Female Priests

[Zacharias]

I don't plan to debate, but how do you view this verse with female priests/bishops?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

[julian the apostate]

oy vey!

see luke 12:57

[Colabomb]

oy vey!

see luke 12:57
Luk 12:57 And why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

so this means we get to make up our own Rules?

I doubt this is what Christ had in mind.

[Iron Sun 254]

I don't plan to debate, but how do you view this verse with female priests/bishops?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Take it in context...

1 Timothy 2:13-15
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If baptism erases original sin (at least that's how I was taught) why should women be held accountable for something that no longer applies?

[Colabomb]

Take it in context...

1 Timothy 2:13-15
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If baptism erases original sin (at least that's how I was taught) why should women be held accountable for something that no longer applies?
People seem to misunderstand.

They think we think of women as "inferior" to men. The only reason we say women cannot be priests is because we believe God said they cannot. It has nothing to do with sin. God is wiser than us, who are we to question Him?

[pmcleanj]

I think it was Paul's response to the specific needs of forming new churches in a pagan context where most of the converts were unsophisticated regarding the ideas and worship styles Paul was bringing.

Given that Paul allowed Priscilla to instruct him, it can hardly have been a global ruling; and he tacitly reinforced Lydia's authority over her own household which would normally have included males.

Nor are teaching and authority the precise definition of the priesthood. This verse, if it weren't contextualized by other examples where Paul did permit women to teach and exercise authority, would describe things like teaching Bible Study and sitting on Vestry, more than it would describe the role of priest. And I know, there are churches (even Anglican ones) that don't let women teach Bible Study or sit on Vestry -- and I would guess that they miss out on a lot of gifted teachers and leaders as a result.

[Iron Sun 254]

People seem to misunderstand.

They think we think of women as "inferior" to men. The only reason we say women cannot be priests is because we believe God said they cannot. It has nothing to do with sin. God is wiser than us, who are we to question Him?

Except that's the justification for the exclusion of women given here. The passages together specifically say "Women are excluded because of Eve's sin."

Whether or not women can be priests in general is another discussion, but this particular passage doesn't read like a command from God; it reads like a justification.

[PaladinValer]

1. Priscilla and Aquila (wife and husband) teach Apollos (a man) "better" in Acts of the Apostles 18:26. They are, in fact, co-workers of St. Paul according to Romans 16:3. The word infers equality, and if St. Paul was considered a bishop, then Priscilla, the woman, was a bishop herself.

2. Phoebe is a deacon (!) in the Church according to St. Paul in Romans 16:1. In fact, in 2 Corinthians, St. Paul uses the same term for himself (!!).

3. Junia is an apostle (the actual word "apostle" is used; automatic bishop here) in Romans 16:7.

4. Euodia and Syntyche are also co-workers of St. Paul. More bishops.

5. Apphia is a priest along with two men in a house church in Philemon 2.

6. As a historian myself, I can say with a bit of authority in the subject that women, as attested in the Holy Scriptures, did indeed serve as ordained clergy for the first few centuries of Church history. Actual reliefs in underground worship places show women along with men teaching and ministering to the flock in all three services as deacons, priests, and bishops.

7. Passages like 1 Tim 2:11-12 aren't very well translated. Even my beloved NRSV doesn't give it its proper justice. The actual Greek used means "to usurp," meaning, of course, "to take over without permission."

8. People will come up with 1 Corin 14:45b-35. Bad choice. The manuscript evidence shows that this part of this Pauline letter have been messed with quite a bit (attributed to the "changing status" of women in the Early Church). The best manuscripts don't even have it. And even then, the passage says nothing about teaching but about being noisy.

[Albion]

Take it in context...

1 Timothy 2:13-15
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If baptism erases original sin (at least that's how I was taught) why should women be held accountable for something that no longer applies?

I don't see it as a matter of baptism or original sin, at least not primarily. For one thing, this passage does not speak of what we call ordination. It speaks of being in authority, which could be seen in any number of ways. For instance, it could be argued that a deacon is not in authority but instead is only an assistant, and priests after all are only delegates of the bishop. Can women be vestrymen is another aspect that could be raised--and few churches which decline to ordain women keep them out of "authority" in such other ways as that example.

Also, we have to contend with the other passages in Scripture which bear upon the same issue. Males alone are described in those passages in which we find the requirements necessary for one to be made a deacon, and also those for a presbyter/bishop.

Plus, I suppose you ought to address also the longstanding argument of some that Jesus called only men to be Apostles (and first bishops) even though we know that he had women close to him, and as well the argument that the priest is an "alter Christus" at the Eucharist.

I would also mention that the mistranslation of the passages dealing with Phoebe, Priscilla, and Aquilla have misled many people who get into this argument. There never were any women deacons in the early church; we know this from historical research. And there is no evidence that a co-worker or "equal" in some general sense means "occupying the office of presbyter."

[benedictine]

I have no qualms about women being ordained. PaladinValer, thanks for those verses!

[PaladinValer]

If you want an even cooler one, I direct your attention to the Deuterocanonical book of Prayer of Manasseh. If you read verse seven, you get a passage that in essence duplicates the idea behind St. John 3:16.

Or, if you don't want to crack open a Bible, it is my signature.

Now who says that the Deuterocanon isn't Scripture? ;)

[Albion]

I have no qualms about women being ordained. PaladinValer, thanks for those verses!

Just remember when using them, to take care. "Deacon" means a servant. The New Testament says that only men are to be the deacons that we call ordained. Other "servants" obviously existed in the early church doing non-clergy service.

Women were deaconesses, not deacons, because people were baptised in the nude in those days, and so it was the case that a woman assistant helped women with their clothes, etc. Not a deacon, not ordained.

Junia as "apostle." As we know, the word apostle means one who is sent forth. It does not, in its non-specific use, mean one of the 12 or one of those made a bishop. The regulations for bishop in the New Testament are also explicitly male only.

And so it goes. Everyone can decide for himself or herself if women should have been admitted to the ranks of the ordained for the first time in Anglican history during the 1970s and 80s. Some other churches have done so.

But then, most of the world's Christians belong to churches which have not seen it that way, including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, the Lutherans Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod. All have held that the Bible has no support for women in Orders.

Are these churches not as wise and have as many theologians and Bible scholars as to not ever have noticed what seems like an open and shut case, so easy as to be settled by a simplistic theory like, "Cool! She was given the respect of Paul as a co-worker of his, so she must have been the head of a parish or diocese, ordaining priests, i.e. a bishop?" Think about it for a few moments.

[PaladinValer]

If we want to suddenly no longer have words mean as they actually state, we may as well translate the first line in Genesis as (to quote Luther in his brilliant defense against Calvin about the Real Presence) "the cuckoo ate the hedgehog."

Deacon is deacon.

Co-worker means the same as co-president would.

Elder is elder.

Apostle is apostle.

No fludging around.

[Brian Augustyn]

People seem to misunderstand.

They think we think of women as "inferior" to men. The only reason we say women cannot be priests is because we believe God said they cannot. It has nothing to do with sin. God is wiser than us, who are we to question Him?

I have to say that I have never seen God or Jesus address this issue. Yes, in one letter to one specific church, Paul advises silence from the women of that church, but we don't have any idea what the context was. And this prohibition is not repeated anywhere else.

In other letters, Paul has no problem with women prophesying in church--which would be hard to do while keeping silent. And, since prophesy is the passing of God's wisdom to God's people, it'd be hard to prophesy without appearing to be teaching. Paul also references many women who were in fact church leaders and of equal status to many of the men in similar roles.

Paul also reminds us that in Christ there no longer is a distinction between male and female, Jew or Greek, slave or free person.

Now you can make that text say "no girls allowed," but not without resorting to literalism, and Anglicans as a rule aren't scriptural literalists.

Let's stop slamming doors in the name of God.

peace,
Brian

[Wigglesworth]

I don't plan to debate, but how do you view this verse with female priests/bishops?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

In his book, The Woman Question, the application taught by Kenneth E. Hagin (http://www.rhema.org/)is that this passage refers to relationships between husbands and their wives. In other words, it isn't the wife's place to straighten out her husband's theology or overthrow his authority as the head of his wife.

Deborah the Judge, for example, had authority over a nation in her official capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that a husband is the head of his wife.

Please bear in mind that the phrase "husband is the head of his wife" is not my original material. I read it in some book somewhere. ;)

[PaladinValer]

Problems!:

1. Wife's theology is orthodox, the husband's is heretical. Bad things will happen if the wife cannot teach the husband.
2. The husband is incapacitated; who runs the house?
3. The Greek means "usurp." Usurp implies a hostile takeover. If the husband shares power, then that isn't usurping. If he gives it away, that too isn't usurping.

