Women Priests Revisited

[Bardasos]

I am a Dutch Catholic Bishop serving in the Southwestern U.S.
I have recently ordained/consecrated a woman as my successor due to health issues.
She has been my Administrator and Assistant for some 15 yrs., and a vowed religious sister for over 20 years.
She also happens to be my wife.

As more and more historical, traditional evidence continues to resurface, as to the Licit role of women as Deacons and yes, in fact Presbyters (ex. 2 - 6th century Italy), I have no problems with the Ordination of Women, and or Married Priests.

There is an interesting group that has done some exhaustive research into the whole matter. They are wwwwomenpriests.org.
Although I do not particularly precribe to all of their practices in specific, I cannot disagree with their factual evidence, not to mention their genuineness and integrity.

I am simply saying that we have far too long excluded truly gifted individuals; gifted by God, who have such a heart to serve, and who tend to be very humble and selfless souls.

I don't know that intellectual qualifications should be the muster, as much as True Sincerity. Rather than trying to "weed out" those we deem as not quite making the grade, we should recognize and cultivate so many members of the Body, Encouraging and Supporting them in any way that we can. More times than not, it is these same individuals who will work tirelessly, honestly committing their whole lives to the Church in it's Members.

My hope is that we can begin more and more to Encourage others, that there are places in the Church for them to truly realize their Call;
places with Valid Orders and Sacraments;
places where they are Welcomed and Needed.

Here in My Jurisdiction, as in many other areas, we are doing just that, by opening up the Discernment process to both Single and Married Candidates for Religious Life, the Diaconate, and Priestly Ministry.

We are currently working on a soon to be released Website, and planning interviews with Local Media. God willing, I will be able to post more details in the near future.

+Peace and Every Blessing to You

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

You should post on the Greek Orthodox site! See what they say. Orthodox do not believe in having women as priests...but as teachers and other roles.

In Finland..the Luth church are ordaining women as priests, and they are a few men who will not serve with them. One woman mentioned we are living in the "age of grace", so it is right. Some think it is a political issue or towards more liberal trends that are paralleling social concerns of society.

In Him, david.

 

[MomWhoThinks]

I cannot accept a woman in the leadership role of the church. I find that doctrine, scripture and tradition all oppose such. I'm not sure if it's a rising rebellious nature of women, or the increasing laziness of men that is pushing this movement, but it's wrong. God has a divine plan for all people, but priesthood is NOT His plan for us ladies. I would have to leave any dioses that took part in this heresy.

 

[PaladinValer]

Go women priests!

I had two women priests at my last parish, and they both filled me greatly. God truly worked through these women and I could experience the fact that their Orders were both valid and licit.

I hope and pray at least one of them gets to wear a miter one day

 

[JDIBe]

I am a Dutch Catholic Bishop serving in the Southwestern U.S.
I have recently ordained/consecrated a woman as my successor due to health issues.
She has been my Administrator and Assistant for some 15 yrs., and a vowed religious sister for over 20 years.
She also happens to be my wife.

As more and more historical, traditional evidence continues to resurface, as to the Licit role of women as Deacons and yes, in fact Presbyters (ex. 2 - 6th century Italy), I have no problems with the Ordination of Women, and or Married Priests.

There is an interesting group that has done some exhaustive research into the whole matter. They are wwwwomenpriests.org.
Although I do not particularly precribe to all of their practices in specific, I cannot disagree with their factual evidence, not to mention their genuineness and integrity.

I am simply saying that we have far too long excluded truly gifted individuals; gifted by God, who have such a heart to serve, and who tend to be very humble and selfless souls.

I don't know that intellectual qualifications should be the muster, as much as True Sincerity. Rather than trying to "weed out" those we deem as not quite making the grade, we should recognize and cultivate so many members of the Body, Encouraging and Supporting them in any way that we can. More times than not, it is these same individuals who will work tirelessly, honestly committing their whole lives to the Church in it's Members.

My hope is that we can begin more and more to Encourage others, that there are places in the Church for them to truly realize their Call;
places with Valid Orders and Sacraments;
places where they are Welcomed and Needed.

