Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Global Core Curriculum -- Robert Muller is dead but his AAB inspired 'Global Core Curriculum' lives.

Dorothy Margraf has sent me word that there are substantial new developments on the New Age war front against orthodox religion aka "fundamentalism."  Robert Muller long ago claimed to have developed the "global core curriculum".  He then said that he couldn't take personal credit -- that he had to give credit where credit was due -- to the Tibetan Master Dhwhal Khul.  For the benefit of the 'uninitiated,' that was the 'presence' or more likely demon speaking through Alice Ann Bailey and her Lucifer Publishing Company renamed in 1923 as Lucis Publishing Company 'Tibetan telepathically dictated' writings.

Dorothy is doing heavy research on current developments on that front and has significant materials at her Facebook site.  Here is a link she supplied there for Foreign Affairs Journal of CFR, December 2010 issue.  The article is entitled "A Globalized God."

I was encouraged to see that the new Pope Francis upheld the rebuke of the LCWR that I also addressed in my article "Little Sisters of the New World Religion".   You may also read it at the NewswithViews site where it was co-published.  Pope Francis' upholding of the former Pope Benedict XVI's rebuke of the American nuns departure from religious orthodoxy was a definite set back to the New Age / New World Religion crowd.  BUT, they are busy on other fronts as well.

Dorothy is doing some valuable research on their attempts to proselytize their New World Religion through our educational systems.  I thank her for bringing my attention to the CFR inputs on the Global Core Curriculum.

Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE3

310 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 310 of 310
Anonymous said...

Anon@7:26 p.m.

This is correct. In feminist paganism, Authority/Leadership is confused with superiority. So therefore masculine imagery would mean that the male is superior to the female, so they need a female God too.

Christianity is a paradox where the first shall be last, and the last first. Jesus is exalted, because he humbled himself.











Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

It was considered heresy. This is why the cannons opposed it.

"but not the big formal pronouncements."

Council of Nicaea I, and Apostolic Constitutions and many others?

ANSWER the big formal pronouncements opposed it BUT NOT ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS. That was
what I said.

and it is spelled canons not cannons.
canon one n is a rule, cannon two n's is a very large bore super gun.

the celibacy of bishops AS I POINTED OUT, was canonical ONLY for North Africa as an explicit concession to their excessive delicacy, and has been SIDESTEPPED later on by simply taking bishops from among monks, or tonsuring already celibate men as monks just before consecration.

This renders the argument moot, but every so often it is brought up again, that married bishops should be allowed. This has never been settled as an absolute for all locations outside North Africa by an ecumenical council it is merely assumed to be so because now universally customary. But the issue is still occasionally raised.

The androgyny of God thing, I noticed years ago, that an Episcopal church in Palo Alto where I used to live, had a notice up hosting a goddess event.

Also, The Unitarian Universalist Church has apparently had a habit of hosting wicca groups for many many years where ever they are, at least in CA. Or that is the way it looks.

The idea of Jesus as both male and female is historically insane and untenable.

The idea of God as BOTH male and female misses the point severely. Being non human and non reproducing He is NEITHER male nor female, not BOTH and has no body (except for that segment of Him The Holy Trinity Who is Jesus Christ the Logos or Second Person of The Holy Trinity Incarnate that is enfleshed) so this is not androgyny.

God is beyond all description other than vague semi analogic. He is unknowable in His essence.

It has always struck me, that the 20th century feminism totally sold out original feminism, the focus on feminine and masculine is a sellout to patriarchal sexism. Original feminism for the most part held to a single moral standard and that monogamous for both sexes, and considered that much called feminine was just what you have when a human is raised in a deliberately crippled state. Much hogged for men is just the proper heritage of all humans of both sexes. homosexuality and abortion were nonstarters, abortion being viewed as a horror that was forced on women by circumstances often dictated by men who opposed birth control. In those days, childbirth was far more dangerous than now.

The typical woman seeking an abortion was married with children and already damaged by childbirths before, poor, and unable to support a child with a drunken abusive husband or no husband or not enough income from him to feed any more.

The transsexual scene is a total sellout. The very premise, that there is a gender of soul distinct from that of body, and that you can be born into the wrong body, so need an operation to correct this, is pure patriarchal sexism with a dash of romanticism and occult philosophy.

In the latter category, some have taught that the sex of the astral body is the reverse of the physical body, which is also false, none of the usual reports of astral projection or of near death bilocation, involve having astral bodies that are any different than the physical body. But you can see how it plays to validating homosexual desires.

Some elements of the heresies the New Age is encouraging in Christianity, have existed before in early church days, but usually as separate issues one or two per group opposed, not the whole bag of worms in one group like the Jehovah's Witnesses on the one hand, or New Age infested pseudo Christian groups on the other.

Anonymous said...

Craig,

There are non religious aspects to Yoga and Tai Chi. The University of the Incarnate Word is under the leadership of the LCWR. The same group that Constance brought up in her previous posts.

Anonymous said...


Sorry for the New Age intrusion into this ongoing discussion.

HAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Good one 7:26 p.m.!

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the problem with Hatha Yoga is that each position was supposedly revealed by the false god shiva as a means of contacting the specific false god or lesser spirit the position relates to.

Tai Chi is totally nonreligious.

Chinese philosophy about energy use in the body is a lot safer than anything hailing from India, because the basic premise is that the physical is good, while Hindu premise is that the physical is evil. The ultimate goal of all yoga is samadhi, and eventually parasamadhi going into this state and never coming out again. Sort of like go into a blissful coma and die.

Laya yoga is a fast track to this, and works on the premise that the creative force starts from the head down, so must be reversed kundalini going from the base of the spine to the head. Sort of like undoing creation.

In other words, a labor intensive form of suicide.

Anonymous said...

Do >> you >> ever >> shut >> up >> Christine? >>>>> ever?

Craig said...

There are non religious aspects to Yoga and Tai Chi.

While I don't know as much about Tai Chi, I'm not convinced one can actually divorce the religious aspects from Yoga. Certainly, there are other forms of exercise this university could use besides Yoga.

Yoga comes from the Sanskrit and means "union", and in Hinduism this as used as a means of union with 'deity'. From Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yoga?s=t

1. a school of Hindu philosophy advocating and prescribing a course of physical and mental disciplines for attaining liberation from the material world and union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle.

2. any of the methods or disciplines prescribed, especially a series of postures and breathing exercises practiced to achieve control of the body and mind, tranquillity, etc.

3. union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle.

And, from my old Webster's Unabridged:

in Hindu philosophy, a practice involving intense and complete concentration upon something, especially deity, in order to establish identity of consciousness with the object of concentration: it is a mystic and ascetic practice usually involving the discipline of prescribed postures, controlled breathing, etc.

Christian institutions should have no part with Yoga.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

"ANSWER the big formal pronouncements opposed it BUT NOT ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS. That was
what I said."

If this was not theology then the people ordaining women would not have been considered heretics.

In his Epistle 14: 26, March 11, 494 AD, Pope Gelasius addresses a very specific area, Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicilia, which clearly demonstrates the limited nature of this abuse. The Pope cites earlier magisterial declarations against women at the altar.

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...

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]



Anonymous said...

Craig,

In its 1989 document Some Aspects of Christian Meditation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, emeritus Pope Benedict XVI), noted,

The risk is in the physiological effects of yoga postures being mistaken as spiritual effects: “To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations” (Aspects 28).


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"If this was not theology then the people ordaining women would not have been considered heretics."

wrong. they were considered heretics on other grounds. incidentally many ordained women. many did not.

the quotes from these writers does not counter my point that theology was not mentioned in the canons.

we do not know what Mary did or did not do, but we do know that the first who were sent to tell the Apostles that "Christ is risen" were women. We also know that St. Paul did NOT mention theology ONCE in regard to women, but only "nature" which can mean custom and public image to the standards around them and certain "nature" regarding hair is not nature, because male hair grows as fast as female hair and combined with a never cut beard would give him more covering than a woman would have!

Paul always relates to Eve being in error, women being more deceivable by inference, and shutting down chaotic games of lay women chatting and even hollering heckling questions in church assembly. If there is a theological basis then he would certainly have mentioned it.

Again, I oppose female ordination but not on theological grounds.

you can also argue because of the epiklesis that a layman could perform the Eucharist in the absence of a priest. Tertullian mentions in one letter that precisely this used to occur. But for this to continue would risk undermining order and the effect of excommunication. It is however a basis for suspecting that communion services among protestants may sometimes be sacramentally valid, however this is of course not the opinion of the Orthodox or of RC.

Orthodox jurisdictions and individual church customs within jurisdictions often differ on small points (NOT INCLUDING THIS DISCUSSION) that would cause schism and new denominations in protestantville. interesting the better sense of unity. similar schism over trivia occurs among the schismatic Orthodox groups who are usually at odds with each other.

The Cataphrygians were considered heretics because they effectively made Mary a goddess and sacrificed small cakes to her, apparently making a redo of some pagan "goddess" cult of the time disguised as Christian.

the very fact there were canons against women in the altar shows they had been in the altar, and that (bp or priest I forget who) Atto quoted earlier admitted that such ordination had occurred in very early church days.

but as disorder and heresy and excesses crept in, freedom (abuse it you lose it) had to be curtailed.

