New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[Razgovory]

You know, that the Gospel of Mary is not amongst the Nag Hammadi texts right?  The Gospel of Mary likely post dates the rest of the canonical gospels and it may not even have been a widespread text (it's written in Egyptian).  In all likelihood it was never considered.  The Gospels are of Thomas and Peter are even later (though they are found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls).

I meant that the Gospel of Mary is in the Nag Hammadi Library, not that it was one of the original Nag Hammadi codices. The first copy of the Gospel of Mary that was found was Coptic, yes, but most scholars agree that it was originally written in Greek in the early 2nd century, roughly the same time as the Gospels of Matthew & Luke.

The Gospels of Thomas and Peter (and Phillip) are believed to have been written in the late-1st to early-2nd centuries, again, the same time period that Matthew and Luke are believed to have been written. The manuscripts found in Nag Hammadi (where these gospels were first found) were 5th century, but bits and pieces of the writings have been found as far back as the late-1st century. So you're sort of right, but only in the same way that it's right to say that finding a copy of Shakespeare today means that his plays were clearly written in the 21st century.

Were they ever seriously considered for the Bible? I don't know, and neither do you. No one knows for certain. It's unlikely, given that they were gnostic texts, but there's absolutely no way of knowing with any certainty.

That's not the point though, is it? The point is that there were books - written in period by people living in that area - that showed women in a far better light as they related to Jesus than, say, Paul claims. That those books were left out of the Bible has created a significant series of laws for how women have been treated for centuries.

I am unsure how the "Nag Hammadi" library differs from the codices found at the site.  Is this like the public library of the town or something?  Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.  I don't know which parts of the Nag Hammadi texts were found in the late first 1st century, except for the works of Plato (which were found there).  Perhaps you can enlighten us.

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

[crazy canuck]

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

Not really.  We only know which books the various councils selected.  We know almost nothing about which books they excluded except for the books that were accepted by other councils.  The fact that different councils selected different and differing numbers of books to make up the New Testament is itself evidence of the debate that was going on as to what should be in and what should be out.  It is important again to stress that the books that all agreed should considered as heresy were destroyed and so we know very little about them.

[Razgovory]

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

Not really.  We only know which books the various councils selected.  We know almost nothing about which books they excluded except for the books that were accepted by other councils.  The fact that different councils selected different and differing numbers of books to make up the New Testament is itself evidence of the debate that was going on as to what should be in and what should be out.  It is important again to stress that the books that all agreed should considered as heresy were destroyed and so we know very little about them.

Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

[crazy canuck]

Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

[Sheilbh]

Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

Celibacy is a discipline within the Roman Catholic Church - it's not observed in Eastern Catholic Churches and there are dispensations for Anglican converts too, especially within the Ordinariate (separate group for converted Anglicans). I think all of them allow married men to become priests, I don't think priests are allowed to marry in any of them.

The position on women priests is a doctrine - it can't be changed. It was stated quite definitively by JP. Here's Francis on women priests:
'And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : "No." John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed, but I'd like to say something about this. I've said it, but I repeat it. Our Lady, Mary, was more important than the Apostles, than bishops, deacons and priests. In the Church, woman is more important than bishops and priests; now, it's what we must seek to make more explicit, because theological explicitness about this is lacking.'

However....if it were such a slam dunk argument, then how is that other Christian faiths do in fact allow for the ordination of female priests? Are they not Christians?

Most of them aren't Churches in the Catholic view - they don't have apostolic succession which is key especially to the debate about women priests. It's been the big theological issue within the CofE too and is why, even now, they have female priests but not female bishops, though they will.

It is worth pointing out that the Church's view is that there's not enough scripture to be conclusively part of doctrine on that ground alone - so it's not considered a divinely revealed doctrine. But there's also the constant tradition of the Church which together makes it part of the teaching of the Church.

[Razgovory]

Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

Letter's is perhaps a bit of an understatement.  Many of the early christians wrote about which books that were considered heretical.  Irenaeus and Tatian are prime examples of people saying what was in and out.

I see you are still Erhman partisan, despite everything.

[merithyn]

Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

[merithyn]

Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

I'm sorry. You must have misunderstood. I said that I had studied Catholicism for 20 years before I decided that I could no longer participate in that religion.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Celibacy is a discipline within the Roman Catholic Church - it's not observed in Eastern Catholic Churches and there are dispensations for Anglican converts too, especially within the Ordinariate (separate group for converted Anglicans).

Incorrect, there are some twenty odd Eastern Catholic Churches (Church in the broad sense, many of them are international in scope) and some of them have complete Priest celibacy. All of them distinguish between monastic and non-monastic Priests. Monastic Priests in Eastern Catholicism all practice celibacy, further, the vast majority of non-mastic Eastern Catholic Priests also practice celibacy--but some that were married prior to being ordained as deacons do exist. No Eastern Catholic Bishops are non-celibate, as the Eastern Catholics almost exclusively choose Bishops from the monastic ranks, and in the very rare cases where they have not, it has always been celibate non-monastic Priests. I don't want to speak out of school, but I believe it is a doctrine of theirs that no one can be ordained to the episcopate rank who doesn't practice celibacy.

There are dispensations for Anglican converts, but it is not automatic. If someone wants to be a Catholic Priest and they were previously ordained in the Church of England and are married, they have to apply for dispensation to the Pope. It is not an automatic process, I do not know the numbers on how many have been granted dispensations (maybe it's all of them), but they have to go through a bit of procedure to get in as members of the priesthood, and they have to be ordained again as the church does not at all recognize Anglican ordination.

[Razgovory]

Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

[Razgovory]

Quite a few letters were written discussing the subject and many of these survive.  Besides, this aimed at the expert, who spent 20 years researching the subject.

I'm sorry. You must have misunderstood. I said that I had studied Catholicism for 20 years before I decided that I could no longer participate in that religion.

Exactly what is the difference here?

[Eddie Teach]

Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

[Razgovory]

Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

[Razgovory]

What exactly does every one mean by "Being Razzy"?

In this particular case your Razzishness consists of in effect calling Meri a liar without providing any evidence to refute her claim.  If you think she's wrong, explain why you think she's wrong.  If you are just curious and would like her to give more detail, ask nicely and don't act like a rabid chihuahua.

I took issue her with giving the impression of expertise, but you are probably right.  I'll leave her alone.  She can claim whatever the hell she wants.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

You don't get lectured on supply chains and dividends when buying groceries.