[Wigglesworth]

Problems!:

1. Wife's theology is orthodox, the husband's is heretical. Bad things will happen if the wife cannot teach the husband.
2. The husband is incapacitated; who runs the house?
3. The Greek means "usurp." Usurp implies a hostile takeover. If the husband shares power, then that isn't usurping. If he gives it away, that too isn't usurping.

Good points.

Problem 1 is addressed in the passage of Scripture that tells a believing wife not to leave her unbelieving husband, because she may lead him to conversion and will at least be a holy influence on their children. Even if he is a heretic, I don't think Scripture would justify his wife beating him over the head with the frying pan until he submits to orthodoxy.

Problem 2 is answered by Problem 3. The incapacitated guy pretty much has to let his wife run the house. If he doesn't, he'll just starve to death and she can do whatever she wants as a widow. ;)

[pmcleanj]

On one of my tiresome business trips, I picked up a monograph to read on the aeroplane, called "What Paul Really Said About Women". The author contended that, given what Paul actually wrote, and the accepted translations, that some third factor must be at play. Although the English does correctly translate the Greek, the Greek itself is not what a Greek speaker would have used were that English translation what he intended to convey.

The author suggested that the language Paul used was consistent with the "army jargon" of the time, and suggests by connotation that the wife is to be a "comrade in arms" to her husband -- and that the phrase "the husband is the head of his wife" would translate in modern-day army jargon as "the husband 'takes point' for his wife".

Here is the mutuality I would expect in an early evangelical relationship: the wife can't sit back and let the man do all the work of building the church -- she must work and fight at his side. And he must not take advantage of her unusual lack of dependency, but must strive for even greater efforts for the kingdom. Somehow, that way of talking just seems redolent of Paul's single-minded focus on evangelism.

I tried structuring my married life on nice submissive "yes dear" responses for nearly the first year of marriage, to a husband who wanted a fellow-worker and companion-in-arms. Boy was I stupid! Wise man that my husband is, he has never tried to flaunt his authority, but he has always "taken point" for me, including in some very deadly territory. I recognize a commited loving Christian man's relationship to his wife in the phrase "the husband 'takes point' for his wife", far more than in the "you, take charge; and you, do what you're told!" sermons that I've heard preached at fundamentalist weddings.

[Inside Edge]

Are these churches not as wise and have as many theologians and Bible scholars as to not ever have noticed what seems like an open and shut case...
Yes.

An essay by a Catholic Priest in the book, To Be a Priest(Holmes, Terwilliger) makes this same point (over and over and over): are we to believe the Church has been "blinkered" all these centuries?

Well, the Church, despite their scholars and theologians and elders has managed to "not ever have noticed" many things, so appealing to the traditional and ancient wisdom of the institution is hardly a convincing defense on the issue, in my opinion. We could uphold almost every single shred of dogma, law, rule, regulation, restriction, and procedure from the beginning of the Church with this argument.

So many factors can indeed blind the Church, and for great lengths of time, despite all the aparent knowledge and resources available to her. And I do not attribute all traditions in question to past blindness. Sometimes it is a cultural or societal shift which brings about new ideas, needs, and problems which need to be addressed. It is foolish to think that old solutions will always apply to new issues; and so, sometimes we need new solutions.

This is not to say that those not in favour of female ordainment are wrong or that their advice or opinions should be discarded wholesale. I believe the Church to be inspired and the Spirit to be ever working within it, and as such, those on both sides have value, merit, and purpose.

At the end of the day, I see no convincing scriptural basis for restricting ordained positions to men alone.

PaladinValer - thorough as usual. Thanks!

[AveMaria]

Some excellent points have been made in this thread so far, and I defer to those with more knowledge of Greek than I. I've seen and particupated in too many arguments on whether a female deacon was actually a deacon - I've ever seen it said that all Phoebe did was sweep the floor and hold open the door!

I'd like to toss something out for discussion:

What about the women who have been called to Holy Orders by God? And those who are being called? What if this is how the Holy Spirit has chosen to work?

[PaladinValer]

If the Spirit truly has Called, then the discernment process that follows (if those who hear the Call, heed it) will reveal that.

And to those who think only men can hear such calls, nothing could ever equivocate the Call that one WOMAN received. That woman was St. Mary the Theotokos, and she would become the Mother of Redemption; the Redemption that is Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, Lord and Savior of all.

Now I dare a man try to best that! :P (and this man has no shame to say he couldn't!)

[cenimo]

Personally I have nothing against female priests.....
but, women tending to be more liberal, had women never been ordained and thus became bishops, I sincerely doubt the fiasco that was the Minneapolis convention would have ever went like it did.

Just my $.02

[PaladinValer]

That still doesn't deny the fact that the historical record includes women bishops and that the Bible depicts women as deacons, priests, and bishops as well.

[Iron Sun 254]

Personally I have nothing against female priests.....
but, women tending to be more liberal, had women never been ordained and thus became bishops, I sincerely doubt the fiasco that was the Minneapolis convention would have ever went like it did.

Just my $.02

You can't seriously be arguing that women shouldn't be ordained because they might have a difference of opinion?

[pmcleanj]

... women tending to be more liberal ...

Have you ever met the Mothers' Union ?????

[AveMaria]

That's the second or third time I've seen the Mother's Union mentioned today, would someone be kind enough to fill me in?

[RobNJ]

That's the second or third time I've seen the Mother's Union mentioned today, would someone be kind enough to fill me in?

When in doubt, do what I do...Google!!

[AveMaria]

Oh, I love google, I google quite often. But I also love anecdotal stories, and I was hoping there might be one lurking!

[RobNJ]

Oh, I love google, I google quite often. But I also love anecdotal stories, and I was hoping there might be one lurking!

You have a point there!!:thumbsup:

[benedictine]

I agree about the Minneapolis Convention. However, that shouldn't prohibit female priests by any means.

[cenimo]

Agreed....I'm just saying they swung that vote.

In the Bible, women stepped in when there were no ment to, or no men willing to...
Deborah for example.

[•Amadeus•]

What about when God calls a woman to be a missionary? :help:

(Don't hit me, I'm sensitive to that sort of thing.) :(

[SirTimothy]

Good posts PaladinValer!

Timothy

[Albion]

That still doesn't deny the fact that the historical record includes women bishops and that the Bible depicts women as deacons, priests, and bishops as well.
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. I assume that you derive such a notion from reading something into various words used in the New Testament which do not have the meaning you are trying to impose upon them. Bishops were also referred to as "angels" in Scripture; are you committed to the idea that the early church leaders were spirits without bodies, too?

Anyone can say that he or she thinks, personally, that women priests are a good idea. That is for you to decide. The historical record, however, shows that women were never ordained to the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate. In some limited areas there were deaconesses, but these were laywomen helping women to undress and dress for baptism.

Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible knowledge not seen it your way? You don't even have to ask that question. Why was there any dispute over the ordination of women in ECUSA in thd 1970s? All that would have had to have been done would be for a few quotes and it would have been open and shut, according to this. Why doesn't the whole of the liberal wing of the Anglican Communion just routinely point to what you did to make its point?

No, the issue was argued out, pro or con, on several different bases, with reference to totally different Bible verses than we've heard about here. That fact virtually proves that the claim that women were once routinely ordained to all these offices (for which we have no historical record, it should be added) is mistaken.

[julian the apostate]

albion<<Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible and knowledge not seen it your way?

albion i take it you believe in justification by faith

why havent the largest biggest oldest churches in the world seen it your way?

does anyone here know ,, i am too lazy to look,
if women being ordained was explicitly (not implicitly) prohibited by any of the ecumenical councils

[Albion]

Does anyone here know ,, i am too lazy to look,
if women being ordained was explicitly (not implicitly) prohibited by any of the ecumenical councils

That's an interesting point. Let's have someone consult the Ecumenical Council and see if there is anywhere in any of them that speaks of women clergy. I agree that it would be very hard to believe that they were as common--even as bishops!--as we are being told, and there be no mention of them.

(P.S. You can save yourself the trouble. Women clergy are not mentioned in the pronouncements of any of the Councils).

[Colabomb]

albion<<Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible and knowledge not seen it your way?

albion i take it you believe in justification by faith

why havent the largest biggest oldest churches in the world seen it your way?

does anyone here know ,, i am too lazy to look,
if women being ordained was explicitly (not implicitly) prohibited by any of the ecumenical councils
I am not following this thread close enough to enter real debate. But I wanted to respond to a problem.

The question has been raised a couple times "what about women called to the priesthood?".

If our view of the All male Priesthood is correct, than they are not called, they just think they are. Just because I think I am called to be a big Christian Rock Star, doesn't mean that God doesn't really wants me to be an accountant, and I am just mistaken.

[Colabomb]

albion<<Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible and knowledge not seen it your way?

albion i take it you believe in justification by faith

why havent the largest biggest oldest churches in the world seen it your way?



