Priesthood did not function in the Earliest Christian Communities

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

 

Mark 9:38-39 doesn’t seem to refer to ordained priesthood or ecclesiastical office. But Matthew 16:18-19 does seem to (“keys” in connection with authority in a “church”), and while we cannot tell how far ahead Jesus was envisioning building His church, it seems to have occurred by 18:17 (complete with a grievance procedure!). These three passages seem to indicate that the church was built after the transfiguration (as recorded in Matthew 17 and Mark 9) and after Jesus refers to or acknowledges a priesthood order relationship in Matthew 17:10-12 and Mark 9: 11-13. That the church followed the establishment of the principle of priesthood order and keys indicates a progression into ecclesiastical authority. Knowing that sequence of events isn’t a priority for these kinds of texts, how does the sequence described in Matthew and Mark compare to the other texts you’re using?

 

The conversation from Mark seems to refer to the disciples observing a man doing miracles in Jesus’ name, but I wouldn’t say that Jesus was excluding women from doing miracles in His name. I don’t think He was acknowledging a priesthood order either, but merely admonishing the disciples to receive them because any good deed performed in His name was good for the cause at the time.

 

Just a thought: the grammatical gender of  a noun is often arbitrary and may even contrast with their meaning. Do you know how this applies to the Greek words for power and authority? Then again, behavior-wise, the principles of power and authority as taught by Jesus reflect "feminine" attributes such as gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings (which depending on context are a symbol of power, strength, love)..

Okay, so...in Mark (and remember this is the earliest text from which both Matthew and Luke copy) Jesus simply asks Peter, Andrew, James and John to follow him.  Levi later joins them. That begins right at Mark 1.  Jesus teaches repentance and the coming of God's Kingdom, he teaches as *one having authority*, set against those who really do have institutional authority (the scribes). He heals (like the Therapeutae) both physical and mental illness.  Interestingly, he sends those healed off to the institutional priests.

“See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them".  Jesus is a Jew here, teaching in the synagogue,  respecting certain Jewish institutional traditions.  He sends people off to a priest because he isn't one.  

Mark is quite specific about what the disciples were asked to do.  

 

Quote

And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons.

That's not until Chapter 3, with 4 then 5 core disciples with Jesus initially.   The role of the 12 here is to proclaim the message and to cast out demons (with healing and calling to repentance added later).  That's different from Paul's understanding of the function  of an apostle.  It is the casting out of demons (something Jesus specifically gives authoritatively to the disciples), that John objects to, when conducted by someone outside the group.   The emphasis is on authority.  John doesn't think these guys (in Mark 9), have it...Jesus does.   

 

I agree that Matthew wants to present a nice view of ecclesiastical order, which is why he is a favourite of many a church seeking to establish authority...but one must ask why Matthew copies and changes Mark when it comes to the role of Peter.

 

Here's the earlier Markan version... Peter is given no authority to bind and loose here.  

 

Mark 8

"Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him."

 

Shorter, more abrupt with no sign of developing ecclesiastical office. 

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Mark 8

"Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him."

Shorter, more abrupt with no sign of developing ecclesiastical office. 

As corrupt as it was, Jesus acknowledged the role of the Jews' religious institution until He fulfilled the law, and observed its requirements as He deemed appropriate (e.g. how He handled the sabbath observance). At the same time, He taught the higher law and evidently established a "sister" church in the time frame He had told Peter. As Messiah, Jesus was the rightful King and High Priest all along (so there is one office already established) for both systems, so whatever was done by the adherents of either was done under His auspices, power and authority, or His priesthood office (as the term is likewise used in Luke 1:8-9, for example). Inasmuch as He gave power to His disciples, He gave them priesthood (even before the transfiguration), and inasmuch as He was acting in His office, their delegation makes them officers as well. Do the older texts you are using indicate otherwise?

[Jude2]

21 hours ago, Abulafia said:

And I respect that as an approach, but believe it or not, canon has a history and many texts were disputed and argued over.   Why four gospels for instance.  That's actually a really important issues.  Why four?   Why didn't other gospels and accounts make it?  We can either say...divine intervention. ..or we can recognise that what was picked, what was disputed and what was eventually left out, was done so according to a fought over and developing orthodoxy.  (see Lee  MacDonald on  this, or even Ehrman).  So, my approach is historical critical.  You may not agree with that approach, but it has a long history and is a valid and useful one for analysing texts without too many theological presuppositions.   

