Why are women not allowed to become priests?

[ChirpChirp]

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?

 

[rusmeister]

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...

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???

 

[rusmeister]

And what are these attributes that women don't have?

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 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. 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.

 

[ChirpChirp]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[RKO]

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???

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?

 

[Kristos]

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.

There are a plethora of opportunities out there to serve God - many of them are not being done by anybody right now. I like to remember the Lord's prayer - it's not my will be done, it's Thy will be done. Yes, we need to have an open mind...open to His will, not our own

 

[seashale76]

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 on this issue instead of God and what He wants. That's some real hubris.

 

[Kristos]

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.

True. I am a man, but I am not allowed to be ordained. Even most men do not qualify. Instead, I have found other ways to serve God - I am a chanter and a choir director and serve on the parish council among other things. There are so many more things that need to be done, I wish I had time...

 

[katherine2001]

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...

Jesus treated women equally and yet He chose only men to be Apostles--He also became incarnate as a man, not as a woman. With all due respect, it wasn't man who set the rule to have male priests only--it was God Himself. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. If you don't think this is right, take it up with Him. My job is to do what He tells me to do and not expect Him to do things my way. We can know that God has a reason for doing it the way He does, and He does not owe us an explanation.

 

[katherine2001]

And what are these attributes that women don't have?

How about the ability to be a father? Fathers and mothers provide very different things. That is one of the many reasons that our society is falling apart. We think moms can offer everything and that their children really don't need a father.

 

[gracefullamb]

.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

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.

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.

Do I understand all matters of Christian morals and sexuality? No. I believe this and other teachings are difficult.

But for many of us, the beauty of Orthodoxy is precisely that it is transcendent truth, revealed by God, not by men. It doesn't depend on me. If we defy that truth, we lose the beauty.

 

[truthseeker32]

...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.

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?

 

[RKO]

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?

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.

 

[truthseeker32]

It should also be added that if we start getting rid of everything in Christianity that we can't make sense of we will strip it of its essential elements.

 

[RKO]

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.

 

[rusmeister]

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.

But it seems clear that you think this a thing that "ought to be allowed" and that not only man is "behind" in the hardening of his heart, but that the Church is "behind" in its doctrine. That's what the metaphor of "catching up" means. And then we go back to what I said in my earlier post - in that event, you think you know better than the collective mind of the Church.

It is clear that, in the face of a clear imperative that only men do this particular Church function, that it is human ego and pride to desire that it be otherwise, in the name of secular understandings of equality.

Have you read the linked Lewis essay, "Priestesses in the Church"? A simple yes or no will do.

You're not going to get around this, RKO. You either accept that some things are mystery, we don't ultimately know but we obey (and we've explained every human reason that we DO know and I'm not sure you've heard), or you'll walk away from what is (otherwise to you) obviously the Truth.

You speak about "a threat" of a woman being head of household. That really does say a lot to me. To get a better understanding of the common sense of traditional humanity, try making this a reading priority:
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html

It deals with men, women and children, and the modern assaults on traditional understandings, and above all, a rational presentation of those understandings.
But if you haven't read the Lewis essay - and I see zero sign that you have - then all explanations are a complete waste of time.

 

[rusmeister]

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?

There are a number of reasons in the Lewis essay. We answer the questions. But if you won't read them then what's the point?

 

[rusmeister]

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.

My answer to you is the same as to RKO. I've posted a link to a must-read essay. All you have to do is click and read the answer. It's a tad too long to post as a post here, and it was written by someone acknowledged by hundreds of millions of Christians to be a great Christian (no mean feat).

You speak about "denying". There IS no denying. It is NOT like being told to be a nurse instead. You've started by posing the question in the wrong terms. It's like asking "Why can't a circle be a cube?" Even a square is only a pale beginning of a cube, and it is only by special grace that it is granted to be a cube.

But read the essay. I see no point in discussing this if people won't read the answers that ARE offered. To date, I see no sign that the other comments, especially of our ladies, have been read and understood. Certainly not understood.

 

[seashale76]

Sometimes, I think the answer is a lot more simple. It's down to biology. Women menstruate. Imagine a world with no tampons or other manufactured sanitary napkins. That world existed for women well into the early 19th century. I have researched this, and in many cases, women just bled out. Yes, some used rags or made their own, but many, many, many women used nothing. We live in a world where some women STILL don't have access to menstrual products. During their menses, women were usually secluded, and you certainly wouldn't see them touching holy things or participating in any sacraments. Hygiene was not at all like it is today. This alone would have been a practical reason for women not being priests. We still church women forty days after giving birth (prayers upon her returning). It is what it is.