Actually they have, both the RCC and the EO's Believe in Justification by Faith, they just don't believe in Justification by faith Alone, and neither do I.

ON another note (and then I will leave the discussion, as I am not strong enough to debate it, I will leave that to the bigger guns) Jesus ordained 12 orignial Apostles, all were male. The Radical that Jesus was, if he wanted female Clergy, don't you think He would have chosen a female Apostle?

[Albion]

Actually they have, both the RCC and the EO's Believe in Justification by Faith, they just don't believe in Justification by faith Alone, and neither do I.

The real point here, though, is that Julian's analogy is flawed. There isn't any comparison between a theoretical concept like justification and whether or not a women was ever made a bishop. The latter is subject to evidence.

[julian the apostate]

i was hoping albion would answer that

albion<****at's an interesting point. Let's have someone consult the Ecumenical Council and see if there is anywhere in any of them that speaks of women clergy. I agree that it would be very hard to believe that they were as common--even as bishops!--as we are being told, and there be no mention of them.

(P.S. You can save yourself the trouble. Women clergy are not mentioned in the pronouncements of any of the Councils).

julian<< that was the point, it isnt prohibited

colabomb<<Actually they have, both the RCC and the EO's Believe in Justification by Faith, they just don't believe in Justification by faith Alone, and neither do I.

justification by faith plus what else?

[Abiel]

ON another note (and then I will leave the discussion, as I am not strong enough to debate it, I will leave that to the bigger guns) Jesus ordained 12 orignial Apostles, all were male. The Radical that Jesus was, if he wanted female Clergy, don't you think He would have chosen a female Apostle?


Did Jesus ordain anyone?

[Colabomb]

i was hoping albion would answer that

albion<****at's an interesting point. Let's have someone consult the Ecumenical Council and see if there is anywhere in any of them that speaks of women clergy. I agree that it would be very hard to believe that they were as common--even as bishops!--as we are being told, and there be no mention of them.

(P.S. You can save yourself the trouble. Women clergy are not mentioned in the pronouncements of any of the Councils).

julian<< that was the point, it isnt prohibited

colabomb<<Actually they have, both the RCC and the EO's Believe in Justification by Faith, they just don't believe in Justification by faith Alone, and neither do I.

justification by faith plus what else?


Valid Faith, brings forth works.

James 2:24 (New International Version

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

[Albion]

I don't believe that the Ecumenical Councils "prohibited" barking at the moon during worship services, either.

It's what the Councils decreed that makes them authoritative. And don't forget the issue here. It's not "are women priests and bishops something we ought to have?" Rather, it is "Is the idea Biblical and Apostolic?"

But that isn't even the whole of the point; if women bishops, etc. had existed, they would have been mentioned in a worldwide council of bishops discussing, among other things, the roles of bishops! That they did not is historical evidence--all theology aside--that there never had been any.

[benedictine]

HAs anyone considered that the evidence could have been destroyed or altered?

Paladin, as a historian, this would be concievable, right?

[PaladinValer]

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. I assume that you derive such a notion from reading something into various words used in the New Testament which do not have the meaning you are trying to impose upon them. Bishops were also referred to as "angels" in Scripture; are you committed to the idea that the early church leaders were spirits without bodies, too?

Anyone can say that he or she thinks, personally, that women priests are a good idea. That is for you to decide. The historical record, however, shows that women were never ordained to the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate. In some limited areas there were deaconesses, but these were laywomen helping women to undress and dress for baptism.

Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible knowledge not seen it your way? You don't even have to ask that question. Why was there any dispute over the ordination of women in ECUSA in thd 1970s? All that would have had to have been done would be for a few quotes and it would have been open and shut, according to this. Why doesn't the whole of the liberal wing of the Anglican Communion just routinely point to what you did to make its point?

No, the issue was argued out, pro or con, on several different bases, with reference to totally different Bible verses than we've heard about here. That fact virtually proves that the claim that women were once routinely ordained to all these offices (for which we have no historical record, it should be added) is mistaken.

I have a BA in History. I know the material. If you do not like that fact, that is your choice, but unfortunately, the materials show a view quite contrary to your's.

As for evidence being destroyed, that is a possibility, though just because something is lost doesn't mean it is destroyed. The logs for I believe the Second Ecumenical Council have been long lost, though we know of their contence (they contained the records against the chiliast heresy, among other things). It could have been destroyed (either by chiliasts themselves or by inadvertent mistake), but we will probably never know.

However, we do have some clues still left. The reliefs in the catacombs do depict women in ordained fashion ministering to the laity. The Bible itself, as I have shown, has St. Paul and others using his name telling us about women from all levels of ordained ministry. One of which was even named an Apostle (and one would probably include, besides this truly remarkable woman, the various Marys).

Just because it is just primarily the records of only Church Fathers does not mean there weren't Church Mothers. That's a logical fallacy. Just because the Bible primarily establishes men as followers of Jesus from His ministry to His death doesn't mean that women weren't there too; the same logical fallacy (and the Bible does say women were with Him, just not as much due to the prevailing cultural trends of the day). Culture, it seems, is their biggest argument. Yet is Christianity a culture? No. The Early Church Fathers, especially St. Justin Martyr who comes to mind first, established the prevailing opinion that Christianity is not of this world but of the next. This doesn't mean "pro-spirit/anti-physical" Gnostic nonsense, but it does mean that Christianity is something that goes beyond worldly ideas. It delves into philosophy, and St. Justin Martyr argued that Christianity is the best sort of philosophy of all. He didn't deny the world, but he denied that Christianity is a worldly culture.

This is what Peter Gomes, in his book, The Good Book, warns Christians about. It is "culturalism," that Christianity is a perfect culture and that all must adhere to it like some montanist or donatist in order to be truly Christian and thus worthy to God. That is heresy; it is rooted into the beliefs of the montanist and donatist heretics who were the pietists of their day. Christianity is above all culture because Christianity is a philosophy and a theology. Look at the Jesuits; look how they spread the Way to those of different beliefs. They addapted much of the new culture they were introduced to and explained through that culture that Christianity was the Way and that they didn't have to abandon their culture to the most part to practice and follow in the Way. The Greek and Roman culture of the day was women last, men first. Even the Hebrews were like that. But Jesus says all are equal in Him. Perhaps not culturally, but in His view, they are equal in all the ways that matter most, including philosophically. We may be part of this world, but as Christians, we are also beyond it as well for we have the perfect philosophy. And that philosophy is beyond culture. So to say "the culture back then didn't allow it so we shouldn't now too since (blah blah blah)" is contrary to the view of both Jesus and the Early Church. As such, any such argument against ordained women clergy is null and void.

[julian the apostate]

albion<<I don't believe that the Ecumenical Councils "prohibited" barking at the moon during worship services, either

roflmao

albion<< bishops, etc. had existed, they would have been mentioned in a worldwide council of bishops

it was cultural, imho

the church changes,, in 1866 the pope released a bull saying the buying and selling of human beings was a perfectly legitimate business enterprise

i doubt they would do that now

[Albion]

I have a BA in History. I know the material. If you do not like that fact, that is your choice, but unfortunately, the materials show a view quite contrary to your's.

Oh, yes. The "I have a BA in History."

I didn't forget. In fact, no one can forget. What is it now--three mentions in two days?

But then again, I teach candidates for BA's in History, my friend. I just don't advertise it in every post.

The "material" that you "know" amounts in the case of New Testament women bishops (sic) to your misapplication of a single word. That seems fair enough to mention.

[PaladinValer]

I'm not the one whose argument allows for Calvin's "the cuckoo ate the hedgehog"...

[julian the apostate]

albion do you see a moral imperative for not ordaining women?
if so what, is there anything in natural law that would prohibit

also if you get a chance

albion<<Now, ask yourself a question. If translating a few words very, very loosely settles it, why have the largest churches and the oldest churches in the world with all their Bible and knowledge not seen it your way?

albion i take it you believe in justification by faith

why havent the largest biggest oldest churches in the world seen it your way?

[gtsecc]

Did Jesus ordain anyone?
Yes!

[Abiel]

In his earthly life? Who?

[PaladinValer]

The Apostles as bishops.

[AveMaria]

ON another note (and then I will leave the discussion, as I am not strong enough to debate it, I will leave that to the bigger guns) Jesus ordained 12 orignial Apostles, all were male. The Radical that Jesus was, if he wanted female Clergy, don't you think He would have chosen a female Apostle?

Using that logic, one could very well argue that since there were no North Americans, Africans, Japanese, Spaniards, whatever among the original 12, that they should not be ordained, either.

Or that since 3 (?) of them were fishermen, then 25% of currently ordained priests ought to be fishermen as well.

And so forth.

[julian the apostate]

or, only jews may be ordained

[Zacharias]

Just to play along

One 12th should work for the IRS. After all, Matthew was a tax collector.