 

I think all your questioning of the Bible is an example of why the Lord made sure there was another Testament of Christ with the Book of Mormon. 

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

As corrupt as it was, Jesus acknowledged the role of the Jews' religious institution until He fulfilled the law, and observed its requirements as He deemed appropriate (e.g. how He handled the sabbath observance). At the same time, He taught the higher law and evidently established a "sister" church in the time frame He had told Peter. As Messiah, Jesus was the rightful King and High Priest all along (so there is one office already established) for both systems, so whatever was done by the adherents of either was done under His auspices, power and authority, or His priesthood office (as the term is likewise used in Luke 1:8-9, for example). Inasmuch as He gave power to His disciples, He gave them priesthood (even before the transfiguration), and inasmuch as He was acting in His office, their delegation makes them officers as well. Do the older texts you are using indicate otherwise?

Okay.  So what you are suggesting and outlining is a theological position, but it is a theological position that is not there in the earliest texts. That's all I am saying. 

Again, I use only Mark, Q, M, L and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, not because I seek to establish my own narrative, I really don't have one, but to seek for answers as to how the earliest communities operated.  Remember that Mark was written at about 70ce. He's anonymous,  but if he really was a companion of Peter, then Mark would know about Peter's calling by Jesus and the giving of authority to bind and loose.  He doesn't.   He knows nothing of it.  So, Matthew's inclusion of this addition to the story is probably because he is writing later than Mark, and is seeking to establish authority.  That's how groups and religions invariably develop.  Same with Mormonism.  If you read David Whitmer's *address to all believers* he knows nothing of visits from Peter, James and John or John the Baptist, and so priesthood office and theological approaches to it, developed. (Much to the astonishment of Whitmer).  

 

Matthew's community is pushing authority most likely because it is having it's authority questioned by other groups, and communities...other believers in Jesus,  who saw things slightly differently.

 

That's why the 7 genuine letters of Paul are so interesting.  They reflect that diversity of belief, difference of approach and competition.  What's more, despite being subject to editing, they are first hand (the gospels are not) and early - 50ce, so on par with Q.

 

[Abulafia]

Okay, so your choice of Luke 1: 8, 9 is interesting because it comes from L.  That is, though the author of Luke has Mark, Q and most likely other sources and traditions at hand, this is unique to him.  And it is very, very different to M.  The early life of Jesus and John are so different in M and L that they are likely completely fictional.  That doesn't mean to say that they are not sacred, and that the stories weren't ment to express a theological truth.  (Both author's belief that John and Jesus were divinely called).  

There is some scholarship out there that argues that Luke developed and this is a later addition, which is also interesting.  ( For other accounts of the early life of Mary see the Protevangelium of James, which didn't make it into canon but is broadly the same genre).

L, is the only one to argue that John is from a priestly tribe.   No one else mentions it.  Mark doesn’t. Neither does Matthew, and given that M is seeking to establish authority one would expect him to if he knew anything about it.  From a historical critical point of view that is very interesting. 

[Abulafia]

Just put the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke next to each other and spot their differences! We are so used to harmonizing them in school plays and the like, but they are from different communities who lived in different geographical locations and had completely different traditions and explanations.  What is the same is that John the Baptist and Jesus are important figures for both communities, important enough to want to explain their early life in narrative form.  

(Unlike these narrative Q appears to be a list of sayings of Jesus,  which is why the Gospel of Thomas is interesting...it indcates there were lists of sayings out there, without the narrative storylines employed by the evangelists in the gospels).

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[Abulafia]

As noted above, what is interesting also about those  nativity accounts is the different way women are treated.  Women in Matthew are not entitled to direct angelic visitation. ..everything occurs through Joseph.  In Luke, it's a completely different matter.  We have Anna the prophet, who proclaims joyfully the good news.  Mary, unlike  Matthew is entitled to direct angelic dialogue without Joseph as mediator, and she teaches.  Here at least, in the nativity traditions, women in the Lukan community are strong, involved, active.   In Matthew it's a different story and indicates either that Matthew is more influenced by Tznuit, or that he is just more misogynist and that is reflected in the text.