In Revelation in one of the letters to the seven churches, Jesus condemns a church who tolerated a prophetess who taught people to fornicate, not because she taught at all but because of WHAT she taught.


Craig said...

Anon 10:42,

I still have to wonder why a Christian would take a pagan practice and try to use it for another purpose. Like I stated above, certainly, there are other exercises one can do.

I'd think it more proper for Ratzinger to condemn the practice in toto rather than taking a pragmatic approach and then suggesting that any physical problems resulting from the practice of Yoga could not possibly be spiritual. Really? How does he know?

It's like the things hyper-charismatics do thinking "I'm a Christian so the demonic has no effect on me". Many I've communicated with have told me they now realize they were formerly influenced by 'familiar spirits' and shudder at the thought.

Anonymous said...

Christine, you are not this blog's authority figure. Please try documenting your information if you want people to take it seriously. Unfortunately since you are considered generally the blog troll, anything you say has no validity to people who research things.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

all the information I present is readily available on wikipedia, google and early church fathers at ccel.org and google up ecumenical church councils look up canons.

actually you will find that a lot of canons are not in use any more. anyone serious about learning about Christian origins should already be doing that. Many protestants read such things and several ended up Orthodox because of this. Franky Schaeffer on youtube explains his conversion (before he got goofy more recently).

Anonymous said...

Great critique of yoga by Vishal Mangalwadi, a Christian from India who holds degrees in both Western and Eastern philosophy and is committed enough to have been jailed more than once for his faith:

http://www.vishalmangalwadi.com/vkmWebSite/files/yoga.pdf

Anonymous said...

oomsalk conferenceAnon@7.25pm,

I agree that Paul was concerned to restrict the episkopacy to men faithful to their wives. By implication, then, the episkopacy is not to be restricted to celibates.

Episkopos and Apostolos have very distinct meanings in scripture. What is your evidence that they are interchangeable?

Ruth of Exeter said...

I imagine that Robert Muller would approve of this development in state education in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/25/steiner-state-funded-free-schools

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

looking at Lee Penn's article "The United Religions Initiative: A Bridge Back to Gnosticism" I see the direct relevance of gnosticism and Catharism to the New Age.

Consider Catharism devotion to death and preference of secret sin to formal marriage, then read this:

"Meanwhile, the quest for a global soul is also attracting some global power brokers. Billionaire currency speculator George Soros has added the URI to the long list of recipients of his largesse. He also funds Choice in Dying (which supports legalizing assisted suicide), needle exchanges for drug addicts, and groups that his foundation believes "will protect women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion." "

hmmm. suicide and abortion.

needle exchanges for drug addicts is a program designed to cut down disease transmission, but in such a context can be an evangelizing mechanism for neo gnostic ideas and paganism and so forth among the drug addicts.

and there is this:

"something Pope John Paul II denounced in Crossing the Threshold of Hope: "the return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age." The Pontiff added, "We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism -- that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words." The Pope said that Gnosticism "has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.""

to those for whom the New Age is people and what they are currently up to (which is important) and nothing more, this may seem irrelevant. But without these ideas and possibly actual spirits sneaking around influencing people by putting ideas in their heads, with comforting or stimulating sensations with them to encourage them, and keeping other ideas out,

or even stimulating anger or other bad feelings when those good ideas crop up or are heard

you wouldn't have much of this New Age movement. Which is only called New Age because that is what it called itself on the basis of the age of aquarius nonsense.

This is why a biblical worldview is important. For centuries Europe and America had a lot of this, compromised with misinterpretations and greed and assumptions that were preChristian or non Christian baggage, but this kept a lid on some stuff.

The secret orders and philosophers and so forth undermined all this.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

oops, forgot the link to the article.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1298-penn

Lee Penn is author of False Dawn, and linked to by Constance on her front page.

Stephan White said...

I think physicist is out to lunch, if he thinks the US didn't have something to do with 9-11. As for so and so having lunch with someone, that is not comparable to the relationship described in the article.
Glyn Willmoth

John Rupp said...

Here is an interesting article about one "Liberation Theologian's" possitive statements about Pope Francis 1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/liberation-theology-pope-francis_n_3174469.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm out to lunch and temporarily unable to comment on 9/11. If you want to discuss alleged US culpability in it then please summarise claims in your own words and I'll gladly respond when I get back from lunch in a few days time. I am not interested in responding to anybody who merely says "the CIA did it and this website (or this extended extract from a website) says why..." Show me that you can think for yourself and I'll gladly comment. I don't mean to sound arrogant but I value my time.

Physicist

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Bush and ibn Laden families and Halliburton and Cheney who was big wig in Halliburton were close for some time and major profiteers off all this. 9-11 could not have been accomplished without the confusion made by timing of the actual even with a training event and resultant stand down.

Gen. Wesley Clark some years ago told of seeing papers listing govt. in Middle East to be taken down and Lindsay Williams had similar info from his big oil insiders one dead so now known and one still alive so hidden. Arab Spring was part of getting all this done, and of course the start off was made possible by 9-11 which also facilitated the creep towards totalitarianism. Some of the points in the patriot act were not that bad, but in a context and with people who have indicated a desire for such it is not that good either.

sorry you don't like sources that will give more in depth research and links to detailed sources. I guess you don't like doing research but then it can be tiresome.

Islamic extremism is tied to old Nazi networks and was built up in Afghanistan further by US in response to USSR presence which itself came in response to a move which when it resulted in USSR presence elicited cheers from the planner.

Bush family was so outrageously involved in Hitler financing that Sen. Prescott Bush was the only one of many such miscreants to almost get prosecuted, but his connections saved him.

CIA not primary to blame for 9-11 but of course had to play a role somewhat. They in turn were built by adventurous two faced game types out of Wall Street partnering with Nazis like Reinhard Gehlen, and their track record of failure is more like a track record of serving the interests of the military industrial complex, which is to keep making money by selling weapons for wars that never end.

Anonymous said...

Physicist, thank you for that last remark. I agree with you and feel the same way. You feel that way about science and I feel that way about the New Age movement. Both are serious topics that are only being trashed. Constance doesn't realize she is superfluous to her blog. It has been taken over. I have learned to think more clearly because of what you have posted. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Christine, unlike you I know what genuine research is. It is true that the West supported the Islamists vs Soviets in Afghanistan but Islam was aggressive long before the 20th century. You provide some motives but no proof that they were acted upon.

Physicist

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you were the one who said you didn't want links to pages that can document stuff. now you whine I provide no proof.

here is one take on the matter. Frankly, I think that like the JFK thing (and possibly the Black Dahlia thing) you have a lot of players and a perfect storm of agreed hostilities that coalesced to an indicent to everyone's
advantage (except of course the victims').

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsDtvu2uTuA&list=FL857_vrTmxXnC2niPR9kDWw&index=56

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

by the way, your remarks about islam being aggressive miss the point. islamic radicals were a tool, and the present islamic radical uprising scene, which dates back to Wahabbism in the 1800s, is the latest phase, yes, but a phase with history and connections.

And as for proof, well, before forensics developed to fine tune it, proof usually added up to motive plus ability plus opportunity which is all present.

Anonymous said...

Craig,

"I'd think it more proper for Ratzinger to condemn the practice in toto rather than taking a pragmatic approach and then suggesting that any physical problems resulting from the practice of Yoga could not possibly be spiritual. Really? How does he know?"

His point is that they should not be mistaken for Christian experiences of God.

Bodily postures are neutral. If someone is down on their knees, this does not mean they are worshipping something, they could be doing something else.

They do not in themselves have supernatural effects, just as breathing does not.




Anonymous said...

Anon@3:29 a.m.

Paul was concerned about re-marriage. Hence, the Eastern Orthodox have it right that a priest can only be married once. He cannot be remarried, if his wife dies, or if he is divorced.

A priest can only be married once, not that he MUST be married.







Anonymous said...

Christine, unlike you I know what genuine research is. It is true that the West supported the Islamists vs Soviets in Afghanistan but Islam was aggressive long before the 20th century. You provide some motives but no proof that they were acted upon

Thanks Physicist. Your perspective and history shows is actually Biblical because it is with an ancient hatred (against God's Plans-and people the jews-and on to the christian worldview)that the islamist/arabic (ishmael/esua descendency) peoples are "living and moving and having their being" at this point. True, there is some level of conspiracy in play that we are all wanting to uncover-unlike all the hyper-speculative "conspiracies at every turn" junk Christine traffics in that gets in the way. If something is not of the Bible (God) view of the world then it is it's counterpart-the perspective of the pit itself--satan's old lies in a new (age) package. Christine's posts are mostly junk. (No wonder she's depressed).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

after a couple of centuries of enforced monogamy, given that Paul addressed people in a place that might well have practiced polygamy, and given that there is a canon against a priest keeping two wives, I have always wondered, was that statement of Paul's about remarriage, or about polygamy?

Anonymous said...

Christine,

Holy Orders was a sacrament in the early church.

Now the practical reasons were speculations on why women cannot be ordained.

Just as today, Orthodox theologians themselves agree that the arguments against need to be stronger, not that there are no theological obstacles.

I have in fact not come across this theory, that women were ordained, but opposed for just practical reasons.

You are also confusing leadership with a sacramental ministry.

Women can be leaders in a non-sacramental ministry.









Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I know the distinction. In Russia sometimes "babas" (old ladies, respectfully grandmothers) dictated to the priest. But the fact you need a canon against something shows it was being done before that at least some places. Atto's historical confirmation is clearly about sacramental issues.

But let's face it, aside from anything else, three issues.

1. it is easier to avoid being confused with a sex cult, or a sex cult developing on the sly, if you don't have female priests.

2. it is less likely during an extreme persecution, for the altar to be defiled by a priest being raped on it if the only priests are male. not impossible, but highly unlikely.

3. there was great division as to whether a menstruating woman could take communion or even enter a church, or not. no need for this problem regarding women to become an issue for women clergy. Nowdays
the menstruation and communion thing ranges from okay to not even a shaving bleed incident for a man depending on where you are in the Orthodox world. (There is even an idea that The Eucharist might bleed out of your body with any blood loss in some slavic churches)

Anonymous said...

Christine,

Paul was addressing those who were widowed, not polygamists.

A church council would have to decide on this for Orthodox Bishops or RC priests. Since, these churches do not act alone, without church councils.








Anonymous said...

Christine,

Yes, they were ordained, but this was not permitted. This points to the ordination taking place when not permitted.

Now the reasons around blood have been misunderstood. In the priest manuals of the Orthodox church, a priest who cuts himself, must leave the altar, because Christ is in our midst, and his mortal blood, must not mix with the immortal blood of Christ.

This is why even the laity who bleed were not permitted to approach the altar.

Now, this was a discipline, I agree, but the reasons need to be revisited.

Christ's body and blood bring us new life. Men do not bring forth new life, so there is no doubt that new life comes from Christ with a male priest.

A woman priest would point to herself.

This was the reason why, not because of women being impure etc.






Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

1. Paul did not address any category of once married, but said that a prebyter or a bishop must be the husband of one wife and have raised godly respectful children, thus showing he can care for the larger family the church. one wife would be relevant to self control.
Paul spoke in general. Timothy was appointed by him a bishop, despite youth and therefore probable singleness, which validates economia in application in practice.

2. women bleeding being impure was always explicitly the issue when it was opposed that menstruating women take communion.

ordination to the priesthood would not occur in absence of expecting them to fulfil such a role. The development of such symbolism issues came later. A woman doesn't CREATE new life, just passes it on. In Aristotlean thought, and insofar as this influenced the middle ages, women were not considered to give life AT ALL, that the male seed produced life and the female only provided a womb for it to grow in.

This nonsense of course was not universally believed, and the Hebrew word translated "beget" regarding men, is the same word for a woman conceiving.

To have any idea of a woman giving new life as relevant sacramentally, would be to drag in pagan fertility thinking in the first place.

no one is supposed to pay attention to the priest but to his office and action and to God acting through him. This is the basis for condemning Donatism, which held that a priest in sin could not do valid sacraments. (a canon did argue that a priest in sin could not heal others if he couldn't heal himself, but this was not specifically regarding the Eucharist, and the specific issue was being in an unlawful marriage I think he was to be suspended so I guess the issue was the other functions of a priest, however the Donatists took it too far).

Anonymous said...

Christine,

"Paul did not address any category of once married"

You can take this up with your own church, that does not remarry divorced or widowed priests. Unless, they agree to step, down as lay people.

"women bleeding being impure was always explicitly the issue when it was opposed that menstruating women take communion."

Because, this is mortal blood mixing with the immortal blood of Christ, the same applied to men who who went hunting, and still had blood on them, or a priest who cut himself.

"To have any idea of a woman giving new life as relevant sacramentally, would be to drag in pagan fertility thinking in the first place. "

Men and women give life differently. Now admitting a biological reality, is not the same as dragging in pagan fertility. Only men can be fathers, only women can be mothers.

This basic fact is upsetting to LGBT communities that think how men and women give life are not relevant, so they can have a pregnant transgendered man.

The acceptance of women priests in liberal Anglican churches has led to the accept of homosexuality and gay marriage.







Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the impurity had to do with MENSTRUAL impurity, only much much later did any other blood and ideas of mortal blood mixing in get invented.

Mortal blood is in our bodies and mixing in with the Immortal Blood as soon the Immortal Blood is eaten anyway.

To draw a comparison to EITHER part of human giving of life is pagan fertility thinking.

Anonymous said...

"no one is supposed to pay attention to the priest but to his office and action and to God acting through him"

Yes, but what does the office do?

If you argue that it makes no difference if the priest is male or female, then it should have no sacramental impact with a transgendered man.

This is where these arguments start to get into trouble.


Anonymous said...

"the impurity had to do with MENSTRUAL impurity, only much much later did any other blood and ideas of mortal blood mixing in get invented."

Under Jewish law, blood stood for either life or death. The blood shed in menstruation stood for death. The blood shed in childbirth, stood for life. The blood shed in killing stood for death etc.

"Mortal blood is in our bodies and mixing in with the Immortal Blood as soon the Immortal Blood is eaten anyway."

Yes, but this does not mean that the blood of Christ is not unique or has not correlation to the work of the altar.

"To draw a comparison to EITHER part of human giving of life is pagan fertility thinking."

No, it's not. Since life is in the blood. The blood of Christ saves us.





Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the blood shed in childbirth also made her unclean.

yes it is drawing a comparison. the life of the individual in its blood. The Blood of Christ is life to us in two ways, the atonement (paid to The Father and to Himself as Blachernae Constantinople AD 1156 points out) and because of His mystical life. It is a different kind of life.

The value of the blood lies in the value of the individual, and Christ alone is of infinite value.

you are not mixing bloods unless some blood from one of us falls into the cup of Christ's Blood or the wine to become His Blood.

rationales to remove a concept of ritual impurity don't fit the remarks made by writers in the early centuries.

There is also a literal not merely symbolic angle to blood in menstruation it is breakdown of materials blood, and perhaps to some extent that shed in childbirth is also.

Menstruating women have long been noted to often have effects on the rate at which food spoils and flowers wilt.

witches of the down and dirty real thing sort have long valued menstrual blood.

living vampires with a psychic bent have observed a different psychic flavor to menstrual blood.

I personally know the smell is not the same as that of normal blood.

The issue is pollution. Plain and simple. Any other argument derives from an effort to look modern so shifts from "superstitious" reasons to "spiritual" reasons.

Anonymous said...

What a bottom feeder you are 2:33 p.m.

Why this discussion into the morbid (& pointless too much information) zone? (Have nothing else to do -- or think?...)

Why go there when Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition making the one and only way for all of us sinning people to be saved? That's the Blood to be focused on.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

indeed, there have always been arguments, both in early Orthodoxy and in Lutheranism wherever this issue was raised, that The Blood of Christ covers the blood of menstruation.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=9448.0;wap2

here is a discussion scroll down to some early church remarks.

I am not a bottom feeder, this is precisely an issue relevant to ordination of women. That is how we got to this subject. Maybe you are too dainty.

Anonymous said...

"you are not mixing bloods unless some blood from one of us falls into the cup of Christ's Blood or the wine to become His Blood."

This is why if a priest should cut himself on the altar, he has to leave.

The point is this, the work of the altar is to make present the sacrifice of Christ, in which his body and blood bring us new life.

Practical reasons do not mean there are no theological reasons.

This is from the Orthodox Research Institute.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/voulgaris_priesthood.pdf



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

in some churches laity do not bring any cut into church. not just priests. and certainly this issue of cutting yourself at the altar while cutting the bread is irrelevant to menstruation.

Since the Hebrew Interlinear of Genesis says "I will greatly increase thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION" as part of the curse, my guess is we didn't used to
ovulate monthly, and maybe someone
did figure this out and passed it on as a traditional bit of knowledge, because in some places menstruation is called "the curse" but maybe that is a coincidence.

Perhaps we were only fertile a couple of times a year. Or just reabsorbed the womb lining instead of sloughing it off. Most female animals do not have menstruation if they do not conceive.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I forgot to mention, the fear of menstrual blood is nearly universal, outside of Abrahamic related cultures.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

"indeed, there have always been arguments, both in early Orthodoxy and in Lutheranism wherever this issue was raised, that The Blood of Christ covers the blood of menstruation."

The blood of Christ covers everything, but I am not sure why this practise existed, except to make distinctions between the two.


Anonymous said...

"not just priests. and certainly this issue of cutting yourself at the altar while cutting the bread is irrelevant to menstruation."

Yes, it's not relevant. I kept it limited to the altar, you brought the other stuff up.

Because blood can stand for both judgement and mercy, life and death. This was mixed in the cross.

This is why women were never priests, because the atoning work of the priest points to the blood of Christ.







Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you still don't get it. what blood stands for has nothing to do with it. UNCLEANNESS was the EXPLICIT issue. Nothing else. All you are talking about is more recent ideas of the past probably 200 years.

you don't need menstruation to distinquish the sexes, and menstruation stops at menopause so is no longer an issue.

the priests don't do atoning work, that was done by Christ.

Bishop Atto of Vercelli said women had sometimes been ordained.

