While it is more difficult to see, the reason women cannot be priests is similar to the reason men can't be mothers: they don't have all the necessary attributes to fulfill the role.
And what are these attributes that women don't have?
Upvote
0
While it is more difficult to see, the reason women cannot be priests is similar to the reason men can't be mothers: they don't have all the necessary attributes to fulfill the role.
Well, RKO, I think there's a clear and present danger in thinking Church doctrine "archaic". It means you think you know better than the collective witness of the Church over space and time. It means you think the Church was mistaken until now, and that it is up to "us" with our superior enlightenment, to correct the Church. Not that you consciously mean any such thing, but that IS what directly follows. Women have NEVER been "property" in the Church, whatever you think they were in society (and I think the popular view held today thanks to the domination of public education and the media to be greatly in error).All of the posts here that celebrate the role of women in the church are exactly correct. they are the heart and soul of the church.
but I have to agree with the original poster. This is one of those things that I accept in the Church (same in the RC, of course) but I think the concept is archaic. I know the church doesn't change (much,) but the role and position of women in the world certainly has. They are no longer property and have taken their place as completely equal to man, as they always should have been. The only thing that prohibits a woman from being an excellent priest is an archaic rule, made up by men.
sorry, end of rant...
And what are these attributes that women don't have?
There is something spiritually unhealthy and even deadly in this desire for equality and the subsequent casting of our roles in terms of power and control.
Not that any of you intend anything wrong; we all desire understanding. But in the end you're all going to have to decide whether any of us is wiser than that collective witness over two thousand years, consistently affirming that the Faith is a particular Thing, and not another.
Well, RKO, I think there's a clear and present danger in thinking Church doctrine "archaic". It means you think you know better than the collective witness of the Church over space and time. It means you think the Church was mistaken until now, and that it is up to "us" with our superior enlightenment, to correct the Church. Not that you consciously mean any such thing, but that IS what directly follows. Women have NEVER been "property" in the Church, whatever you think they were in society (and I think the popular view held today thanks to the domination of public education and the media to be greatly in error).
So your "rant" is based on completely false understandings. J4M and TS are right. It is ontological and NOT about power and control.
Has ANYBODY here read the Lewis article, or just me???
This question is neither about control or power (on my part anyway). It's about denying women a way to serve God in which may be very suited to particular women, as it is to particular men. I understand that Jesus picked only men for His Apostles, because it simply would not have been feasible for women to do they work they were doing 2,000 years ago after His death and Resurrection. But in today's world, in a stable society why should they be denied this? It's like telling somebody who wants to be a doctor that they can be a nurse instead, sure, both are essential but they are two very different roles, with differing responsibilities.
Just because something has been happening for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way to do things. Jesus came to us to correct what people had been doing wrong for thousands of years! I'm not saying not allowing women to be priests is on the same level as what those people were doing wrong, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be so bad to have on open mind about this.
Keep in mind- most men aren't even priests. I don't see that the Orthodox Church attempts to alienate women at all. There are all sorts of things that laymen (both men and women) can do. All Christians have huge responsibilities. We are all called to serve the Lord- it's just that most of us aren't called to be priests.
Confession time: When I was younger (and Pentecostal) I wanted to be a pastor. Badly. Then, when I was around twelve, we began attending a church that had a woman pastor. She was a very nice woman. However, I can't begin to express to you how wrong it all seemed. It was an instinctual reaction, I believe. Then I read the scriptures. It was then that I felt convicted that it wasn't about me and what I wanted.
Becoming a priest is supposed to be a calling- and honestly- looking at things now- if you're not called to it, why would you even want to be one? It's not easy. Some people (women and even a few men) make it about them and what they want instead of God and what He wants. That's some real hubris.
All of the posts here that celebrate the role of women in the church are exactly correct. they are the heart and soul of the church.
but I have to agree with the original poster. This is one of those things that I accept in the Church (same in the RC, of course) but I think the concept is archaic. I know the church doesn't change (much,) but the role and position of women in the world certainly has. They are no longer property and have taken their place as completely equal to man, as they always should have been. The only thing that prohibits a woman from being an excellent priest is an archaic rule, made up by men.
sorry, end of rant...
