Women Priests

[estesbob]

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.

1. Women were never deacons or apostles. Who were the women prophets?
2. So what?
3. Moved toward? You mean Truth is fungible?

 

[benedictgal]

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

With all due respect, you are writing from the stand point of your Protestant ecclesial community and not from the Sacred Tradition of the One, True Church founded by Jesus Christ. Let us be clear about that. Thus, your line of thought is not consistent with what the Church holds and has held for centuries. Even your Scriptural references really hold no basis, as I read them, because they are coming from a Protestant perspective and not from the Church’s.

The fact remains that Jesus did not ordain women to the priesthood. He ordained the Apostles and, through Apostolic Succession, they ordained their successors. This unbroken line continues today. Inasmuch as St. Mary Magdalene was known as the “Apostle to the Apostles,” this particular title has nothing to do with the sarcedotal ministerial priesthood of the Apostolic band and their successors, the bishops (who alone possess the fullness of the priesthood) and their collaborators, the priests (presbyters).

 

[markomalley]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …
6. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.

I wanted to expand on a couple of others’ answer on this.

As others have pointed out, the forerunner to the priesthood was the Levitical priesthood. Of course, those were all male. But here is one other point that I don’t think that was really expounded upon: as far as I know, a priest, when described in Scripture, is always one who offers sacrifice for others to God (or to his god…in the case of Baal’s priests).

If you would think about it, those Christian traditions that allow ordination of women really no longer believe in the Eucharist as being a sacrifice, a re-presentation of the One Sacrifice of the Lamb of God and an offering of that sacrificed Lamb to God as a propitiation for our sins.

Now the Eastern Orthodox believe that it is. But guess what: male only priesthood. Of course, we Catholics believe that it is. Male only priesthood. Lutherans, as far as I understand, believe it to be a memorial, but with Christ becoming present with the bread (consubstantiation)…that presence leaving when their eucharistic service is done. And Lutherans allow female “priests” (I know, not all Lutherans do). Presbyterians believe it to be a memorial…and some Presbyterian denominations allow female clergy. Anglicans are sort of a mixed bag. The low-church Anglicans believe it to be a memorial. Female clergy. Anglo-Catholics (i.e., nosebleed high church types) are far more in line with our beliefs…and…no female clergy. (at least as far as I know, there is no such thing as an Anglo-Catholic female “priest”…but I’m willing to be corrected).

Now I know that there are a number of other Protestant groups that do not allow female clergy, but they don’t use the term (or concept) “priest” nor do they use the term (or concept) “eucharist.” And, again as far as I know, it’s more a matter of being obedient to scripture rather than through some sort of a systematic theological analysis.

Above comments are musings. If I’m all wet, please let me know.

 

[KathleenGee]

In response to those quoting St. Paul, yes, that is written about women and I think we do need to be more active in ministry in building up the faith, of helping new believers to integrate more deeply into the church…of healing and prayer ministries.

I think that the Holy Spirit is coming again to renew us and to change the outward model of the Church to be that more of God’s family and community. I don’t think the role of the priesthood will change or should, but Vatican II documents go way back in allowing women readers at Mass.

So many years back, John Paul on Holy Saturday handed the cross in the processional to a Lutheran nun, and said afterwards that now is the time for women to actively participate more deeply in liturgy.

People are very busy, may be too busy, and don’t have time to participate as much, or they live too far. My parish is having a beautiful Taize prayer service with a married couple, and we hope it will be ongoing and weekly.
On the otherhand, I do like to see a balance of men and women serving at the altar…the focus is we are family, we are Christ’s community, and we all work in extending His priesthood, prophet, and king into the world. The Liturgy and the Eucharist are the summit of our faith, always our focus.

 

[Jennifer_J]

This is fine so far as it goes, but it really isn’t enough alone if you are trying to make the argument to someone who doubts it. A typical response to this wold be “then why doesn’t a priest have to be Palestinian/have brown hair/be circumcised/like to eat cherries?”

The question still stands - why is sex relevant, when other physical characteristics are not? And if Christ as a man was able to save humanity through his humanity, why is humanity not enough for the priesthood? Why don’t we say only men are saved? What is the difference?

I am not saying there are not good answers, but rarely see them presented, which may be why people find this argument unconvincing.