Here in My Jurisdiction, as in many other areas, we are doing just that, by opening up the Discernment process to both Single and Married Candidates for Religious Life, the Diaconate, and Priestly Ministry.

We are currently working on a soon to be released Website, and planning interviews with Local Media. God willing, I will be able to post more details in the near future.

+Peace and Every Blessing to You

Sir,

I wish that you might take into consideration your own Apostolic Constitutons when considering this matter.


8.28. A deacon does no bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. ... A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency.

 

[PaladinValer]

Deaconesses are not female deacons. They are an entirely different animal.

Unless of course you think a woman teacher is really a teacheress and not a real teacher.

 

[clayforHim648]

No matter how much research man does...God says that women should not fill such roles...it is as plain as the homosexual argument. Read your bibles

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am currently studying this controversial topic at school and currently, my personal conviction is that women should indeed be permitted for ordination. Consider that in all canonical Gospel accounts state that our Risen Lord first appeared to women. Also, it was a woman, not a man, who bathed our Lord's feet with her tears and dried his feet with her hair; quite clearly this demonstrates service to our Lord. And also, who bore our Lord in her womb and in her heart if not for a woman? Indeed, the Church needs women.

 

[PaladinValer]

Phoebe=deacon.

If you can be a deacon, you can be a priest; if you can be a priest, you can be a bishop. It is the same Sacrament of Holy Orders each time.

 

[Strong in Him]

I cannot accept a woman in the leadership role of the church. I find that doctrine, scripture and tradition all oppose such. I'm not sure if it's a rising rebellious nature of women, or the increasing laziness of men that is pushing this movement, but it's wrong. God has a divine plan for all people, but priesthood is NOT His plan for us ladies. I would have to leave any dioses that took part in this heresy.

It's not heresy because it's not Christian doctrine, or something which is contrary to the Christian Gospel. There are denominations which ordain women, and churches that have female ministers/vicars/pastors. Whatever your view on this, you will no doubt find yourself with people of the opposing view in heaven.

I would take you to task on the comment that this may be due to the rebelliousness of women; in many cases I know of, and certainly my own, we believe that GOD called us to preach, (though I'm not a pastor), and the rebellion would be to NOT do what God wants. But from experience, there is little point in testifying to what God has done in my life in this matter, as some people dismiss it, or say I am deluded or whatever.

 

[BereanTodd]

Also, it was a woman, not a man, who bathed our Lord's feet with her tears and dried his feet with her hair; quite clearly this demonstrates service to our Lord.

No one says women can not work in service to the Lord, quite clearly they can. They are even mentioned as deacon(esses) in Scripture, and 1 Tim 3 gives guidelines for female deacon(esses).

The difference is that the pastor is the head of the church, exerting leadership, and such roles are for the men. Just as the man is called to be the head in the home, so too is He called to headship in the church, this is abundantly clear from multiple passages both OT and NT.

1 Tim 3 within the span of a few sentences gives clear guidelines for female deacons, and yet in discussion of pastor/elder/overseers it clearly limits the discussion to men. Why is that?

And also, who bore our Lord in her womb and in her heart if not for a woman? Indeed, the Church needs women.

No one says that the church does not need women, but what the church does NOT need is women HEADSHIP. Is Christ less valuable because He submits to the headship of the Father? No. Well women are likewise called to submit themselves to male headship.

 

[Strong in Him]

No one says that the church does not need women, but what the church does NOT need is women HEADSHIP. Is Christ less valuable because He submits to the headship of the Father? No. Well women are likewise called to submit themselves to male headship.

The church needs both women and men who love the Lord, are committed to him and willing to serve him wherever he leads. If that calling is to the pulpit or leadership of a church - so be it. God IS calling women to do this today, and has been calling them for a number of years. You may disagree with that, but it's what's happening, and the only serious alternative is to say that ALL these women are and have been deluded into thinking that God is calling. Either that, or we know perfectly well that he isn't but go ahead and do it anyway.