"A priest named Ambrose came to Atto to ask how the terms presbytera and diacona of the ancient canon ought to be understood. His response leaves no room for doubt. He begins by underlining that since in the ancient Church “Many were the crops and few the laborers” (Mt 9,37; Lc 10,2), women too received the Sacred Orders for the helping of men, as is attested in Rom 16,1: Commendo vobis Phaebem sororem meam, quae est in ministerio Ecclesiae, quae est Cenchris [‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the Church which is in Cenchrae’]. For Atto, it was the Council of Laodicea (2nd half of the 4th c.) that prohibited the presbyteral ordination of women: Quod Laodicense postmodum prohibet concilium cap.11, cum dicitur: quod non oportet eas quae dicuntur presbyterae vel praesidentes in Ecclesiis ordinari. Much has been written on Canon XI of the Council of Laodicea: ‘It is not allowed for those called presbyterae to be appointed to preside in the church’. Much has been written as well on the significance of the term presbyterae, which has been diversely explained, and it has been systematically argued that it cannot mean true and proper presbyterae. But this argument reflects a viewpoint that has strongly conditioned many scholars.

Atto, after having expanded on the status of the deaconesses, stresses that in the ancient Christian church not only men, but also women were ordained (ordinabantur) and were the leaders of communities (praeerant ecclesiis); they were called presbyterae and they assumed the duty of preaching, directing, and teaching (Hae quae presbyterae dicebantur, praedicandi, iubendi, vel edocendi...officium sumpserant); these three duties define the role of the sacrament of priesthood.

Steeped in the knowledge of the canons and of ecclesiastical institutions, Bishop Atto of Vercelli explains further that the term presbytera could also mean in the ancient world the wife of the presbyter. Of the two meanings, Atto declares that he prefers the first, or ‘priest’."

http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/otran_2.asp

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Specific attestation of the reality of women priests is further provided by Atto, Bishop of "Vercelli, who lived between the ninth and tenth centuries, and who was notable for his reforming activities and for his vow against the corruption of the clergy. Among his writings are a canonical tract and a collection of conciliar dispositions pertaining to ecclesiastical organization, sacramental life, and liturgical expression." same source.

Anonymous said...

"the priests don't do atoning work, that was done by Christ."

Priests simply make present the atoning sacrifice. I know the atonement was done by Christ.

"Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians also believe that in the Eucharist, Christ both offers and receives the sacrifice. During the Orthodox Liturgy, the priest prays, “thou thyself art he that offereth and is offered, that is accepteth and is “distributed.”546 [1]

and

Christ is the true celebrant of the Eucharist. The priest is merely His representative."


http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.ca/2012/08/sacrifice-of-praise.html

Liturgical abuses existed, does not mean that it was permitted.

Atto himself strongly rejects women priests, as
do all Fathers and Councils who speak of the matter.

"these three duties define the role of the sacrament of priesthood."

No, they do not.

Teaching, preaching, directing, does not mean they were priests.

This is not essential to the sacrament of Holy Orders. But, is secondary.

"As to deaconesses, Chalcedon does speak of ordination,and some Greek rituals, reported by Morin, do speak of a rite that looks like ordination.

Yet there is no proof this was ever intended as the Sacrament of Orders.

The prayer of ordination does not seem to be anything more than a call for the Holy Spirit to help her carry out her ministry, which at most
would have been in giving the Chalice to the people. "

"Priesthood, Precedent, and Prejudice. On Recovering the Women Priests of Early Christianity" in
"Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion," Spring, 1991, 7. #1, pp. 73-93"

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/womprs.txt


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Teaching, preaching, directing, does not mean they were priests.

This is not essential to the sacrament of Holy Orders. But, is secondary."

nowdays, this is true. But totally false in Apostolic times and the first several centuries. A description of early church services described them as presided over by a president who also broke the bread. I don't think this was the didache, but it might have been.

This puts the canon against female presidents in a distinctly sacramental light.

priest is derived from presbyter which means elder. hiero is Greek for priest, which is why since the NT elder has come to be a priest, a monk who is also a priest is called a hieromonk in Orthodoxy.

Anonymous said...

"‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the Church which is in Cenchrae’"

This does not prove that she was a priest.

"Specific attestation of the reality of women priests is further provided by Atto, Bishop of "Vercelli"

But did he support it?

Why did he re-state the Council of Laodicea, then?

Something existing does not prove that it was approved, esp, since the evidence is that it was not.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

why does his support matter? the issue is, that it existed and therefore was approved by the community and the immediate bishops over them in various places. The Council of Laodicea decided to put a stop to it, for whatever reasons.

As I have said, I do not really want to see female priesthood revived, but the theological and "it never happened" arguments don't hold.

This was early enough closer to Apostolic times, that the approval of the bishops reflected an attitude Apostolic, but gradually other factors won out, not necessarily entirely a matter of sexism. Even if it was, on the part of the humans, there were good reasons to curtail this which means God may have inspired this rule for the time.

There are a few canons that contradict each other. Trullo 102 enshrines economia or flexibility, resolving such conflicts.

The only approval needed was that of the bishops who ordained the women priests and the laity they were over. Atto's attitude means nothing, I cite him as a person who had access to information we no longer have, that refutes the idea that women were never, ever priests. Gelasius' complaint showed this still went on.

opinions on things were not always uniform. Even the celibacy of Bishops was an innovation forced by the laity of North Africa and originally LIMITED TO North Africa, but later as people got more pusillanimous and delicate thinking this was holiness, the argument was sidestepped by taking bishops from the ranks of monks, instead of settling the matter.

As recently as the early 20th century, a Russian bishop in the US after evaluating the whole thing took a wife. This of course got him deposed. But the issue keeps getting raised now and then, so it is clearly not as settled as it appears to be.

the inclination to equate a priest, a minister or whatever to some extent with God is strong enough these days, that a female priest would cater to "goddess" nonsense without even intending to.

Anonymous said...

And so ..... why are we even caring what women priests want? or lgbt? or wayward nuns? or anything else for that matter of new age agenda? They are only demanding what the Bible says of the last days that they would be demanding.
Standing on the Word of God is all we need/must do and leave them to the hair-splitting garbage they bring on for themselves as issues--all the while perishing for not believing God in the first place!
Jesus gave us all a good example---He did not waste time arguing with the pharisees. He was short and sweet as He lobbed the right questions right back at them then left them to scratch their heads at what He said that they did not want to receive! Why waste time in "their" arguments? !!!***!!! State the Truth-Call Out the Agendas!!!***!!! (thanks Constance and a very few others!) and leave the brain-numbing argument session to the dust for God to address---and HE will.
All we are called to do is Stand on the Truth--needs defending about like letting a lion loose--and not get in the way of it (Christine specifically).It may cost us our lives--but hey! the servant is not greater than his Lord! (look that up in your Bible Christine--try looking things up in there and "camp" on the Truth and maybe you won't be so depressed and you and the fiance'(resident seer) can go on ahead and get things right and get married and maybe you won't have so much time to argue with every single thing under the sun!

Anonymous said...

"nowdays, this is true. But totally false in Apostolic times and the first several centuries. A description of early church services described them as presided over by a president who also broke the bread. I don't think this was the didache, but it might have been."

The Didache

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, "Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations" [Mal. 1:11, 14] (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Clement of Rome

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles" [Mal. 1:10-11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist (Dialogue with Trypho 41 [A.D. 155]).

"This puts the canon against female presidents in a distinctly sacramental light."

Yes, it does, because these female presidents did not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The evidence from the first several centuries is not in your favour.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

"The only approval needed was that of the bishops who ordained the women priests and the laity they were over."

Is there evidence to prove that there was approval by Bishops in union with the five centres of Christianity?

I am saying that it never happened in the Apostolic church. Which Bishop in union with Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, gave approval?

"the inclination to equate a priest, a minister or whatever to some extent with God is strong enough these days, that a female priest would cater to "goddess" nonsense without even intending to."

These days?

You need to read Irenaeus against heresies. The only people who ordained women at the altar were gnostics.





Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Obviously there would be no Laodicean canon against ordaining women among Orthodox, unless this was being done among Orthodox not gnostics. Bp. Atto in the 8th or 9th c. said this did happen among Orthodox, and Gelasius complained of it happening among some Orthodox in Anatolia and Sicily in the 400s AD. That article link I gave also discusses some archaeological evidence of this. Rare, but it did happen.

And it had to be done by a bishop, and accepted by the laity.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

there were many bishops in all the five major patriarchates. Atto and Gelasius says there were women priests. This means bishops ordained them. The existence of the women priests among Orthodox is proof that some bishops (the ones who ordained them) approved of this.

That the patriarch might not approve or many other bishops not approve doesn't matter. A bishop can do as he pleases in his own diocese, period, only the patriarch can intervene, and in those days they had more important things to worry about.

We are talking about the days of persecutions. Street preaching by women is not taken as normative in RC or EO now, yet a female saint was famous for doing exactly this, dragging her two young sons with her.

Now, I repeat, you want proof some bishops in union with the top five ordained women?

look for proof such women priests existed. Only a bishop could ordain them.

