Women Priests Revisited

[kiwimac]

Except for Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism, both of which have female Rabbis.

 

[stray bullet]

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

Women priests are nothing more than the results of gender confusion and general sexual disorder from the 1960s.

It is impossible to confer Holy Orders onto the souls of women. Has always been and forever will be.Next will be calling dogs and various apes to Holy Orders.

 

[stray bullet]

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.

Women can not be deacons, they can not receive any part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is as twisted as a man being pregnant.

 

[stray bullet]

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.

The summit of service to God is not leadership or the pulpit.

Women have been deluded for over four decades by radical gender feminists, believing that there are no fundamental differences between men and women.

The reality is, that God made men and women different. Anyone that denies this has a perverted view on the nature of mankind. Women can serve God in a multitude of ways, but never as priests. I don't throw a fit that I can never carry in me the life of another person- as women can. I accept my nature and its limitations.

I take pride in my masculinity just as I hope women take in their femininity. Women have no business being leaders of a Church.

From Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to all the male prophets and all the male levite priests, to Christ and His twelve apostles- God has
always picked men to lead. Not because we are superior, but because he has created us by our nature to be more suited to that role.

The idea of a priestess attacks the differences between men and women that make us special and complimentary.

 

[kiwimac]

Women can not be deacons, they can not receive any part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is as twisted as a man being pregnant.

As you are arguing with the Apostle Paul in this instance perhaps you can show the reasoing which you feel supports you?

 

[kiwimac]

Women priests are nothing more than the results of gender confusion and general sexual disorder from the 1960s.

It is impossible to confer Holy Orders onto the souls of women. Has always been and forever will be.Next will be calling dogs and various apes to Holy Orders.

So women from your POV are no different from animals? Of course women can be ordained, they were in the early church and they are again now.

 

[stray bullet]

So women from your POV are no different from animals? Of course women can be ordained, they were in the early church and they are again now.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.....

Women were never given holy orders in the early Church. That is why the Coptics, Orthodox and Catholics never had women with Holy Orders- or rather, claimed to have them.

Only modernist churches with total disregard for Holy Tradition (and not having apostolic succession anyways) try to make a priestess from women. As John Paul II noted, it is an attack on the dignity of women.

Only people deluded by the 1960s sexual revolution would dream up such an abomination. It's on the same level as gay marriage, transgenderism, transvestites and other forms of androgyny and sexual confusion.

 

[kiwimac]

Heiferdust.

There is Phoebe, a deacon, acknowledged by Paul.
There is Junia, acknowled as one 'great among the Apostles.'

Perhaps you'd like to try and discount these folk?

 

[stray bullet]

Heiferdust.

There is Phoebe, a deacon, acknowled by Paul.
There is Junia, acknowled as one 'great among the Apostles.'

Perhaps you'd like to try and discount these folk?

Sorry, but you are taking gross liberties. The three apostolic churches (Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic) all deny the existence of female deacons and apostles. Either I can accept your translation and interpretation or that of 2000 years of Christianity.I think I'll trust the leadership (all men) Christ left us with and those they ordained over yourself.......

 

[kiwimac]

You can deny all you like but the evidence is there in the scripture for all to see. Feel free to argue with Paul.

Romans 16:1 WH Greek NT.

1συνιστημι δε υμιν φοιβην την αδελφην ημων ουσαν [και] διακονον της εκκλησιας της εν κεγχρεαις

Romans 16

1But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea;

Romans 16:7

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, [a] my fellow countrymen (A) and fellow prisoners. (B) They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

WH Greek NT

7ασπασασθε ανδρονικον και ιουνιαν τους συγγενεις μου και συναιχμαλωτους μου οιτινες εισιν επισημοι εν τοις αποστολοις οι και προ εμου γεγοναν εν χριστω

 

[stray bullet]

You can deny all you like but the evidence is there in the scripture for all to see. Feel free to argue with Paul.

Romans 16:1 WH Greek NT.

1συνιστημι δε υμιν φοιβην την αδελφην ημων ουσαν [και] διακονον της εκκλησιας της εν κεγχρεαις

Romans 16

1But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea;

Romans 16:7

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, [a] my fellow countrymen (A) and fellow prisoners. (B) They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

WH Greek NT

7ασπασασθε ανδρονικον και ιουνιαν τους συγγενεις μου και συναιχμαλωτους μου οιτινες εισιν επισημοι εν τοις αποστολοις οι και προ εμου γεγοναν εν χριστω

Come on kiwimac, you are better than that- to argue that your interpretation is exactly what Paul said. A deaconess is not the same as a deacon, who has holy orders.We don't even know what sex Junia was. The argument of what 'outstanding among the apostles' is anything but clear. Especially when working with the English translation.

