Female bishops and deacons

I am in full agreement with you there. So many people today take the verse about women keeping quiet in the church out of context without bothering to compare scripture with scripture or study what was going on at the particular time Paul wrote that verse, so I am glad to see a fellow believer apply the Word of God in its proper context.

Click to expand...

If we want to apply this kind of relativistic logic to Scripture, then NONE OF IT APPLIES TO THE 21ST CENTURY. It is just an ancient book and everything in the New Testament was simply for 1st century Christians.

The fact of the matter is that Paul was writing by Divine inspiration for all churches, and for all ages until the Second Coming of Christ. And the "context" goes all the way back to the disobedience of Eve. Study the Scriptures carefully before making such observations.

According to the Word of God women are not allowed to preach, teach or "usurp" authority in the churches, and the qualifications for pastor/elder/bishops and deacons are very explicit -- males only. That even the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have held to this view for about 2,000 years indicates its validity for all Christians for all times.

It is only after Feminism raised its ugly head that we have women claiming that they can disregard Scripture because Paul was (a) a mysoginist, (b) addressing local issues only, and (c) cultures have changed and we must now be politically correct. According to feminism everything in Scripture is simply "male chauvinism". Even the fact that the triune Godhead is masculine is an offence to these militant feminists.

Christian women, do not be deceived -- Satan is a feminist, and he has promoted the "Mother Goddess" idolatry ever since the days of Nimrod. Now he wants women and homosexuals in spiritual authority, and he is definitely making headway.

Albion said:

Incidentally, the best known of the churches that retain an all-male clergy do NOT base that upon the "women to keep silent" or "be in submission" arguments that are employed in some fundamentalist churches that do not allow women to be ordained. Indeed, women do have roles in the Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal, and some other traditionalist churches that would not be allowed them in certain other churches which do base their decision upon such verses from Scripture as those.

Click to expand...

Hold your horses.

As for the Catholic Church, the definitive statement barring women from the priesthood was spoken ex cathedra by Pope John Paul II when he said:

"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

Click to expand...

However, even though the Catechism does not quote the New Testament verses you mentioned in your reply, that is not for the reason you assume.

The Catholic Church does in fact rely on those passages for their argument, but that is not, again, their entire reasoning behind the prohibition of female Ordination. Rather, the Church declares:

"It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate." -Biblical Commission Report, "Can Women be Priests?" (1976)

Click to expand...

Thus, they combine (a) the prohibitions uttered by Paul with (b) the fact that Christ called only male disciples, (c) that many of the Church fathers denied female ordination (the Church quotes Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Didascalia, Firmilian, the Council of Nicaea I, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Augustine, to name a few), (d) other Church traditions, and, to solidify all, (e), two official ex cathedra remarks from the Papacy (the one from John Paul II above, and another from Pope Paul VI, quoted in John Paul II's ex cathedra remark).

Thus the Catholic Church does use those verses from Scripture, but also bases their argument on other factors as well.

- - - - - -

As for the Anglicans/Episcopals, aside from a few splinter groups not recognized by the greater Anglican Communion (and thus, if I understand correctly, outside of Apostolic Succession), the Church of England as a whole and most of its communed churches allow not only women to the Priesthood, but also to the Episcopate.

Job8 said:

It is only after Feminism raised its ugly head that we have women claiming that they can disregard Scripture because Paul was (a) a mysoginist, (b) addressing local issues only, and (c) cultures have changed and we must now be politically correct. According to feminism everything in Scripture is simply "male chauvinism". Even the fact that the triune Godhead is masculine is an offence to these militant feminists.

Christian women, do not be deceived -- Satan is a feminist, and he has promoted the "Mother Goddess" idolatry ever since the days of Nimrod. Now he wants women and homosexuals in spiritual authority, and he is definitely making headway.

Click to expand...

You're cute, lumping all feminists together...I am a feminist and I quoted the scriptures in 1 Timothy 3 stating that a deacon and elder must first be the "husband of one wife". Does this mean that I have to turn in my feminist card now?

WirSindBettler said:

Hold your horses.

As for the Catholic Church, the definitive statement barring women from the priesthood was spoken ex cathedra by Pope John Paul II when he said:


However, even though the Catechism does not quote the New Testament verses you mentioned in your reply, that is not for the reason you assume.

