Sacraments and Priests

[Gregory Thompson]

An interesting point was brought up in the latest "should women preach" thread. In terms of sacraments for the older traditions, it's the priest exclusively that God performs the sacrament through through faith.

So in this sense, I have a question: If you are of a tradition where only an ordained priest can "perform a sacrament" .. is there a reason why women cannot do this? Kindly state clear answers for maximum edification value.

 

[Albion]

An interesting point was brought up in the latest "should women preach" thread. In terms of sacraments for the older traditions, it's the priest exclusively that God performs the sacrament through through faith.

So in this sense, I have a question: If you are of a tradition where only an ordained priest can "perform a sacrament" .. is there a reason why women cannot do this? Kindly state clear answers for maximum edification value.

Hasn't every thread on this subject referred to those points again and again?

The New Testament teaches us that--

--Each of us has his own role to play in God's work. The comparison was made to the part of a human body in which the legs do something, the eyes something else, the heart something else...and they all work together for the overall good, but they are not all doing the exact same thing.

--Christ called only men to be his Apostles. And we cannot say, as some do, Well, that was a sexist society, but these are different times. If Scripture is the word of God, that criticism is invalid. What's more, Christ was known for not adhering to the straight and narrow of Jewish custom, etc., so it is impossible that he would have been forced, against his will, to adhere to some social convention in this respect. And it cannot be that it would be scandalous for him to have women following him, since we know that some were close associates and were present at important, public, moments while he preached.

--There is no evidence from Scripture OR history that the early church had any women priests. They performed other functions in the church that we may call "leadership" positions, but not that one.

--The qualifications for being made a presbyter/elder/bishop in the church are spelled out in the NT and speak only of males.

--Finally, it is a "bum rap" when people of a different POV say that this means we think women cannot perform the duties as well as men or that we subscribe to the "women should stay silent, in submission" idea as some of the more fundamentalist churches insist upon, or that there were not women acting as deaconesses, convenors, messengers, teachers, and in other essential church positions. Nor, because the Bible teaches that God loves all of his people equally, that this must mean they all are to serve in the same capacities.

 

[TuxAme]

Anyone can baptize, and marriage is a sacrament which a man and a woman "give" to each other- as for confession, holy orders, confirmation and the Eucharist (and anointing of the sick), only a priest can perform them.

As for why women can't be ordained, there's many reasons. It has nothing to do with "ability"; anyone but a mute could recite the necessary prayers, and anyone but an amputee could lay their hands on another. It instead has to do with the pattern established in the Old Covenant. The priestly duties were always reserved for the male head of a household, and after the golden calf, only to those sons of Aaron. During Christ's ministry, He patterned His own ministerial priesthood after that of the Old Covenant. Though the priesthood was opened up again "to all Tribes", He did not alter the original model of the priesthood by ordaining women. Adam was the first priest, and Eve was his helper, but not even the New Eve, Mary, who was conceived without sin and remained sinless throughout her life, was chosen to offer sacrifice on behalf of others. Her sacrifice was giving her only Son to the world to save the world, and that was enough.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Women and the Priesthood

Honestly, I don't understand why this is so troublesome for some people. Women have different roles to play than men do. Apart from "But it's just not fairrrrrrrrrr", nobody has a really solid argument for ordaining women.

This next bit is only my opinion and shouldn't be assumed about anybody else. But I've been in ecclesial communities which were led by women. Quite a few, in fact. Invariably, the preaching was dull, pedestrian and forgettable while the leadership was largely ineffectual. Entire ministries were in utter disarray and they were never corrected because the female leaders didn't want to call out the poor leaders of those ministries because "that's not Christ-like" or something similarly idiotic.

The common element here seems to be that female leaders have a strange reluctance to correct even the grossest error. Certainly, I have some ideas on why that might be but it's a bit out of scope for this thread.

Suffice it to say, Sacred Scripture, the norms of historical practice and easily observed reality today all show that placing them into positions of authority is simply not a good idea.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

An interesting point was brought up in the latest "should women preach" thread. In terms of sacraments for the older traditions, it's the priest exclusively that God performs the sacrament through through faith.

The rationale/theology is best laid out in this article.


Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ by Kallistos Ware from 'Man, Woman, and Priesthood' - WOMEN CAN BE PRIESTS

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The rationale/theology is best laid out in this article.


Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ by Kallistos Ware from 'Man, Woman, and Priesthood' - WOMEN CAN BE PRIESTS

That was a good article.

It made an attempt to at least address the common concerns brought up in the should women be pastors debate. The article writer made a good deal of effort to stay in the new testament with his theology as well, which is commendable. I tend to differ in perception in terms of using the old humanity paradigm when we're born again, but so it goes. I still had some questions in the direction of how it would affect the actual sacrament such as communion or baptism, did you have any articles regarding that topic?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I still had some questions in the direction of how it would affect the actual sacrament such as communion or baptism, did you have any articles regarding that topic?

Not off hand but I'll think about it.

There are a few supplementary points I would make that I don't think Bishop Ware covered.

1) While Catholics and Orthodox use the term "priest" the technical term or definition of the minister is actually a presbyter, aka elder.

2) And that is reference to sacraments especially Communion are a anamnésis. That word often translated as "remembrance" is more powerful than that in the Greek. It actually has nuances of re-experiencing an event, or in some way bringing an event of the past forward so it is felt or experienced again.