You have a woman that is a deaconess and Junia whose sex and exact position are not known- hardly evidence for holy orders for women. In some translations, they are called 'men'. Even in yours they are kinsmen. For the last 2000 years, what other evidence is there for women with holy orders? None. Christianity has never had women with holy orders.

 

[Tonks]

Heiferdust.

There is Phoebe, a deacon, acknowledged by Paul.
There is Junia, acknowled as one 'great among the Apostles.'

Perhaps you'd like to try and discount these folk?

What was the role of the female deacon in the Early Church?

Please provide sources. I'm not talking about Scriptural interpretation because it is not terribly relevant to the discussion...the role of women in the Early Church is documented.

 

[kiwimac]

You might try reading what Origen had to say about Junia and also about Phoebe.

 

[PaladinValer]

Women priests are nothing more than the results of gender confusion and general sexual disorder from the 1960s.

Proof?

It is impossible to confer Holy Orders onto the souls of women. Has always been and forever will be.Next will be calling dogs and various apes to Holy Orders.

Since both men and women are in God's Image and Likeness and that all are equal and one in Christ, if He can't do it with women, then He can't do it with humans period.

And when were apes and dogs created in His Image? Nice Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Women can not be deacons, they can not receive any part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is as twisted as a man being pregnant.

Thus saith the Lord, "wrong."

 

[kiwimac]

I agree PV, I agree

 

[stray bullet]

Proof?

When did they start calling women priests?

Since both men and women are in God's Image and Likeness and that all are equal and one in Christ, if He can't do it with women, then He can't do it with humans period.

You couldn't be more wrong, men and women are not equal. That is a gender-feminist idea. Men and women are different, but of equal worth. Equal means the same and men and women were created different.

God gave us unique skills and roles on Earth. It is the godless, confused society that has said that men and women are equal and not unique. That whatever a man can do, so should a woman. The same element of society that believes in switching genders, forcing women into the workplace, shunning pregnancy, promoting homosexual relations wants to see women are priests.
That is why you will find feminists and atheists all supporting the notion of women priests.

Thus saith the Lord, "wrong."

I'd be careful about speaking for God, especially on something where you have no evidence- and where you defy 2000 years of Christian teaching and centuries more of Judaism.

 

[PaladinValer]

When did they start calling women priests?

Since the 1st century.

You couldn't be more wrong, men and women are not equal. That is a gender-feminist idea. Men and women are different, but of equal worth. Equal means the same and men and women were created different.

Genesis 1 begs to differ.

God gave us unique skills and roles on Earth. It is the godless, confused society that has said that men and women are equal and not unique.

Your qualifier "and" is a Strawman.

That whatever a man can do, so should a woman. The same element of society that believes in switching genders, forcing women into the workplace, shunning pregnancy, promoting homosexual relations wants to see women are priests.

Strawman and Slippery Slope.

That is why you will find feminists and atheists all supporting the notion of women priests.

Prove your assertion is the reason why they support women clergy please.

 

[kiwimac]

He neither can nor will he.

 

[Strong in Him]

Women can not be deacons, they can not receive any part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is as twisted as a man being pregnant.

Women ARE deacons. In several churches and traditions they are also Ministers/vicars or whatever you like to call them, and are ordained to minister by word and sacrament.

Women have been deluded for over four decades by radical gender feminists, believing that there are no fundamental differences between men and women.

Four decades? Women were preaching in the Methodist church in 1760, and were later ordained as ministers. William Booth was against women preachers until he heard one in the 1800s. His granddaughter later became head of the Salvation Army. The URC and anglican churches have women ministers, and the baptists and others may do too. It is not a 20th century phenomenon that arose out of of feminism and was promoted by the equal rights brigade. Unless you believe that all those who say they are called are closet feminists, have no desire to minister only to get one over on the men, and the Lord is powerless to stop them.

 

[Strong in Him]

For the last 2000 years, what other evidence is there for women with holy orders? None.

Even if that were true, something is right just because it's been going on a long time? There were people in Paul's day who believed that Jesus was not fully God and fully human; that he did not die on the cross; that he became the Messiah only at the age of 30 and so on. There are people who still believe these things today. Following your argument we'd have to say; these beliefs have bneen around for almost 2000 years, so they must be correct. It doesn't follow. It could be that the church has been prejudiced against women priests for so long, that they've been quenching the Spirit, and it's only recently that they have come to see the error of their ways.

Christianity has never had women with holy orders.

Christianity has had women with holy orders since at least the 1700s.