Its like, you want proof chickens are around? look for eggs.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare St. Brigid was consecrated a bishop which is why she is shown with a bishop's crozier, a hooked staff used by shepherds.

http://www.allsaintsbrookline.org/celtic_saints/brigid.html

this was in response to a miraculous sign when she was
being made an abbess (female abbot of a nunnery). Same general time,
400s AD.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

and now for something completely different, as Monty Python would say.

http://www.reptilianagenda.com/other/o112299a.shtml

ignore the rest of this site. I don't think werewolf is appropriate, try sasquatch. St. Christopher, miscalled Canaanite sometimes today, was a CYNOCEPHALUS no that is not a baboon or a tasmanian devil. An extremely large, powerful, prognathus human with fangs. Neanderthaloid.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare St. Brigid was consecrated a bishop which is why she is shown with a bishop's crozier, a hooked staff used by shepherds.

http://www.allsaintsbrookline.org/celtic_saints/brigid.html

this was in response to a miraculous sign when she was
being made an abbess (female abbot of a nunnery). Same general time,
400s AD.

this post was supposed to precede the previous one, I didn't realize it didn't post.

Anonymous said...

Still exploring your gnostic roots eh, 8:44 p.m.?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare St. Brigid was consecrated a bishop which is why she is shown with a bishop's crozier, a hooked staff used by shepherds.

http://www.allsaintsbrookline.org/celtic_saints/brigid.html

this was in response to a miraculous sign when she was
being made an abbess (female abbot of a nunnery). Same general time,
400s AD.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare St. Brigid was consecrated a bishop which is why she is shown with a bishop's crozier, a hooked staff used by shepherds.

http://www.allsaintsbrookline.org/celtic_saints/brigid.html

this was in response to a miraculous sign when she was
being made an abbess (female abbot of a nunnery). Same general time,
400s AD.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

https://www.google.com/search?q=st+christopher+cynocephalus&newwindow=1&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hhd_UaTDDKLhiAK04ID4CQ&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=853&bih=606

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Christopher_of_Lycia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

Anonymous said...

"Obviously there would be no Laodicean canon against ordaining women among Orthodox, unless this was being done among Orthodox not gnostics. "

This could easily be done by Orthodox that fell into heresy. Unless you claim that Christian gnostics existed before Apostolic Christianity and its the real Christianity etc.

"Now, I repeat, you want proof some bishops in union with the top five ordained women?"

Yes, because a heretic Bishop can ordain someone, that does not make it valid.

"Its like, you want proof chickens are around? look for eggs."

Since only a Bishop can ordain a priest, I am looking for the evidence that this was done by a legitimate Bishop, in union with the five centres of Christianity and not a heretic.

Do you have this evidence?

Who was St. Brigit ordained by?

She was consecrated an abbess, and yes monk or abbot Bishops were under her spiritual direction, but this does not mean that she received the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Just as St. Catherine of Sienna was advisor to the Pope. This did not make her a priest.

The whole point in this debate is that everything is being confused with power and dominance.

This is what the women priests movement is after.

I wonder what they want a priest for.
























Anonymous said...

While all of this dialogue is interesting, does it really belong on this blog? What does it have to do with the New Age movement? Obviously very few people who post here think New Age is really important. Instead people showing off what they know about religious esotericism takes precedence over things that are very dangerous in terms of cultural change. Constance doesn't seem to care much as long as people come to the blog and post. Pity. There remain some who actually care about what is happening in the culture that will destroy lives. Is there anyone left who really cares about the destruction of our society taking place?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

""Obviously there would be no Laodicean canon against ordaining women among Orthodox, unless this was being done among Orthodox not gnostics. "

This could easily be done by Orthodox that fell into heresy. "

If he were a heretic he would be in a heretic group not an Orthodox group.

no canon would be relevant to him, does the Church dictate how pagans should conduct their operations? no, it excludes the paganism. no dictate of excommunication or deposing is mentioned as punishment for any clergy who did ordaining or participated in ordaining women so it was not that serious.

conversely, on totally other matters, there are canons decreeing that bishops who acquired the position by some wrong means and other sins if done by clergy should result in deposing if a bishop or priest and excommunication if laity.

Clearly this was not considered a dead serious matter by the canon writers, neither was it sacramentally an issue. Just don't do it, but on other matters like eating meat that has not had at least some exsanguination done first, this is grounds for excommunication, also eating a meal with blood as a deliberate part (blood sausage lovers, quit it).

This is not Mosaic it goes back to Noah and was reaffirmed in Acts when the rest of the food laws were jettisoned.

As for validity, the whole idea of sex role in sacramentalism developed after the fact. the earlier arguments had to do with women being more corruptible, or gullible on the one hand, or having no proper role of any authority because men are boss on the other. This was the position of Orthodox writers, not pagan, but you don't see it argued in the canons, just a statement to not do this any more.

the whole thing is not about confusing authority and power (and yes they do have some relationship to each other) except in some people's minds.

as for your questions about Brigid, go read the links I provided.

Brigid was being ordained an abbess, and a light shown on her or some other miraculous sign, and the bishop proceeded to ordain her a bishop as well. When questioned about this he said he could not ignore the divine sign and disobey it.

As for New Age relevance, doctrine not gender is what matters, and our model for BOTH sexes is a MAN Jesus Christ. A lot of "femininity" is just baptized sin of the more sneaky and passive sort.

God Himself made Deborah Judge over Israel Judges 4:4. In Nehemiah I think it is, one verse mentions that all workers on the wall went armed, another says that a man and his two daughters worked on the wall, so obviously these young amazons were armed.

sex role is a post Fall curse thing, see Genesis chapter 3. And it operates by default.

But because of the neopagan use of the female figure, to start doing this again would be a bad idea.

\

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

authentein is the word Paul uses in "women should not usurp authority over men," and this is not simple authority, but more like gaining authority or using it by a kind of feminine wiles and/or a flat out role reversal in general which would be as suppressive to a segment of humanity (men) as the standard type role is to women.

http://godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm googling this word authentein, gets an interesting debate on this.

But Paul's statement has to be read in context of his following remark about Eve. Obviously if a woman is Eve like she is not suitable to teach or lead. Eliminate these flaws and you have a different situation.

It must be remembered that God saw to it that it was women who first taught men and women that Christ had risen from the dead.

Mary in her agreement to the Incarnation was reversing Eve's agreement to the devil, undoing it,
agreeing to God instead. The myrrh bearing women in testifying to the Apostles, were reversing Eve's wrong teaching to Adam, undoing it, teaching the truth of God instead.

try as you might, you just don't find sacramental arguments regarding women and priesthood until much much later. It is all about unfitness of character, social reprehensibleness to the public, proper role the post fall scene being viewed as innate and ordained from creation (which it isn't along with so called feminine character which is a warped thing not innate, and yes is indeed of dubious merit and limited social use) and so forth and so on.

Sacramental arguments (on which is based your idea of ordination of women not being "valid") are an afterthought much later.

But the flaw in sacramental arguments, is that they would take a VAGUE analogy, and make it an EXACT analogy. And no analogy to God can possibly be exact, Scripture warns us that He cannot be compared to anything. Yet He is also compared to, for instance, a rock. Clearly all such analogies are limited.

But the kind of analogism that says the priest represents Christ therefore must be male, is exact not vague, therefore wrong.

But again, ordination of women is a bad idea. It plays to the idea of God as androgynous, for instance, especially with the sacramentalism concepts being included in this now that they are so entrenched.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

The Fathers of the church always rejected these ordinations they did not approve of them.

Most of this was in their writings against heresies, implying that this was a heretical practise. Not an Orthodox one.

Hence women were not validly ordained.

There is also no evidence to prove that St. Brigit was ordained a Bishop. This is speculation, not fact.

Anonymous said...

"doctrine not gender is what matters, and our model for BOTH sexes is a MAN Jesus Christ."

Yes, its the cross the unites men and women. Differences between the sexes do help us see Jesus. There is a reason God made us male and female.

In Judaism the priesthood was genetic, in Christianity it's not genetic, but is linked to the sacrifice of the cross.



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the Fathers of the church had very very little to say on the subject because Laodicea and maybe another council had already shut this down. The heretical groups that did this were not called heretics for this practice but for doctrine. The term is consecration not ordination (my error if I did say that) for Brigid and it is in her history and there was criticism of the bishop who did this, read the links and search for more.

That she is shown with a bishop's crozier is because of this, and her successors unlike usual abbesses were considered episcopal though it was a very limited episcopacy.

The period of women getting ordained would have been in the early centuries before much was written.

your arguments just don't hold. Gelasius spoke of this clearly speaking of it happening in ORTHODOX churches. Bp. Atto said drawing on history we no longer have access to, that it did occur in ORTHODOX churches.

Validity in modern Orthodoxy depends on being in the Orthodox church, you don't take powers with you when you leave or get deposed or defrocked like RC holds to be the case. Whether this is in fact correct or not is anyone's guess.

Some canon ordered that anything done by a bishop who is deposed for some wrong (nothing to do with ordaining women) declared that whatever actions he had taken be deemed null and void, sounding more like an order to ignore than a denial of validity. reordinations and so forth would be required, however, logically.

I suggest you take a few months and research the development of the sacramental validity concept in ordination connected with representing Christ in regards to men, leave women out of the picture. I haven't pursued this, but I do know that neither in the quotes you give nor in things I have read does it play any part, so probably didn't exist in the earlier phases of The Church as a relevant concept in ordination period. The role of icon of Christ would apply only to the bishop or to specific sacerdotal actions, but far less so in Orthodoxy with its focus on the epiklesis than in RC with its focus on priest as actor. The priest's power comes from The Holy Spirit, but is directed by the priest in RC, but in Orthodoxy it is The Holy Spirit Who is asked to step in and do the transformation rather than relying on the words of institution to do this.

