Female priesthood and Galatians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jessica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AmyS:
But, you said if the RCC choose to change the qualifications… Do you understand there is no choice? They CAN’T change it… And, I sure am glad too.
Click to expand...
Only God is bound by His own Word. :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Only God is bound by His own Word. :confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
Guess who binds the Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church! GOD… God Bless you too…
 
Folks, let’s recap.

It is not possible to ordain a woman as a priest. The Church itself has no power to change that position.

And, given that it IS dogma, it is not permissible to speculate that the Church is somehow wrong.

As regards married clergy, celibacy is a discipline of the Church, not a God-stated command. The Church CAN relax this rule (but probably won’t.)

In the early Church, there were many married priests and bishops (including Peter.)

Paul’s advice to Timothy does NOT require that a bishop be married, but recognizes that it is likely that he will be – note how a couple of verses farther down, Paul says a bishop should not be a new convert

Now, that should tell us something – at the time Paul was writing, there were very few BORN Christians – almost all were converts, and those born into the church were too young to be bishops. So the pool of eligible men would be mostly men who were born pagan, and were old enough to be mature, and hence in the norman course of events to be married.

But there is no REQUIREMENT that the candidate be married. Indeed, it would be strange if Paul were to introduce such a requirement, he, himself being unmarried!!

What Paul is concerned with is Christ’s prohibition against divorce – which was a major difference between Christians and Jews.
 
vern humphrey:
Folks, let’s recap.

It is not possible to ordain a woman as a priest. The Church itself has no power to change that position.

And, given that it IS dogma, it is not permissible to speculate that the Church is somehow wrong.

As regards married clergy, celibacy is a discipline of the Church, not a God-stated command. The Church CAN relax this rule (but probably won’t.)

In the early Church, there were many married priests and bishops (including Peter.)

Paul’s advice to Timothy does NOT require that a bishop be married, but recognizes that it is likely that he will be – note how a couple of verses farther down, Paul says a bishop should not be a new convert

Now, that should tell us something – at the time Paul was writing, there were very few BORN Christians – almost all were converts, and those born into the church were too young to be bishops. So the pool of eligible men would be mostly men who were born pagan, and were old enough to be mature, and hence in the norman course of events to be married.

But there is no REQUIREMENT that the candidate be married. Indeed, it would be strange if Paul were to introduce such a requirement, he, himself being unmarried!!

What Paul is concerned with is Christ’s prohibition against divorce – which was a major difference between Christians and Jews.
Click to expand...
Thanks Vern, I didn’t think to clarify when I was posting… that could have been confusing, but, it was in regards to the OP. Also, happy birthday yesterday.🙂
 
Dear SPOKENWORD:

If you insist that based on 1 Tim 3:2 that a Bishop must be married, then do you also insist that according to 1 Tim 3:4 that a Bishop must have children?? Let me just get this straight. The Holy Catholic Church ordains a married man as a Bishop. After years and years of trying to have children, the Bishop and his wife are still childless. Would you insist that the Bishop step down because he is in scandalous violation?

Fiat
 
40.png
Jessica:
A friend of mine sited the verse in Galatians where Paul says, “There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, man or woman; all are one in Christ Jesus,” as Biblical evidence that a female priesthood should be allowed. While there are other Pauline passages which would speak against a female priesthood, she sites these as cultural. Does anyone know how the Galatians verse should be interpreted, or how a solely male priesthood can be reconciled with this verse? I could use some help in explaining this. Thanks and peace in Christ!
Jessica
Click to expand...
One thin verse against the rest of scripture and 2000 years of Church history. I don’t think so. I can’t wait until there are no women Extra-ordinary ministers and altar girls.
 
40.png
ICXCNIKA:
One thin verse against the rest of scripture and 2000 years of Church history. I don’t think so. I can’t wait until there are no women Extra-ordinary ministers and altar girls.
Click to expand...
There’s no theological reason for women not to serve in those roles, and, frankly, we need them.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear SPOKENWORD:

If you insist that based on 1 Tim 3:2 that a Bishop must be married, then do you also insist that according to 1 Tim 3:4 that a Bishop must have children?? Let me just get this straight. The Holy Catholic Church ordains a married man as a Bishop. After years and years of trying to have children, the Bishop and his wife are still childless. Would you insist that the Bishop step down because he is in scandalous violation?