[Zacharias]

Lets get technical. :D

Who's description is on the coin?
Abraham Lincoln.
Give to Lincoln what belongs to Lincoln, and to God what belongs to God.

[PaladinValer]

Using that logic, one could very well argue that since there were no North Americans, Africans, Japanese, Spaniards, whatever among the original 12, that they should not be ordained, either.

Or that since 3 (?) of them were fishermen, then 25% of currently ordained priests ought to be fishermen as well.

And so forth.

Bingo! This is exactly why I posted that fallacies of appealing to ignorance can never validate a male-only priesthood.

[gtsecc]

I don't plan to debate, but how do you view this verse with female priests/bishops?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
I wish some of the female teachers I had growing up didn't have authority over anyone for that matter.

[gtsecc]

It is obvious that no North Americans lived in Jerusalem, so we don't take their absence to mean anything. I am not particularly good at history, but I am guessing Jerusalem was about 50% women. Their absence from being Apostles is glaring IMHO. I am a feminist, so it pains me to say this but, I can't justify women’s Ordination based upon anything I have read so far in this thread. I think you have to show that in Christ there is neither male nor female and then make the case. Other than Hilda, and I am not sure she was either a Priest or Bishop, the Church Tradition is NOT to ordain them. The Early church fathers seem to speak unanimously on this issue. The good side to Ordaining Women is that we, as a church appear to have some common sense and not be biggots, and they generally do anything we men do, better. The bad side is that it seriously hinders reunification effort with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. But those are moot points. What we have to ask is what do the scriptures say, and how did the early church fathers understand this?

[pmcleanj]

It is obvious that no North Americans lived in Jerusalem, so we don't take their absence to mean anything. I am not particularly good at history, but I am guessing Jerusalem was about 50% women.
That's a good argument. But there were blind, cripples, and lepers; and Jesus ordained none of those, either. And I have a dear priest who is a polio survivor (a common enough phenomenon in my age-group, fortunately rare nowadays). While he occasionally does suffer from callous rejection for various roles, no-one ever argues that based on Tradition and Scripture he is unfit for ordination. Why is that?

[gtsecc]

That's a good argument. But there were blind, cripples, and lepers; and Jesus ordained none of those, either. And I have a dear priest who is a polio survivor (a common enough phenomenon in my age-group, fortunately rare nowadays). While he occasionally does suffer from callous rejection for various roles, no-one ever argues that based on Tradition and Scripture he is unfit for ordination. Why is that?



That is a good argument also. But, I still think we have a problem. I don't know of anything in the Bible that could be seen as a proscription against the blind being Priests. And, from what I can tell, were a person Blind, and Christ called them, they would have sight the minuet He spaketh. So maybe he did call the blind, and they just were healed the second they stopped to follow Christ. And, being a woman is not something people want to be healed from. I find some scripture to be bigoted and homophobic and it causes real problems for me to point of shaking my faith. God can't be that way, but the Bible is IMHO. Can we believe God's revelation in Christ is real, yet the full message was delivered imperfectly since it came through men?

[gtsecc]

God become human to save us.

The important part is that He was human, not that He was male.

He did not come solely to save all things male on the planet.

Christ’s vicar needs to be Human, but not male.

[Colabomb]

God become human to save us.

The important part is that He was human, not that He was male.

He did not come solely to save all things male on the planet.

Christ’s vicar needs to be Human, but not male.
As I said, I will not debate as to whether or not women should be priests....

But I will clarify something.

We don't think of women as of lesser worth... people seem to think we are male chauvinistic Pigs, that is just not true.

[Albion]

God become human to save us.

The important part is that He was human, not that He was male.

He did not come solely to save all things male on the planet.

Christ’s vicar needs to be Human, but not male.

The argument that Christ came to save all, meaning therefore, everyone regardless of gender should be a priest, is a non-sequitur.

There is no connection between the two concepts, and it is entirely sensible to believe that Christ did what he did as recorded in Scripture. He saved the world; he chose certain people and not others to play particular roles.

Otherwise, you might as well argue that everyone will be saved or that God was unreasonable to create two sexes in the first place. The fallacy of the argument, by the way, comes from thinking of the priesthood as a job description. It is a divine call, a vocation. God can call or not call whomever he has decided to call.

In Tradition and in Scripture, he didn't make the choice some moderns wish he had. So, do we decide to "tidy up" for God?

[Inside Edge]

God can call or not call whomever he has decided to call.
And where did God say, "I will never call a woman to the priesthood." I would expect no less from God if His plan was to exclude half the human race from a particular vocation.

PaladinValer hit on this a page or two back, and I agree: it was a cultural effect. Women were not made priests in scores because the concept was relatively foreign, to the extent that very few (if any) women would even step forward or request such a role. As with the culture and tradition of the times, like many issues in the Bible, it was hardly (if at all) discussed (let alone specific, clear instruction on the matter).

I don't believe Jesus ever provided instructions to raise multi-million dollar, restricted-access buildings in his name, but we've managed to do it. I don't recall Him providing explicit direction to mount a massive institution and to support slavery, racism, war in the name of God or Christ (and other social ills), but we've managed to do it nonetheless.

If the Church and the Christian masses can get it wrong in such glaring fashion, appealing to traditional practices is just as weak an argument as your (Albion) accusation of PaladinValer's argument.

So, do we decide to "tidy up" for God?
Your question presupposes that we've been getting it right all along, that we've been doing it perfectly, as per God's clear instruction. What I consider a ridiculous, self-centered, idea.

No, we "tidy up" for ourselves. Cultural changes bring about new issues and problems which require new solutions. This is where we do indeed have "room to move," where silence or generalities in scripture allows Christianity to adapt and address the needs of various peoples, times, and civilizations. I believe wholeheartedly that God does indeed want us to adjust and tidy up, because we (as a species over time) are not a static sample. Some traditions or rules evolved from guidelines in one time or culture may have worked wonders for the contemporary people, but may create an entirely opposite effect when held to rigidly in another age.

[Albion]

"And where did God say, "I will never call a woman to the priesthood." I would expect no less from God if His plan was to exclude half the human race from a particular vocation."

The question really is "Where did God say that he would call a woman?" You can't base your theology on "thus didn't saith the Lord."

On the other hand, the Church has significant evidence and reasons for maintaining an all-male clergy.

1) Christ called only men to this particular position even though he had a number of close and trusted women associates,

2) there are specific New Testament requirements listed for becoming a deacon and/or presbyter/bishop. In both cases, the specifications are for males only. Those who argue the reliability of Scripture as the word of God should be mindful of this important fact.

3) the Apostolic Church (and for a millennium thereafter) had no women deacons (other than deaconesses), priests, or bishops. Those who argue Tradition so strongly should be mindful of this important fact.

What has been offered as evidence that the Church has been in error throughout almost all of its history?


"PaladinValer hit on this a page or two back, and I agree: it was a cultural effect. Women were not made priests in scores because the concept was relatively foreign, to the extent that very few (if any) women would even step forward or request such a role. As with the culture and tradition of the times, like many issues in the Bible, it was hardly (if at all) discussed (let alone specific, clear instruction on the matter)."

I think those theologians have a good argument who have pointed out that there is a fundamental conflict in the contention that: 1) the Bible is divine revelation but at the same time that 2) God, in revealing it, was confined to the cultural biases of first century Palestine!

I can find no reason to believe that God was a sexist and was unable to give revelation that is true for all men of all times. I do not, in fact, believe that the Bible is wrong in describing him as the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

If we see Scripture as merely a compilation of human musings, then I would agree that it is open to a charge of cultural bias. But if Scripture has been written as the writers were inspired of God to do (that's what the Bible itself says is what happened), I have to question how reasonable it is to conclude that God would have inspired these writers to build a cultural bias into something as important as the leadership of his Church.

Further, there is nothing in Jesus' life that suggests that he was forced to go along with every cultural injustice of the time. His responses to the Pharisees and money changers do not give us that picture of the Son of God at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Many people see him as more like a revolutionary than a conventional rabbi because of his teachings and actions.

"I don't believe Jesus ever provided instructions to raise multi-million dollar, restricted-access buildings in his name, but we've managed to do it. I don't recall Him providing explicit direction to mount a massive institution and to support slavery, racism, war in the name of God or Christ (and other social ills), but we've managed to do it nonetheless."


The fact that one or several policies has been wrong does not prove that any other one is wrong. All it proves is that it could either be right or wrong.

The answer rests with the reasons and the evidence, such as that summarized for you by me above.


"Your question presupposes that we've been getting it right all along, that we've been doing it perfectly, as per God's clear instruction. What I consider a ridiculous, self-centered, idea."

I am not expressing a personal preference at all. I am explaining why the Church has made its decision. These are the reasons customarily given by the Church when its stand is questioned in light of current social values, and I was simply passing them along.

