The World Needs Women Priests

[Albion]

But there is a problem, Albion. Because if you explain away the clear statement of Scripture that Phoebe was a deacon as "Oh, well, but she wasn't a really real deacon, she was a servant, or a lay deaconess, she wasn't clergy," you're using a distinction which didn't exist in Phoebe's time to reinforce a later distinction

Yes, it did exist in antiquity, and we know this.

What wasn't part of it is use of the word clergy which we use now when explaining this matter. People often jump at that whenever our discussion turns this way, but that's not the actual issue.

and using that to deny the diaconate (and, by extension, the other orders) to contemporary women.

Well, again it's terms. But we know for a fact the very different responsibilities, functions, and standing of deacons as opposed to those of deaconesses.

The latter were actually more necessary in antiquity than they are today, and as for the (male) deacons, their duties were far more than most churchmen and women today imagine.

In other words, the difference between the two, deacon and deaconess, was much clearer than it is today in churches which have deacons of both sexes and they do basically the same work.

Under today's set-up, it is no wonder that the average person thinks that the only difference IS gender. Not surprisingly, that tends to make people think that not having women deacons is nothing more than prejudice in action.

And then there's this. You and I go round and round on this topic, but why is the Anglican Communion the only Catholic communion of significance that does not see history and Scripture supporting the ordination of women??

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the only Old Catholic church body of significance, the Polish National Catholic Church ALL consider that practice to be in error.

How is it that none of these venerable religious bodies with all their scholarship is persuaded by the same few points made by just about every advocate of women's ordination, whether here on CF or in the churches?

 

[Sammy-San]

The world needs women priests
to help women in poor countries get an education and jobs.

Jesus ordained two priests.
John the Baptist and Mary of Bethany.

Does the world need women priests?

Does the Catholic Church or Anglicans use the term priestess or high priestess? The Bible says kingdom of priests and kings not priestesses and queens.

High priest itself doesnt sound blasphemous but because the Bible uses it for Christ at this point it does.

Whos mary of Bethany?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, it did exist in antiquity, and we know this.

Not in the apostolic era. In that era roles and the terminology to describe them were flexible, developing and changing. At that point there isn't even a clear distinction between elders and overseers (priests and bishops).

But we know for a fact the very different responsibilities, functions, and standing of deacons as opposed to those of deaconesses.

Again, not in the very earliest church. Reading later evidence back into the earliest documents is anachronistic.

In other words, the difference between the two, deacon and deaconess, was much clearer than it is today in churches which have deacons of both sexes and they do basically the same work.

This is highly speculative. We have little evidence about the work of either male or female deacons in the first century.

Does the Catholic Church or Anglicans use the term priestess or high priestess?

No, and that term is generally only used as a slur, to imply that women priests are essentially Pagan.

 

[Hmm]

It's a matter of following Scripture and the Apostolic practice.

..But when it's this issue...modern social standards seem to rise to the top of the list for many people.

I wonder if it's because on this issue it just feels right to so many people. Given that the Bible says we are a "priesthood of believers" could a case be made in principle that a good way to settle this issue would be by a ballot of all believers? It may be almost impossible practically but would there be any objections in principle, i.e. scripturally, to this solution?

 

[Paidiske]

I wonder if it's because on this issue it just feels right to so many people. Given that the Bible says we are a "priesthood of believers" could a case be made in principle that a good way to settle this issue would be by a ballot of all believers? It may be almost impossible practically but would there be any objections in principle, i.e. scripturally, to this solution?

I guess those of us in churches with a synodical form of governance have approximated this (in that at least it was a decision made by voting, albeit not a ballot of all believers but by a more representative system).

In a similar vein, this popped up in my email a couple of days ago: German archbishop calls for open debate about women priests in the Catholic Church

 

[Strong in Him]

I wonder if it's because on this issue it just feels right to so many people. Given that the Bible says we are a "priesthood of believers" could a case be made in principle that a good way to settle this issue would be by a ballot of all believers? It may be almost impossible practically but would there be any objections in principle, i.e. scripturally, to this solution?

Except that you would get believers who were strongly in favour, believers who believed it was a sin and possibly believers who didn't know/care but were told by their leadership that it was wrong.

 

[Hmm]

Except that you would get believers who were strongly in favour, believers who believed it was a sin and possibly believers who didn't know/care but were told by their leadership that it was wrong.