The Catholic Church does in fact rely on those passages for their argument, but that is not, again, their entire reasoning behind the prohibition of female Ordination. Rather, the Church declares:


Thus, they combine (a) the prohibitions uttered by Paul with (b) the fact that Christ called only male disciples, (c) that many of the Church fathers denied female ordination (the Church quotes Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Didascalia, Firmilian, the Council of Nicaea I, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Augustine, to name a few), (d) other Church traditions, and, to solidify all, (e), two official ex cathedra remarks from the Papacy (the one from John Paul II above, and another from Pope Paul VI, quoted in John Paul II's ex cathedra remark).

Thus the Catholic Church does use those verses from Scripture, but also bases their argument on other factors as well.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the idea, but that is NOT an ex cathedra statement and therefore has none of the force or standing you claimed for it. In addition, the RCC's position with regard to the gender of clergy is far older than that, like it or not.

- - - - - -

As for the Anglicans/Episcopals

Click to expand...

That's "Episcopalians."

aside from a few splinter groups not recognized by the greater Anglican Communion (and thus, if I understand correctly, outside of Apostolic Succession)

Click to expand...

On that parenthetical point, you do NOT "understand correctly."

As for women in ministry, the Anglican Communion has provinces that approve and others that do not.

Albion said:

I don't know where you got the idea, but that is NOT an ex cathedra statement and therefore has none of the force or standing you claimed for it.

Click to expand...

Uh . . . actually it is. The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, from which the fragment was quoted, is an apostolic letter. Even though, as an apostolic letter it was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement in and of itself, the ordinary magisterium has held it as infallible, and in a responsum ad dubium, that is, reply to a doubt, explicitly approved by Pope John Paul II, and written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who you may know as Pope Benedict XVI, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that is the oldest of the Roman Curia, added this teaching regarding the Ordination of Women as an ex cathedra and therefore infallible doctrine, though the entire letter itself was not included. Thus, the excerpt that I gave earlier is infallible. Here's the text of the responsum ad dubium:

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith. Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

October 28, 1995

Click to expand...

Albion said:

In addition, the RCC's position with regard to the gender of clergy is far older than that, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, I know. However, the scriptures telling women to submit and be silent are included in its position. Though, as I explained in my last post, the RCC doctrine is a combination of numerous points, you can't just remove one aspect because you don't like it.

Albion said:

That's "Episcopalians."

Click to expand...

My mistake.

Albion said:

On that parenthetical point, you do NOT "understand correctly."

Click to expand...

The Anglican view, if I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that since Christ, the ordination of the Bishopric has been completed on by the laying on of hands. However, if an Anglican group splits from the larger Communion, it was my understanding that the larger Communion split all ties with the smaller groups, and thus, the smaller groups, having departed from the true teachings of the larger communion, lost all claim to Anglican Apostolic succession. I don't want to get in this debate right now, and I could very much be wrong. I'm a Confessional Lutheran, not a Continuing Anglican.

Albion said:

As for women in ministry, the Anglican Communion has provinces that approve and others that do not.

Click to expand...

Right, but most approve.

Job8 said:

...
It is only after Feminism raised its ugly head that we have women claiming that they can disregard Scripture because Paul was (a) a mysoginist, (b) addressing local issues only, and (c) cultures have changed and we must now be politically correct. According to feminism everything in Scripture is simply "male chauvinism". Even the fact that the triune Godhead is masculine is an offence to these militant feminists.

Christian women, do not be deceived -- Satan is a feminist, and he has promoted the "Mother Goddess" idolatry ever since the days of Nimrod. Now he wants women and homosexuals in spiritual authority, and he is definitely making headway.

Click to expand...

The most interesting dilema I find when people defend women as pastors etc is that Paul only uses the Creation and fall accounts as reasons for headship/authority and clergy roles. Nothing cultural.

ETA. Oh and the "because of the angels" clause, of course. ( which still relates to the creation account imo )

RedPonyDriver said:

You're cute, lumping all feminists together...I am a feminist and I quoted the scriptures in 1 Timothy 3 stating that a deacon and elder must first be the "husband of one wife". Does this mean that I have to turn in my feminist card now?

Click to expand...

Yes hand that card in you misogynist.

Also, Albion, keep in mind that I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to defend the Papacy. I stand firm with the Lutheran Confessions, and the position of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which states:

"43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)" - A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (1932)

Click to expand...

WirSindBettler said:

Also, Albion, keep in mind that I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to defend the Papacy. I stand firm with the Lutheran Confessions, and the position of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which states:

Click to expand...

Not to be concerned. I understand that, WSB.

