Women's Ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter VARC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ac_claire said:
From what I’ve learned about the early Church, a deaconess was not the same thing as a deacon. And certainly an entirely different office than the priesthood. Phoebe was an assistant or server in the Church, which is how St. Paul referred to her.

A deaconess would have assisted primarily with the baptism of women. Remember in the early Church baptisms were usually done via total immersion with the catechumens completely nude. It was a practical modesty issue.

Hope that helps to answer your question. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’d agree with you if the Greek word for deaconness was used. However… it wasn’t. And while I agree that a deacon isn’t a presbyter, a deacon is ordained. And St Paul used the SAME word for Phoebe as he did when listing the qualifications for diakonos (the masculine version, if I remember my Greek correctly). If he was ascribing a “female” role, Paul should have said diakonissa. He didn’t.

As GKC notes, it’s a murky subject at best.

O+
 
ralphinal said:
Now, about UMC, have the condemned abortion as an intrinsic evil? What is the official stance of the UMC on abortion?
Click to expand...
Contrary to what the media and a lot of other interest groups say about abortion in the United Methodist Church, officially the stance is:
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy…We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.
Click to expand...
We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. - Social Principles, Book of Discipline
Click to expand...
Using abortion as birth control or gender selection are unconditionally rejected. That leaves extremely few situations were abortion can be approved of, health and life of the mother being an exception. Outside of those situations, I know of very few others that wouldn’t fall under birth control or gender selection, which are clearly unacceptable.

O+
 
I don’t know how she can be “losing” an argument that the Church already says is pointless to have.
Click to expand...
The person with the vitirol was the one losing the argument.
Personally, I would be happy to lose every argument on the internet with every Protestant on the face of the planet if it was to the preservation of the Church and its Tradition.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m a Protestant and I don’t belive in the ordination of women–so you lost that argumentative put-down already.
 
I don’t know why protestants (Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians et al) concern themselves with the fact that the Catholic Church does not ordain women. They have already settled the question for themselves and offended Scripture and Tradition by ordaining women, homosexuals, bisexuals, “out” lesbians, heretics and sundry other worthies. The Episcopalians and Methodists do not even have a problem with ordaining a blatant homosexual as a “Bishop.” So why concern yourselves with Catholics, protestants? Are you offended because we are not like you?
 
hosemonkey said:
The Episcopalians and Methodists do not even have a problem with ordaining a blatant homosexual as a “Bishop.” So why concern yourselves with Catholics, protestants?
Click to expand...
And who would that Methodist bishop be?
 
Is the reason for your interest that you actually want to know why the Catholic Church has decreed as it has? Because in that case, the answer has been given several times by now.

It seems this thread was started with the thought that it is possible to make the Catholic Church conform to Protestant principles, and now we’re all arguing over either why it should or why it cannot/will not. This is a different argument, using this non-issue of “women’s ordination” as a vector for more general Protestant disagreement with the Church and its epistemology.
 
O.S.Luke said:
Contrary to what the media and a lot of other interest groups say about abortion in the United Methodist Church, officially the stance is:

Using abortion as birth control or gender selection are unconditionally rejected. That leaves extremely few situations were abortion can be approved of, health and life of the mother being an exception. Outside of those situations, I know of very few others that wouldn’t fall under birth control or gender selection, which are clearly unacceptable.

O+
Click to expand...
thanks. Well, that makes the UMC the only ones that ordain women that has not gone totally off the deep end. I will say that the language that they use is not exactly what I would call perfect. Then again, no one askes me
 
Is the reason for your interest that you actually want to know why the Catholic Church has decreed as it has?
Click to expand...
No, I am interested solely in the issue of women’s ordination. It is actually quite interesting to see how people manipulate the evidence.
 
I always enjoy learning new things. Some people miss out on that because they assume that they already know everything.
 
