It’s been said that in the earliest days of the Christian church, women sometimes officiated, particularly in major centers outside the Jewish core areas, like Rome. Part of the argument is that early Masses were often held in private homes, so the wife would often conduct the service as a natural outgrowth of the traditional “hostess” role. Then further, Mediterranean pagans had long been accustomed to having priestesses and female oracles.
So who can comment constructively on the question of woman priests in the early Church? Were female priests really common in the early days? Or did the patriarchal traditions of the Jewish people (no offense meant there) prevent that from ever happening?
I read a book called Sisters in Arms by Jo Ann Kay McNamara (Amazon link) that’s about nuns and other women in the Catholic church.
Sorry to say, I only read the first third or so. Full of interesting facts, but kind of repetitive. But, lucky for you, this part of the book was about the early Church (as ya might expect.) A concept stressed by the author was syneisacticism–the radical belief in the early Church that men and women could interact independently of gender or S-E-X. The Church at this stage was highly millenial; it was taught that the End Times were on their way soon, so the “be fruitful and multiply” bit had served its puprose; the duty of a Christian now was to prepare for the return of Christ by purifying themselves spiritually and winning new converts. Men and women should abstain entirely from sex, because it was not necessary to procreate–only to covert as many poor souls as possible. Women were freed from the burden of motherhood, and perhaps more importantly, from the strictures of sexual politics.
Or, at least, so the author says. Check out the sample pages at Amazon.
I heard that there was a Pope Joan, who pretended to be her brother John, but got pregnant once she was pope. Once this was discovered, the Church erased all records of her. Does anyone have any idea if this is true?
Women may have converted in larger numbers than men in the first century of Christianity. Many believe that this was crucial to the early church’s survival as it is usually the woman who set the religous belief for a household.
In regard to the OP, it’s more likely that the woman was Christian, and she had no husband or the husband wasn’t (very) Christian.
Some of the New Testament letters clearly refer to women in deacon or higher roles. It is generally believed that in some places, the local “bishop” may have been a woman.
Some studies of writing of the New Testament have strongly suggested that certain books were written by women. But this is quite hotly disputed. Although the only “anti” arguments I have ever seen are “traditional author was male” (who believes “traditional authorship” anyway?) and just plain anti-woman crap.
IMHO, if it wasn’t for Saul’s misogynism, women priests and higher would be commonly accepted today.
You REALLY think if it weren’t for Saul, there’d be women priests and bishops today?
I have a different theory: if it weren’t for Saul, there’d be nothing worth calling a church. Christianity would still be a tiny, insignificant, Jewish fringe cult.
Check out the sample pages at Amazon.