Women Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
well said, grace.
this is a big issue for me, personally. a close family member of ours is a female pastor. we love her very much. we even give her advice on how to handle difficult congregation members. she is a very bright and prayerful woman, who truly wants to serve God.

but my husband and i do not worship at her church.

we have made it clear why we feel as we do, and what the Bible says on the matter, and have agreed to disagree.

a woman can serve within the church teaching children, teaching other women, serving the poor, and other things. if you compromise on one point, what’s not up for criticism or revision?
 
Our sex is an essential part of who we are as individuals. When we finally have our glorified bodies, it is not clear that brown eyes, or blond hair, will be part of that. But we will still be men and women. We see this clearly from the creation account, where it tells us that God made humanity, men and women. This is an essential distinction and characteristic within humanity.
What about people whose earthly body has sex chromosomes that don’t fit into the nice XX vs. XY classification? What kind of glorified bodies do they end up with?
 
What about people whose earthly body has sex chromosomes that don’t fit into the nice XX vs. XY classification? What kind of glorified bodies do they end up with?
Well, in my view hose situations are a kind of error, in the sense that something has not worked quite the way it ought to have. This is true of any kind of chromosomal abnormality, or really any genetically influenced abnormality.

I think people with genetic abnormalities, or any other abnormalities, will be perfected in their glorified bodies. So, they will be either men or women, but I couldn’t say which. I don’t think it is something we need to worry about if we have no way to discern it (though of course it would be a worry to the person involved I am sure.)

What is interesting though is to have lived in such a way, not really being able to define one’s sex which is so central to how our society deals with people, or say having something like Downs syndrome, would still affect the experience of the person, even once they had been perfected. I think that experience may be part of what God wants from those people, it may well be very important somehow in defining our humanity.
 
What about people whose earthly body has sex chromosomes that don’t fit into the nice XX vs. XY classification? What kind of glorified bodies do they end up with?
I think it telling that Our Lord’s glorified body did not lack his Precious Wounds, so that he could bid St. Thomas to probe his side and put his fingers in the nail marks.
That a thing objectively constitutes a trial, then, does not mean that God cannot transform it to glory without eliminating it entirely.
 
I think people with genetic abnormalities, or any other abnormalities, will be perfected in their glorified bodies. So, they will be either men or women, but I couldn’t say which. I don’t think it is something we need to worry about if we have no way to discern it (though of course it would be a worry to the person involved I am sure.)
Unless a person has unambiguous male genitalia, that person is not eligible to become a priest in the Catholic Church. So according to your theory that the Catholic Church is just following God’s rules instead of imposing its own arbitrary rules, wouldn’t that mean that all people with ambiguous genitalia must end up as female in their glorified bodies?
 
Unless a person has unambiguous male genitalia, that person is not eligible to become a priest in the Catholic Church. So according to your theory that the Catholic Church is just following God’s rules instead of imposing its own arbitrary rules, wouldn’t that mean that all people with ambiguous genitalia must end up as female in their glorified bodies?
What about men with SSA? They are not acceptable for the priesthood and using your logic they could have glorified female bodies. :confused:
 
What about men with SSA? They are not acceptable for the priesthood and using your logic they could have glorified female bodies. :confused:
My understanding is that men with SSA may or may not be eligible for the priesthood, depending on the extent to which they are involved in the gay culture. In any event, this decision is a changeable discipline, not something the Church has “no authority” over.
 
which says that within the Church a woman is not to have authority over men, teach, or preside as the head of a local church. “bishop” in this context refers to what we would today call a priest or a pastor, and this role is reserved for men.
bishop in that context would refer to bishop today

in those times, the priests i believe were referred to as presbyters

since the congregations back then were smaller, it was possible to appoint a bishop in one city or town and have him pastor the entire archdiocese. of course today that isn’t the case, one archdiocese could have millions of people that is why more priests are needed today than back then
 
again it’s not that women can’t do it. i have also known many Godly, intelligent, and well-meaning women pastors.

but the Word of God is clear that this is not their role within the Christian Church. they may mean well and truly believing they are serving God in this capacity, but to rebell against God is to serve yourself, not Him.

