Women's Ordination

[GKC]

Not “but rather”. “Both and”

That’s too bad. Catholic teaching derives both from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You cannot bully Catholics by inviting them to participate in a discussion about the Catholic Church’s position on the ordination of women, but disallow them from raising legitimate points based on Sacred Tradition, which is a broader category including, but not limited to papal teaching. Indeed, the Scriptures are part of sacred Tradition and derive from the same Authority. If you disallow a Catholic discussion of Sacred Tradition on principle, then you also disallow a Catholic discussion of Scripture based on the same principle. We accept that you may not agree with these points, you must accept that we do.

(Please note, I am not suggesting that it is your intention to be a bully, but there are some others here who repeatedly and deliberately try to squelch legitimate discussion based on Sacred Tradition even when repeatedly reminded that Sacred Tradition is held just as important as the the Scriptures. That is bullying.)

Had I participated in this discussion, this would have been my basic point.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[firstmode]

Feminism and Appropriate Roles for Women

This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church’s Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.
Does the Assemblies of God believe modern roles undertaken by women today to be appropriate for Christian females? Do these roles apply differently for married women and mothers because of family concerns? What position does the Assemblies of God take in regard to the feminist agenda?

The Bible is clear that God the Creator expresses himself both in males and females. “God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, NIV). The Bible is clear God the Savior offers spiritual redemption equally to males and females. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, NIV). The Bible is clear God the Father extends His blessing equally to males and females. “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit” (Joel 2:28,29, NIV).

Tradition, culture, and assumptions about the meaning and application of some Bible passages have generated confusion regarding God’s will for men and women. Often this confusion centers around the Christian woman’s place in career, family, and church leadership. (See Question 6, “The Role of Women in the Church.”)

Assemblies of God women include homemakers, pastors, educators, doctors, politicians, women in other professional vocations, and volunteers. Church tradition and conservative culture have not always embraced women’s full participation outside of roles, such as child caregiver, teacher, musician, or nurse.

The Assemblies of God believes God gives women and men talents and gifts in all areas of life. The Bible is the standard the church follows. Miriam, Moses’ sister, was a prophetess and leader (Exodus 15:20; Micah 6:4). Deborah was a government leader, spiritual leader, and a wife (Judges 4 and 5). Another woman, Jael, was used of God to fulfill one of Deborah’s prophecies (Judges 4). Abigail was a wise and godly woman who influenced David, Israel’s great leader (1 Samuel 25). Huldah was a wife and God’s spokesperson who inspired a national revival (2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 34). Job’s daughters inherited their father’s fortunes equally with their brothers (Job 42:13-15). Zelophehad’s five daughters’ inheritance rights were also honored in contrast to cultural tradition (Numbers 36).

Jesus’ earthly ministry included women; His exhortation to Mary and Martha was to spend time learning from Him (Luke 10:38-42). Luke 8:1-3 records many of the women Jesus healed supported Jesus and the disciples “out of their own means” (NIV). Lydia was a Christian businesswoman (Acts 16:13-15). Phoebe was a church leader (Romans 16:1,2). Priscilla was a Bible teacher (Acts 18:24-26). Women who witnessed the empty tomb were the first to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Luke 24:1-10).

The example of a godly woman cited most frequently is the Proverbs 31 woman, who was wife, mother, businesswoman, real estate manager, marketer, supervisor, artist, and adviser.

We must be careful to say that the Assemblies of God does not endorse the radical feminist political/social agenda which claims to defend the best interests of all women. The goals of these groups are deceptive: a woman’s right to choice is twisted to support the atrocity of abortion; lifestyles outside of traditional family structures become a warped emphasis on lesbian rights; a woman’s right to a career becomes an aggressive degradation to women and mothers who do not choose a job outside their homes. Radical feminists cite religion as a tool of oppressors. These agendas become an organized platform to degrade, bash, and hate men. The Bible teaches mutual Christian submission and respect.

The Assemblies of God believes in and supports rights for both males and females. The church also believes that men and women are partners in protecting and nurturing families. Godly parents must dedicate themselves to raising children with godly character. Together, mothers and fathers are responsible to make career, economic, and personal choices that strengthen the family. Single women who are not parents must also honor God in their relationship roles and vocational choices. The role choices husbands and wives, single mothers, or single women make may be varied, some may be dictated by economic need or may be untraditional–but the choices must reflect obedience to God’s Word and will.

God’s Word holds women in high regard. Females and males are together the complete physical expression of God’s image in humanity. God-given gender differences are to be protected and celebrated. God has clearly communicated that neither gender is spiritually or socially superior. The Assemblies of God will continue to give women opportunities to be copartners in the work of the Kingdom. “God does not show favoritism” (Acts 10:34, NIV).