[PaladinValer]

Albion,

1. There are relief paintings and historical records of women in the ordained priesthood. The very fact that some canon rules that stated women couldn't be priests was because many women clergy were unfortunately on the sides of heretics. This alone prove that there were women clergy, otherwise there wouldn't be for such an odd rule! Add that to a male-dominated culture and illogical arguments like what is often given by male-only priesthood advocates gives rise to the decline of women in the cloth. No where in the Early Church was it said that St. Mary of Magdala was possessed of demons. That was tacked on to the Bible after the original Gospel according to St. Mark was even written c. 70 CE. Most likely, it was written early in the third century (400's!), which was after the Bible was canonized and after the First Ecumenical Council! And where do you begin to find canon rules against women in the cloth? It doesn't take much to add one to one to equal two.

2. You say you follow all 39 Articles of Religion: do you remember the one that says that, outside knowledge of salvation, doctrine, and faith, the Bible could be as errant as human discovery makes it?

3. 2,000 years? Try about 1,600, perhaps only 1,500. But that is only when it comes to canon rules. The Eastern Church still allowed women deacons for even longer, and they have no doctrinal problems with it either because they have the same history as us for the first 1054 years and that tells them the same as it tells us; women can be deacons. And don't get me started on the Celtic Church, which had women clergy for even LONGER until we finally capitulated under Rome's "authority" because Canterbury wasn't one of the five patriarchal seats, even though their actual level of authority in Celtic lands was superficial at best.

If you have a problem with women deacons, I suggest cruising over the TAW and asking them some questions. Other topics of research would be into the Celtic Church and its relationship with Rome for the first ten centuries as well as research into how early Christians practices in the catacombs and other underground places in Rome up until Rome's sacking. You'll find a great wealth of information about the history of the clergy.

[pmcleanj]

I am now wearing my moderator hat:

This is a contentious issue. I would like to remind all the participants in this discussion of Christian Forums Rule #1: [noflame]

In particular note rule 1.3, that says you must not misquote another member. Take some extra care to read clearly what the other person is saying, and to write clearly what you infer from their words, and what your objections are. Be clear about what are your own inferences, as opposed to what is said.

Also note rule 1.4, which says you cannot even imply that the other member is non-Christian.

Please take some extra time and effort to show grace to your brothers and sisters in this thread.

Thank-you.

[pmcleanj]

Thread temporarily closed

[pmcleanj]

Thank-you for your patience. This thread is re-opened.

[Father Rick]

Well... let me throw in some food for fodder for this debate...

The following are archealogical/historical records dealing with women in positions of leadership in the Church (some as ordained positions). I would be interested in hearing everyone's responses.Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister or deacon of the church at Cenchrea. The Greek word which describes her function is "diakonos" which means literally "official servant." She is the only deacon in the Bible to be identified by name. Some translations say deaconess; others try to obscure her position by mistranslating the Greek as a simple "servant" or "helper". Paul later refers to Phoebe as a woman, calling her "our sister." This prevented later church leaders from hiding her gender as they did with Junia in Romans 16:7 below - by changing her name and implying that she was a man.

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 1 It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 16:19. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28, he apparently believed that there is no distinction among those who have been baptized into Christ between male and female.

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged that Junia was a woman. 2,3 After that time, various writers and translators of the Bible resorted to deceptions in order to suppress her gender.

Examples of Female Christian Leaders from the Archeological Record

Author Karen Jo Torjensen cites:

An ancient mosaic which shows four female figures. One is identified as Bishop Theodora. The feminine form for bishop (episcopa) is used.

A 3rd or 4th century burial site on the Greek island of Thera contains an epitaph referring to Epiktas, a "presbytis" (priest or presbyter). Epiktas is a woman's name.

A 2nd or 3rd century Christian inscription in Egypt for Artemidoras, whose mother is described as "Paniskianes, being an elder" (presbytera)

A memorial from the 3rd century for Ammion the elder (presbytera)

A 4th or 5th century Sicilian inscription referring to Kale the elder. (presbytis)

Prohibition of Women from Positions of Power by the Early Church

During the 4th and 5th century, the Christian church gradually extinguished women's access to positions of power in the church:

Council of Laodicea (352 CE): Women were forbidden from the priesthood. They also were prohibited from presiding over churches. They decided that "One ought not to establish in the church the women called overseers (presbutidas)....women must not approach the altar."
Fourth Synod of Carthage (398 CE) "A woman, however learned and holy, may not presume to teach men in an assembly...A woman may not baptize."
Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). Canon #15 of the Council states: "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Apparently, the council wanted to start restricting the ordination of deaconesses, which must have been a common practice at the time. And, of course, anyone ordained to the Holy Order of Deacon would be eligible for later ordination to the priesthood as well.

Now... the most common argument I have heard is "Well those people back then didn't believe the way I do today, so they MUST have been heretics".

Now I am willing to admit that just because we have a record of something occurring does NOT make it orthodox theology. But I would like to hear some solid rebuttal/explanation of these occurrences if one is to dismiss them.

[AveMaria]

Thanks for posting that, Father Rick.

Something I'm curious about, is how, when diakonos is used to describe Phoebe, some explain that by saying she was a deaconess, which they define as distinct from a deacon, not merely a deacon who happens to be female.

They posit that deaconesses existed, but served a very different role, a non-ordained role. Heck, I've ever heard/read that deaconesses existed to sweep the floor, hold the door, and serve cookies. Where is this coming from, can it be backed by historic record?

I haven't had a chance to study Greek yet - for some oddball reason, I chose Latin instead. (So useful, pass the Vulgate please?). Can someone with more knowledge of Greek help me out here - I know very little about the language and how gender works in it. Would there have been two distinct words for deacon and deaconess?

[PaladinValer]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Father Rick again.

God bless you!

[Andy Broadley]

Forgive my idleness, but it's very early in the morning and too early to read through 8 pages of replies. So I apologise if I am repeating others.


As can be seen by my avator, although I now worship as an Anglican, my upbringing and roots are Salvationsit. As such women officersa have been the norm for me. Some of the best officers I have known have been women, and much of my spiritual guidence has come from women officers.


The minister in my current church is a woman, and is excellent at her job.


William Booth said that many of his best men are women. There have been many women in positions of leadership within the Army, including General.

By failing to embrace women Priests on an equal basis to men, the church is failing to employ one of it's major assetts effectively, which in turn means they fail to communicate the Gospel fully, and thus in turn fails Christ.

[Colabomb]

Forgive my idleness, but it's very early in the morning and too early to read through 8 pages of replies. So I apologise if I am repeating others.


As can be seen by my avator, although I now worship as an Anglican, my upbringing and roots are Salvationsit. As such women officersa have been the norm for me. Some of the best officers I have known have been women, and much of my spiritual guidence has come from women officers.


The minister in my current church is a woman, and is excellent at her job.


William Booth said that many of his best men are women. There have been many women in positions of leadership within the Army, including General.

By failing to embrace women Priests on an equal basis to men, the church is failing to employ one of it's major assetts effectively, which in turn means they fail to communicate the Gospel fully, and thus in turn fails Christ.



Again, the assumption is made that we somehow "downgrade" women because we do not think they should be priests.

Some of the Greatest examples of Christianity were women...

Theotokos, Mother Theresa, etc.

We simply believe, that for whatever reason God chose, that God did not choose women to be priests. We do not necessarily know why, but we know God is wiser.

[Abiel]

That is a good argument also. But, I still think we have a problem. I don't know of anything in the Bible that could be seen as a proscription against the blind being Priests. And, from what I can tell, were a person Blind, and Christ called them, they would have sight the minuet He spaketh. So maybe he did call the blind, and they just were healed the second they stopped to follow Christ. And, being a woman is not something people want to be healed from. I find some scripture to be bigoted and homophobic and it causes real problems for me to point of shaking my faith. God can't be that way, but the Bible is IMHO. Can we believe God's revelation in Christ is real, yet the full message was delivered imperfectly since it came through men?


About the disabled as priests- the OT is stuffed with rules that kept unclean, imperfect people out if the temple. If they couldnt go in the temple, they couldnt be priests. One reason why Christ felt so deeply for them was that they were unable to take part fully in temple/social life. He came in part to change all that.

[AveMaria]

Again, the assumption is made that we somehow "downgrade" women because we do not think they should be priests.


I've struggled mightily to keep this thread from becoming too personal or hitting home for me, but as the political button says, 'the personal is political'. And I've sat here for nearly ten minutes, trying to decide whether or not to actually post this, but heck, I'm sick with the flu and not thinking too clearly, so let's throw caution to the wind.

I don't speak for all women, but I can speak for at least one. Being told I cannot be a priest or participate in spiritual affairs to the full extent as my male brethren is extremely hurtful, minimizing, and degrading. It's horrible to be in a spiritual environment and not recognize anything of yourself there, to not be able to connect to anything. Very alienating.