[boblloyd91]

So I'm currently reading through the early church fathers, and am in the middle of reading Ignatius of Antioch's epistle to the Magnesians. It's interesting how much he emphasizes to follow one's bishop, and makes numerous Old Testament allusions to the necessity of following priesthood authority. Here is a link to information on him:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

he is one of the earliest church fathers, and as such was very familiar with the settings we are discussing. I agree to an extent that priesthood hierarchy may not have looked the same, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any priesthood hierarchy at all.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay.  So what you are suggesting and outlining is a theological position, but it is a theological position that is not there in the earliest texts. That's all I am saying.

***

That's why the 7 genuine letters of Paul are so interesting.  They reflect that diversity of belief, difference of approach and competition.  What's more, despite being subject to editing, they are first hand (the gospels are not) and early - 50ce, so on par with Q.

 

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so your choice of Luke 1: 8, 9 is interesting because it comes from L.  That is, though the author of Luke has Mark, Q and most likely other sources and traditions at hand, this is unique to him.  And it is very, very different to M.  The early life of Jesus and John are so different in M and L that they are likely completely fictional.  That doesn't mean to say that they are not sacred, and that the stories weren't ment to express a theological truth.  (Both author's belief that John and Jesus were divinely called).  

***

 

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Just put the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke next to each other and spot their differences!

***

 

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

As noted above, what is interesting also about those  nativity accounts is the different way women are treated.

***

I’m not familiar with the texts you’re using, hence my questions about how they relate to my ideas from the canon I am familiar with. I do appreciate the purpose and scope of your study, and why you limit it to the earliest texts available, as well as the evolution of and contradiction between the early texts.

With that in mind, I am trying to see the absence of priesthood in the operations you are describing from those texts. Inasmuch as words and phrases such as power, authority, “in my name,” office, messiah, church, etc. are used (and I suppose not all of them are), I think we have evidence of priesthood operating in various ways.

AlI only had time to scan through 1 Timothy and Galatians, but I can see that they contain the following: power, kingdom, church (in Christ Jesus), apostles, covenant, baptism. I think these take Paul's Christianity out of the realm of a movement and into some kind of order.

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

So I'm currently reading through the early church fathers, and am in the middle of reading Ignatius of Antioch's epistle to the Magnesians. It's interesting how much he emphasizes to follow one's bishop, and makes numerous Old Testament allusions to the necessity of following priesthood authority. Here is a link to information on him:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

he is one of the earliest church fathers, and as such was very familiar with the settings we are discussing. I agree to an extent that priesthood hierarchy may not have looked the same, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any priesthood hierarchy at all.

I absolutely agree that ideas about authority and the role of priesthood in that authority (using Judaic practices as a pattern) developed and became orthodox, as did the silencing of women.  Ignatius, one might argue, is attempting to establish authority because his authority is also being questioned over there in Antioch.  For Ignatius the three fold role of bishop, presbyter and deacon (all male by this time) is the way to go, and followers need to accept these leaders as if they are God.  It's also important to remember that he is coming out of Pauline Gentile communities at a time when the Jerusalem church is no longer there.  It would be like how Mormon communities might react if Salt Lake City were destroyed and they were left to pick up the pieces.  There's also no canon at this time.

 

There are two works amongst the fathers that predate Ignatius, at least in their original forms, and that would be the Didache and 1 Clement.  They are also interesting for the examination of how structure developed.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[saemo]

On 11/29/2016 at 3:13 AM, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, many of the early disciples,  and Paul (and all the Greek/Roman) converts, operated and acted outside of priesthood.  It's just not there.  these were groups that began on the borderline of a diverse faith tradition, and were different to, say, the Essenes at Qumran who claimed  authentic Jewish priesthood authority on and against the usurpers operating in Jerusalem.

 

Because there was no male priesthood, women were involed and led in ways not recognised today.  They taught, baptised, proselytised, and called on the power of God in their work. They were invited to partake at Jesus table and to judge the tribes...... as gentiles, men and women were called to judge the world (by Paul).

 

The Pope seems to have doubled down, of late, on women...sadly...but at some point...both Catholic priests and Mormon priesthood will need to recognise the sandy foundation upon which their authority is built..

 

Comments...

Women have always served and have always been disciples. We are not ordained. Yet we have the understanding of the priesthood of all believers  We are all by our baptism, sharers in the prophethood, priesthood and kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Not all men are ordained. All laity, men and women, participate in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. We have a second priesthood, that like the priesthood of all believers, is sacramental, that is the sacrament of Ordination, 

For example, when we cross ourselves with holy water, and do the same to our children as parents, it is a priestly action. We are all participants in the liturgy as the  holy ones of God. There are valid liturgical reasons for an all male ordination. As a Catholic woman I am not offended at an all male ordination. Just as I am not offended that Jesus is male.