It's a fact, women do preach and Pastor, and some congregations have been blessed by this ministry. Thank God for anyone who is willing to listen to him and use the gifts that he has given them to serve him.

PS I submit to my Minister's authority - he, and the rest of the church, have given me the authority to preach. Or rather, recognise that God has given that authority and that gift. My husband also encouraged me in this.

 

[slamminsam]

I'm sorry, folks, but God's Word says that a Deacon or a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife." That's the way it is!
Why are we discussing this? The "pro" side has nothing Biblically to go on.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm sorry, folks, but God's Word says that a Deacon or a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife." That's the way it is!

So? As has already been pointed out - elsewhere if not on this thread - deacon is a neutral word and does not indicate male nor female. Paul could also just mean that they must not follow pagan practices and have several wives. Also, Paul was not married himself, and he founded the churches - was he insisting that people should practice what he could not? This is too ambiguous. Had he said "deacons must be the husband of one wife; that means that as women cannot have wives they cannot be deacons or ever be considered as deacons," we would have had a clearer idea of his teaching.

Why are we discussing this? The "pro" side has nothing Biblically to go on.

Apart from the fact that Jesus valued women and allowed them to take his message to others, including Mary Magdalene's message about the risen Christ to the 11 disciples. And the fact that Paul had many women helpers and co workers, and does not say that none of these spoke in the gatherings or preached. Nor does he say that the spiritual gifts of Pastor and teacher are for men only, or that Apollos was less of a disciple because he was taught by a woman. Paul's views about women are not clear; if they were, there would not be, and have been, so much argument and division about them. And if this were a command from God then I believe he would have made it very clear. God wants us to obey him, he is not the God of confusion and will not try to trip us up and then condemn us for having been tripped up. And I think the final evidence that God is not against women preachers, is that he is calling us to this task. Many women over many years - Salvation Army, Methodists, URC, Church Army, Anglicans - have been called and used by God to take his Gospel to a broken and hurting world. Have they all been deluded and disobedient? If so, does that mean that non Christians haven't really been saved, baptisms and weddings have been performed illegally, anyone who has heard a word of challenge or comfort from these female preachers should have been left in their sinful and miserable states until a man could come along to help them?

I believe that God knows his own word, and will not go against it. The fact that he does call women today, and you may not like that but it IS a fact, tells me that it is human beings who have previously misinterpreted his word and intentions, and that God himself does not have a problem with women serving him in this way. I know for a fact that I could not have finished my preaching studies without God's strength.

 

[slamminsam]

I am not against women preachers at all. Or Sunday School teachers-else we'd run out quickly! I might not be saved if a woman hadn't started and lead the Vacation Bible School where I learned about the Lord. If we make the church an all-male club, we are absolutely wrong!
Some positions of authority, however, are Biblically mandated to be male.
Deacon may be a gender-neutral word, but husband is not. Bishop may be a gender-neutral word, but husband isa always male in the Scriptures. Here's an example:
"Let the husband be the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church."
This is about why I said that the "pro" position on women pastors has nothing to stand on Biblically.
I'm not saying this to be mean anymore than God put it in His Word to be mean. This is just the way He has things ordered.
I know some people won't agree, but this is Bible doctrine. And I can't stand it when someone tries to take clear Scripture and say it means something else.

 

[Strong in Him]

I know some people won't agree, but this is Bible doctrine. And I can't stand it when someone tries to take clear Scripture and say it means something else.

Sorry, but it's not Bible doctrine. It is not a command from God - or he wouldn't allow, far less call, women to be ministers today. It has nothing to do with salvation.

It also depends what you mean by clear Scripture.

"if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away" (Matthew 5:29) is clear Scripture. So is,

"As for those troublemakers, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12), and

"Stop drinking only water and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:23).

Teaching on how to treat your slaves is clear scripture, so is the instruction not to give a widow financial assistance until she is over 60. Paul's desire that people should remain unmarried is also clear Scripture.