I was raised around a more legalist, fundamental religious environment, and I turned my back on Christ for over ten years, largely due to this issue. I felt I was being called by God, and when I dared express this to my kin, I was laughed at and ridiculed and a few even suggested I needed deliverance from demonic oppression. What could I do, but run? Clearly their God wanted no part of me, had nothing for me. And so I did run for several years, looking for someplace I did fit in.

I don't want to get too personal here, so suffice it to say, I flirted during this time period with athiest, various neopagan paths, and a whole lot of sexual immorality. Until, one day, I met a female Episcopal priest - she must have seen the desperation on my face, for she made time in her schedule for me. I cannot express what it meant to me, this new realization that some people truly did believe women could be called - I was in church that very next weekend, and learned, though it had been years, that my body still remembered the liturgy (I attended private Episcopal schools for grade school and junior high). Were it not for that chance encounter with that priest, I highly doubt I'd be the devout Christian I am today. And I'm a little weepy right now, wondering how many more women there are out there like me, who ran from the church for similar reasons.

I've been back in church for almost an equally long period of time, I'm continuing to grow in my faith. I've become one of those freaks who actually attends multiple Eucharists weekly, plus corporate Morning/Evening prayer when it fits into my schedule. And, should it be God's will, I will begin the discernment process at my parish this year.

[Colabomb]

I've struggled mightily to keep this thread from becoming too personal or hitting home for me, but as the political button says, 'the personal is political'. And I've sat here for nearly ten minutes, trying to decide whether or not to actually post this, but heck, I'm sick with the flu and not thinking too clearly, so let's throw caution to the wind.

I don't speak for all women, but I can speak for at least one. Being told I cannot be a priest or participate in spiritual affairs to the full extent as my male brethren is extremely hurtful, minimizing, and degrading. It's horrible to be in a spiritual environment and not recognize anything of yourself there, to not be able to connect to anything. Very alienating.

I was raised around a more legalist, fundamental religious environment, and I turned my back on Christ for over ten years, largely due to this issue. I felt I was being called by God, and when I dared express this to my kin, I was laughed at and ridiculed and a few even suggested I needed deliverance from demonic oppression. What could I do, but run? Clearly their God wanted no part of me, had nothing for me. And so I did run for several years, looking for someplace I did fit in.

I don't want to get too personal here, so suffice it to say, I flirted during this time period with athiest, various neopagan paths, and a whole lot of sexual immorality. Until, one day, I met a female Episcopal priest - she must have seen the desperation on my face, for she made time in her schedule for me. I cannot express what it meant to me, this new realization that some people truly did believe women could be called - I was in church that very next weekend, and learned, though it had been years, that my body still remembered the liturgy (I attended private Episcopal schools for grade school and junior high). Were it not for that chance encounter with that priest, I highly doubt I'd be the devout Christian I am today. And I'm a little weepy right now, wondering how many more women there are out there like me, who ran from the church for similar reasons.

I've been back in church for almost an equally long period of time, I'm continuing to grow in my faith. I've become one of those freaks who actually attends multiple Eucharists weekly, plus corporate Morning/Evening prayer when it fits into my schedule. And, should it be God's will, I will begin the discernment process at my parish this year.
Ave, I will be honest with you. I don't know. I don't know why God limited the Priesthood to men.

But to be honest, I don't know why God does a lot of the things He does. He does not always call us to understand, but to believe.

Again, I want to put forth, women are NOT inferior to men. Women can hold government office, my father, who shares my view on the priesthood said he would have voted for Elizabeth Dole had she gone far enough in her presidential campaign. Women can evagelize, women can Baptize. A woman in the New Testament was a Prophet. Women can serve the Church in many extremely valuable ways.

Remember, any service of God is a calling. A prophet, or an evangelist is just as called to service as a priest, just called to a different function within the Church.

[Abiel]

Avemaria- I have a strikingly similar testimony- it took me 10 years to get back to where God wanted me. Every day I thank God for the Army.

[SirTimothy]

I don't know why God limited the Priesthood to men.

Maybe because He didn't? I do believe in female priests. Very much so--my ideal would be to see shared husband-wife priesthoods, where both members concelebrate the Eucharist each week, taking in turns to do different bits, and ministering to the congregation together. I do think there are times when a woman needs a Woman Priest to talk to about certain things, that I know I wouldn't want to deal with, just as there are things I would be happier discussing with a male priest, and not with a female. :). I wish I could find some nice sweet attractive girl who felt the same... :)

Timothy

[Father Rick]

Ave, I will be honest with you. I don't know. I don't know why God limited the Priesthood to men.

But to be honest, I don't know why God does a lot of the things He does. He does not always call us to understand, but to believe.

Again, I want to put forth, women are NOT inferior to men. Women can hold government office, my father, who shares my view on the priesthood said he would have voted for Elizabeth Dole had she gone far enough in her presidential campaign. Women can evagelize, women can Baptize. A woman in the New Testament was a Prophet. Women can serve the Church in many extremely valuable ways.

Remember, any service of God is a calling. A prophet, or an evangelist is just as called to service as a priest, just called to a different function within the Church. Cola...

You're making some blanket statements here as to what God did and did not do...(including limiting priesthood to men). As there has already been presented evidence from both Scripture and Tradition that women were allowed at one time to orders, can you give evidence to support you stand?

[Colabomb]

Cola...

You're making some blanket statements here as to what God did and did not do...(including limiting priesthood to men). As there has already been presented evidence from both Scripture and Tradition that women were allowed at one time to orders, can you give evidence to support you stand?
I said I would not debate the subject, as I am not strong enough in my apologetics in this point. But as you know, we do have valid arguements from our side of the fence.

Also, understand, my posting on this subject is not to argue my point of the male priesthood, as I said I don't intend to do that, but to simply point out that we are not chauvinistic Pigs.

[PaladinValer]

Valid arguments? Do you mean "Jesus never appointed a female as an apostle" and those types? By your same type of argument, as others here have pointed out...

1. Only those of Hebrew descend can be clergy (my priests fail that)
2. Only fishermen and tax collectors can be clergy (my priests fail that)
3. Only those who've literally met Jesus face-to-face can be priests (which squashes the dogma of apostolic succession; not good when you want to show Gnosticism as a heresy)

[Albion]

Valid arguments? Do you mean "Jesus never appointed a female as an apostle" and those types? By your same type of argument, as others here have pointed out...

1. Only those of Hebrew descend can be clergy (my priests fail that)
2. Only fishermen and tax collectors can be clergy (my priests fail that)
3. Only those who've literally met Jesus face-to-face can be priests (which squashes the dogma of apostolic succession; not good when you want to show Gnosticism as a heresy)

A million erroneous arguments do not make one addition erroneous argument true (that women were ordained in the Apostolic Church).

[PaladinValer]

Albion, care to critique Father Rick's irrefutable evidence to the contrary, which is what I'd been talking about all along?

[Inside Edge]

A million erroneous arguments do not make one addition erroneous argument true (that women were ordained in the Apostolic Church).

Well, it would be nice if you'd point out why or how, exactly, the examples to the contrary are "erroneous."


The question really is "Where did God say that he would call a woman?" You can't base your theology on "thus didn't saith the Lord."
I’m not – I’m basing my theology on allowing for the Spirit to guide us and the Church through different times and cultures, on issues which don’t appear to be relevant or pressing at the time the scriptures were written. If God wanted His Church to ban women from a specific vocation for all time, then I would expect more than silence and vague references regarding the matter. If the issue was or is truly that important - that half the human race, as per gender, was to be categorically shut out from a calling that the other half are and will be forever graced with...well, as I said, something a little more explicit would be in order. Otherwise, we humans are making an awfully broad and imposing statement - that God, the Almighty for whom nothing is impossible, will never ever ever call a woman to ordained ministry in His name.



1) Christ called only men to this particular position even though he had a number of close and trusted women associates,

So what? Christ never used a telephone either, and he probably obeyed the various eating restrictions and cleanliness traditions. This doesn’t mean that those things were not to change or be added later, according to God’s will. Again, this says nothing that God will never call a woman to the priesthood.



2) there are specific New Testament requirements listed for becoming a deacon and/or presbyter/bishop. In both cases, the specifications are for males only. Those who argue the reliability of Scripture as the word of God should be mindful of this important fact.


Really? What passages make it specific that only a man may become a deacon/presbyter or bishop?


Since I am not arguing whether scripture is the Word of God or not, I don’t see why I must be mindful of that fact, at this moment.



3) the Apostolic Church (and for a millennium thereafter) had no women deacons (other than deaconesses), priests, or bishops. Those who argue Tradition so strongly should be mindful of this important fact.

Well, Fr. Rick and PaladinValer have offered evidence and argument contrary to your suggestion, and your only counter-claim has been to say, “There were none.” You have not discredited their evidence (or their claims to evidence), so what am I to consider?