For Catholics, anyone can baptize, it is ordinarily done by a Bishop who delegates this responsibility to priests.

 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Jude2 said:

 

I think all your questioning of the Bible is an example of why the Lord made sure there was another Testament of Christ with the Book of Mormon. 

From a historical and text critical perspective, the Book of Mormon doesn't help to address any of these issues. Theology is of course another matter entirely. 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Abulafia said:

But my purpose isn't to show that the church *isn't true*...only to show that both Catholic and Mormon (where leaders from both use precedent and tradition) practice must be set against the lived experience of the earliest Jesus followers. 

What exactly does that mean?  I do not understand it.

[Abulafia]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

 

 

I’m not familiar with the texts you’re using, hence my questions about how they relate to my ideas from the canon I am familiar with. I do appreciate the purpose and scope of your study, and why you limit it to the earliest texts available, as well as the evolution of and contradiction between the early texts.

With that in mind, I am trying to see the absence of priesthood in the operations you are describing from those texts. Inasmuch as words and phrases such as power, authority, “in my name,” office, messiah, church, etc. are used (and I suppose not all of them are), I think we have evidence of priesthood operating in various ways.

AlI only had time to scan through 1 Timothy and Galatians, but I can see that they contain the following: power, kingdom, church (in Christ Jesus), apostles, covenant, baptism. I think these take Paul's Christianity out of the realm of a movement and into some kind of order.

All the texts I use (Mark, Q, M and L) can be found in the gospels.  Mark speaks for itself, and I use the NRSV version, you find Q by noting what Matthew and Luke share, but that they don't get from Mark.  M and L are found just by picking out what is unqiue to Matthew (M) and what is unique to Luke (L).   The nativity stories (which only Matthew and Luke have) are examples of unique texts.

 

Authority,  power, priesthood are tricky areas, because they need breaking up a bit to understand what is meant.  Dallin Oaks in his talk on the keys and power of priesthood in 2014, and the Pope in his letter on Priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Letter 1994)appeal to tradition, and I am trying to argue that the tradition is more nuanced.

 

So, basically you have 3 strands operating in this, in my estimation.

Liberal versus Conservative approaches to authority (Mark's Jesus is liberal with authority as noted in Mark 9:38, 39) set against someone writing later, like Ignatius, who argues that no ordinance - marriage, eucharist, baptism was valid without a Bishop's presence and approval (Smyrnians 8:1-2).

There's also hierarchical and egalitarian approaches to authority.  This is a big deal for Mark, Paul, and for Q. So Mark has Jesus telling his followers that he who would be the greatest must become the lowest and servant of all (Mark 9:34-35), whilst Igantius again has the Bishop given complete authority as if he were God (Trallians 3:1).

Then lastly there is charismatic versus institutional authority.  Here we need to remember that Jesus, Paul, Peter and others have authority by virtue of their charismatic role.  (Joseph Smith, I would argue is similar).   The function of Prophets were based around charismatic gifts and is gender neutral (believe it or not!).

 

Most religion's do not survive unless they make the move from charismatic to Institutional office.  But it means there is loss as well as gain.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[Abulafia]

17 minutes ago, saemo said:

Women have always served and have always been disciples. We are not ordained. Yet we have the understanding of the priesthood of all believers  We are all by our baptism, sharers in the prophethood, priesthood and kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Not all men are ordained. All laity, men and women, participate in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. We have a second priesthood, that like the priesthood of all believers, is sacramental, that is the sacrament of Ordination, 

For example, when we cross ourselves with holy water, and do the same to our children as parents, it is a priestly action. We are all participants in the liturgy as the  holy ones of God. There are valid liturgical reasons for an all male ordination. As a Catholic woman I am not offended at an all male ordination. Just as I am not offended that Jesus is male.

For Catholics, anyone can baptize, it is ordinarily done by a Bishop who delegates this responsibility to priests.

 

I understand that.  The part where I would take issue from a historical point of view is that the earliest followers were also not ordained.  if you could explain what you mean by *ordain* we could explore further,  but,  from my own research,  it isn't there in the earliest layers of the gospel and Pauline tradition.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay.  So what you are suggesting and outlining is a theological position, but it is a theological position that is not there in the earliest texts. That's all I am saying. 