times change. ideas change. God’s Word does not change, nor do the commandments therein. if we really want to honor Christ, we should crucify the flesh and do as God has asked, and refrain from doing those things He has asked us not to do.

gender does indeed limit what a person should rightly do as a Christian within the church. it does not limit what people chose to do, but it does limit what one ought to do if one wants to obey God, and not self.
the two greatest lies of today’s society

lie #1 - for women to be equal with men, they must be allowed to do ALL the jobs that men do, including becoming priests

lie #2 - a woman at home without a career and just taking care of kids is demeaning
 
I worked with some young priests overseas. They treated me as an equal, and better yet, a sister in Christ in shared mission with them.

But the more I was there, the more I needed to have a buffer…

It is a cruel, cruel world out there…I noticed we all experienced bad times, but they would have the bounce to get going where I would ruminate…for days. One time we had to pick up a kid goat for the old friar’s birthday…on St. Joseph’s feast day…the kid was in the back, I was in the front with 3 priests, and hearing that little animal cry for its mother really got to me, and I got upset and wanted to cry…‘That poor baby!’…and the friar didn’t want any women at his party. I came by the next day and saw the rib bones left on the dinner table and it made me cringe.

The priests were also annoying because they were very protective of me, and in my house with the other ladies, I was not allowed ever to answer the front door.

The young priest superior and I had some minor disagreements in the beginning, afterall this being my first time working with priests. Then he said one day I was to emulate St. Paul’s saying that the man was head and I was to submit. I thought he was a real cornball, and started laughing at him. (I had just turned 24, and had always lived with co-eds.) But I did change in time.

I have reflected about this whole deal of women becoming priests for a long time. In time I read alot about abuse to women all over the world. And women have 8 times the capacity for grief, a far greater receptacle to be abused and maligned, and to be defenseless. Can you imagine a woman priest holding confessions but a bad man comes into confess but instead attacks her…Can you imagine men in this world still under the bondage of original sin ever listening to a woman priest?? NO way.

Abuse happened in the Old Testament, in Christ’s time, and it happens alot today. No progress.

I have also read that the writings on women deaconesses was questionable. But what really gave me balance and secure sense of identity, almost supernatural, was Mother Mary. She helped in those churley mission times to be more contemplative and centered, more compliant and less arrogant and independent.

Since then, and raising a family, I have had really great temptations to start a career and be somebody. I pray to Mother Mary to help me be at peace with my life and right away she helps.

BTW, an Episcopalian just made a Barbie Bishop doll for women. It is cute and stylish.
 
Unless a person has unambiguous male genitalia, that person is not eligible to become a priest in the Catholic Church. So according to your theory that the Catholic Church is just following God’s rules instead of imposing its own arbitrary rules, wouldn’t that mean that all people with ambiguous genitalia must end up as female in their glorified bodies?
Hmm. My own gut feeling is no - in fact if anything, they are more likely to be men. But I really have no idea.

I’m not sure what the CCs rationale is with this. I can think of two plausible possibilities. One is that in such a case, it is impossible to make an accurate determination of sex, so that it is not possible to accept such a person to the priesthood at a practical level. This would not speak to what the persons “real” hidden sex was.

THe other is that because this is an essential characteristic, it must be unblemished or normal in the body the person has now. This would possibly also account for the idea that a homosexual man cannot be a priest. If this is the reasoning, I would expect to see that other “essential” human characteristics had to be in normal condition for a person to be a priest, and I don’t know if that is the case. But in any case, it also would not indicate that people with ambiguous sex would all be female in their glorified bodies.

I’d be interested to know if there is an official explanation for this.
 
BTW, an Episcopalian just made a Barbie Bishop doll for women. It is cute and stylish.
Oh, great. Talk about unclear on the concept. The world doesn’t need men showing up at seminary having spent their childhoods nursing the ambition to made a bishop, let alone women!
 
I don’t think it is something we need to worry about if we have no way to discern it (though of course it would be a worry to the person involved I am sure.)