As for arguing with Tradition – indeed, I will take tradition head-on when I feel it is prudent to do so, and be very mindful that as great, rich, and wonderful a teacher Tradition is, it is often also a blinder to necessary change. And by necessary I mean Spirit-inspired change.



What has been offered as evidence that the Church has been in error throughout almost all of its history?

Well, the church has been in error on several major issues, in my opinion. If the Church can be in error at all, then when an issue of change or contention arises, it is our responsibility to closely examine if we, the Church, have been in error – or more to the point, will be in error if we do not change. I do not maintain that the banishment of women from the priesthood is or has been necessarily an error of the Church. However, this tradition does not mean it is right or correct if it is maintained rigidly for all time. I strongly believe that regardless of whether it was right or wrong, it is proper and right to acknowledge God’s call to women from here on in.



If we see Scripture as merely a compilation of human musings, then I would agree that it is open to a charge of cultural bias. But if Scripture has been written as the writers were inspired of God to do (that's what the Bible itself says is what happened), I have to question how reasonable it is to conclude that God would have inspired these writers to build a cultural bias into something as important as the leadership of his Church.

Then we differ on the definition of “spiritually inspired.” I believe the Bible is the inspiration of the Spirit and the Word of God – and yet, I am comfortable that it will also contain examples that are constrained or skewed by the cultural context in which they were physically written. I will stop there, because further discussion of this topic is only a digression from the topic of this thread.



I am not expressing a personal preference at all. I am explaining why the Church has made its decision. These are the reasons customarily given by the Church when its stand is questioned in light of current social values, and I was simply passing them along.

Fair enough, I apologize for tagging the word “your” onto my counterpoint in that previous post.

[Colabomb]

Valid arguments? Do you mean "Jesus never appointed a female as an apostle" and those types? By your same type of argument, as others here have pointed out...

1. Only those of Hebrew descend can be clergy (my priests fail that)
2. Only fishermen and tax collectors can be clergy (my priests fail that)
3. Only those who've literally met Jesus face-to-face can be priests (which squashes the dogma of apostolic succession; not good when you want to show Gnosticism as a heresy)
Actually, my main arguements deal with a large listing of quotes from the Church Fathers, but I am not going to post them, as I do not wish to debate the subject.

[Albion]

"I strongly believe that regardless of whether it was right or wrong, it is proper and right to acknowledge God’s call to women from here on in."



...and you know for sure that there IS one at this time, why?

...because when the Woman's Liberation movement of a generation ago became active in Western society, it demanded legal and employment equality of the sexes? That's when the issue hit the big time.

Seems like quite a coincidence that a political movement and what is said to be God's call have coincided so well, isn't it?

Bear in mind that nothing so far has established that the Church HAS BEEN wrong in this matter, just that it COULD BE wrong theoretically and has been wrong on other issues not related to this one. That's a weak case, in my opinion, for overthrowing a longstanding policy on something as important as a valid ministry.

As for the evidence you say others have offered, most of it (if you look closely) depends upon interpreting a word here or there in an unusual way. We were told that the word "Apostle" had to refer to a bishop, but it was decades into Church history before churchmen equated the two--when Apostolic Succession as a theory arose. By the same token, "angel" is also used of certain church leaders and you don't consider them to be the same as Gabriel and Raphael.

Against that, the Church has powerful reasons from Scripture and Holy Tradition both for maintaining a male priesthood long after some other Protestant churches decided to ordain women, well over a century in some cases. Why? Just prejudice? That's too simplistic an answer.

[julian the apostate]

albion,,

see luke 12:57

PS,, you are awfully picky about what church traditions you uphold (couldnt resist sorry, you may say something awful to me if you wish)

[Albion]

albion,,

see luke 12:57

PS,, you are awfully picky about what church traditions you uphold (couldnt resist sorry, you may say something awful to me if you wish)

Are you sure that's the verse you want to refer to? In any case, I only point out what the Church has taught on the matter and ask that those who want to follow their heartstrings not immediately start substituting "the ways of the world" for either Scripture or Tradition. If you want me to stand behind one or the other, it really doesn't matter. This is what the Church, not Albion, says, and by either Scripture OR Tradition there is a stronger case for staying with 2000 years of church history than walking away from both. And yes, I know that many of those here will be arguing in the next thread that Tradition says or Luke says...and yet here with this issue all that seems to matter is what your reasoning or common sense or a sense of social justice tell you.

[PaladinValer]

Albion, as I, Father Rick, and others have shown, the Church has said contrary to what you are; that Tradition has said contrary to what you are; that Scripture has said contrary to you are.

[julian the apostate]

albion<<Are you sure that's the verse you want to refer to?

“Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"


you are getting picked on from all directions albion, i wont bug you at the moment,

i will only say that your position from tradition is the strongest arguement for your cause, , imho

however,,,

Blessed are you if you know what you are doing, but woe to you if you do not."

from a non-canonical portion of luke

and thank you for not saying anything awful to me

a plane needs a right wing and a left wing to fly

[Topaz]

On one of my tiresome business trips, I picked up a monograph to read on the aeroplane, called "What Paul Really Said About Women". The author contended that, given what Paul actually wrote, and the accepted translations, that some third factor must be at play. Although the English does correctly translate the Greek, the Greek itself is not what a Greek speaker would have used were that English translation what he intended to convey.

The author suggested that the language Paul used was consistent with the "army jargon" of the time, and suggests by connotation that the wife is to be a "comrade in arms" to her husband -- and that the phrase "the husband is the head of his wife" would translate in modern-day army jargon as "the husband 'takes point' for his wife".

Here is the mutuality I would expect in an early evangelical relationship: the wife can't sit back and let the man do all the work of building the church -- she must work and fight at his side. And he must not take advantage of her unusual lack of dependency, but must strive for even greater efforts for the kingdom. Somehow, that way of talking just seems redolent of Paul's single-minded focus on evangelism.

I tried structuring my married life on nice submissive "yes dear" responses for nearly the first year of marriage, to a husband who wanted a fellow-worker and companion-in-arms. Boy was I stupid! Wise man that my husband is, he has never tried to flaunt his authority, but he has always "taken point" for me, including in some very deadly territory. I recognize a commited loving Christian man's relationship to his wife in the phrase "the husband 'takes point' for his wife", far more than in the "you, take charge; and you, do what you're told!" sermons that I've heard preached at fundamentalist weddings.

That is interesting! Thanks for the post. It makes sense to me. Have been doing some studying on this recently, and getting some different viewpoints really helps.

[Albion]

i will only say that your position from tradition is the strongest arguement for your cause, , imho


I think that's probably correct, assuming that we all have the same idea about what tradition means.

Further, I am frankly amazed that some of the regulars here who will go down with all guns blazing in the defense of tradition when it comes to some other issues like Apostolic Succession or the Real Presence don't hesitate to blow it off in nothing flat when it comes to falling in line behind an idea that has been generated by political and social forces in our time. How intensively the search is made for loopholes and "what ifs" in Scripture and tradition both.

"In the world but not of it" seems to be put on the shelf unless the issue is something so obscurely theological that the world doesn't care about it.

Thanks, Julian.

[Inside Edge]

Why? Just prejudice? That's too simplistic an answer.
Maybe it just wasn't ready. And who's to say that social revolution isn't one of God's methods or tools? God may be constant, but that doesn't mean things down here remain fixed or constant.

Further, I am frankly amazed that some of the regulars here who will go down with all guns blazing in the defense of tradition when it comes to some other issues like Apostolic Succession or the Real Presence don't hesitate to blow it off in nothing flat when it comes to falling in line behind an idea that has been generated by political and social forces in our time. How intensively the search is made for loopholes and "what ifs" in Scripture and tradition both.

I don't know who is doing what you describe, at least I haven't seen it in any thread I've read. I'll take tradition to task on any issue if a group feels it needs to be examined. I happen to feel that a calling to the priesthood is something between the individual, God, and the diocese which chooses to ordain them. I've seen nothing scriptural banning the concept, and Fr. Rick and PV have done a pretty good job at showing that the tradition you cling to may not always have been so (in the first place).

a plane needs a right wing and a left wing to fly
Very true, indeed!

[Iron Sun 254]

I think that's probably correct, assuming that we all have the same idea about what tradition means.

Further, I am frankly amazed that some of the regulars here who will go down with all guns blazing in the defense of tradition when it comes to some other issues like Apostolic Succession or the Real Presence don't hesitate to blow it off in nothing flat when it comes to falling in line behind an idea that has been generated by political and social forces in our time. How intensively the search is made for loopholes and "what ifs" in Scripture and tradition both.

