Women Priests/Pastors

[ItIsFinished!]

Once they’re dead they believe in God, because they meet him.

So everyone is saved?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Yes, God forces them to be saved.

That is exactly what I was inferring when I wrote:
"Yes, atheists can go to Heaven."

Please read posts before replying. Please reply to what was written.

Curb your attitude and stop telling others what to do.
No one needs your condescending attitude.
Especially when you are CLEARLY WRONG.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Manmade churches can do anything they please, but Jesus Christ clearly indicated His intentions for the ONE Church He founded, by appointing 12 out of 12 men as its first pastors/priests/bishops, even though many holy women were available. His Church therefore does not have the authority to ordain women, and therefore cannot "decide" to do so, as doing so would violate the clearly expressed will of its founder.

 

[Archivist]

Manmade churches can do anything they please, but Jesus Christ clearly indicated His intentions for the ONE Church He founded, by appointing 12 out of 12 men as its first pastors/priests/bishops, even though many holy women were available. His Church therefore does not have the authority to ordain women, and therefore cannot "decide" to do so, as doing so would violate the clearly expressed will of its founder.

However the first person he picked to preach the Good News of His resurrection was a woman.

 

[Vicomte13]

So everyone is saved?

Doubt it.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

However the first person he picked to preach the Good News of His resurrection was a woman.

First one He picked, or the first one who observed?

 

[Not David]

However the first person he picked to preach the Good News of His resurrection was a woman.

So? What does it have to do with being clergy?

 

[marineimaging]

So I just heard about this documentary film "Pink Smoke Over the Vatican" and it got me wondering about everyone's views on female priests/pastors.

Let me know what you think and I'll collect my thoughts and post my views here in a bit

My answer to your question is "why"? The bible is the source of our understanding. Anybody who teaches the bible has two choices. One, they can teach and preach the bible, or two, they can gloss over everything in the bible and in essence lie to those they are attempting to bring into the fold. The bible is clear on the understanding of the roles that men, women, and children are to play in the relationship between God and mankind. So, again, "why"?

As my wife says, men have been given an awesome duty by God. But it is also fraught with the potential to fail and before our God I would not envy you this task. Likewise women have an awesome role to play and there is nothing belittling about it.

All inall we are to love one another, to cherish each other, and to bless each other with our abilities. Men have their assignments. Women have theirs. Children likewise. To twist them around is to deny that God is sovereign and that His Word is just and true.

 

[Vicomte13]

Manmade churches can do anything they please, but Jesus Christ clearly indicated His intentions for the ONE Church He founded, by appointing 12 out of 12 men as its first pastors/priests/bishops, even though many holy women were available. His Church therefore does not have the authority to ordain women, and therefore cannot "decide" to do so, as doing so would violate the clearly expressed will of its founder.

But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.

 

[Simplistik]

Isn't God able to call whoever he wants to serve him?
He called Deborah to be judge over all Israel.
He called Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Isaiah's wife and Philip's 4 daughters to prophesy and take God's word to men.
Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection - all the men were in hiding.
Paul worked alongside women, see Romans 16. He chose a woman to take his letter to the Romans, and was aware that a woman had taught Apollos. He included, and commended, women.

a judge isn't the leader of a church.
a prophet isn't the leader of a church.
Mary Magdalene wasn't the leader of a church.
Phoebe was a servant of the church, not it's leader.
Acts 18:26 states that both Aquilla and Priscilla took him aside and explained to him the ways of Christ, informally in a conversation. While this may be construed as teaching to some degree it isn't teaching in any sort of official capacity (i.e. - in a synagogue)
Paul does commend and work with many women but he makes it quite clear that he does not allow women to teach men. Just because he respects women of the faith and works with them doesn't mean he allows them to be heads of church.