Muslim_Woman said:
In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

When religion conflicts with culture / tradition , u will follow / support holy book or tradition ?
Click to expand...
The Bible every time.
If the Bible say’s to do something, do it, if it say’s not to do something, don’t do it.
I dont know about women in authority as far as the police, but the Bible does say that we are to look after the home, so I don’t see how you can do both.
As far as the Church(all believers in Christ) is concerned, a woman is to remain silent, is to cover her head and are not to teach men.
 
ralphinal said:
There are other reasons, but they are not as simple as pulling chapter and verse from a Bible. First, Jesus only had males as Apostles at the Last Supper. It is one of the few times we see him segregate the sexes, and it is when he began the Sacramental life of the Church. Had he wanted woman as priests, they would have been there, too. Second, it is understood that the priest acts in persona christi or in the person of Christ. The Church has always understood that as meaning he must be male. Finally, and there is beauty in this position, women bring new physical life into the world. As part of the balance, men are able to aid in spiritual life-giving.

As far as the subordinate position goes, there is much made over little. Women are to be subordinate in some ways, yes, but not subhuman. Further, it is not a weakness of their sex. After all, the most exalted saint is a woman. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly, Ralphinal. Jesus was by NO MEANS afraid of controversy or innovative thinking. He was crucified for bucking the system. If Jesus had wanted female clergy, I scarcely think He would have shied away from it. And think of it, if Christ had wanted female clerics, who would have been the most obvious choices of all time?----The Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene! Talk about holy and loved by Jesus! yet they were not ordained.

I find it interesting, too, that the only female clergy in Christian history were GNOSTICS! And it was the Gnostics that were BLASTED by the orthodox Christians for the extreme innovation of having women priests.

The theology of Our Church says that the priest is in persona christi, he is in fact, Christ for us. He is our father, our brother, our high priest. Judeo-Christian theology always represents the relationship between humanity and God as sons and daughters to a Father, not a mother. Men and women have different roles on this earth. For some people that is a beautiful reality and for others they view it as nonsense. A mother cannot be a father, pretty basic stuff to me.

For 2,000 years that has been the way it has been. Why not err on the side of caution.

Approach it from the other point of view, SHOW ME EVIDENCE FROM THE GOSPELS OR CHURCH HISTORY OR BIBLE THAT GOD ALLOWS OR WOULD ALLOW FEMALE PRIESTS?
 
Approach it from the other point of view, SHOW ME EVIDENCE FROM THE GOSPELS OR CHURCH HISTORY OR BIBLE THAT GOD ALLOWS OR WOULD ALLOW FEMALE PRIESTS?
Click to expand...
That is the primary reason the ruling was put out by the Vatican, the Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women.
 
You are missing so much in the answers being given to you. Whether you are Jew, Gentile, Prodestant, or Catholic you are unwilling to accept the scriptures that have been given for your querry.

1 Tim 2

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

This is from the Epistle of Paul to Timothy. I have read this from a NKJV and reads the same with same meaning in a Catholic Bible, so that it was taken from a Protestant Bible, whereby the belief is to my understanding, from the inherent word of God, and lived by implicitly above all else. From the Catholic side it is also in the same context and with the tradition of the Church. If not allowed to teach, then not allowed to preach.

Liberal minds are unwilling to accept either Biblical sense, such the division and strife in the world today.**
 
I wonder if Paul ever intended for his letters to be read as Torah…
 
O.S.Luke said:
I wonder if Paul ever intended for his letters to be read as Torah…
Click to expand...
Given the fact that Paul met the Risen Christ and told us he wrote with authority as an apostle and that he himself wrote through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I don’t think there’s much to wonder? It’s pretty clear he taught with great authority under the guidance of the Spirit. Paul doesn’t leave much to the imagination and his authority is never flimsy. Torah would be a poor choice of words I think because Torah implies the Old Covenant laws. But just because the Mosaic Law has been fullfilled in Christ doesn’t mean we can just throw it all out the door and have no authority and no Spirit-guided objective truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top