CONCERNS:

The Assemblies of God is not associated with nor does the church seek identification with the militant, radical voices that break godly moral and ethical standards. This concern keeps the church silent when it should speak out. There must always be divine love and compassion for people oppressed because of an ungodly social order. The church believes the answer to the injustices perpetuated by the radical feminists is to support women by encouraging them to creatively fulfill various roles in personal obedience to God. This is one aspect of the true freedom found in Christ (John 8:36).

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching.

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise specified.

 

[firstmode]

Here is a paper on women in ministry from a Protestant perspective:

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4191_women_ministry.pdf

 

[VARC]

Not “but rather”. “Both and”

That’s too bad. Catholic teaching derives both from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You cannot bully Catholics by inviting them to participate in a discussion about the Catholic Church’s position on the ordination of women, but disallow them from raising legitimate points based on Sacred Tradition, which is a broader category including, but not limited to papal teaching. Indeed, the Scriptures are part of sacred Tradition and derive from the same Authority. If you disallow a Catholic discussion of Sacred Tradition on principle, then you also disallow a Catholic discussion of Scripture based on the same principle. We accept that you may not agree with these points, you must accept that we do.

(Please note, I am not suggesting that it is your intention to be a bully, but there are some others here who repeatedly and deliberately try to squelch legitimate discussion based on Sacred Tradition even when repeatedly reminded that Sacred Tradition is held just as important as the the Scriptures. That is bullying.)

I’m not trying to bully anybody. I understand that catholics will accept teachings without scriptural support (ie assumption). I am not imposing the requirement of scripture on roman catholics.

I just asked for a theological reason to ban WO. JPII gave a fallacious reason for the ban. I know catholics will accept his ruling regardless because he is the pope.

The only theologically sound reason to deny women that I can find to ban WO is because women are to be subordinate to men based on the order of creation and Eve’s fall before Adam. But this reason proves way too much.

Roman Catholics are going to accept what the pope says even if is a fallacy because they believe he is infallible. Orthodox aren’t going to change the way they do anything because they believe thier traditions are divine. My purpose in this thread is not to convince either one that they are wrong.

Protestants based their doctrine on scripture (even if some give church tradition some weight). Besides the fallacious reason that Jesus appointed only men to be apostles, and besides the somewhat arcaic reason that all women are to be subordinate to men, are there any other scriptural reasons to ban WO?

 

[Leopard]

I’m not trying to bully anybody. I understand that catholics will accept teachings without scriptural support (ie assumption). I am not imposing the requirement of scripture on roman catholics…

You can’t impose a requirement for Scripture. We already have it.

…I just asked for a theological reason to ban WO. JPII gave a fallacious reason for the ban. I know catholics will accept his ruling regardless because he is the pope…

Reasons were given. They are not fallacious.

 

[firstmode]

You’re wrong

Although many Popes condemned the excesses of the international slave trade, the official Magisterium of the Church endorsed the legitimacy of slavery as such until Pope Leo XIII in 1888! Look at some of the facts, abbreviated for lack of space:

The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor, in 362 AD, excommunicated anyone telling a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service;

The same decree is repeated in a Council under Pope Martin I in 650 AD;

The ninth Council of Toledo in 655 AD imposed slavery on the children of priests;

The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests;

The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens;

The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226;

In 1454, through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorised the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan people his armies would conquer;

The Holy Office in Rome still declared on 20 June 1866: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

Check this out VARC:

ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4191_women_ministry.pdf

I think you will like this paper.

 

[VARC]

You can’t impose a requirement for Scripture. We already have it.

Reasons were given. They are not fallacious.

Yes it is a fallaciuos reason. It is a non sequitor (it does not follow). Just because Jesus appointed men it does not follow that the church has to follow that pattern. Jesus appointed only Jews but the leaders of the church did not follow that example.

 

[Tomster]

Not “but rather”. “Both and”

That’s too bad. Catholic teaching derives both from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You cannot bully Catholics by inviting them to participate in a discussion about the Catholic Church’s position on the ordination of women, but disallow them from raising legitimate points based on Sacred Tradition, which is a broader category including, but not limited to papal teaching. Indeed, the Scriptures are part of sacred Tradition and derive from the same Authority. If you disallow a Catholic discussion of Sacred Tradition on principle, then you also disallow a Catholic discussion of Scripture based on the same principle. We accept that you may not agree with these points, you must accept that we do.