 

[Simplistik]

Are you aware that επισκοπης/episkopés the Greek word translated "bishop" is feminine, not masculine?And as has already been pointed out the vs. does not say "if a man" it say "if anyone."

the feminine form, episkope, refers to the office of bishop and is only used in that context in 1 Timothy 3:1 and in Acts 1:20 as "bishoprick" which is apparently an antiquated term for the area the bishop oversees, like his governate. However, the male form, episkopos, is used in 1 Timothy 3:2 and refers to the bishop himself.

 

[Simplistik]

But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.

That is all well and good but the fact is Jesus chose many women to do many great things in His name but the fact remains that he chose 12 men to lead His church and those 12 men then chose other men as church Elder's and so on and so forth. Mary was chosen by God to birth the Christ and she did many great things in her Sons name but Jesus didn't pick her to lead the church even if she did evangelize and do good works over and over again.

 

[Simplistik]

Saying you need Jesus to be saved is not saying isolated pagans tribes all go to hell.

that's true, you can't be held accountable for that which you do not know.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.

And , yet God chose all male apostles.
And, yet God chose all male writers of His Holy Word.
We are all EQUAL at the Cross.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

Curb your attitude and stop telling others what to do.

No one needs your condescending attitude.
Especially when you are CLEARLY WRONG.

I am sorry you read my attitude as condescending.

What am I wrong about?

 

[Simplistik]

Except it does not work that way even in Catholic theology. Popes can not decide to make something possible that goes against Scripture and Holy Tradition. Now some of our other Christian brothers and sisters would argue they have, but those debates are separate. The Pope can not wake up and decide That Scripture and Holy Tradition and the informed Dogma from them can be changed.

there are plenty of occasions where the Catholic Church holds traditions to be as important as Scripture if not more so and as far as changing Scripture I point you to the 10 commandments, I point to them claiming they have the power to change the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday and they restructured the 10 commandments to reflect the removal of the one about graven images and idols. So it's not really and argument just facts. It's hard to argue against clear facts.

 

[Oldmantook]

So? No belief of anyone is.

Not anyone...just Protestant history of church leadership/teaching certainly differs from Roman Catholic practice thus you claim is invalid.

 

[Paidiske]

You know, I was reflecting on this and other recent related conversations this morning with an old friend and sometimes-visitor to my parish, and it struck me that it might be worth saying something about the difficulty of these conversations.

A conversation like this is, for me, at the same time very remote and extremely close to the bone.

On the one hand, this is like a parallel universe. All of these claims that women cannot do xyz - preach, teach, lead faith communities, whatever - they bear no relation to my actual life. I had that conversation this morning standing outside church, after I'd preached and presided at the Eucharist twice; set up pastoral visits for the week to come, dealt with parish administrative matters, and looked ahead at liturgical planning with the director of music. All the rest. That's my daily and weekly round; I live that life of ministry in a social context where being a Christian is far more controversial than being a woman in leadership in any context. Most of the Christians I know in real life who don't accept women's ordination still seem to feel a sense of common cause and mutual respect with those of us who do. I truly don't really understand people who oppose women in ministry more than being grateful for women who are committed to the gospel and the mission of God; surely that's the more urgent and pressing need?

On the other hand... as noted, this is the fabric of my life. This is who I am, my identity, the purpose and vocation to which I have committed all that I am, the web of relationships that makes up most everything that matters to me. When people seek to invalidate it, it's not a theoretical or academic or abstract question. It goes to the heart of who I am as a human person, to my integrity before God, and it's difficult not to take that extremely personally. Not just for myself, but having in mind all my sisters with vocations, present and future, and their ability to give their all to Christ in whatever Christ calls them to do, and to be supported and encouraged and nurtured in that by the church, in the way that each Christian deserves as one part of the church's commitment to them in baptising them. I look at my daughter (who turned 7 yesterday) and hope that the church never tells her there's anything God disqualifies her from because of her genetics; and yet I know that, while she might hear it less than I have (because things have improved and I pray continue to improve) the chances that doors might open to her without sex ever being an issue are small. Few things make me want to fight as fiercely as my desire to give her, and every girl like her, a church which is what the church should be for them, and yet often I feel so helpless and overwhelmed in the face of what seems like an enduring wall of negation, dismissal, silencing and outright hostility and attack. It's a fearful thing to wonder how raising your child in the church will harm her, but I do.