Tertullian in one of his letters refers to laymen in absence of a priest consecrating the bread and wine, but this like a group of priests electing and consecrating a bishop fell into disuse in North Africa. This practice had allegedly gone back to very early times, soon after the Apostles, and ceased before Nicea I if I recall correctly. Therefore you don't hear it discussed one way or another except a brief mention.

But again, the suppression of women in clergy higher than diaconate (which also happened) though probably done for some wrong reasons, had some pragmatic good to it, and I agree that it is not a good idea to ordain women. Validity would not be an issue. Other things would be.



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Differences between the sexes do help us see Jesus. There is a reason God made us male and female."

the only reliable uniform differences are genitals breasts and bone structure.

as for the relevance of "femininity" to all this, I suggest you go read the 1800s writers against women having the vote,
and consider that our dear Constance would be considered unfeminine, unnatural and with a
man's mind, by such people. What we
are used to in women has moved more and more into the tomboy range, which is where it should be.

kindness and nurturing are not feminine or masculine, and The Bible calls for such attitudes in both. For example, Proverbs says that a righteous man is caring even about his animals, but "the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

St. Queen Tamara from a culture used to warrior women is a good model for girls. the Romans were impressed with the courage and determination of the Christian women, "what women these Christians have!"

Anonymous said...

"the Fathers of the church had very very little to say on the subject because Laodicea and maybe another council had already shut this down. The heretical groups that did this were not called heretics for this practice but for doctrine."

The Sixth Council of Paris c. 829 AD, says it has learned "that in certain of our provinces, contrary to divine law and canon law, women of their own accord go to the holy altars, and boldly touch the sacred vessels, and give the sacred vestments to priests, and what is even more improper and
unsuitable, they give to the people the body and blood of the Lord.... That women should not go to the altar is fully found in Canon 44 of the Council
of Laodicea, and in the decrees of Pope Gelasius XXVI...."

The point is it was not approved even if it was done in the Orthodox church. It states divine and not just canon law.

"The role of icon of Christ would apply only to the bishop or to specific sacerdotal actions, but far less so in Orthodoxy with its focus on the epiklesis than in RC with its focus on priest as actor. The priest's power comes from The Holy Spirit, but is directed by the priest in RC, but in Orthodoxy it is The Holy Spirit Who is asked to step in and do the transformation rather than relying on the words of institution to do this."

It's the same in the RC church. The focus is on the Eucharist, which is why a priest is needed in the first place.

Why do you continue to distort facts. In both churches, the point is that the priesthood exists for the Eucharist, not by itself.

According to Saint John Chrysostom, an Eastern Church Father, the priesthood “is ranked among heavenly ordinances. And this is only right, for no man, no angel, no archangel, no other created power, but the Paraclete himself ordained this succession...”[3]

Tertullian defected from the faith, and became a Montanist and began to reject a lot of things.

That being said, I am done with this argument. It's just going round in circles now.



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

it certainly is going in circles. But the issue in that 800s incident was more relevant to what are called altar girls and altar helpers now than to priesthood anyway. St. Basil the Great's mother was one of those who cleaned in the altar. "divine law" has no clear cut example other than universal practices derivable from the curse on Eve which by definition would be mitigated by the atonement, and narrow interpretation of some things Paul said, which he effectively contradicted by addressing Priscilla ahead of her husband or naming her ahead of her husband, apparently his "anti woman" remarks only apply to the unworthy not the worthy.

That council you cite is not one of the Orthodox Ecumenical or approved by inclusion by reference by an Ecumenical Council.

Clearly things developed over time and all were assumed to be divine. Ditto the current thing about married bishops, taken for granted as settled and divine but in fact merely sidestepped and still disputed.

nothing you say erases the words of Gelasius or of Atto which testify to the formal ordination of women, disapproved by Gelasius, merely reported by Atto, but requiring that a bishop do this so obviously there were bishops who didn't mind and they and their immediate laity considered it valid. you don't find reference to "divine law" in the Laodicean proscription. Being earlier it is more relevant.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

The incidence does not mention altar girls or helpers, but women consecrating at the altar, and this is rejected as heresy.

Gelasius called it heresy.

Atto never said, they were priests. The women priest website is assuming he did.

Lets look at the Council of Laodicea.

Canon 11

Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church.

In the first place, what is the meaning of the words πρεσβύτιδες and προκαθήμεναι (presbytides and female presidents)? I think the first light is thrown on the subject by Epiphanius, who in his treatise against the Collyridians (Hær., lxxix. 4) says that women had never been allowed to offer sacrifice, as the Collyridians presumed to do, but were only allowed to minister.

Canon of Laodicea does not speak of solemn dedication, and certainly not of ordination, but only of καθίστασθαι . These reasons induce us to return to the first interpretation of this canon, and to understand it as forbidding from that time forward the appointment of any more chief deaconesses or presbytides.

The Synod of Laodicea, however, did away with this arrangement, probably because they had misused their office for purposes of pride, or money-making, bribery, etc."

So, women were never ordained into the sacrament of Holy Orders, not even according to Laodicea.

Do you claim that you know more than St. Epiphanius who was explaining this?

Married Bishops is also a discipline, you are once again confusing things.






Anonymous said...

"St. Queen Tamara from a culture used to warrior women is a good model for girls. the Romans were impressed with the courage and determination of the Christian women, "what women these Christians have!""

Yes, but why is God the Father masculine? Why is the church always described as feminine?



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

1. notice that the canon merely forbids the practice, it does not raise issues of sacramental validity.

2. saints are not infallible. they often disagreed on details. Customs taken for granted in their day, the exclusion of non baptized from the Eucharistic service not allowed even to observe is nowhere done today, EO or otherwise.

3. we got obsessed with masculine and feminine and male in charge so of course, ascribe this to God. In fact He is NOT both He is NEITHER.

to call Him "it" would make Him seem personal. Not a good idea.

Eve was celebrated as more like Adam than unlike, while the differences trained into the sexes and approved in many cultures less so today but still in play, would make them as alien to each other as animals to mankind.

Eve was to be Adam's ezer neged, a helper in the face to face partner sort fit for because like unto him. dig through Strong's Concrodance on those words. Everything else, even naming her in terms of being the mother of all living, came AFTER the Fall. Before that she was just ishah, diminutive of ish, man as individual human. And her only model was a man, her quasi brother she was cloned from, Adam.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

and the church is only sometimes described as feminine. Most of the time it is just the church, ekklesia, the assembly of Christ, the terms used for formal assemblies of citizens of cities.

Remember, exact analogies between material and spiritual things, cannot be done. the bride of Christ angle points to a strong union and Christ, like your husband, as your first priority.

Now, in regular life, your husband is normally your first priority, but when he goes against godliness or common sense then you must support godliness and common sense. If he is a danger to your children you must support your children. If he is trying to victimize someone you should try to prevent this.

But no such potential problems exist in the marriage between the church and Christ.

The problem comes when we try to look for EXACT analogies instead of vague general ones. The former are static, mechanistic.

That the analogies in The Bible are NOT exact is shown by the fact that several analogies are used for God, or the church or whatever. The believers are rooted in Christ like a vine in its main trunk, for instance.

The focus on church as bride of Christ in Ephesians is in context of prescribing a nurturing selfless style of men towards their wives.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Married Bishops is also a discipline, you are once again confusing things."

No I am not confusing things. BOTH these issues are disciplines.

Laodicea prohibiting presbytides prohibits women precisely in the office that is described as offering the Bread and Wine in the early church, ergo priesthood.

"Bread, wine and water are then brought to the president, who offers the eucharistic prayer. "

Justin Martyr http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm

Tertullian was not addressing Montanists, when he wrote the letter that contained the brief reference. they were infesting Orthodox churches as well as having their own, some priests and bishops allowed them others did not, finally things came to a head and they were formally anathematized.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

I know that saints are not infallible, but this saint was present at the Council, so he would know a lot more about whether these women functioned as priests, than you or me, is the point.

Yes, I agree that sacramental validity is not mentioned, but forbidding ordination is. If priests are ordained primarily to offer sacrifice, then it goes without saying, that these ordinations were not valid.

I fully agree that God is spirit. Genesis, holds that men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. This is manifested with the eternal word becoming the son of the father, and bridegroom to God's people.

Jesus is male, because he is son. Not the other way around.




Anonymous said...

"No I am not confusing things. BOTH these issues are disciplines."

No they are not. The sacrament of Holy Order is not a discipline.

"Laodicea prohibiting presbytides prohibits women precisely in the office that is described as offering the Bread and Wine in the early church, ergo priesthood."

You are making this connection, the council does not. In fact those present clearly state that women were never allowed to offer sacrifice.

Justin Martyr does not indicate that President was female here.

"they were infesting Orthodox churches as well as having their own, some priests and bishops allowed them others did not, finally things came to a head and they were formally anathematized."

Yes, in other words, there was a consensus that women should not be ordained.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

St. Epiphanius was certainly in thinking that women could not baptize, since deaconnesses did exactly that to avoid impropriety or the accusation of such, since in the early church baptism was done naked.
An argument quoted from The Apostolic Constitutions against this that Jesus would have been baptized by His mother not John, sounds like a later line of talk, and this writing is well known to be a compilation from several times not solely from The Apostles.

Jesus said that "of those born of women none is greater than John but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is." paraphrase.