(Please note, I am not suggesting that it is your intention to be a bully, but there are some others here who repeatedly and deliberately try to squelch legitimate discussion based on Sacred Tradition even when repeatedly reminded that Sacred Tradition is held just as important as the the Scriptures. That is bullying.)

Thank you and good job! I guess Varc just glossed my response giving the Scriptural background regarding this topic.

 

[maryj]

In the Old Testament, we read passage like this:

… and the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be killed before the LORD. (Lev. 4:15)
The word “elder” in Hebrew is zaqen - and the Hebrew word for “beard” is zaqan. The “elders” are literally “the bearded ones.” Already this seems to preclude women.

But why?

The heart of the matter is far more revealing than we may think.

In Genesis, Adam’s duties in the Garden were described in priestly terms:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till [abad] it and keep [shemar] it. (Gen. 2:15)
These Hebrew words describe the duties of priests in the Old Testament:

[the Levites shall] minister to their brethren in the tent of meeting, to keep [shemar] the charge, and they shall do [abad] no service. Thus shall you do to the Levites in assigning their duties. (Num. 8:26)
[this will] be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform [abad] the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, “You have no portion in the LORD.” (Josh. 22:27)

And the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians; and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day and worship [abad] with sacrifice and burnt offering, and they will make vows to the LORD and perform them. (Is. 19:21)

This paints Adam in a particularly priestly light, and indicates that the Garden was itself the prototype of the temple sanctuary - the Holy of Holies.

Similar word pairings reveal the same thing:

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking [halak] in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. (Gen. 3:8)
And I will make my abode among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk [halak] among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people. (Lev. 26:11-12)

The orientation of the Garden, too, matches that of the temple:

And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east [qedem]; and there he put the man whom he had formed. (Gen. 2:8)
He drove out the man; and at the east [qedem] of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen. 3:24)

Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east [qadiym] (for the temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. (Ezek. 47:1)

there r many parallels between Eden and the Temple, including:

*The Tree of Life motif common to both (Gen. 2:9, the menorah in Ex. 25:31-40)
*Sacred Waters associated with both (Joel 3:18, Apoc. 22:1-4, Gen. 2:10, 3 Enoch 18:19)
*Both faced east (see verses above)
*Presence of the Cherubim (Gen. 3:24, Ex. 26:31)
More could be demonstrated, but these should suffice to prove that the Garden is the proto-typical Sanctuary within Eden, and that Adam served as a kind of proto-typical priest in this Sanctuary.

This particular strand can then be woven together with another strand: that of the comparisons in Scripture between a woman’s body and a garden.

 

[maryj]

continued…

In Solomon’s Canticles, this imagery is used:

A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. (Cant. 4:15)
I come to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gather my myrrh with my spice, I eat my honeycomb with my honey, I drink my wine with my milk. (Cant. 5:1)

Similarly, that which a garden yields (i.e., “fruit”) is compared to that which a woman’s womb yields:

Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Gen. 30:2)
Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Ps. 127:3)

Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb. (Is. 13:18)

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luke 1:42)

The weaving of these two strands of thought produces the following: the Garden is compared to a Sanctuary, and the gardens of earth are compared to the womb - thus, the womb of the woman is comparable to the Sanctuary itself.

As we draw out the implications of this, we find that it confirms itself. The Sanctuary is where sacrifice is made in order to call down God’s graces, which is to say, to bring life to the people. In the same way, the womb of the woman brings forth new life.

There are parallel images to be found between the Annunciation and the consecration of the Mosaic tabernacle. Our Lady was made fruitful in her womb when the Holy Ghost “overshadowed” her (Lk. 1:35), and here St. Luke uses the identical word that was used in the Old Testament to describe the descent of God’s glory cloud over the sanctuary:

And Moses was not able to enter into the tabernacle of testimony, because the cloud overshadowed it. (Ex. 40:35)
The picture becomes clearer now why women cannot serve as priests in the Sanctuary. The priest acts in the Person of Christ at the altar. He thus stands as the symbol of the Bridegroom, entering into union with the Church, His Bride.

We can draw an analogy from the natural order as well. The woman’s womb is a sanctuary which is intended to be made fruitful, but I, as a man, am not authorized to make fruitful the womb of any woman I want. Rather, I must first be consecrated to do so by receiving the sacrament of Matrimony, which I enter into with one woman, and one woman alone. From that day forward, I am authorized to perform the sacred “priestly” duty of fructifying her womb.

In exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason, not every man is able to march into the Sanctuary, stand at the altar of God, and make it “fruitful” by consecrating the Eucharistic elements - bringing down onto the altar the “Blessed Fruit” of Our Lady’s womb. No, in order to do this, I must first be consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, and thereby enter into a covenant of Matrimony with the Bride of Christ.

But this is precisely what the duty of the priest is: to stand in as the Christ of the altar, to conduct himself as the Bridegroom with the Bride, and make Her sanctuary/womb fruitful by bringing that Blessed Fruit into being on the altar, and dispensing the life-giving graces that flow from this act.

In short, the priest is a husband (already we hear resonances of garden life - husbandry) and the Sanctuary is the womb of the Bride. The Sanctuary is fundamentally feminine.

For a priest to leave the Sanctuary and, for example, go celebrate some cultic act of worship in a pagan temple would be a true act of adultery.

But if this is so, then it becomes obvious why a woman can never serve as a priest: she is a woman, and it is impossible for her to go into the womb of the Bride to make Her fruitful. A woman can never make the Sanctuary fruitful by confecting the sacrament - it is sacramentally impossible.

It is not simply because of some long-standing Tradition that women cannot be priests, as though this were just some disciplinary rule that could just as easily be reversed as an accommodation to the changing times.

We can see then, that the prohibition against women priests is non-negotiable. It is woven into the very fabric of life, in the very heart of Creation itself. The man, and the man alone, can act as a Husband within the womb of the Sanctuary to make it fruitful and dispense grace.

Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Hope this helps in your understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

And for 1800 years the Church regarded slavery as acceptable but today it regards it as intrinsically evil.

Did it really? Do papal bulls and encyclicals dating back to 1435 which condemn the practice not count for anything? (see The Popes and Slavery)

In these examples, women are told to be submissive and silent in church thus ruling out their ordination. But it begs the ? why the oppostion to WO stops at the church. The very same reason that women are denied orders could also be used to deny them the right to vote and hold other positions over men. Why deny them ordination but allow them to possess other authority?

Are you serious? “Why does the opposition to WO stop at church?” Because it is the Church that decides on this issue! It affects only womens’ role in the Church, not the outside world. It is not comparable to denying women the right to vote. You’re being ridiculous.

 

[ricko]

VARC, since you are a “Show me in scripture” type of person, please show us in scripture where Jesus condemns slavery.

 

[dans0622]

I was looking for a theological reason based on scripture. Please cite the scripture that supports your position

That is an argument from silence and a non sequitor. Just becasue Jesus didn’t appoint any women as apostles it does not follow that he forbid the practice or that competent church leaders couldn’t appoint them in the future.

In these examples, women are told to be submissive and silent in church thus ruling out their ordination. But it begs the ? why the oppostion to WO stops at the church. The very same reason that women are denied orders could also be used to deny them the right to vote and hold other positions over men. Why deny them ordination but allow them to possess other authority?

Hi VARC,

Regarding the "argument from silence and a non sequitor comment: the actions of Jesus and the Apostles are not “silence.” And, turning the tables a little bit, to ordain women would be a non sequitor since it is “not following” the example of Christ and the Apostles. In something as important as apointing those who are to take His place (“as the Father sent me, so I send you”), I am not as willing to dismiss His example.

As to your last comment above–it is confusing that you say that “women are told to be submissive and silent in church” and then wonder why that “stops at Church.” If St. Paul said that women should be silent in church, why should we extrapolate and say they should be silent outside of church? He could have just as easily said “women should be silent everywhere” but it was limited to the setting of the assembly.

Dan

 

[VARC]

Thank you MaryJ. Your explanation seems to hinge on hebrew linguistics and symbolic imagery. I had not heard that argument before.

Just to sum up what you are saying… you are asserting that Adam had preistly faculties in the Garden of Eden because of the similarity of words used in Genesis with Leviticus and elsewhere that describe the actions of the Mosaic preisthood. In addition, you draw a symbolic analogy between a Garden, a sanctuary, and a women’s body. Used that symbolism, you exclude women from preistly functions because it would be a form of spiritual lesbianism. Is that what you are saying?

My concern with that approach is that although your explanation based on scripture, it is not clearly stated in those citations that WO is banned. One has to first accept all the symbolism that you propose in order to reach that conclusion. But that is a double edged sword. I’ll spare my Roman Catholic friends the nausea of scrptural imagery and spiritual symbolism that is used to support WO.

 

[VARC]

Did it really? Do papal bulls and encyclicals dating back to 1435 which condemn the practice not count for anything?