The point of this post isn't to persuade anybody to change their mind; but maybe to think about what's at stake when we talk about these things, and whether the way we talk about them might be more important, sometimes, than the positions we hold.

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting, question.

There's undeniable scripture such as 1 Timothy 2:12 suggesting that women can't have authority over a man.

Ultimately, it comes down to if you interpret this as applying to everyone, just to the church or it's a cultural thing (such as the head covering in 1 Corinthians 2-16).


I'm not going to comment. Just here for the show.

Just Another User,

Why don't you examine the meaning of 'authority' in 1 Tim 2:12? What kind of authority is forbidden to women?

Exousia is the regular Greek word for authority. It is not used in this verse. Instead, it's the infinitive, authentein, and here is the only time it appears in the entire NT.

So what does this different word for authority mean? That should help us in exegesis of the verse and what kind of authority women are forbidden to use.

Oz

 

[whereloveandmercymeet]

You know, I was reflecting on this and other recent related conversations this morning with an old friend and sometimes-visitor to my parish, and it struck me that it might be worth saying something about the difficulty of these conversations.

A conversation like this is, for me, at the same time very remote and extremely close to the bone.

On the one hand, this is like a parallel universe. All of these claims that women cannot do xyz - preach, teach, lead faith communities, whatever - they bear no relation to my actual life. I had that conversation this morning standing outside church, after I'd preached and presided at the Eucharist twice; set up pastoral visits for the week to come, dealt with parish administrative matters, and looked ahead at liturgical planning with the director of music. All the rest. That's my daily and weekly round; I live that life of ministry in a social context where being a Christian is far more controversial than being a woman in leadership in any context. Most of the Christians I know in real life who don't accept women's ordination still seem to feel a sense of common cause and mutual respect with those of us who do. I truly don't really understand people who oppose women in ministry more than being grateful for women who are committed to the gospel and the mission of God; surely that's the more urgent and pressing need?

On the other hand... as noted, this is the fabric of my life. This is who I am, my identity, the purpose and vocation to which I have committed all that I am, the web of relationships that makes up most everything that matters to me. When people seek to invalidate it, it's not a theoretical or academic or abstract question. It goes to the heart of who I am as a human person, to my integrity before God, and it's difficult not to take that extremely personally. Not just for myself, but having in mind all my sisters with vocations, present and future, and their ability to give their all to Christ in whatever Christ calls them to do, and to be supported and encouraged and nurtured in that by the church, in the way that each Christian deserves as one part of the church's commitment to them in baptising them. I look at my daughter (who turned 7 yesterday) and hope that the church never tells her there's anything God disqualifies her from because of her genetics; and yet I know that, while she might hear it less than I have (because things have improved and I pray continue to improve) the chances that doors might open to her without sex ever being an issue are small. Few things make me want to fight as fiercely as my desire to give her, and every girl like her, a church which is what the church should be for them, and yet often I feel so helpless and overwhelmed in the face of what seems like an enduring wall of negation, dismissal, silencing and outright hostility and attack. It's a fearful thing to wonder how raising your child in the church will harm her, but I do.

The point of this post isn't to persuade anybody to change their mind; but maybe to think about what's at stake when we talk about these things, and whether the way we talk about them might be more important, sometimes, than the positions we hold.

And that is exactly why I’m behind any female vicar who can do it right!

I think we should worry more about the people in authority in the church who are failing their parishes in many ways, make or female, then the ones who are doing great works but without a Y chromosome. Maybe if the church was only full of great and committed people we would argue less on issues like this.