A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
The Bible keeps mass attendance down? Not saying I disagree, but is that your point?
What does the Bible say about women pastors? Also your thoughts please
- Status
N
Neithan
Guest
OK, but I don’t see the prohibition you’re referring to.
N
Neithan
Guest
You really think that’s why? 
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Neithan said that the reason women can’t be pastors is because of what Paul says about women speaking and teaching in church and having authority over men. But it doesn’t seem that everything Paul said is being applied. Women aren’t forbidden in most churches nowadays to speak and are required to always remain silent and never even ask any questions in church, but only ask their husbands at home.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
The Bible doesn’t have women clergy.
But there are plenty of strong women in the Bible, in roles of leadership, or at least who have positive influence over their communities by their upright lives.
Amd older women are supposed to teach their children and disciple younger women.
But there are plenty of strong women in the Bible, in roles of leadership, or at least who have positive influence over their communities by their upright lives.
Amd older women are supposed to teach their children and disciple younger women.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Paul said that women should ask questions from their husbands at home if there is anything they want to know. So, how could they ask a priest instead?
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
You’re reading into the Pauline epistles and extrapolating more than he was inspired to write. He may have had the opinions that you think he did; but he didn’t explicitly write that down. Call this scriptural legalism, if you will; but tradition has interpreted it to mean sacramental ordination and clerical (magisterial) teaching authority.
Last edited:
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
That’s based on your personal reading, but not necessarily the Church’s.
S
Sbee0
Guest
I would never attend any “mass” with a female priest as such masses would have no validity.
Maybe in the Protestant world but not in the Catholic Church.
Maybe in the Protestant world but not in the Catholic Church.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
That’s undoubtedly true and is one of the big differences between Catholics and Protestants since Protestants are encouraged more to read and interpret Scripture for themselves.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Only men can be priests. Only a man can stand in the place of Christ at the Mass. If a woman is up there attempting to consecrate the host, she will be unsuccessful, even if she convinces people she has consecrated the host.
Yes but the problem here is that God only gave the Catholic Church the authority to interpret scripture. We are encouraged to read the Scriptures but only under the guidance of the Church.
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
The priesthood is not a job. It is not something to be reduced to its functions.
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
And that difference is one of the reasons I left Protestantism.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
In Judges 5, Deborah and Barak chant a song or “psalm,” but I don’t recognize the lines you are quoting here.
There’s this, though:
24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.
25 He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.
26 She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.
27 At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.
There’s this, though:
24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.
25 He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.
26 She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.
27 At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.
S
stpurl
Guest
You see, that is a good reason the Catholic Church doesn’t rely on ‘personal interpretation’ but on having an authority.
Words in a book, or the book itself, can’t be an authority. They need to be interpreted–by someone with the authority to interpret them. Not every person can be an authority. Would you really want somebody who knew almost nothing about gardening to advise you about plant care? On the other hand, would you want somebody who knew about gardening but didn’t really know much about nutrition to be in charge of deciding the school lunch menu? People can be competent and even expert in one or many fields, but not necessarily an expert or authority in, say, Scripture. No offense, Thorolfr, but I really would not accept your authority to interpret Scripture as being something I could literally ‘bet my eternal life on’.
A book written back in 1950s USA would have referred to a character as ‘gay’ and meant, absolutely, ‘fun-loving’, not ‘homosexual’. But if you insist on reading that book and using the words as interpreted by a 2019 American, you’d be calling the character a homosexual because, “That’s what gay means in the context of people in the US using the word TODAY”.
You’d ignore the entire societal views and values of 1950 US to wrench the character into what a ‘gay person’ of 2019 US is.
And that’s what you’re doing to St. Paul. You’re ignoring the society and the views and, worse, the situation AROUND the letter to argue that St. Paul meant a woman could never open up her mouth ‘in church’ (ignoring as well that a ‘church’ in Corinth or Rome or Jerusalem around AD 55 was nothing like a modern church building today) and attempting cutesy-poo stretching to make it look like Christians then and now are and were dopey, rigid, women-hating freaks who can be laughed at and derided for such ‘craziness’ as ‘not letting women speak in church’.