At best, you are proving the hypocracy of Rome in that issue. To condemn slavery in papal bulls in 1435 and condone it in other documents up to the late 19th century is to talk out of both sides of your ecclesiastical mouth. But the topic is the ban on WO

Are you serious? “Why does the opposition to WO stop at church?” Because it is the Church that decides on this issue! It affects only womens’ role in the Church, not the outside world. It is not comparable to denying women the right to vote. You’re being ridiculous.

It is not so ridiculous if you think about it. The RCC has a right to ordain anybody it wants and I really don’t care if they choose only celibate men. But the only theological reason to ban WO that can be clearly read from scripture is that they are to be subordinate to men period. Nothing in the Bible warrants subordination in church but equality everywhere else. People who would use 2Tim and 1Cor to deny WO (and only one catholic has used those passages to support their position so far) would be forced into the position of subordinating women in all aspects of society. Scrpiture draws no secular/ecclesiastical distiction between authority and subordination of men and women.

 

[Leopard]

…The RCC has a right to ordain anybody it wants and I really don’t care if they choose only celibate men…

Actually, no.

The Catholic Church does not have the authority (i.e. the right) to ordain women (for reasons previously mentioned) and could not do so even if everybody from the pope on down wanted to do so. Celibacy is a disciplinary matter, however, and its requirements could be relaxed should the pope decide it the correct thing to do, as is done in the Eastern Churches.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… He thus stands as the symbol of the Bridegroom, entering into union with the Church, His Bride…

 

[VARC]

Hi VARC,

Regarding the "argument from silence and a non sequitor comment: the actions of Jesus and the Apostles are not “silence.” And, turning the tables a little bit, to ordain women would be a non sequitor since it is “not following” the example of Christ and the Apostles.

cute. But that is not what a nonsequitor is. Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow.”), in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises.In this case, the conclusion is that the church cannot ordain women. The premise for that conclusion, is that Jesus didn’t do it. But it does not follow that Jesus prohibits the church from doing so. What Jesus “didn’t do” cannot bind others from doing those things. That is twisted logic.

On an individual level, Jesus didn’t marry. Jesus didn’t have children. “It does not follow” that individuals cannot do those things. More support would be needed to argue that. On an ecclesiastical level, Jesus didn’t offer indulgences. Jesus didn’t sign concordants or call crusades but “it does not follow” that the church doesn’t have the authority to do so.

In something as important as apointing those who are to take His place (“as the Father sent me, so I send you”), I am not as willing to dismiss His example.

But you do dismiss His example quite easily. You don’t ban Gentiles from ordination.

As to your last comment above–it is confusing that you say that “women are told to be submissive and silent in church” and then wonder why that “stops at Church.” If St. Paul said that women should be silent in church, why should we extrapolate and say they should be silent outside of church? He could have just as easily said “women should be silent everywhere” but it was limited to the setting of the assembly.

See 1Tim 2:8

8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. (N) 9 Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, (O) with decency and good sense; not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, (P) pearls, or expensive apparel, 10 but with good works, (Q) as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God. 11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. (R) 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. (S) 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. (T) 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues ** in faith, love, and holiness, (U) with good sense. .**

In this passage Paul says women are not to have authority over men. He does not limit that to church but rather he is speaking of everyday living. Indeed, his reason is not because Jesus only appointed men to be apostles but rather because Eve fell before Adam.

 

[VARC]

Actually, no.

The Catholic Church does not have the authority (i.e. the right) to ordain women (for reasons previously mentioned) and could not do so even if everybody from the pope on down wanted to do so. Celibacy is a disciplinary matter, however, and its requirements could be relaxed should the pope decide it the correct thing to do, as is done in the Eastern Churches.

Whatever. My point was, as a non-catholic male, I don’t have a pony in the race and I don’t care what the RCC does or what rights, authority, or limitations it claims to have.

 

[ac_claire]

But the only theological reason to ban WO that can be clearly read from scripture is that they are to be subordinate to men period. Nothing in the Bible warrants subordination in church but equality everywhere else. People who would use 2Tim and 1Cor to deny WO (and only one catholic has used those passages to support their position so far) would be forced into the position of subordinating women in all aspects of society. Scrpiture draws no secular/ecclesiastical distiction between authority and subordination of men and women.

Hi VARC,

You asked Catholics the theological reasons for the Church not allowing women’s ordination. You were answered (several times) from Sacred Tradition and Scripture, in light of the teaching authority given to His Church by Christ. You’re obviously not satisfied with the answer, but it is the Catholic answer and so it’s the only one you’re going to get.

Repeating your objections over and over isn’t going to get you the answer you want. If this means, in your mind, that you’ve “won” the discussion, so be it.