In a nutshell–Matter matters.

The Priesthood is a sacrament, just like the Eucharist or Matrimony, and so forth.

Sacraments call for specific Matter: The Eucharist must be unleavened bread and wine for it to become the body and blood of Jesus during the consecration. Lemonade and nilla wafers cannont be consecrated. In Baptism, water must be used. A baptism of juice would be invalid. In Matrimony, only a man and woman may be joined together–no other joining would be valid. So it is with the Priesthood. The proper Matter is maleness. This is shown just like the other Sacraments were shown–by Jesus and his actions.

I’m sure, though, that this reasoning would be rejected by those who don’t believe in Sacraments or Matter. That doesn’t change the Truth.

 

[grace_singh]

The early church, following the lead of Jesus, had women actively involved in all aspects of church life…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.

by no means.

women were certainly not involved in all aspects of the church. women had important roles as financial sponsors of churches, deaconesses, and as fellow servants within the church.

but a deaconess was not a pastor / priest. she, like the deacon, was a servant within the church, having a title and certain honorable responsibilities. but she did not head that local church, or act as a priest.

prophesying and praying in the Christian context is a seperate thing from leading a church. the former is something laity can do, the latter is the dominion of a priest.

notice how none of the 12 Apostles were women, Lutheranteach. notice how no women stood with Christ and witnessed His transfiguration. Christ did give great respect and honor to women, and women played a vital role in His ministry, helping to support Him and the disciples financially.

but men and women do have different roles within the church. a deaconess is not a priest. neither is the wealthy, female sponsor of a church its presiding priest or bishop. you can not ignore Paul’s instructions about who should teach and have authority within the Church, what women ought not to do, and how only men who are the husbands of one wife are considered for those positions. again, a bishop, priest and deacon do not have the same roles.

 

[grace_singh]

Lutheranteach, your interpretations of Scripture do just that- they interpret and make assumptions with no basis in the Biblical text, rather than read what the text actually says.

what the text of the Bible says, L, is that women should not teach and have authority over men, that women should stay silent in church, and that the overseer of a church should be the husband of one wife.

praying and prophesying would have been activities appropriate for the laity within church and outside of church, and something women could do. but women staying silect in church within the context of teaching, learning, and listening makes sense in light of what else Paul says about a woman’s place in the church.

in other words, a woman belongs in audience, as a learner and lay person. that does nto mean she may not serve within the church or have responsibilities, but that she may not lead the congregation or teach it as a priest.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I’m very comfortable in my “assumptions” and my position. Of course I come at the issue from a POV and tradition that isn’t Catholic. And, of course you’ll understand if I do not and will not accept the Catholic position as that of the One True Church but as one of many voices that make up the One True Church

 

[SunnaB16]

I’m very comfortable in my “assumptions” and my position. Of course I come at the issue from a POV and tradition that isn’t Catholic. And, of course you’ll understand if I do not and will not accept the Catholic position as that of the One True Church but as one of many voices that make up the One True Church

If the “many voices” contradict each other, they can`t all be part of the One True Church.

Either: there can be “priestesses”, or there cannot be “priestesses”. Not both/and.

The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ; and the priest takes the place of the Bridegroom. Male only. Liturgical lesbianism is out!

 

[joandarc2008]

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

OK, I believe you are doing a Protestant reading here where you read more fundamentally rather than contextually. This is very much a fallacy. We are all Confirmed Priest, Profit, King when we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. However, I as a woman have no more right to go through the Sacrament of Ordination after being confirmed as I do to become of the monarchy. It is not my birthright.

Just because they were praying with them and trained by them does not mean they were made presbyters or bishops. Show me one in the Bible and you may have an argument. We have a lay ministry - that is what these women were. Never in the history of the Catholic Church have conferred Eucharist. I have only read one story where someone tried it and it was looked on as complete heresy. Our proper place is in the lay ministry.

