Return to Early Christian Female Leadership

Actually, Diane has made a number of informative posts here at BB. I'm sure most of the men who read them learned something. I know I have.

Now quit trolling.

 

First of there is no "RCC"...there is however a Catholic Church. Roman (aka Latin) refers to a specific rite within the CC.

Secondly...I'd guess you are rather glad the CC supressed the Muslems or it's possible you'd be facing east and praying to allah 5 times per day.

Lastly...women have never held the positions you are alluding to.


LaRae

 

What would that be, in your opinion?

 

So have I, and I'm thankful to have learned from her spiritual guidance and input, if that's a sin then I sin boldly.

 

He ignored you because the question was not worthy answering. Women did not have formal positions of leadership in the apostolic-era church--neither did most men. That did not keep anyone from exercising their gifts. Straw men make good targets, but not valid targets.

[ January 07, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

Oh, and as I said this evening in another forum:

Church history + Scripture = Tradition + Scripture = Romanism

 

You need to stop studying that "new math"!

Scripture + Tradition = Catholicism.


LaRae

 

Early church history + Scripture = Pre-Roman Catholicism

Anyway, some of the problems in today's churches might've been prevented by returning to early Christian patterns of leadership and responsibility. Presumably, women dealt primarily with the children, not men, and it is also definitely true that the early acolytes were men, not boys. Further, it is not presumed, but actual history, that women were assisted at their baptisms, given a great deal of their instruction, and received all their initial and major pastoral counseling and their home visitations from the deaconesses. It was pretty much considered indecent for men to be alone in private with women outside their family members, so it usually wasn't done. Finally, both minor changes in early church practice and the continued carryover from synagogue worship of the tradition of separate places for standing or sitting of men and women, meant that at the time of "passing the peace," even the holy kiss was not shared indiscriminately across sexual boundaries. It seems to me that a number of recent scandals could've been prevented, or at least made far less likely, if the early Christian practices had been followed (including also, of course, that of expecting if not even outright requiring bishops and deacons to be married).

 

You need to stop studying that "new math"!

Scripture + Tradition = Catholicism.


LaRae </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Romanism IS Catholicism...

 

You need to stop studying that "new math"!

Scripture + Tradition = Catholicism.


LaRae </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Romanism IS Catholicism... </font>[/QUOTE]Actually that term is kinda an insult from 'olden days' but I realize you aren't aware of this.

Roman refers to Latin Rite Catholics. There is one Catholic Church...and there are various rites attached to the Church....Latin (aka Roman), Maronites, Byzantines etc etc....but they are all in full communion with the Church....all Catholic.

But commonly you hear people call all Catholics 'Roman' Catholics....which isn't really true.


LaRae

 

Uh, Romanism IS Catholicism... [/qb][/QUOTE]But commonly you hear people call all Catholics 'Roman' Catholics....which isn't really true.

LaRae [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually, since the church is headquartered in Rome and presided over by the Bishop of Rome, it must be quite accurate, which is probably why I've never met a devout catholic or priest who called it anything else in casual conversation but the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

If folks owe fealty to the Bishop of Rome, I can't imagine why they'd be insulted by the term Romanism.

 

Uh, Romanism IS Catholicism... </font>[/QUOTE]But commonly you hear people call all Catholics 'Roman' Catholics....which isn't really true.

LaRae [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually, since the church is headquartered in Rome and presided over by the Bishop of Rome, it must be quite accurate, which is probably why I've never met a devout catholic or priest who called it anything else in casual conversation but the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

If folks owe fealty to the Bishop of Rome, I can't imagine why they'd be insulted by the term Romanism. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Catholic Church....yes...but there is no 'Roman'Catholic Church....it's more of just people not being careful in their speech and falling into the habit of saying it. When someone asks me what religion I am, I tell them Catholic....yes I am Roman Catholic...but that only refers to one rite within the whole Church....a Byzantine Catholic or Maronite is not going to identify themselves as "Roman Catholic"....Most of the Catholics in the US are Roman rite Catholics...and the US only makes up around 6 percent of the Catholic Church worldwide.

Romanism/Romanish/popish etc etc have often been terms used by others to insult Catholics.


LaRae

 

Hi all, this is a topic that I've been interested in for a while. There was a Catholic nun and abbess named Brigid who had some authority over men. I did a web search and found this blurb from an online Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02784b.htm:

Modern archeological scholarship is also revealing that women in the early church played a more prominent role than many are aware.

 

From http://www.angelfire.com/la/mysterion/tertu.html

He wrote this too, so maybe he just didn't like women.