But we don't take these all literally or put them into practice today. They are not Bible doctrine. They are metaphors (Jesus' words), or Paul's thoughts, opinions, or words of advice to churches he had founded which lived in a particular time and culture. We don't have personal slaves today. What should we do, go and create some so that we can obey the clear teaching of Scripture?

I dislike it when someone interprets Scripture to fit their own personal agenda, but failing to understand context ertc, and taking literally something which was not meant to be taken literally, is to misunderstand what was written and what truth the writer was trying to convey.

 

[slamminsam]

Sorry, but it's not Bible doctrine. It is not a command from God - or he wouldn't allow, far less call, women to be ministers today. It has nothing to do with salvation.

It also depends what you mean by clear Scripture.

"if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away" (Matthew 5:29) is clear Scripture. So is,

"As for those troublemakers, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Galatians 5:12), and

"Stop drinking only water and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5:23).

Teaching on how to treat your slaves is clear scripture, so is the instruction not to give a widow financial assistance until she is over 60. Paul's desire that people should remain unmarried is also clear Scripture.

But we don't take these all literally or put them into practice today. They are not Bible doctrine. They are metaphors (Jesus' words), or Paul's thoughts, opinions, or words of advice to churches he had founded which lived in a particular time and culture. We don't have personal slaves today. What should we do, go and create some so that we can obey the clear teaching of Scripture?

I dislike it when someone interprets Scripture to fit their own personal agenda, but failing to understand context ertc, and taking literally something which was not meant to be taken literally, is to misunderstand what was written and what truth the writer was trying to convey.

I'll take this by points:
1. Um, actually, it IS a command and one of the clearest ones in Scripture. BTW, I have NO problem with women EVANGELISTS, as I posted above. So, God bless your ministry!
2.Scripture should be interpreted literally unless its an allegory. When is it an allegory? THAT'S where the fun begins! THAT arguement has to be handled on a verse-by-verse basis.
3.Matt. 5:29-Some people SHOULD blind themselves! The world would be better off if sex offenders would take this scripture to heart!
4.Gal. 5:12-OUCH! Not only painful (you all know what emasculation is, right?), but a bad translation, methinks. The KJV says "I wish they were cut off that trouble you." "Cut off" could mean removed-Paul wanted God to remove the bullies out of his friends' lives.
5.I Tim. 5:23-Water then, as it is in third world countries today, dirty and unsafe to drink. Christians had to drink other things such as wine. This was the case many times in the ancient world.
5. Slavery-That option was removed once Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I guess God realized that some people would be foolish enough to do it any way, so he wanted to get them to treat their slaves fairly. Once they treated their slaves like human beings, slavery starts falling apart as an institution!
6. Paul thought the widows who were still young enough should work. That doesn't make sense? God's Word teaches that everyone who can should work for a living.
7.Now, Paul's desire is that if people COULD, then they should remain unmarried. He also said only a few people could do that. "Better to marry than to burn" was also his writing.
8."What should we do, go and create some (slaves)?"
See slavery, above.
9. "I dislike it when someone interprets Scripture to fit their own personal agenda, but failing to understand context..."
I do NOT have a personal agenda! I am called to teach the Word of God. I am simply trying to do that.
The same Scripture which prevents women from being a church pastor prohibits me also. My children are what the KJV calls "unruly"-they're living life in rebellion towards God and what they were taught. But I still love them!

Once again, may God bless you and help you in your ministry.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'll take this by points:
1. Um, actually, it IS a command and one of the clearest ones in Scripture. BTW, I have NO problem with women EVANGELISTS, as I posted above. So, God bless your ministry!

How is it a command? Paul does not say. "thus saith the Lord", or "this is what the Lord says". He is writing about the need for leaders - which at the time were obviously mainly men - to be above reproach, pure, a good example. He does not say "women can't be deacons because obviously they don't have husbands". Phoebe was one. And I believe that if he were writing to churches today, he'd say that both male and female leaders must only have one spouse.

I'm not a minister, by the way, or an evangelist. But I do preach.