Gentile women and some Jewish women during the time of St. Paul’s message had been known to disrupt services, both Jewish services and Christian services, claiming that they were called to speak (usually the Jewish and Gentile women who interrupted Christian services were doing so, in fact, to denigrate Christianity or, much as you are doing, to try to argue that Christianity was ‘wrong’ about some such). Many scholars believe that is the reason St. Paul specifically in that letter to that particular community did not want a woman to ‘speak in church’. He was addressing that church’s community and reminding both women and men to stop disrupting and, in their family groups, to come together and listen, not to hijack church services to argue about Christ!
Words in a book, or the book itself, can’t be an authority. They need to be interpreted–by someone with the authority to interpret them. Not every person can be an authority. Would you really want somebody who knew almost nothing about gardening to advise you about plant care? On the other hand, would you want somebody who knew about gardening but didn’t really know much about nutrition to be in charge of deciding the school lunch menu? People can be competent and even expert in one or many fields, but not necessarily an expert or authority in, say, Scripture. No offense, Thorolfr, but I really would not accept your authority to interpret Scripture as being something I could literally ‘bet my eternal life on’.
A book written back in 1950s USA would have referred to a character as ‘gay’ and meant, absolutely, ‘fun-loving’, not ‘homosexual’. But if you insist on reading that book and using the words as interpreted by a 2019 American, you’d be calling the character a homosexual because, “That’s what gay means in the context of people in the US using the word TODAY”.
You’d ignore the entire societal views and values of 1950 US to wrench the character into what a ‘gay person’ of 2019 US is.
And that’s what you’re doing to St. Paul. You’re ignoring the society and the views and, worse, the situation AROUND the letter to argue that St. Paul meant a woman could never open up her mouth ‘in church’ (ignoring as well that a ‘church’ in Corinth or Rome or Jerusalem around AD 55 was nothing like a modern church building today) and attempting cutesy-poo stretching to make it look like Christians then and now are and were dopey, rigid, women-hating freaks who can be laughed at and derided for such ‘craziness’ as ‘not letting women speak in church’.
Gentile women and some Jewish women during the time of St. Paul’s message had been known to disrupt services, both Jewish services and Christian services, claiming that they were called to speak (usually the Jewish and Gentile women who interrupted Christian services were doing so, in fact, to denigrate Christianity or, much as you are doing, to try to argue that Christianity was ‘wrong’ about some such). Many scholars believe that is the reason St. Paul specifically in that letter to that particular community did not want a woman to ‘speak in church’. He was addressing that church’s community and reminding both women and men to stop disrupting and, in their family groups, to come together and listen, not to hijack church services to argue about Christ!
L
Lifeisbeautiful3
Guest
Do you think it is shameful for a woman to speak in church?
E
englands123
Guest
No I don’t and sometimes they speak very clearly. I’m going a little deaf.
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
What do you think St. Paul is saying there? Is he speaking to our time and place? Was he speaking to a specific scenario in Corinth? Was it a matter of prudence or of doctrine? Was he using hyperbole? What was the original Greek words?
I don’t know the answer to all those questions, so therefore no I cannot answer your question as to whether or not it is shameful in the here and now for women to speak in church. But the Church has interpreted it and I trust that what is being done is by and large correct.
That said, you obviously have already made up your own mind, and seemingly have laid blame on the apostle Paul. Well, if you feel you are higher than him, then not much that I can say is going to make much difference.
But think carefully on how you subject the Scriptures to your own personal perspective.
I don’t know the answer to all those questions, so therefore no I cannot answer your question as to whether or not it is shameful in the here and now for women to speak in church. But the Church has interpreted it and I trust that what is being done is by and large correct.
That said, you obviously have already made up your own mind, and seemingly have laid blame on the apostle Paul. Well, if you feel you are higher than him, then not much that I can say is going to make much difference.
But think carefully on how you subject the Scriptures to your own personal perspective.
E
englands123
Guest
Do you think St Paul’s stance against a female Priest involved the Apple in the garden of Eden . Regarding Eve tempting Adam ?
L
Lifeisbeautiful3
Guest
Haven’t made up my mind, but am saying that the interpretation may relax to be more inclusive
- Status