Women Priests/Pastors

[Simplistik]

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

 

[Just Another User]

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.

 

[bcbsr]

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

In my opinion a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

In terms of Biblical authority structures I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

[Not David]

There will never be Catholic or Orthodox female priest. However, Protestants have many interpretations, so they can have one.

 

[EJ M]

There will never be Catholic or Orthodox female priest. However, Protestants have many interpretations, so they can have one.

Not claiming this is right and good, but don't be so sure;

Roman Catholic Womenpriests
Roman Catholic Womenpriests are at the forefront of a model of service that offers Catholics a renewed priestly ministry in vibrant grassroots communities where all are equal and all are welcome. The voice of the Catholic people---the sensus fidelium---has spoken. We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests.

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church's Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic people have accepted us as their priests and they continue to support us as we grow from the seven bold women first ordained on the Danube River in 2002. Ordained women are already ministering in over 32 states across the country. We are here to stay.

 

[Basil the Great]

There will never be Catholic or Orthodox female priest. However, Protestants have many interpretations, so they can have one.

John Paul II said that the matter was settled forever. However, he did NOT issue an infallible teaching document on the issue. Hence, it still is a remote possibility that one day there could be women priests. Who knows what might happen in 500 or 1,000 years, especially if there are not enough male priests to service the members?

 

[Simplistik]

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.

Indeed, at the end of the day it comes down entirely to interpretation. You mentioned 1 Timothy 2:12, which is one of the main scriptures used when disallowing women clergy. The major point of contention is whether Paul was giving Timothy a direct order or if he was just stating his personal preference on the matter (notice how his other pronouncements in chapter 2 are all directions--"Women should" or "I want men to" but with 2:12 he says "I do not let"). But for the sake of argument let's say it was a directive, was it a directive specifically for the church at Ephesus or for the universal church as a whole?

 

[Davidnic]

Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

They're not valid ordinations because of invalid matter. It doesn't matter if someone with valid apostolic succession did it. A Sacrament needs both valid matter and proper form. Someone could have valid succession and attempt to transubstantiate invalid matter, it does not work. So the claim of validity flies in the face of even rudimentary understanding of Catholic Sacramental Theology. When the group makes that claim it shows just how lacking their understanding of Catholic Theology actually is. It is literally sophomore year theology to know that such a claim of validity based on the valid succession of Bishops ignores 90% of Catholic Sacramental Theology. Although some like Conte might argue that matter is just the laying of hands, that is flatly contradicted by 2000 years of Catholic Sacramental theology. Anything else is an innovation. There are other reasons that it is not only illicit but invalid, but matter is the first.

Pope Francis even confirmed the finality of the fact that women cannot be Catholic priests. St. Pope John Paul II was clear in upholding constant teaching:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Again the argument that the ordinations of women Catholic "priests" would be illicit but still valid is the same as saying someone with succession could validly transubstantiate a mushroom into the Eucharist. The argument does not rest on the valid succession of the Bishop, but on the proper matter for the Sacrament. It also is required that they intend to "do as the Church does" which would not be met here.

As Fr. Landry pointed out when explaining the Catholic Sacramental view:

The reason why the ordination of women is invalid is because we, who are not God, do not have the ability to change the substance of the sacraments established by God. If a priest — even Pope Benedict XVI — preferred to celebrate Mass with filet mignon and brandy instead of bread and wine, after the consecration he would still have only steak and liquor. If someone tried to baptize a baby with milk rather than water, the only change that would ensue would be that the child would get wet and sticky. It's the same thing with the "matter" of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Church believes, and has always believed, that, because of Christ's choice to ordain only men at that first Eucharist, the proper matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders is an unimpeded baptized Catholic male (Code of Canon Law, 1024).

Even if a validly ordained Catholic bishop, out of mental illness, disobedience or lack of faith, were to impose hands on a woman following the rite of Catholic ordination, nothing would occur, because ordination is more than a game of holy tag. Matter matters. Just as the validity of the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of the Eucharist depends on proper matter — and the saving and sanctifying effects of these sacraments are contingent on their valid celebration — so, too, the validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders and all the effects that flow from it depend on proper matter. A lay woman who participates in an pseudo-ordination rite finishes the rite as a lay woman, deeply loved by God but by her own choice sadly excommunicated from the Church and in serious and perilous error.

 

[Simplistik]

Not claiming this is right and good, but don't be so sure;

Roman Catholic Womenpriests
Roman Catholic Womenpriests are at the forefront of a model of service that offers Catholics a renewed priestly ministry in vibrant grassroots communities where all are equal and all are welcome. The voice of the Catholic people---the sensus fidelium---has spoken. We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests.

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church's Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic people have accepted us as their priests and they continue to support us as we grow from the seven bold women first ordained on the Danube River in 2002. Ordained women are already ministering in over 32 states across the country. We are here to stay.

I applaud your "bucking the system" but according to the Roman Catholic Church in an edict by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved by the presiding Pope at the time (whose name escapes me at the moment) any woman who takes the vows of priesthood or attempts to take said vows, along with any deacon/bishop or who grants these vows to women is automatically excommunicated from the Church. So while you may very well view yourself and those like you as being in full communion with the RCC and ordained in apostolic succession or what not the RCC itself has different views on the matter entirely. To them all of you are invalid, are not authorized to perform any of the Holy Sacraments and aren't even part of the RCC any longer.