But anyway the connotations are a bit of the priesthood of Melchizedek. Where the sacrament, especially communion is there to re-experience or participate what was done at Calvary. (The Old Testament images etc. are done to evoke Types and Shadows etc. a bit like literary allusions and so on)

Strong's Greek: 364. ἀνάμνησις (anamnésis) -- remembrance

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't see any reference to "priests" and "sacraments" in the New Testament, except that Jesus is our great High Priest, and that there is no mediator between God and man besides Christ, and that we all are "kings and priests" in Christ (including female, because "there is neither male nor female in the body of Christ").

So, if priesthood and sacraments are not referred to in the New Testament, then the only alternative is that they are the religious inventions of man and not God.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I still had some questions in the direction of how it would affect the actual sacrament such as communion or baptism, did you have any articles regarding that topic?

Your asking about how the Sacraments are conceived specifically, or about the role of gender in receiving sacrament?

Receiving Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church

Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese


There isn't much gender difference in the sacraments, and the ones that do exist, exist only because of things from the Old Testament that are considered having typal significance for New Testament times.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Your asking about how the Sacraments are conceived specifically, or about the role of gender in receiving sacrament?

Receiving Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church

Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese


There isn't much gender difference in the sacraments, and the ones that do exist, exist only because of things from the Old Testament that are considered having typal significance for New Testament times.

The supplementary question I am asking is, if a woman priest was ordained in some denomination that had sacraments, what in general would be the difference in experiencing the mystery of said sacrament if a woman is the person God does it through or a male God does it through?

The difference being on the receiving end.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The supplementary question I am asking is, if a woman priest was ordained in some denomination that had sacraments, what in general would be the difference in experiencing the mystery of said sacrament if a woman is the person God does it through or a male God does it through?

The difference being on the receiving end.

Well different Churches will have different answers to that. The moderator Paidiske (or something like that) will have much different thoughts than I will have. From a traditional perspective the Tradition is there because of what is called an Economy.

Economy (religion) - Wikipedia


I will have to relate this to my past experience in Communication theory. We communicate in all kinds of ways, verbal and nonverbal, by the things we say and don't say. And in that view I would say, in looking at the scriptures etc. I don't really believe that the female clergy is part of "God's plan", Economy-wise.

This is not saying, that people might not benefit from a female priest etc. or to deny the experience of some women who believe themselves called to such things. But I think, when you go against the Economy bad things tend to happen in the long run. (The liberal churches that embrace this sort of thing tend to go into decline, they tend to loosen up other things like the view of homosexuality, cohabitation, and start to flirt with Unitarian sympathies or embracing the Jesus Seminar, "Historical" (non-divine) Jesus etc.).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

When I comment that the New Testament does not refer to human "priests" interceding on behalf of and being mediators between believers and God; and that there is no mention of "sacraments", and therefore they are inventions of man; it doesn't mean that they would necessarily block a believer from having faith in Christ. If a believer's faith in Christ is strengthened by them, then the purpose is served.

It is just that I don't feel that I need a human priest to represent me before God because I already have direct fellowship with the Father and Son through the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 John 1:3). That's why I choose not to join a church that has priests and sacraments. And I do observe the items recognised as sacraments as holy and godly. Also, I think that being ordained to minister the Word of God is a holy calling and we should praise God for those who are called to what is one of the most difficult forms of service there are in the church.

 

[TuxAme]

I don't see any reference to "priests" and "sacraments" in the New Testament, except that Jesus is our great High Priest, and that there is no mediator between God and man besides Christ, and that we all are "kings and priests" in Christ (including female, because "there is neither male nor female in the body of Christ").

So, if priesthood and sacraments are not referred to in the New Testament, then the only alternative is that they are the religious inventions of man and not God.

If you know the Old Testament, you will see Jesus ordaining His apostles as priests when He washes their feet, and telling them precisely which sacrifice it is that they will offer as His priests. Who but a priest can offer the New Passover?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If you know the Old Testament, you will see Jesus ordaining His apostles as priests when He washes their feet, and telling them precisely which sacrifice it is that they will offer as His priests. Who but a priest can offer the New Passover?

My exegesis of the passage where Jesus washed the disciple's feet does not include ordaining them to the priesthood. If anyone had told them that they would have understood it only as Jewish priests, and they would have known that Jewish priests could only be ordained by those who are already Jewish priests, and Jesus was not one of them. In that place, in 33AD, there were no such thing as Christian priests, so the disciples would not have known anything about them. So, we need to get the exegesis of the passage, which is to determine the intentions and understanding of those right there in that room in 33AD.

To hermeneutically determine that the washing of the disciples feet was an ordination into a Christian priesthood is to take a blind, existential leap without any foundation. If Jesus' intention was just to show that a leader in the faith is just a servant washing the feet of others, and that is how the disciples at the time understood it, then to overlay it with an understanding that simply was not there at the time is to overlay it with something entirely false and made-up.

So the whole idea of Jesus washing the disciples' feet to ordain them into a Christian priesthood that didn't even exist yet, is the result of incompetent exegesis, and faulty hermeneutics, and introducing something totally unbelievable to anyone with a shred of common sense!