This got me thinking on women priests...

And I will respond to that they are both equivalent in that human men and women are children of God, and equally able to carry out whatever work God calls them to do...

 

If men and women are equivalent, it logically follows that they can perform equivalent tasks, wouldn't you agree? Men can breast feed, women can comfortably use urinals and ride with 'both feet' on a horse; men are not on average stronger, taller, faster than women, etc. All these are fictions. Women are just as tall as men, just as strong, just fast, etc, would you agree?

There is a logic to what I am asking, don't think I'm trying to be clever.

 

Actually brother I do think you are trying to be clever and I believe the physical differences in gender make any difference to the ability to hold Holy Orders in the Church. You simply do not agree with women Priests or Bishops and nothing anyone else says will make you think other wise, so really with respect we both have had our say and there is really nothing more to add.

Other then I respect your right to believe differently to me.

Pax et Bonum

 

To say my last word with you on this subject then, physical differences DO make a difference make a difference in our ability to be strong, or to be fast. Men cannot give birth, no matter how much they try, and it is not sexist, or discriminatory, to say that there are some things that naturally, constitutionally, they just cannot do. It's not men's fault, it's nobody's fault really; things are the way they are, and if men do try to give birth or alter themselves in some way, horrific results will ensue.

That is the logic St. Paul gives us as well: woman was not made in the image of God, only man was. Not her fault, it's just the way things are. Adam is first, he is the head of the human race, and Jesus too is the head of the human race -- human beings that are made in the image of God.

Women are not made in the image of God, and cannot be the fundamental, profound, spiritual heads of the human race. Although it's not bad that they weren't made in the image of God, and it is nobody's fault, it also results in certain intrinsic limits to what they can and cannot do. Just as men have intrinsic limits, so women have intrinsic limits, and it is not sexist to say that.

 

If it is supported by Scripture, as you concede, then the argument is over. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." (Article VI)

Female ordination "is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby."

Scripture is the very word of God, it's not a mere text that tells us snippets of truth. We must not use context as a pretext to adulterate the plain meaning of apostolic teachings. As Stalwart aptly pointed out, Christians were countercultural in many things, including the fact that they had an all-male clergy. Pagans had priestesses but generally did not value the female gender, whereas Christians elevated female dignity to an unparallelled status in the Ancient world. And they did so without having to compromise the teaching of the apostles concerning holy orders and leadership in the Church.

Everyone admits that female deacons were a historical reality that eventually died out as infant baptism became prevalent. To keep bringing this up is nothing short of a red herring. Female deacons existed to cater to female needs, out of modesty concerns. They had no spiritual authority over men since that is explicitly forbidden by the very word of God, as you yourself admit. The ancient female diaconate has nothing to do with the current drive to ordain women to leadership positions in the western churches. That's a mere political move from Church leaders that are pandering to feminism and blaspheming the Holy Spirit in the process by attributing to Him a work of the devil.

Stalwart already answered this. I'd also add that slavery is a social issue, not an issue of ecclesiastical ordinance.

If there's anything that Paul did during his life as an apostle was to ruffle feathers. So many that he eventually got killed for it.

 

So do i deny Scripture as the word of God and be branded a Heretic or do i bury my head in the sand over the belief that Paul's Letters are written to specific church's to guide them to the truth of God and to address the spiritual and social issues of his fellow Christians , talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...:think:

Still your comment,Old Christendom , that "Female deacons existed to cater to female needs, out of modesty concerns." Please, can you show me the section within the Bible where it explains this ( that they were there for Female needs only) as it would certainly impact my views on Phoebe.

Still for me , i stand by my fist statement on this topic,
"Why should the word of God be diminished because of the mouth it is spoken through, the message is what is important, not the voice. Should the Holy Communion be any less Holy, because it was blessed by a women and not a Man , This has no impact on my thanks to Christ for what he gave up for all of us"

 

The fourteen (or thirteen) letters of Paul are accepted as canonical scripture by the Christian Church, that is, sacred texts that are used to establish doctrine in the Church. Their scope is not merely temporal, otherwise they would have been rendered useless the minute the first generation of Christians died. Paul's letter to the Romans was also written to the Church in Rome. Are we to look over his teachings on grace simply because the letter was adressed to a local community? If we would take your principle as valid, there would be nothing left of the canonical scriptures to guide us today, let alone of the Christian religion.

There's nothing in the Bible that indicates that there were females ordained by the Apostles or their successors. On the other hand, we have positive evidence of an all-male Christian priesthood and of apostolic restrictions on the role of women in the Church. That's how one should interpret the case of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 or the widows in Timothy 5:3-10: they very well could have been deaconesses, i.e., consecrated women to help the clergy, but there's no positive proof from the Scriptures alone to corroborate an apostolic diaconate for females.

Historically, however, there's evidence of a female diaconate appearing later on and it's in the historical records that we must look for answers to this question. There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. It is probable that this was the starting point for the intervention of women in many other ritual observances even in the sanctuary. The Apostolic Constitutions expressly attribute to them the duty of guarding the doors and maintaining order amongst those of their own sex in the church, and they also (II, c. 26) assign to them the office of acting as intermediaries between the clergy and the women of the congregation; but on the other hand, it is laid down (Const. Apost., VIII, 27) that "the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon", and there can be no doubt that the extravagances permitted in some places, especially in the churches of Syria and Asia, were in contravention of the canons generally accepted.

Not all people can be ordained, Luke, and it's not inconsequential to the Church and to godly religion whoever happens to hold authority, preach the word or administer the sacraments. Remember article XXIII: "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call an send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard."

The ministry in the Christian Church is not a right but a privilege to those who are called by the Lord. And the Lord Our God instituted that only males could hold spiritual authority in His Church, as the Scriptures and the historical record prove. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him.