And what are these attributes that women don't have?
I agree with this. The question about women priests raises a more fundamental epistemological question: why do we believe what we believe about Christianity? Do I have the liberty to defy to the consensus of the Fathers? Not as an Orthodox Christian, for I would be embracing something which is other than the Apostolic Christian faith.We don't know. Why were you born a female and not a male? It's the same question. Why did Christ Incarnate as a man? Who knows? Who cares? Do you want to be saved or not? Do you care that the wage is the same for the one who began working in the morning as for the one who began at the 11th hour?
There is something spiritually unhealthy and even deadly in this desire for equality and the subsequent casting of our roles in terms of power and control.
Not that any of you intend anything wrong; we all desire uŷnderstanding. But in the end you're all going to have to decide whether any of us is wiser than that collective witness over two thousand years, consistently affirming that the Faith is a particular Thing, and not another. In the end, we either say we know better than the Apostles, saints and martyrs (which is really the original sin), or we accept the doctrine, shrug our shoulders, and admit that we don't know all of the mysteries of God in sundering humanity into two sexes. We either say no to the Church's authority to teach us, as Adam and Eve did to God, or we say yes to the Church, as the Holy Theotokos and Christ did to God.
But we are sure that it is not about subjugating women or lifting up men.
Why couldn't women have done the same work? If you look at how ancient cultures operated, you will find that it was actually Judaism and Christianity that was irregular in restricting the priesthood to men alone. In pagan Europe and Egypt, for instance, there was no issue with women being priests. I don't find the "Jesus only picked men because of the time period" argument convincing, especially because Jesus wasn't the least bit concerned with doing things that would be unpopular. Do you believe Christ, who was so controversial that he was crucified, refrained from ordaining women because of the times?...I understand that Jesus picked only men for His Apostles, because it simply would not have been feasible for women to do they work they were doing 2,000 years ago after His death and Resurrection.
No. Traditional roles for men and women have developed and blurred over time. Whereas it was rare and threatening to see a woman in the "head of household" role especially when a man is present in the home, that has become less of a threat in the past 2000 years. Similarly, to see man caring for children while the woman works outsidemthe home no longer raises an eyebrow. Is it a sin for these roles to be reversed? Do families who have the roles act against God? Why is it different for the priesthood. And I apologize if this offends. That was not my intention.Do you seriously believe for 2000 years The Church has been blocking women from ordination simply because of misogyny? Don't you think that argument hinges on the Church Fathers were stupid, cruel, and apparently they turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the Holy Spirit. They would have had to been these things since it is only recent history that this is an issue. If what you an others argue is true and God did not intend only males, and a select few males could be priests, how come this was never an issue before the feminist movement. If The Church had been wrong on this, you'd think we would have seen grumbling on this with the Greeks and Romans since they thought highly of their priestesses, but not even a whimper. Why, why would it take so long for the Holy Spirit to reveal we have been wrong and previous generations of The Church were cruel and foolish?
And I don't think the Holy Spirit "took so long to reveal that we are wrong, cruel or foolish." I think the Holy Spirit is simply waiting for us to catch up.
Actually I think you are making some presumptions about what I think.
What is the one solid reason that a woman could not be a priest today? I mean, other than the fact that it was forbidden in the early church?
This question is neither about control or power (on my part anyway). It's about denying women a way to serve God in which may be very suited to particular women, as it is to particular men. I understand that Jesus picked only men for His Apostles, because it simply would not have been feasible for women to do they work they were doing 2,000 years ago after His death and Resurrection. But in today's world, in a stable society why should they be denied this? It's like telling somebody who wants to be a doctor that they can be a nurse instead, sure, both are essential but they are two very different roles, with differing responsibilities.
Just because something has been happening for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way to do things. Jesus came to us to correct what people had been doing wrong for thousands of years! I'm not saying not allowing women to be priests is on the same level as what those people were doing wrong, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be so bad to have on open mind about this.