And all I am questioning is why that approach is relevant to modern believers 

What was relevant 2000 years ago may not be relevant today.

[Abulafia]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What exactly does that mean?  I do not understand it.

It means that there is precedence within the earliest layers of the gospel and Pauline tradition for doing things just a little differently!

[Abulafia]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

And all I am questioning is why that approach is relevant to modern believers 

What was relevant 2000 years ago may not be relevant today.

Absolutely.   I am sure many are perfectly happy with the status quo, but, again, for others, how religions operate structurally does matter, and the influence of those traditions and structures upon the lives of billions of people, male and female, is immense. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia
P

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Absolutely.   I am sure many are perfectly happy with the status quo, but, again, for others, how religions operate structurally does matter, and the influence of those traditions and structures upon the lives of billions of people, male and female, is immense. 

How religions operate structurally is usually a function of how the culture operates  structurally. Admittedly we have had a patriarchal structure forever. Admittedly that should change and is in the process of changing both in the world and in the church. The church is a microcosm of the larger culture.

I still just see a tacit assumption here that "we should change back to the way it was 2000 years ago". That is what I am questioning.

I am a big picture guy. I'm just questioning the relevance of the topic for believers today.

I think virtually no one today thinks that women should be subservient to men, and if they do they are the ones who are 2000 years behind the times.

The church is in the process of working these issues through just as society is, but I am not sure what that has to do with theology.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

All the texts I use (Mark, Q, M and L) can be found in the gospels.  Mark speaks for itself, and I use the NRSV version, you find Q by noting what Matthew and Luke share, but that they don't get from Mark.  M and L are found just by picking out what is unqiue to Matthew (M) and what is unique to Luke (L).   The nativity stories (which only Matthew and Luke have) are examples of unique texts.

Authority,  power, priesthood are tricky areas, because they need breaking up a bit to understand what is meant.  Dallin Oaks in his talk on the keys and power of priesthood in 2014, and the Pope in his letter on Priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Letter 1994)appeal to tradition, and I am trying to argue that the tradition is more nuanced.

So, basically you have 3 strands operating in this, in my estimation.

Liberal versus Conservative approaches to authority (Mark's Jesus is liberal with authority as noted in Mark 9:38, 39) set against someone writing later, like Ignatius, who argues that no ordinance - marriage, eucharist, baptism was valid without a Bishop's presence and approval (Smyrnians 8:1-2).

There's also hierarchical and egalitarian approaches to authority.  This is a big deal for Mark, Paul, and for Q. So Mark has Jesus telling his followers that he who would be the greatest must become the lowest and servant of all (Mark 9:34-35), whilst Igantius again has the Bishop given complete authority as if he were God (Trallians 3:1).

Then lastly there is charismatic versus institutional authority.  Here we need to remember that Jesus, Paul, Peter and others have authority by virtue of their charismatic role.  (Joseph Smith, I would argue is similar).   The function of Prophets were based around charismatic gifts and is gender neutral (believe it or not!).

Most religion's do not survive unless they make the move from charismatic to Institutional office.  But it means there is loss as well as gain.

The LDS Church has likewise changed quite a bit since 04/06/1830, and I suppose that some members would like her power and authority operate in the same manner as it did back then (however that might be articulated).

Does the earliest LDS Church reflect the lack of priesthood operation you are concluding from the early Christian texts? If so, it would seem, according to LDS belief, that the Lord restored the Gospel from an earlier point in its introduction as a movement in Palestine than when it spread abroad as a church and institution (pre-apostasy, of course). If not, the Restoration picked up at a later point, when it entailed a more structured priesthood order, but still prior to the Gospel becoming corrupted.

I suppose the LDS Church will continue to change, and she will eventually give way to the Church of the Firstborn in heaven. But there still seems to be a priesthood order in some fashion in operation throughout all eternity. I don’t think the addition of priesthood structure (however it is manifest) need squelch the spirit of the movement, especially when considering the requirements for its proper operation and its purpose for preserving family relationships.

Edited December 1, 2016 by CV75

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How religions operate structurally is usually a function of how the culture operates  structurally. Admittedly we have had a patriarchal structure forever. Admittedly that should change and is in the process of changing both in the world and in the church. The church is a microcosm of the larger culture.

I still just see a tacit assumption here that "we should change back to the way it was 2000 years ago". That is what I am questioning.