Also, John's specific ministry in public was to baptize to repentance, so Mary would not have been appropriate in this case.

Cited also is the argument that "he shall rule over thee" Genesis the curse on Eve, as a reason to not have women perform baptism or any other office, but the problem here is that this is the CURSE not the ordination from creation.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/guidech3.pdf

however here is the take on all this from another Orthodox site,

"Normally baptism is by triple immersion, and a licit baptism must be performed by a priest or a deacon. But in case of necessity, as in clinical or other settings where there is a risk of imminent death and baptism by immersion is impractical, or where a deep pool of water is really unavailable, a person may properly be baptized by an Orthodox Christian clergyman or layman by pouring water three times on the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism#Validity_of_a_baptism

Anonymous said...

Christine,

I agree about baptism. St. Epiphanus did not approve of women baptizing, but he also noted that women were not ordained to offer sacrifice. This is the mark of the priesthood. Is my point.

It was Luther that broke with the Eucharist as sacrifice. Hence did not see Holy Orders as a sacrament.





Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you are wrong about Luther, he taught transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood, it was later protestant groups that treated it as mere representation.

The term symbol or symbolon in Greek, mistreated as meaning mere sign not reality, means a sign that IS a reality, that is connected to and embodies the reality so much that it is that reality.

That is why the Creed is called "the symbol of the faith," it is the faith.

Lutheranism however thinks that The Body and Blood are added to and after the ceremony leaves or something like that. But the literal presence is believed in, albeit not full and permanent transformation.

"transubstantiation" is a doctrine of not only transformation, but of mechanistic and nit picky details on how and when, things that Orthodoxy prefers to consider a not entirely comprehensible mystery, so we generally say "transformation."

Anonymous said...

Christine,

Luther, was partly correct. However, he did away with the sacrament of Holy Orders, which defeated the purpose. He also saw the timeless sacrifice as re-sacrificing Christ.

Western theology has always been more about logic. Eastern, more mystical.

Faith and reason go together.






Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Justin Martyr does not indicate that President was female here."

he doesn't have to. The point is that the "president" was the one who gave the Eucharistic blessing, and Laodicea shows that there were female presidents.


"they were infesting Orthodox churches as well as having their own, some priests and bishops allowed them others did not, finally things came to a head and they were formally anathematized."

Yes, in other words, there was a consensus that women should not be ordained.

NO. What I said referred to the Montanists, their heresy was like modern hypercharismatics or indeed any charismatic who gets the gift of tongues by having someone lay hands on them and then tell them to open their mouths and say whatever came out.

This is EXACTLY what St. Irenaeus in AGAINST HERESIES described one gnostic group was doing, or one particular leader I forget which, and he rightly calls this presumptuous.

The consensus was against MONTANISM.

any anti ordination of women consensus developed totally separately from this. It was considered a kind of disorderliness, not a matter of validity.

Even now, a defrocked priest (male)
in RC is believed to perform a VALID Eucharist if he does so, but it is done ILLEGITIMATELY that is unlawfully, but it is still a real Eucharist.

The issues raised were ones of female role, not being scandalous to pagans, etc. etc. Validity of such a sacrament has not been mentioned once in anything I have read or you have brought up from those days.

as for matriarchy or equality, all that was dead in the water among pagans long before Judaism or Christianity.

But as for women's role and that doesn't incl. leadership, why did God Himself make the prophet Deborah a Judge over Israel? This is the closest thing to a king before there was a kingship. More like prime minister with YHWH as King.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

by the way, Deborah is called wife of Lapidoth, not a widow, so in being Judge she was also superior to her husband.

Anonymous said...

Here's something of interest to explore Christine. (Is this your situation?-I have no way of knowing-but worth a look perhaps)

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/study-depression-may-be-overdiagnosed-and-overtreated/

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

thank you. but my situation goes back decades to childhood. it is quite complex and probably incl. an element of being psychically attacked and energy feed (psy) vampirized by my biological so called mother. the symptoms of clinical depression overlap those of psychic attack. some antidepressants (imipramine and prozac) have a certain anti psychic angle to them as well. some people call this "chemical exorcism."

I figured out long ago, that you can be a victim of a hex from someone else, or a victim of a hex from yourself, so to speak, in the latter case you are just a psychiatric case. the two are hardly incompatible.

so you could say I would phase in and out of competence to get things done. consistency is what an employer would want. the cycling is less in a fog for shorter times, so I figure I will be consistently okay in the next couple of years.

That article does not mention physical pain and paralyzing lethargy. but that is part of clinical depression also. massive doses of minerals can help.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

You keep confusing distinctions. I never said women were not leaders. I said, they were never priests in both the East or the West.

Please show me where the Council held that a Female President could give a Eucharistic blessing.

You connect this to Justin Martyr, despite the fact that he makes no mention of female presidents.

The President here could have been male.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Sigh. I will try to make this even simpler than I thought I did.

Laodicea said women were not to be appointed presidents ANY MORE, so before that there had been some churches that had women as presidents.

Justin Martyr is the authority for "president" being the name in use at the early times, for the person who gave the Eucharistic blessing.

can't you put two and two together?

President gives Eucharistic blessing i.e., performs the Eucharist.

over 200 years later, the order is given to stop having women presidents.

Therefore, some churches effectively ordained women.

Since St. Ignatius tells us that nothing should be done without the bishop and bishop means overseer, no woman would have been a president without the bishop's okay.

The Council of Laodicea (without stating how many were for or against this measure only that it passed) forbade women to be presidents any more.

If presidents performed the Eucharist, and some presidents were women, then long ago sometimes women were performing the Eucharist.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

You are making connections that do not exist.

The Council of Laodicea and those present there, explicitly held the view that these women were not allowed to offer sacrifice, but only minister.

Justin Martyr using the word President does not mean anything. in the same way that a male deacon does not mean a female deaconess.

Since, one receives the sacrament of Holy Orders and the other does not, even if they hold the same honorary titles.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

1. Laodicea downgraded their activities and said they were not to be appointed anymore AT ALL. The deaconnesses existed and canons regulate them. Earlier ones say they are to be ordained later one say not.

Deacons in early times were not "Holy Orders" they were care takers. This changed over time.

If the earliest term for the head of the meeting was "president" and this person is the one who made the Eucharistic Blessing, and women were presidents until Laodicea said not to do this anymore, it follows they were (when presidents) giving the Eucharistic Blessing.

do you think all procedures, terms and even outfits worn are the same now as the first two or three centuries?

If Gelasius could complain that women were being ordained in some Orthodox churches, it was bishops doing this ordaining.

ALWAYS when anyone argued against this, the issue was that women were created inferior and to be under rule, ignoring that this was not part of the original creation only part of the curse after The Fall.

Sacerdotal ideas about representing Christ and therefore having to be male DO NOT PLAY A PART.

only insofar as maleness is held up as superiority in general and therefore Christ was male.

May I point out, that if you take the Church as Bride ergo female and priest as Christ, too far in exact analogy you have a legitimization of homosexuality especially if the priest always plays the male role and laity the female and the women of course can do each other?

don't call me dirty minded, I merely see how an argument can go and I would not be surprised if this line of thought IS secretly existing among some individuals doing these perversions.

There WAS a priest who taught his young male seducees that they were receiving holy communion when they drank his semen.

Sorry for the obscenity, but it is an example of how you cannot take such sacerdotal analogies as anything but vague not exact.

The main analogy Christ gave was Himself as main trunk of a vine and us as the branches. The Church as bride is a whole other kind of analogy, and incl. the priest himself.

God is compared loosely to a rock but clearly is not comparable because a rock can be broken up and God cannot be broken up, and a rock is not intelligent and God is intelligent, and so forth. It is only in the limited sense of rock as strong, stable, something to be based safely on, or to hide behind if attacked, its comparative strength these are the vague analogies. An exact analogy of God to rock fails out of hand.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

1. Laodicea downgraded their activities and said they were not to be appointed anymore AT ALL. The deaconnesses existed and canons regulate them. Earlier ones say they are to be ordained later one say not.

Deacons in early times were not "Holy Orders" they were care takers. This changed over time.

If the earliest term for the head of the meeting was "president" and this person is the one who made the Eucharistic Blessing, and women were presidents until Laodicea said not to do this anymore, it follows they were (when presidents) giving the Eucharistic Blessing.

do you think all procedures, terms and even outfits worn are the same now as the first two or three centuries?

If Gelasius could complain that women were being ordained in some Orthodox churches, it was bishops doing this ordaining.

ALWAYS when anyone argued against this, the issue was that women were created inferior and to be under rule, ignoring that this was not part of the original creation only part of the curse after The Fall.

Sacerdotal ideas about representing Christ and therefore having to be male DO NOT PLAY A PART.

only insofar as maleness is held up as superiority in general and therefore Christ was male.

May I point out, that if you take the Church as Bride ergo female and priest as Christ, too far in exact analogy you have a legitimization of homosexuality especially if the priest always plays the male role and laity the female and the women of course can do each other?

don't call me dirty minded, I merely see how an argument can go and I would not be surprised if this line of thought IS secretly existing among some individuals doing these perversions.

There WAS a priest who taught his young male seducees that they were receiving holy communion when they drank his semen.

Sorry for the obscenity, but it is an example of how you cannot take such sacerdotal analogies as anything but vague not exact.