What is interesting though is to have lived in such a way, not really being able to define one’s sex which is so central to how our society deals with people, or say having something like Downs syndrome, would still affect the experience of the person, even once they had been perfected. I think that experience may be part of what God wants from those people, it may well be very important somehow in defining our humanity.
We have to remember that to be perfected by God means to be completely what God intends (including freed of sin). It doesn’t mean that we all fit a single ideal. That would be an inappropriate limit on the creativity of God.

Neither is being a priest an ideal intended for all Christians. Mary is the Model of Christians, Mother of Priests, Queen of Apostles, yet she is neither priest nor apostle herself. She is, rather, perfectly obedient. To be completely in unity with God’s will, to rain down good on both the just and the unjust: this is what it means to be perfected.
 
THe other is that because this is an essential characteristic, it must be unblemished or normal in the body the person has now. This would possibly also account for the idea that a homosexual man cannot be a priest. If this is the reasoning, I would expect to see that other “essential” human characteristics had to be in normal condition for a person to be a priest, and I don’t know if that is the case. But in any case, it also would not indicate that people with ambiguous sex would all be female in their glorified bodies.
Are you suggesting that in the case of closet homosexuals who became priests anyway, they were actually invalidly ordained, and are not in fact able to confect the Eucharist?
 
Are you suggesting that in the case of closet homosexuals who became priests anyway, they were actually invalidly ordained, and are not in fact able to confect the Eucharist?
That would be the logical conclusion if the second possibility I mentioned was indeed the case - AND it was also the case in their reasoning with homosexuals. As I said, I don’t know what the CC actually says about their reasoning on that particular issue, or if it would also apply to homosexuality. I am inclined to think that it isn’t the case myself - I’m not Catholic though.
 
I think there is a great need to return to the discipline of having priest souls discern candidates for the priesthood, to discern through the Holy Spirit if the individual does indeed have a true calling. There are all sorts of psychological tests put on seminarians today.

We saw a tv reality show about several young men discerning their vocation. There was one who had the least angst but wanting to go out to serve the Lord among the poor. Of them all, he was the one who became ordained and went to serve the poor in the missions.

We have replaced too much of the Holy Spirit with science, and the bishops were being misguided into thinking the abusers could be healed. Ordaining abuser priests also coincided with the great sexual revolution, so the Church is also connected to the world in its humanity.
 
And among devotees, it is considered that Mary had more grace than all the apostles combined.

There is great grace and spiritual power focusing on your daily duty, no matter how menial, and unity it with the love of God. Mary was that. There is such a thing as power of presence. The power of grace. The power of being faithful in the little things. In fact, I read an article last year that a mystic thought we will be judged more by the little things we do or don’t do every day where people needed our love and service and good example.

We will be judged for every idle word.

Mary also has great power to go into a person’s life, to re-arrange it and put it back into good order to have confidence to face God and implore His mercy.

So women united with Mary who try to live like her and with her have much to offer this world as the priests.
 
The early church, following the lead of Jesus, had women actively involved in all aspects of church life.* In the book of Acts one sees a church open to women.* Women were praying with the apostles prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:12-14).* On the day of Pentecost Peter proclaimed the dawning of a new day in which God’s spirit would empower men and women to speak and teach God’s message (Acts 2:17-18).* Paul taught a group of women in Philippi (Acts 16:13).* In Berea, Paul taught women (Acts 17: 12).* Priscilla was one of Apollos’ teachers (Acts 18:26).* Philip had four daughters who were prophets (Acts 21:9).

Paul’s letters indicate women were deeply involved in his ministry.* Perhaps the best example of women’s involvement is in his letter to the church at Rome.* In the sixteenth chapter of Romans, Paul mentions numerous women in active and prominent roles in the church. The first is Phoebe who served as a deacon in Cenchreae (vs. 1-2).* Priscilla is called his fellow worker (vs. 3-4).* Mary is mentioned as diligent worker in the church at Rome (v. 6).* Junia, a woman, is a called an apostle (v.7 see NRSV, KJV, NKJV).* Three women—Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis—are mentioned as hard workers for the Lord (v. 12).