I am a big picture guy. I'm just questioning the relevance of the topic for believers today.

I think virtually no one today thinks that women should be subservient to men, and if they do they are the ones who are 2000 years behind the times.

The church is in the process of working these issues through just as society is, but I am not sure what that has to do with theology.

Okay, so I had to start from somewhere in how leaders today in both traditions justify priesthood operation, that's why I mentioned the references above...

"Dallin Oaks in his talk on the keys and power of priesthood in 2014, and the Pope in his letter on Priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Letter 1994) appeal to tradition, and I am trying to argue that the tradition is more nuanced."

 

So I am dealing with and responding to the leaders of these traditions, but totally respect your more nuanced view.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[Abulafia]

Okay, so here are the links I used.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

For Mormonism, and....

 

For Catholicism. .

 

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

 

 

[Abulafia]

So, Elder Oaks says quite concisely ..."But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

So, here, as I understand it, Elder Oaks is using a *divinely decreed pattern* as justification for why women do not hold priesthood office.  Today, in the modern LDS church, that means women cannot be a Bishop, a Deacon, an Apostle,  a Prophet, a baptiser, a healer,  nor can a women bless or administer the sacrament.  

 

Likewise the Pope says the following. ..

 

 

"Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."

 

He continues. .

"In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."(5)

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I had to start from somewhere in how leaders today in both traditions justify priesthood operation, that's why I mentioned the references above...

"Dallin Oaks in his talk on the keys and power of priesthood in 2014, and the Pope in his letter on Priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Letter 1994) appeal to tradition, and I am trying to argue that the tradition is more nuanced."

 

So I am dealing with and responding to the leaders of these traditions, but totally respect your more nuanced view.

AHA!

So the agenda we already knew was there emerges and the tacit assumptions become explicit.   Another "women and the priesthood thread".  Yawn.  Been there discussed that to death.

And yes we are working on another definition or way of seeing it, and Dallin Oaks rightly referred to tradition- It IS A TRADITION, no question about it.

The point is our church is based on change and continuing revelation.

Tradition is irrelevant (theoretically) in our church because we have an open canon and there is no need to go back to the way it was 2000 years ago- we need to re-define it and we are working on it.  It's gonna take a while.  Arguably someone might have said that keeping blacks from the priesthood was "divinely directed tradition" as well and we know what happened to that view.  Our church changes- that is its strength.

Some are writing new paradigms as we speak.

Of course the issue is more nuanced and I think we all know that.

Sorry- I am a big picture guy and so far in my opinion, this topic has not advanced the big picture.   I mean it's fine if the topic is Biblical History- there are some great comments and points about that.

But I still see the lack of relevance for THOSE points today.  It has nothing to do with my wife and me and how we relate to God as a Proto-Divine Pair before God.  THAT is the direction our theology is headed.

THAT is where the theology becomes relevant- it is in one's personal life.  

We are not going to define theology "the way it was", we cannot.   Because the practice was different for a brief period before what we call "the apostasy" does not mean it can possibly be that way again.  THAT is part of the apostasy itself.  The culture of day won out and that is why there needed to be a restoration (more of a revolution actually) which is still and always will be in process, which is why we have an open canon.

We will come up with a new paradigm that works today.  The past is...... (wait for it).....  past and no longer relevant.  But thanks for the history lesson.

And Catholics always have the good old "sensus fidelium" to do what works for today.  So it is all in process.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

Edited December 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Abulafia]

"

Quote

"AHA!

So the agenda we already knew was there emerges and the tacit assumptions become explicit.   Another "women and the priesthood thread".  Yawn.  Been there discussed that to death."

 

 

 

Sigh, there's no secret conspiracy here, mfb.  Look at my opening post.  I actually think it is problematic for women to ask for priesthood, both in the Catholic and Mormon tradition.  I didn't feel that once upon a time, but do now.  

The core of the issue, is as my heading suggests.  There was no priesthood functioning in the earliest layers of the Jesus communities.  That's the whole point.  There was no priesthood for either men or women.  There were the institutional priests that operated within various strands of Judaism.  So, we have the Essene groups who claim that they have the authentic priesthood which has been corrupted by those holding institutional power in Jerusalem.  And then we have Jesus and John, and Paul who all emerge as charismatics outside institutional office and priesthood.  

 

Paul, in particular is a prime example of this. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Abulafia