With that being said, you want to change the system, which is all fine and well, but the Catholic church can't legally TM or copyright the term "catholic" so you may as well officially start your own branch of Catholicism w/ Roman Rites because according to them your not officially a part of the RCC anyway.

 

[Simplistik]

John Paul II said that the matter was settled forever. However, he did NOT issue an infallible teaching document on the issue. Hence, it still is a remote possibility that one day there could be women priests. Who knows what might happen in 500 or 1,000 years, especially if there are not enough male priests to service the members?

If there is ever to be women priests officially sanctioned by the RCC then it may very well happen in the current Popes lifetime. Pope Frances is by far the most liberal Pope in recent history.

 

[Davidnic]

If there is ever to be women priests officially sanctioned by the RCC then it may very well happen in the current Popes lifetime. Pope Frances is by far the most liberal Pope in recent history.

Pope Francis confirmed that it is impossible in the Catholic Church. So even he was pretty firm on this point dogmatically.

 

[Simplistik]

Women have always played a major part in Christian history...from Mary Magdalene being the 1st person who finds the tomb empty, to prophetesses and evangelizers to Jesus Himself having a number of female disciples. That's a bit of a sidebar comment though, apologies.

My personal thoughts at there most basic level go something like this: regardless of any interpretation of Paul's musings as it pertains to women teachers, he and Peter both state plainly that a man is to be the spiritual head of the household. So it would stand to reason that with the church being a spiritual household, a man should be the head of the church. I see no problem with a woman teaching Bible studies or even preaching in an informal setting nor do I see an issue with women holding positions in church leadership (i.e. - elders, etc.) but in matters of church headship, as presbuteros of an assembly, I believe that role is strictly for men. How could it be that a man is the head of his personal household but when he goes to church he is presided over in God's house by a woman? Also, how could a female head pastor live a biblical home life?

 

[Simplistik]

Has anyone ever looked at the word tense's used to describe the various church leadership roles and all that? For example, in the NT the word "presbyteros" is always used in the masculine to describe the role of church elder, ergo a church elder should be a man. The feminine form of the word "presbytera" is never used when referencing church leadership.

 

[“Paisios”]

So it would stand to reason that with the church being a spiritual household, a man should be the head of the church.

A Man is the head of the Church - Jesus Christ, the God-Man, fully God, fully Man.

 

[archer75]

If there is ever to be women priests officially sanctioned by the RCC then it may very well happen in the current Popes lifetime. Pope Frances is by far the most liberal Pope in recent history.

Never happen this century. You heard it here. Never. If Pope Francis tries this, tag me and I will send you a dollar.

 

[archer75]

Women have always played a major part in Christian history...from Mary Magdalene being the 1st person who finds the tomb empty, to prophetesses and evangelizers to Jesus Himself having a number of female disciples. That's a bit of a sidebar comment though, apologies.

My personal thoughts at there most basic level go something like this: regardless of any interpretation of Paul's musings as it pertains to women teachers, he and Peter both state plainly that a man is to be the spiritual head of the household. So it would stand to reason that with the church being a spiritual household, a man should be the head of the church. I see no problem with a woman teaching Bible studies or even preaching in an informal setting nor do I see an issue with women holding positions in church leadership (i.e. - elders, etc.) but in matters of church headship, as presbuteros of an assembly, I believe that role is strictly for men. How could it be that a man is the head of his personal household but when he goes to church he is presided over in God's house by a woman? Also, how could a female head pastor live a biblical home life?

A man can be the head of his household and go to church and be under the care of a much younger priest. That could never happen in the nuclear family.

 

[SkyWriting]

In my opinion a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

In terms of Biblical authority structures I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

yah...that's all bologna. That's exactly the garbage Jesus chastised the disiples over when He treated women equally, and they whined.

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
Doesn't anybody think this stuff through? Boot your (male) preachers out the door when they ignore the "The law and the Prophets".

Matthew 7:12
In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I deny.

Matthew 7:12
In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

But this passage does not apply to you
or to women?

Now work your hate talk around that passage.
I usually get zero response on this.
ummm.....ummm

 

[Basil the Great]

Impossible? I think not, my friend. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. Why? Need some evidence? Just look at the infallible Papal Bull Cantate Domino, dated 1441, which explicitly stated that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics could not be partakers of eternal life, but would go onto the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. As we all know, the modern Church no longer interprets the ancient salvation doctrine, "Outside the Church, There is no Salvation", in the strict manner as it did in 1441. Pagans, Jews, heretics (Protestants) and schismatics (Orthodox) are now considered potentially eligible for salvation, based upon the "invincible ignorance" doctrine. Hence, if an infallible decree from 1441 could be effectively reversed 500 years later, then almost anything is possible.....

 

[SkyWriting]

A man can be the head of his household and go to church and be under the care of a much younger priest. That could never happen in the nuclear family.

How do you figure that? If a man can disobey his parents, then anything can happen.