering) of the people of God as called by God to preach/teach/share the word of God, then the congregation has ordained that person.

In some denominations the process is more structured. Some require specific education and degrees, plus a process of discernment that takes several years, followed by a general examination, approval of a local congregation, and literal vote of elders within the clergy before the denomination recognizes that the person is called by God. That person is then "ordained" by the church in a very structured ceremony that usually acknowledges Apostolic Succession as the basis for the ordination. In other churches the minimum requirement is an acclimation of the call by the local congregation followed by a laying on of hands to affirm the ordained and confer the authority of God, as present in the congregation, upon the newly ordained pastor.
 
Top