2.Scripture should be interpreted literally unless its an allegory. When is it an allegory? THAT'S where the fun begins! THAT arguement has to be handled on a verse-by-verse basis.
3.Matt. 5:29-Some people SHOULD blind themselves! The world would be better off if sex offenders would take this scripture to heart!
4.Gal. 5:12-OUCH! Not only painful (you all know what emasculation is, right?), but a bad translation, methinks. The KJV says "I wish they were cut off that trouble you." "Cut off" could mean removed-Paul wanted God to remove the bullies out of his friends' lives.
5.I Tim. 5:23-Water then, as it is in third world countries today, dirty and unsafe to drink. Christians had to drink other things such as wine. This was the case many times in the ancient world.
5. Slavery-That option was removed once Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I guess God realized that some people would be foolish enough to do it any way, so he wanted to get them to treat their slaves fairly. Once they treated their slaves like human beings, slavery starts falling apart as an institution!
6. Paul thought the widows who were still young enough should work. That doesn't make sense? God's Word teaches that everyone who can should work for a living.
7.Now, Paul's desire is that if people COULD, then they should remain unmarried. He also said only a few people could do that. "Better to marry than to burn" was also his writing.
8."What should we do, go and create some (slaves)?"
See slavery, above.

I quoted all of these verses only to make the point that if we insist on interpreting all Scripture literally, at face value and try to apply it today, we'll soon get in a muddle. Context is important. Scripture contains history and allegory, parables, poems and prophecy, law and advice given to churches which had written to Paul with specific problems. We do not read history in the same way as allegory, or poetry in the same way as prophecy.
A lot of the epistles are about working out our faith in the place and culture we find ourselves. The church at Rome did not have the same problems that the church at Ephesus did. The church at Philippi does not seem to have had the same immoral culture that the church at Corinth did. The command to "love one another as I have loved you" applied to all of them just as it applies to us. Jesus loved and valued women, treated them as equals and accepted their gifts. So how can we not "go and do likewise"?

9. "I dislike it when someone interprets Scripture to fit their own personal agenda, but failing to understand context..."
I do NOT have a personal agenda! I am called to teach the Word of God. I am simply trying to do that.

I never meant to imply that you do have a personal agenda - I was just agreeing with you that I dislike it when Scripture is twisted to someone's own advantage. It doesn't mean that I think you're doing that; I don't believe I am either, we just have different ways of interpreting this verse.

Once again, may God bless you and help you in your ministry.

Thank you - you too.

 

[Pennelope]

I am a Dutch Catholic Bishop serving in the Southwestern U.S.
I have recently ordained/consecrated a woman as my successor due to health issues.
She has been my Administrator and Assistant for some 15 yrs., and a vowed religious sister for over 20 years.
She also happens to be my wife.

For the record, it would be helpful to make it clear that by "Dutch Catholic", you aren't referring to a church that's in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

God bless you.

 

[jon1]

I cannot accept a woman in the leadership role of the church. I find that doctrine, scripture and tradition all oppose such. I'm not sure if it's a rising rebellious nature of women, or the increasing laziness of men that is pushing this movement, but it's wrong. God has a divine plan for all people, but priesthood is NOT His plan for us ladies. I would have to leave any dioses that took part in this heresy.

Yes, God has a divine plan for all people but what makes you so sure that you are right in your assumptions. You are going off something that was written 2000 years ago for the people of that time. The only reality some people have is the bible. Great book, but as God is the author and creator do you not give him any leeway to do what is right in todays world which is vastley different from when it was written. We say that God is a God of change, as new worldly problems arise almost on a daily basis and We can now destroy Gods creation with the press of a button. We all have to live life in the now. God will do what he thinks is best for mankind. Let him be the judge of our actions and we should not be so narrow minded in our views. We have to give god more credit for doing what is best for this world and if that means having more women in leadership, then why not.
Time is running out folks and the more people the church have to spread the message the better.
Not only that but there are many, many people who need to be ministered to and i personally think that women are better suited to this than men. They seem to have a gifting in this roll especially to other women who would not normally approach a male minister with personal problems.
I know you think that i am wrong in what i say but i just wanted to show you the other side of the coin if you like.
All the best
John.