I was commenting on some mistaken comments you made about ex cathedra decrees (of which there have been only two, both of which dealt with Marian doctrines) and about Anglicans and Anglicanism.

RedPonyDriver said:

You're cute, lumping all feminists together...I am a feminist and I quoted the scriptures in 1 Timothy 3 stating that a deacon and elder must first be the "husband of one wife". Does this mean that I have to turn in my feminist card now?

Click to expand...

I am not sure how anyone can be a feminist and still believe and accept what Scripture says. Note below (from Wikipedia):

Feminist theology is a movement that reconsiders the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of religions from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women's place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion's sacred texts. The Christian Bible refers to women in positions of authority in Judges 4:4 and 2 Kings 22:14.

Christian feminism is a branch of feminist theology which seeks to interpret and understand Christianity in light of the equality of women and men, and that this interpretation is necessary for a complete understanding of Christianity. While there is no standard set of beliefs among Christian feminists, most agree that God does not discriminate on the basis of sex, and are involved in issues such as the ordination of women, male dominance and the balance of parenting in Christian marriage, claims of moral deficiency and inferiority of women compared to men, and the overall treatment of women in the church.

Click to expand...

Job8 said:

I am not sure how anyone can be a feminist and still believe and accept what Scripture says. Note below (from Wikipedia):

Click to expand...

Well, if you'd stop reading the propaganda and talk to feminists...

Feminists come in all "flavors" from radical crazies to women like me who support equality in pay and opportunities, strengthening of sexual harassment laws, mandated PAID maternity (and paternity) leave, subsidize day care, harsher penalties for violence against women, things like that.

Quoting from Wikipedia is NOT a terribly reliable source. Go TALK to some of us and see what we believe. Just like not all Christians are whacked out, right-wing fundamentalists, not all Feminists are "men-haters".

I just stated that I agree with the scriptural mandate that church leaders are to be men. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I agree with the right-wing biblical misinterpretation so prevalent among the "fundamentalists".

Lik3 said:

I have a dumb question. Why can't a woman be a bishop or a deacon provided that she an obedient, truly saved woman of God? Is that unfair for a woman to not be a deacon or bishop? Would it be the same thing if there was a woman's ministry? I would ask this in the Baptist forum but I think for good reasons I removed it to this section.

Click to expand...

[QUOTE/]
Christianity was revealed by Christ, (S.Jude.) It was revealed to the saints and holy people of God. We are told incessantly to preserve the Deposit, S.Paul.We have always been advised that we should cling to what was first given as later offerrings are oftimes corrupted. (Tertullian, S.Vincent of Lerins, Archbishop Bramhall & John Newman, before he apostasised!) (?)

We Anglicans have always accepted the ancient Rule of Faith, i.e. Antiquity,Universality and the practice and belief of the fathers?
Where in two thousand years of Anglican History is there anything to excuse Women's Orders?
As so many people on these boards have aleady shown![QUOTE/]

bishops and deacons are to be males.

WirSindBettler said:

Hold your horses.

As for the Catholic Church, the definitive statement barring women from the priesthood was spoken ex cathedra by Pope John Paul II when he said:


However, even though the Catechism does not quote the New Testament verses you mentioned in your reply, that is not for the reason you assume.

The Catholic Church does in fact rely on those passages for their argument, but that is not, again, their entire reasoning behind the prohibition of female Ordination. Rather, the Church declares:


Thus, they combine (a) the prohibitions uttered by Paul with (b) the fact that Christ called only male disciples, (c) that many of the Church fathers denied female ordination (the Church quotes Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Didascalia, Firmilian, the Council of Nicaea I, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Augustine, to name a few), (d) other Church traditions, and, to solidify all, (e), two official ex cathedra remarks from the Papacy (the one from John Paul II above, and another from Pope Paul VI, quoted in John Paul II's ex cathedra remark).

Thus the Catholic Church does use those verses from Scripture, but also bases their argument on other factors as well.

- - - - - -

As for the Anglicans/Episcopals, aside from a few splinter groups not recognized by the greater Anglican Communion (and thus, if I understand correctly, outside of Apostolic Succession), the Church of England as a whole and most of its communed churches allow not only women to the Priesthood, but also to the Episcopate.

Click to expand...