 

First answer in red, above.

I appreciate your looking out for me, but I am capable of doing that myself.

It is only your opinion that it is not apostolic doctrine. Clearly there were women deacons, and there is evidence of at least one woman apostle.

 

See bold: This reasoning is foreign to me. Why would it be acceptable for a woman to administer communion if it was just a memorial and symbol and not a sacrament but not for a woman to administer it if it is a sacrament? Is a woman not holy enough to handle a sacrament?

 

Yes, I can be objective. I think the strongest arguments are the ones from the order of creation and the fact that Jesus chose no women as apostles. In this, I agree with the EOC. I think in the West the arguments against are too often based on a cloaked misogyny.

 

I Personally don't feel Paul's teaching on grace ( or any Scripture) is diminished by trying to view the writing within the proper context, The Truth of the Word is not diminished ,but can ( hopefully) be better understood. If we don't try to understand the context, how do you accept scripture like "Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Deuteronomy 22:24" , such LAWS would be considered atrocities today.

I agree with you there , not all people can be obtained but i do have a question about the Article XX111: "Public Preaching" In the views of our church , how is that defined ( i am sure you will have the answer , you seam very knowledgeable). Is it wrong for a woman to do scripture readings to a man in Church? Is it wrong for me to try to answer a question of faith to one of my Atheist friends? Is Sharing the Word of God on this forum classified under public preaching? ( i am not being SMART here, i am seriously curious - remember i am NEW to faith).

I think i will go debate the subject with him now, maybe He can shine some light on this....Prayer time People , thankyou for the stimulating discussions.

 

Obviously I do, accepting the clear message of Roman's 16, but the fact remains there was a cultural bias, just as I believe the Old Testament to be inspired, while it chronicled polygamy. How many women were baptized in the Jordan by John? How many were present in the upper room at Pentecost? You see my point.

What translation are you using to arrive at your opinion of 1 Timothy 3:11?

I see a new sub-group emerging from the Pharisee crowd, we've moved from women being silent, submissive, and sitting in the back with their head covered, to a temporary assignment (with no authority of course) dealing with female biological needs within the congregation. Are these the great deeds and actions lauded by Paul in Roman's 16?:think:

Jeff

 

So God's sacrament of the Eucharist is dependent on human contribution for validity, and it's somehow rendered powerless by women, but not a pedophile male Priest? Article XXVI would contradict that belief. :think:

Jeff

 

God's sacrament of the Eucharist depends upon God's sacrament of the Eucharist. He ordained this holy sacrament and vouchsafed to St. Paul & the Church to explicate the good order relating to it. Since God adorned the creation with masculine headship & male authority, there's no reason to assume that the Lord has changed His Divine Wisdom to accommodate recent strides in political-suffragette thought.

Article XXVI did not envision people mad enough to attempt to ordain that which is unordainable. I do hope you understand that I/we who oppose women-clergy actually believe they're incapable of being clergy ontologically & metaphysically, right? It has nothing to do with their anatomy in my opinion.

Also, I have to say that I resent the false choice between a male paedo-priest & a virtuous woman-priest. No one actually wants that.

 

Wow, it seems none of our friends who are pro-women-clergy understand the point in all this. Maybe that's our fault for not being clear enough - but Stalwart & Old Christendom have been very clear...

No, women are not inherently lacking holiness. Macrina, sister of Basil the Great, and Olympia, friend of John Chrysostom, were great and holy women. Basil and Chrysostom did not attempt to ordain them. Why not? Can you imagine that Chrysostom (whose best friend was a woman) and Basil (whose mother, grandmother, and sister were all holy women that formed his faith) would've refused to ordain them out of male-chauvinism or sexist hypocrisy? They do not display that sort of base & emotional reasoning.

It would be ridiculous to stop a woman from celebrating Holy Communion if it was just a memorial & symbol, because in that case there is no need for ordained clergy. Anyone can baptize; anyone can have a memorial or remembrance service of the Lord. If we're all lay-people & the sacrament is a simple memorial, women should certainly be allowed as Christians & laity. Because it's a sacrament, however, the answer is no - not because women are "unsacramental" or "unholy", but because God never allowed it. I don't know why, and I don't much care - I just know that God said it, and I believe it.

 

I was merely following your line of thought in post #36, "Receiving the truly-consecrated Body and Blood of Christ from the hands of a sinful man who is ordained is indeed better than eating stale bread from a person who has no ability to be ordained."

I am wondering what sins you believe they were envisioning in article 26?

Jeff

 

Honestly not my intention Stalwart, I apologize if I came across that way. Just trying to reconcile the rheems of bloviation on the subject with actual practice. It's sad to me when someone refuses to assemble at a Parish for the laundry list of complaints I've heard on this forum. Use of a Crucifix, female Priest, this hymnal or that prayer book, icons, high church, low church, etc. May God help our pigeon hole mentality!

Jeff

 

Female priests damage the understanding of the very created order itself. We cannot compare an objection to invalid clergy to an objection to a certain hymnal. That's very hyperbolic. Heck, I'd rather be pigeon-holed as an orthodox-Christian than simply be open to anything and everything from all sides.

 

In the context of liturgical worship, yes.

In church we publicly worship God as a community and it's the ordained clergy who should do the scriptural readings and preach the word.

Of course not. All of us, Christian men and women, are priests of Christ and should be living witnesses to the gospel. This issue has to do with ecclesiastical order in the church, as Paul speaks of it, and of spiritual authority.

No.

 

The man is image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. She was created from Adam, as his helpmeet.

As for being the image of apes, that depends if you're an evolutionist or not.