In other letters of Paul, one finds references to women praying and prophesizing in public worship (1 Cor. 11:5) and contending at his side in the cause of the gospel (Philip. 4:23).* Also, in his letter to Timothy, Paul gives instructions about women deacons (1 Tim. 3:11).

Coupled with these examples of women in ministry are three basic theological truths, which seem to indicate women should be involved in all aspects of the church’s life.* First, There is no indication that any spiritual gift was limited to men (1 Cor. 12:7-11, 14:31, 1 Peter 4:10).* Second, all God’s people were called his priests without any hierarchy of males (1 Peter 2:9, Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5:10).* Third, all human distinctions were removed in Christ who united them (Gal. 3:28). Paul believed that through faith in Jesus Christ all become God’s children–one family in which those things that separated them were broken down.* Now Jews and Gentiles were of the same family, the Christian master now saw the slave as an equal brother (Philemon 16), and the man now saw the woman as an equal human being and as a sister in Christ.

L
 
et’s keep in mind:
(1) Women were actively involved in many areas–-teachers, prophets, deacons, apostles.
(2) Women were included in worship and religious instruction as active participants.
(3) The basic theology of spiritual gifts, priesthood of all believers, and oneness in Christ all moved toward the idea of women serving in an unlimited capacity in the church.

So what is the argument against women clergy? There are two major texts that are used, and those two we must seriously examine.
1 Corth. 14:34-35–Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (NIV).
This passage is hard to harmonize with the rest of the New Testament where we see women taking an active role in the church. However, this passage is even harder to harmonize with what Paul said earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:15. There Paul said, “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (NIV). Here Paul was talking about appropriate dress by Christian women so the outside world would not judge them wrongly. But the key point one needs to notice is that Paul here speaks of women praying and prophesizing in worship. I do not believe that Paul is so inconsistent that within the same letter he tells women how to dress when they speak in worship and then tells women to be silent. So how should one understand what Paul says in chapter 14?

There are several explanations. The first one is that verses 34-35 were not originally a part of the text. The reason some people think this is because some of our ancient manuscripts (chiefly Western manuscripts) place verses 34-35 after verse 40. Now whenever you find verses floating around in different places you automatically wonder if someone added this section to the letter later. Now if these two verses were added by someone else, then there is no contradiction here. The problem is solved. However, as of the present that these verses were added isn’t a certainty, and also none of the early manuscripts omit them. For this reason I think this explanation should be rejected.
The best explanation is that Paul’s advice here is only temporary in nature. The thinking of this view goes along this line. Verses 34-35 are part of a larger section (vs. 26-40) dealing with order in church worship. Paul was trying to bring some order back into church worship.

Apparently, the women at Corinth were the main ones who were causing disorder in the church worship service. So Paul made a temporary rule for this bad situation–until the church got back on its feet functioning correctly, the women were to keep silent in worship. It is much like the governor ordering martial law on a city that has been struck by disaster. The martial law is temporary until things are restored to normal. Paul’s command here is a temporary rule. The ultimate goal is to be like the rest of the churches where there were no restrictions placed upon women.

The second passage requiring attention is found in Paul’s letter to Timothy. Paul says, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (NIV).

The question must be asked why did Paul make such a command? The rationale for this command is found in a church crisis caused by false teaching. Where Timothy was working was an area plagued by false teaching (see 1 Timothy 1:3-7). Paul wanted Timothy to combat these false teachers (see 1 Timothy 4). Now I believe these false teachers had made inroads into the churches through the women, especially the younger women (see 5:11-15). So Paul tells these women in this church where Timothy is working to keep silent and not to teach in order to stop the spreading of the false doctrine. Paul says in the verses immediately following, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (vs. 13-14, NIV). Paul, evidently, wanted the women of the church where Timothy was working to keep silent because he was afraid they would deceive someone else as Eve did. Again Paul is giving special orders to meet a bad situation. These orders were not for all churches of all times.

The Bible teaches that women do have an active role in every aspect of the church’s life under the leadership of God’s Spirit. The two times when Paul restricts women were under special circumstances – to establish order and to check the spread of heresy. Paul was trying to get sick churches back into order.

Those we’re the arguments of my one time gal-pal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top