 

[joandarc2008]

I’m very comfortable in my “assumptions” and my position. Of course I come at the issue from a POV and tradition that isn’t Catholic. And, of course you’ll understand if I do not and will not accept the Catholic position as that of the One True Church but as one of many voices that make up the One True Church

Actually Lutheranteach - the head of your Church was excommunicated from any line of Apostolic succession - so what does that say about your teachings and the validity of your sacraments. He was found to be teaching heresy and against the teachings of Christ.,

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

yes, they have abandoned the Laws of God to follow the teachings of man. psychology, they use this to ordain man. very sad. no wonder we are in this big mess. do they think they can get away with this? these bishops need to get right with God and abandone their big ego. in the last 50 years these impius men have taking over the Church as if the Church is theirs. well, they should realize by now, it isnt.

 

[estesbob]

I’m very comfortable in my “assumptions” and my position. Of course I come at the issue from a POV and tradition that isn’t Catholic. And, of course you’ll understand if I do not and will not accept the Catholic position as that of the One True Church but as one of many voices that make up the One True Church

But it was the only voice for 1,500 years. So we are faced with either God allowed his Church to be in error for 1,500 years OR ma decided he know better than God after 1,500 years.

As a Catholic we view all doctrines with a three pronged approach:

1.Is it supported by Scripture?
2. Is it supported by Tradition?
3. It is supported by the teaching of the Magestium?

Women Priests pass none of these “tests”, You have attempted to support women priests by your personal interpretation of Scripture-interpretations that fly in the face of what was taught and believed by all Christians for most of the time time since Christ founded his Church. Would you have us believe that somehow we have become more “enlightened” in the last few generations?

 

[estesbob]

Actually Lutheranteach - the head of your Church was excommunicated from any line of Apostolic succession - so what does that say about your teachings and the validity of your sacraments. He was found to be teaching heresy and against the teachings of Christ.,

But even Luther didnt believe in Female Ordination.

 

[joandarc2008]

But even Luther didnt believe in Female Ordination.

So basically let me get this straight - you have a community that has taken the teachings of an ex-communicant changed them to their liking and are now two steps removed from Christ’s teachings and we are supposed to use them as an example of why priests can be female?

 

[estesbob]

So basically let me get this straight - you have a community that has taken the teachings of an ex-communicant changed them to their liking and are now two steps removed from Christ’s teachings and we are supposed to use them as an example of why priests can be female?

I think your post was intended for LUTHERANTEACH

 

[KathleenGee]

About women deaconesses, their role was to assist at initiation of the sacraments involving women.

Many were baptized through full immersion, made fragrant with oil of balsam and then covered and led into the assembly as fully initiated. So the deaconesses assisted where men could not, that pertaining to the approximation of new women believers.

 

[saintjoe]

This is my first post, so bare with me.

I think it helps to list and debate scriptural quotes when discussing this topic with our Protestant brothers and sisters.

But for Catholics, our faith ensures that the Church will not error when it comes to faith and morals. In the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope JPII attempted to remove all debate and list the reasons why the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Because JPII’s letter was still in question - if it was to be held as infallible, then Cardinal Ratzinger released a response letter that clearly states the teaching presented in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as “belonging to the Deposit of Faith” and “it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” and “is to be held always, everywhere, and by all…”.

Should this not close the debate? If some Catholics continue to push for women priests, are they not being heretical?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

I don’t think this is true: that is, to imply that psychological testing has replaced discernment through the Holy Spirit. Rather, psychological testing is a proper tool at the disposal of those who do discernment. They have a serious responsibility to ordain those who will shepherd the flock rather than raid it. They have a duty to use every tool at their disposal in that discernment process. Noah built the ark because of his faith, but he had to have some knowledge of carpentry, too.

Also, the truth is that the majority of priests who were ordained and later turned out to be sexual abusers were formed before “the great sexual revolution”. That is why so many of these cases are so old. Keep in mind that in the more distant past prior to that, sexual abuse was not spoken of, not only in the Church, but when it happened in the home. That does not mean that it did not happen. Young men in those times were also formed with very little contact with women and girls. It was much more difficult to discern who had the ability to relate to females in a healthy way.

It was not so much science, but also a belief that repentance alone was all that was needed to mend an abuser that led bishops into misguided decisions…that, and letting a good habit of discretion become a cloak of secrecy for perpetrators. Let us hope that those days are gone, and discretion will be used only when discretion is appropriate.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think your post was intended for LUTHERANTEACH

It was I apologize I was making the jump form your information to his earlier conclusions based on fallacy.