The main analogy Christ gave was Himself as main trunk of a vine and us as the branches. The Church as bride is a whole other kind of analogy, and incl. the priest himself.

God is compared loosely to a rock but clearly is not comparable because a rock can be broken up and God cannot be broken up, and a rock is not intelligent and God is intelligent, and so forth. It is only in the limited sense of rock as strong, stable, something to be based safely on, or to hide behind if attacked, its comparative strength these are the vague analogies. An exact analogy of God to rock fails out of hand.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

in case you can't understand the point about analogies the point is that ANY analogies about church God relationship between them etc. have to be vague and not overapplied as exact analogies.

Laodicea forbade women to be the presider over a congregation. That is what a priest is, the word is from presbyter or elder not hieros or priest in the classic sacerdotal sense in pagan Greek culture.

Another canon said women were not to be at the altar.

It is clear that UNTIL that time, in some places they WERE at the altar. the assumption they could never have served in the altar the same way a man would, has women excluded even from cleaning around the altar though in some churches this is allowed with a special blessing from the priest.

Because of this assumption, in some Orthodox jurisdictions, a female baby at baptism is not carried around the altar but a male baby is, while in other jurisdictions the female baby is carried around the altar.

Eliminate the assumption, and you have a different picture. That at one time there were women who were fit to teach (the primary role of bishop and priest) and direct, and who performed the role of Eucharistic Blessing, because the person who presides as head of the family or group having a meal together gives the lesser blessing ("says grace") the analogy in Paul's letters is made comparing the human family with the larger family the church and the elder and bishop should have the ability to properly raise and direct a smaller family before he cares for the larger family.

this parallel is exact. head of meal says grace. head of congregation says the Eucharist.

ordaining women was never called a heresy and was never the reason a group was called heretical, it was only mentioned about some who were under attack for reasons of doctrine. Even the canons that forbade this didn't say it was heresy just implied it was disobedience, and didn't specify deposing of a bishop who went ahead and did this unlike many other canons about other matters. Clearly this was not seen as being as important as doctrinal, sexual or financial corruption issues.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the reference to divine law can only be about the curse on Eve, which is a misapplication. Mosaic priesthood rules also are irrelevant since with a change of priesthood there is a change of law, says Paul in Hebrews, and we do not have the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood anymore.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

Are you seriously Orthodox?

Yes, we do not have the Mosaic or Aaronic priesthood anymore, in the sense that it was pointing to the coming of Christ.

Now Christ is the only priest and the the priesthood continues his sacrifice at every divine liturgy.

"Sacerdotal ideas about representing Christ and therefore having to be male DO NOT PLAY A PART."

only insofar as maleness is held up as superiority in general and therefore Christ was male."

Sure there were opinions held, but in actual teachings on the priesthood. It was clarified why priests were needed and what the liturgy was about.

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled [made purple in coloring] by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you lifted up to heaven? –


St. John Chrysostom On the Priesthood 3.4.177

According to St. John Chrysostom, Christ is literally present on the altar.

‘Because the Bread is one, we, the many, are in one Body’16. ‘Why do I say communion?’ he says; ‘for we are that very Body.’ What is the Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body. For just as the bread, consisting of many grains, is made one, and the grains are no longer evident, but still exist, though their distinction is not apparent in their conjunction; so too are we conjoined to each other and to Christ.


For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body." –

Jesus is male because he is the son of God, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

"It is clear that UNTIL that time, in some places they WERE at the altar. the assumption they could never have served in the altar the same way a man would, has women excluded even from cleaning around the altar though in some churches this is allowed with a special blessing from the priest.

"Because of this assumption, in some Orthodox jurisdictions, a female baby at baptism is not carried around the altar but a male baby is, while in other jurisdictions the female baby is carried around the altar."

I do agree these things are wrong, But two wrongs do not make a right.

In the Eastern liturgy, the altar is also the place beyond, so even the priest does not go there, except when preparing for the liturgy.

"that if you take the Church as Bride ergo female and priest as Christ, too far in exact analogy you have a legitimization of homosexuality especially if the priest always plays the male role and laity the female and the women of course can do each other?"

Christine, I have never come across this nonsense. Since, it's the Eucharist that is the nuptial mystery, not the priest himself.

The priest merely exists to make this present.

It's the sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist that is the meeting point for men and women.

Masculine and feminine are universal principles, because the creator made us male and female. There is no sexless humanity.

The whole genderless nonsense is about pushing LGBT politics.

Anonymous said...

"f the earliest term for the head of the meeting was "president" and this person is the one who made the Eucharistic Blessing, and women were presidents until Laodicea said not to do this anymore, it follows they were (when presidents) giving the Eucharistic Blessing."

But those present at Loadicea themselves said, that these women were not allowed to offer sacrifice, but to minister.

You are making connections that do not exist.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

I will take your leave, because I do not want to argue anymore. It's obvious that the teachings on the priesthood explain what a priest is needed for. That's all I need.

I do not need, you adding in other people's views and making connections, and trying to tell me, this is what this all means.

I can read for myself.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"f the earliest term for the head of the meeting was "president" and this person is the one who made the Eucharistic Blessing, and women were presidents until Laodicea said not to do this anymore, it follows they were (when presidents) giving the Eucharistic Blessing."

But those present at Loadicea themselves said, that these women were not allowed to offer sacrifice, but to minister.

You are making connections that do not exist.

REPLY: they didn't say that that was not the case before their council, merely that that was not to be done any more.

They didn't say that women had not been performing the Eucharistic sacrifice, they didn't say that presidents did not do this, or that women had not been presidents.

They admitted women HAD been presidents, because they said that women should not be presidents ANY MORE.

Since Justin Martyr said the president of the meeting made the Eucharistic sacrifice, if a woman was president then she made the Eucharistic sacrifice.

neither did they say that acts already done by women presidents were invalid (which would include more than the Eucharist).

They said women were not be presidents ANY MORE and did not say that those who had spent their lives receiving the Eucharist from such had to get a "real" Eucharist from a male president.

chenlina said...

chenlina20150711
jordan retro 11
chanel outlet online
abercrombie
burberry outlet
coach outlet
tods outlet store
jordan 5
oakley sunglasses
air max 90
abercrombie and fitch
lululemon
longchamp soldes
oakley sunglasses
michael kors handbags
true religion sale
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet online sale
abercrombie fitch
beats by dr dre
michael kors outlet online
abercrombie
christian louboutin outlet
ed hardy clothing
louis vuitton uk outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap chi straighteners
chi flat iron
chanel outlet
lululemon outlet
adidas outlet
celine bags
louis vuitton outlet
hollister clothing
birkin bags
polo ralph lauren
true religion outlet
cheap jerseys wholesale
ray ban sunglasses
louis vuitton handbags
air max shoes

chenlina said...

chenlina20160402
louboutin
cheap oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
tory burch outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach outlet
coach factory outlet
jordan retro 11
nike sb janoski
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
christian louboutin shoes
polo ralph lauren
kate spade outlet
jordan 3 retro
ray ban sunglasses uk
michael kors bags
kobe shoes
tiffany and co
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton purses
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet
mcm handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors uk
coach factory outlet
coach factorty outlet
christian louboutin shoes
air jordan femme
coach factorty outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin sale
fitflops
coach outlet
lebron james basketball shoes
louis vuitton handbags
timberlands
nike uk
as

Fangyaya said...

"toms outlet"
"michael kors outlet online"
"michael kors outlet"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"nfl jerseys wholesale"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals"
"timberland outlet"
"christian louboutin shoes"
"nike roshe run"
"hollister clothing"
"ray ban sunglasses outlet"
"coach outlet store online clearances"
"toms shoes"
"jeremy scott shoes"
"jordan retro 3"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals shoes"
"jordans"
"nike air max"
"kate spade handbags"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"michael kors handbags"
"timberland boots"
"jordan retro"
"tory burch handbags"
"supra shoes"
"air max 90"
"coach outlet store online"
"christian louboutin sale"
"adidas yeezy"
"tory burch outlet"
"polo ralph lauren"
"jordan 4"
"oakley sunglasses"
"nike uk"
"christian louboutin outlet"
"michael kors outlet"
"kobe shoes 11"
"oakley sunglasses"
20167.6chenjinyan

Gege Dai said...

ray ban sunglasses
oakley sunglasses wholesale
pandora jewelry
ray ban sunglasses
ugg boots clearance
cheap jordan shoes
oakley sunglasses
coach outlet online
ray-ban sunglasses
fitflops outlet sale
canada goose sale
coach outlet
fitflops sale
nike outlet store
cheap canada goose jackets
beats by dr dre
longchamp
hermes outlet store
longchamp outlet online
ralph lauren uk
nfl jerseys wholesale
north face jacket
kate spade uk
true religion outlet
swarovski crystal
the north face jacket
michael kors outlet
uggs on sale
ugg boots on sale
tory burch outlet online
fitflops sale
coach outlet
tory burch outlet
supra shoes sale
michael kors handbags
czq20160824

Jian Zhuo said...

louis vuitton canada
levis outlet online
coach outlet
louboutin
michael kors handbags
tommy hilfiger shoes
coach outlet store online clearances
toms shoes
cheap jordans free shipping
oakley sunglasses
20170114

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 310 of 310   Newer› Newest»