If you are going to make strong pronouncements, you should at least take time to seek the valid truths. Which you signally fail to do!
Anglicans are those people who have been validly baptised and who hold to the Faith once revealed to the Saints,(Jude) and recorded in scripture being interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
,'Continuing Anglicans,' holding to these rules are not outside the Apostolic Succession,' but it is those people and ,'Churches,' that have aquiessed (?) in making additions to Revelation and Scriptures thus casting aside the practices of Christ through the Apostles and fathers! Make no mistake about it, The Church of England has put herself out of orthodox Christianity,by ordaining women, just as readily as Rome has by abandoning the Ancient Rules of authority within the Body of Christ!
In fact where is the authority today? Is it all to be made up by self interested groups, have we to abandon tradition, there's less authority within the Church for Women's Orders than for papal Jurisdiction or Infallibility!

laternonjuror said:

'Continuing Anglicans,' holding to these rules are not outside the Apostolic Succession

Click to expand...

Our friend, not being an Anglican himself, probably can be excused for having made that mistake, but you are certainly correct about this.

laternonjuror said:

If you are going to make strong pronouncements, you should at least take time to seek the valid truths. Which you signally fail to do!
Anglicans are those people who have been validly baptised and who hold to the Faith once revealed to the Saints,(Jude) and recorded in scripture being interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
,'Continuing Anglicans,' holding to these rules are not outside the Apostolic Succession,' but it is those people and ,'Churches,' that have aquiessed (?) in making additions to Revelation and Scriptures thus casting aside the practices of Christ through the Apostles and fathers! Make no mistake about it, The Church of England has put herself out of orthodox Christianity,by ordaining women, just as readily as Rome has by abandoning the Ancient Rules of authority within the Body of Christ!
In fact where is the authority today? Is it all to be made up by self interested groups, have we to abandon tradition, there's less authority within the Church for Women's Orders than for papal Jurisdiction or Infallibility!

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I added the following disclaimer:

WirSindBettler said:

The Anglican view, if I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that since Christ, the ordination of the Bishopric has been completed on by the laying on of hands. However, if an Anglican group splits from the larger Communion, it was my understanding that the larger Communion split all ties with the smaller groups, and thus, the smaller groups, having departed from the true teachings of the larger communion, lost all claim to Anglican Apostolic succession. I don't want to get in this debate right now, and I could very much be wrong. I'm a Confessional Lutheran, not a Continuing Anglican.

Click to expand...

WirSindBettler said:

Which is exactly why I added the following disclaimer:

Click to expand...

Right. We understand that you didn't pose as an expert on that matter or intend to berate anyone, but since your statement was made, I think both of us, upon reading that mistake, thought it was worth correcting it for the benefit of other readers or just to keep the record straight, that's all.

laternonjuror said:

Anglicans are those people who have been validly baptised and who hold to the Faith once revealed to the Saints,(Jude) and recorded in scripture being interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Click to expand...

So by your definition, I, in all my Norwegian-American Confessional Lutheran glory, am an Anglican.

WirSindBettler said:

So by your definition, I, in all my Norwegian-American Confessional Lutheran glory, am an Anglican.

Click to expand...

I didn't understand that to be his point. Rather, I think it was that Anglicanism is just the historic Christian church that was set in England. It's that part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We like to say, and I think it's true, that unlike most denominations we have no beliefs of our own. We have beliefs, of course, but there are none that are uniquely Anglican.

Most churches do have a set of beliefs that characterize them and define them as different from all or almost all others. They often choose to make their distinctives known through the formulation of a Confessional statement specific to them and/or allowing people to belong to their society of Christians only if they affirm their complete agreement with such a statement.

Albion said:

Rather, I think it was that Anglicanism is just the historic Christian church that was set in England. It's that part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We like to say, and I think it's true, that unlike most denominations we have no beliefs of our own. We have beliefs, of course, but there are none that are uniquely Anglican.

Click to expand...

Then what do you consider the Thirty-Nine Articles to be?

I shan't discuss scripture, that has been done by others better than I.

Not so long ago an Anglican priest informed me that we are unique in that our beliefs are held together by a the words mostly, predominantly, usually and normally. We can generalise, have a basic foundation, but as a group we're generally quite flexible; a flavour for nearly every taste. As much as I hate to say it, it is almost very much like the idea that we're all about tea, cake and pleasant conversations which end with "well, isn't that interesting".

Regarding female bishops, priests, and the like I'm a bit torn. Although the issue is now decided within the Church of England (for now) I still find this interesting reading.

If someone has a calling, then they should follow it through. How pleased God is with this will surely show in the quality of the flock.