Fiat
Click to expand...
I think you are being alittle silly,of course if He is married he should try to have children for that is the purpose of marriage. It doesnt say that a bishop must have children. Like I said there are no errors in scripture only our interpretation. :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
AmyS:
Thanks Vern, I didn’t think to clarify when I was posting… that could have been confusing, but, it was in regards to the OP. Also, happy birthday yesterday.🙂
Click to expand...
St.Paul was not in the position of a bishop. He was an appostle. So He could have laid the ground rules for he was not in that position.Boy do we like to make assumptions and that WE includes me. :confused: God Bless.
 
40.png
AmyS:
Guess who binds the Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church! GOD… God Bless you too…
Click to expand...
Amy,Now thats interesting? :confused: God Bless
 
vern humphrey:
Celebacy is a 6th century (approximately) discipline. It has no scriptural or theological basis, and Catholic priests CAN under some circumstances be married,
Click to expand...
From jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20040219T000000-0500_55973_OBS_ON_SEX__CELIBACY_AND_THE_PAPACY.asp
Compulsory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests was introduced to replace the martyrdom of the early Christians when it was no longer possible to be martyred because Christianity has been legalised and protected by the state. In his weekly column in the Gleaner, some time in 2002 during the sex-scandal among priests, Martin Henry wrote that there was no scriptural basis for celibacy.

Henry did not state how he interprets Matthew 19:27, Luke 14: 26, and I Corinthians 7: 32-39. Even if he interprets Peter’s statement in Matthew 19: 27 (“Lord we left everything to follow you”) as not inclusive of his wife (and Peter was married), how does Henry interpret the other two passages? In my view there is certainly a scriptural basis for celibacy, but not a command.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a scriptural basis.
 
40.png
Erich:
From jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20040219T000000-0500_55973_OBS_ON_SEX__CELIBACY_AND_THE_PAPACY.asp
.
Click to expand...
I read the article, and all I can say is, "Wow!"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I
40.png
Erich:
agree that there is a scriptural basis.
Click to expand...
There is no basis for MANDATORY celebacy, and the Church does not teach that. Celebacy is a discipline, not a theologically-mandated requirement. There ARE married Catholic priests.

For example, a married Episcopal priest who chooses to convert to Catholocism can do so. He remains married, even while carrying out his priestly duties.

Priests in many of the Eastern Rites (which are Catholic, not Orthodox) can marry.
 
vern humphrey:
There is no basis for MANDATORY celebacy, and the Church does not teach that.
Click to expand...
Guess I should read what I quote a bit more closely 🙂

I was only trying to address the earlier “celebacy has no scriptural or theological basis” claim. I just copied the relevant paragraphs from the referenced link and agreed that there was a scriptural basis (but not a command) for celibacy. I do know that there are married Roman Catholic priests, and I also know that there are married priests in the Eastern rites (both Catholic and Orthodox) – where the discipline is that if they are going to be married they need to do so before receiving Holy Orders.

How 'bout if I just strike the word “compulsory” from my quote 🙂
 
40.png
Erich:
Guess I should read what I quote a bit more closely 🙂

I was only trying to address the earlier “celebacy has no scriptural or theological basis” claim. I just copied the relevant paragraphs from the referenced link and agreed that there was a scriptural basis (but not a command) for celibacy. I do know that there are married Roman Catholic priests, and I also know that there are married priests in the Eastern rites (both Catholic and Orthodox) – where the discipline is that if they are going to be married they need to do so before receiving Holy Orders.

How 'bout if I just strike the word “compulsory” from my quote 🙂
Click to expand...
No need – we understand each other.

I’ve always thought that a non-celebate order of priests would be a good idea. Of course, most priests would continue to be celebate, but it would be an interesting experiment. Such an order would have a larger pool of potential candidates to draw from, and its members might better understand family problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top