You would but that kind of thing happens in all votes. People vote for all kinds of reasons and often irrationally but that's democracy.

 

[Strong in Him]

You would but that kind of thing happens in all votes. People vote for all kinds of reasons and often irrationally but that's democracy.

I know.
What I'm saying is that a mass ballot wouldn't really solve anything. People would still vote according to their interpretation of Scripture/denominational stance.

 

[Hmm]

I know.
What I'm saying is that a mass ballot wouldn't really solve anything. People would still vote according to their interpretation of Scripture/denominational stance.

I'm not sure what "priesthood of believers" means so of course I'm open to correction but I'm taking it as saying that all believers have an equally valid interpretation of the Bible. If this is what it means then I don't see why a mass ballot wouldn't solve the issue. If it isn't what it means, do you think the term still has a bearing on this issue?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure what "priesthood of believers" so I'm open to correction but I'm taking it as saying that all believers have an equally valid interpretation of the Bible. If this is what it means then I don't see why a mass ballot wouldn't solve the issue. If it isn't what it means, do you think the term still has a bearing on this issue?

I don't think that's what it means. Priesthood isn't really about who holds a valid interpretation of Scripture (although ordained priests are educated, and a little education on this stuff goes a long way).

I think I posted something about this earlier in the thread, but the priesthood of all believers means that the functions which used to be performed by Israelite priests - sacrifice and mediation - now belong to the Christian community as a whole. Priesthood in the specialised sense of an ordained minister, though, is the function of an elder within that community.

 

[Hmm]

Ah, okay, sorry I missed your earlier explanation.

although ordained priests are educated, and a little education on this stuff goes a long w

That's true. It's interesting though isn't it that educated and informed people when confronted by the same facts can still come to different opinions. That's why I think some kind of vote, by the clergy then in the light of your comments, is the only way to resolve this issue.

 

[Paidiske]

That's why I think some kind of vote, by the clergy then in the light of your comments, is the only way to resolve this issue.

I honestly don't think it can be resolved (if by resolution we mean either everybody accepting, or everybody accepting the absence of, ordained women).

But if there were to be a vote I wouldn't restrict it to clergy.

 

[Albion]

Does the Catholic Church or Anglicans use the term priestess or high priestess?

No.

 

[Hmm]

I honestly don't think it can be resolved (if by resolution we mean either everybody accepting, or everybody accepting the absence of, ordained women).

But if there were to be a vote I wouldn't restrict it to clergy.

I agree there will never be unanimity but if it was a majority decision, either way, would not that be a resolution at least for the time being? If the result went against women's ordination there will of course be calls for a second vote after a while but that's appropriate because the next generation may think differently.

If there was a vote, who would you like to see take part?

 

[Paidiske]

I agree there will never be unanimity but if it was a majority decision, either way, would not that be a resolution at least for the time being?

No, I don't think so. If the result was for women's ordination, we'd see ongoing division (lots of people not accepting the result, as has happened with schisms in many denominations). If the result was against women's ordination, what becomes of those of us in orders? And the churches which we serve?

I would not accept such a vote as a legitimate undoing of my ordination.

If there was aha vote, who would you like to see take part?

I'm not sure. But the participation of laity would be very important.

 

[Sammy-San]

No.

Why.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, I don't think so. If the result was for women's ordination, we'd see ongoing division (lots of people not accepting the result, as has happened with schisms in many denominations). If the result was against women's ordination, what becomes of those of us in orders? And the churches which we serve?

I would not accept such a vote as a legitimate undoing of my ordination.



I'm not sure. But the participation of laity would be very important.

Do you object to the term priestess or high priestess

 

[Paidiske]

Do you object to the term priestess or high priestess

For a Christian? Strenuously.

 

[Sammy-San]

For a Christian? Strenuously.

Why. Because of in and of itself or pagan history? People say Harry Potter is demonic more than movies like star wars or superhero movies. I don't understand nuance like this.

 

[Paidiske]

Why. Because of in and of itself or pagan history?

"Priestess" is not a term that has ever been used of Christian clergy. People who use that term now generally use both to associate women's ministry with Paganism, and to suggest that women's ministry is different from/inferior to that of men.

It's a slur and an insult.