Constantine and Bishop Galasius Endorse a More Inclusive Form of Christianity - 496 AD

[Teriyaki]

So this past weekend I watched a very interesting documentary entitled "The Female Disciples of Jesus." It featured historians Joan Taylor and Helen Bond as they went through Israel looking for clues as to the female disciples of Jesus. I highly recommend you watch it if you are interested in the role of women during the early days of the church, very informative and an enjoyable watch.

Anyway, toward the end of the video, it was mentioned that the key turning point where women were no longer allowed in an official capacity to serve as bishops and Christian leaders was during the reign of Constantine. When Constantine officially became a Christian, he endorsed a very militarized strictly dick-ly version of Christianity, where women were subservient to men. A way this was illustrated in the documentary was the gradual progression of the style of sarcophagi and the prominence of women displayed on them during the ages. Another figure who reinforced this was Pope Gelasius, who wrote a letter in 496 AD stating that women could no longer serve in the Christian church or hold services or have any prominence. Basically Constantine and Gelasius screwed it up for women everywhere and everywhen by this.

What if Constantine and Gelasius had allowed women to continue to serve in an official capacity in the church that would have allowed there to be female priests and bishops into the modern age?

 

[Philip]

Anyway, toward the end of the video, it was mentioned that the key turning point where women were no longer allowed in an official capacity to serve as bishops and Christian leaders was during the reign of Constantine. When Constantine officially became a Christian, he endorsed a very militarized strictly dick-ly version of Christianity, where women were subservient to men.

Can you name a female bishop in the 100 years prior to Constantine?

 

[Teriyaki]

Can you name a female bishop in the 100 years prior to Constantine?

Cerula. In the catacombs under Rome, there was a painting found on the walls of a woman bishop showing two copies of the gospels exuding tongues of fire. In the fifth century AD, this imagery was consistent with a bishop of the early Roman Christian church.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/31/early-church-found-place-female-bishops-experts-claim/

 

[Ilúphatar]

the key turning point where women were no longer allowed in an official capacity to serve as bishops and Christian leaders was during the reign of Constantine.

Actually the preference for male spiritual leadership had its foundations in Judaism and in the writings of Paul, the most relevant of which was 1 Timothy 2:12. It's not really possible to divorce any biblically-based form of Christianity from the principle of 'Complementarianism' (the idea that men and women have different, complementary roles).

It's very possible to have a situation where women are accepted as deacons, however, as there is no clear biblical prohibition against female deacons (that really depends upon one's interpretation of 1 Timothy 3). IOTL deaconesses were fairly common until Catholicism became more institutionalised, and largely disappeared outside nunneries by the 9th century. Perhaps if they were specifically endorsed at an early stage, rather than allowing the situation to remain ambiguous, deaconesses would have endured into the later centuries.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Cerula. In the catacombs under Rome, there was a painting found on the walls of a woman bishop showing two copies of the gospels exuding tongues of fire. In the fifth century AD, this imagery was consistent with a bishop of the early Roman Christian church.

That interpretation seems quite strained. There's nothing in the painting which specifies her as a bishop, and if female bishops really did exist, we'd expect to find some unambiguous reference to them, not the sort of "Well, she's got Gospels around her, Gospels were put on bishops' heads during ordination, therefore she was a bishop" stuff the linked article gives.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

It's very possible to have a situation where women are accepted as deacons, however, as there is no clear biblical prohibition against female deacons (that really depends upon one's interpretation of 1 Timothy 3). IOTL deaconesses were fairly common until Catholicism became more institutionalised, and largely disappeared outside nunneries by the 9th century. Perhaps if they were specifically endorsed at an early stage, rather than allowing the situation to remain ambiguous, deaconesses would have endured into the later centuries.

Deaconesses weren't just "Deacons, but female", though; they had their own specific tasks, usually ones which it was thought immodest or impractical to send a man (e.g., one source mentions that pagan men wouldn't let male priests visit their Christian wives, but would let other women do so). The decline of deaconesses was more probably because such situations became rarer once Christianity became the dominant religion, and had nothing to do with "institutionalisation" (aside from anything else, why would becoming more institutionalised result in the abandonment of using deaconesses?).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Anyway, toward the end of the video, it was mentioned that the key turning point where women were no longer allowed in an official capacity to serve as bishops and Christian leaders was during the reign of Constantine. When Constantine officially became a Christian, he endorsed a very militarized strictly dick-ly version of Christianity, where women were subservient to men.

I'll bet a tenner that nobody's able to actually find any primary source for this.

 

[Teriyaki]

I'll bet a tenner that nobody's able to actually find any primary source for this.

Quoted from letter from Pope Geleasius the I during the reign of Constantine (roughly 496 AD) :

"We have learned to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a lower state that women are encouraged to officiate at sacred altars and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong."

 

[Karolus Rex]

Quoted from letter from Pope Geleasius the I during the reign of Constantine (roughly 496 AD) :

"We have learned to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a lower state that women are encouraged to officiate at sacred altars and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong."

In 496 the Emperor was Anastasius Dicorus tho.

 

[Philip]

Cerula. In the catacombs under Rome, there was a painting found on the walls of a woman bishop

Interpreting that image as a bishop is quite a stretch. Most obviously is that she is not depicted in priestly garments, in particular a stole. Add to that that there is no written record of a Bishop Cerula (and the church was very focussed at tracking these lineages), the interpretation is little more than speculation.

 

[Philip]

Quoted from letter from Pope Geleasius the I during the reign of Constantine (roughly 496 AD) :

"We have learned to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a lower state that women are encouraged to officiate at sacred altars and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong."

Can you point is to the actual source? As I read the quoted portion, it sounds like Geleasius is objecting to a new practice. That is, he is not stating that the church should not have female priests. Rather, he is saying that the church has never had female priests, and that that shouldn't change.

(We'll skip the fact that Constantine died in 337.)

 

[Philip]

aside from anything else, why would becoming more institutionalised result in the abandonment of using deaconesses?

Two suggestions:

One of the major duties of deaconesses was helping prepare women for baptism. As the church became. and the baptism as a child became more prominent, the deaconesses were left without a job.

The increase of female monastics could have also displaced the deaconesses.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Two suggestions:

One of the major duties of deaconesses was helping prepare women for baptism. As the church became. and the baptism as a child became more prominent, the deaconesses were left without a job.

The increase of female monastics could have also displaced the deaconesses.

Those are both plausible suggestions, although I'm not sure that I'd describe them as resulting from *institutionalisation* specifically. Infant baptism didn't become the norm until the 5th century or so, well after Constantine's conversion (and the Church was already quite institutionalised even before then), and monasticism in this period was more often undertaken on individual initiative, without much involvement from the Church hierarchy.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Can you point is to the actual source? As I read the quoted portion, it sounds like Geleasius is objecting to a new practice. That is, he is not stating that the church should not have female priests. Rather, he is saying that the church has never had female priests, and that that shouldn't change.

(We'll skip the fact that Constantine died in 337.)

I've done a bit of looking around, and it looks like it's from Gelasius' 9th Letter ("Ad Episcopos Lucaniae"), chapter 26; the original passage, for the Latinate amongst you, is as follows:

Nihilominus impatienter audivimus tantum divinarum rerum subiisse despectum, ut feminae sacris altaribus ministrare ferantur; et cuncta quae non nisi virorum famulatui deputata sunt, sexum cui non competit exhibere.

One thing to note is that "ministrare" is actually a fair bit vaguer than "officiate"; "officiate" is generally used specifically of the presiding priest, whereas "ministrare" means "to serve" in general. So it might just be that the Lucanians have been using female altar servers, and not female priests at all.