That just has to do with the "Reason" part of it. Jesus wasn't born to promote equal rights; he was born to save us all. His ministry took place at a time when women were considered worthless so it makes sense that the ones he would choose to spread his word would be men because they'd be the ones who people would listen to. Jesus himself treated women with a respect and love unheard of at the time and not for a long time afterwards but there was wisdom is using the right messengers to spread God's word. Today, the world is very different and women can spread the message as well as men can. Now, take AveMaria's history into account...she was brought back into Christ because of a female Episcopal priest. Can you honestly and truly say that this priest was not doing God's work and that AveMaria would have been better off out of the church? I know I can't.

[PaladinValer]

One of the reasons why I am an Anglican is due to women clergy (not to mention married clergy!), and I thank God each and every day for my Episcopal Church. The priests I've have are fantasic; each is married and two are women (one of them being the best sermonists I've ever known; this woman's GIFTED!), and I know God approves of each one.

[Albion]

That just has to do with the "Reason" part of it. Jesus wasn't born to promote equal rights; he was born to save us all. His ministry took place at a time when women were considered worthless so it makes sense that the ones he would choose to spread his word would be men because they'd be the ones who people would listen to. Jesus himself treated women with a respect and love unheard of at the time and not for a long time afterwards but there was wisdom is using the right messengers to spread God's word. Today, the world is very different and women can spread the message as well as men can. Now, take AveMaria's history into account...she was brought back into Christ because of a female Episcopal priest. Can you honestly and truly say that this priest was not doing God's work and that AveMaria would have been better off out of the church? I know I can't.
Yes. It all comes down to whether you are on good grounds guessing that Jesus couldn't do what was right because of culture--even though he was God and defied the authorities all the time--or going by what he and the Church he founded with the promise of divine guidance actually did.

Maybe you in your reasoning are right while thousands of Christians of the world and past history are totally benighted. Maybe, but it would help if there a stronger reason than "women are important people too." No one denies that. No one says that they can't have and shouldn't have roles that are even more critical than most of the ones done by men--theologians, educators, abbesses, and so on. Many have been saved by the ministrations of women such as Mother Teresa, who never demanded to be a priest. The church would be hurting desperately without its women workers, just like the deaconesses and widows who are mentioned in the New Testament.

But it is only a democratic impulse that makes people translate different roles assigned by God to different people into something uncharitable. Remember the story Jesus told of the man who hired workers at different times throughout the day. He paid them all the same, those who came early and worked through the day and those who only worked a little before quitting time. It was fair, but we don't like to see it that way. Remember the prodigal son, who had the feast thrown for him when he came home after squandering his money. The other sons said that this was unfair to treat him better than they who had worked and saved. Again, their plea for "equal treatment" was not supported.

God calls whom he wants. He has his elect. He chooses his priests. He doesn't approve of many things we would like to do. We don't make his rules for him. He is not an equal opportunity employer, and the priesthood is not a "job. It is a vocation.

[PaladinValer]

Then why did He allow women to be deacons, priests, and bishops and Father Rick, I, and others have pointed out?

[Iron Sun 254]

God calls whom he wants. He has his elect. He chooses his priests. He doesn't approve of many things we would like to do. We don't make his rules for him. He is not an equal opportunity employer, and the priesthood is not a "job. It is a vocation.

So what you're saying is that when a woman says she believes she is called to the priesthood she is either lying or insane.

[Albion]

So what you're saying is that when a woman says she believes she is called to the priesthood she is either lying or insane.

How come you left out "mistaken?"

[AveMaria]

Would her rector, spiritual advisor/vocational advisor, parish discernment committee, and Bishop be mistaken, as well?

[PaladinValer]

No reply to Father Mark's evidence-rich post?

[Albion]

Would her rector, spiritual advisor/vocational advisor, parish discernment committee, and Bishop be mistaken, as well?

I've already been told that the whole Church of history can be mistaken. Why is a parish committee more reliable to you than that?

[Iron Sun 254]

Because I figured being called to the priesthood was not something you're simply confused about and that the discernment process would weed out the "mistakens"

[Inside Edge]

It all comes down to whether you are on good grounds guessing that Jesus couldn't do what was right because of culture
No one has proposed that Jesus couldn't do it. But the fact that he didn't do it right then is not to say that he meant for complete exclusion of a gender in the matter, let alone for all time.

[Albion]

No one has proposed that Jesus couldn't do it. But the fact that he didn't do it right then is not to say that he meant for complete exclusion of a gender in the matter, let alone for all time.

Good, sensible thinking like that is welcome! I agree with your evaluation.

It doesn't give us the final answer, of course, but it means that we have to lay aside all the coulda-shoulda-maybes and wishful thinking and look at the evidence.

From scripture, there is a lot more than merely an absence of his choosing women to be among those to whom he would entrust the leadership of his Church. That is one factor that the Church has often cited, but only one. It may be the weakest, if you ask me, so to that extent I understand when people say that they aren't sure if that settles it. But there is also the very clear New Testament evidence of how that Church operated. If we say that the Bible is inspired and that we are part of the continuation of the Apostolic Church and not just some cult that picked up with a theory somewhere long after the Apostolic Age, then this should be seen by us as substantial.

What is the evidence that Jesus meant for there to be later revelation or a change? Some latter day prophet? The inner light inspiring every separate person differently? None of that is in keeping with what we as Anglicans and catholics and believers in Holy Scripture say whenever any other doctrine is debated.

"Scripture, Tradition, and Reason." We need to remember that the three-legged stool that we say explains what we are about is always supposed to have all three of its legs.

[Father Rick]

Good, sensible thinking like that is welcome! I agree with your evaluation.

It doesn't give us the final answer, of course, but it means that we have to lay aside all the coulda-shoulda-maybes and wishful thinking and look at the evidence.

From scripture, there is a lot more than merely an absence of his choosing women to be among those to whom he would entrust the leadership of his Church. That is one factor that the Church has often cited, but only one. It may be the weakest, if you ask me, so to that extent I understand when people say that they aren't sure if that settles it. But there is also the very clear New Testament evidence of how that Church operated. If we say that the Bible is inspired and that we are part of the continuation of the Apostolic Church and not just some cult that picked up with a theory somewhere long after the Apostolic Age, then this should be seen by us as substantial.

What is the evidence that Jesus meant for there to be later revelation or a change? Some latter day prophet? The inner light inspiring every separate person differently? None of that is in keeping with what we as Anglicans and catholics and believers in Holy Scripture say whenever any other doctrine is debated.

"Scripture, Tradition, and Reason." We need to remember that the three-legged stool that we say explains what we are about is always supposed to have all three of its legs.Albion...
Forgive me if I sound snippy... it's really not intended that way...

You've given LOTS of rhetoric... and NO substance to support your stand. You say, "well the scripture says this"... but not given scripture to support your stand. You say, "Well, church history says..." but not quoted the Fathers.

Now, evidence was provide both from Scripture and from early Tradition that would refute your view. You have not responded to ANY of the evidence.

According to scripture, Junia (a female) was an apostle and Phoebe was a deacon. Please explain this if you feel scripture says women can't be ordained.

According to early tradition, we have records of several female bishops. It was not until the 4th and 5th centuries that ordained positions for women were done away with. Just as you have argued that allowing women is caving into to modern political pressure, it can equally (and probably even more strongly) be argued that political pressure of the 4th and 5th century resulted in the original prohibitions. Please explain the lateness of these prohibitions, and the existence of female clergy prior to them.


When you are unwilling to even address these issues, it makes the rest of your comments seem like you are just blowing smoke. Especially when everything you said in the post above could just as equally be applied to those who were prohibitting women in the 4th and 5th centuries.

[julian the apostate]

"It all comes down to whether you are on good grounds guessing that Jesus couldn't do what was right because of culture"


that is rome's strongest arguement against ordaining half the human race, and i think the most compelling,

christ also didnt come right out and overturn the mosaic code (otherwise peter wouldnt have needed a revelation about gentiles and eating lobster and so on)

he also didnt give us an exact blow by blow detail for how we were to run our churches - the church in the book of acts resembles nothing so much as the communard (oops that is where marx got the idea for communism)

he also, even though we assume he could have, didnt anticipate all the doctrinal disputes that divide us and preemptively put an end to them

he didnt condemn the common jewish practice of polygamy, in fact paul assumes that some christians have more than one wife

it is a funny religion christianity, it is a promise, not a contract,, no fine print
no secret knowledge, no condemnation to avoid,,

no lawyerly skills needed to read the bible as if it is the magnum opus of all binding legal contracts holding the life or death of our souls in it, pouring over the details to make sure we get it just right
that of course would be idolatry

[Albion]

Albion...
Forgive me if I sound snippy... it's really not intended that way...

You've given LOTS of rhetoric... and NO substance to support your stand. You say, "well the scripture says this"... but not given scripture to support your stand. You say, "Well, church history says..." but not quoted the Fathers.

Now, evidence was provide both from Scripture and from early Tradition that would refute your view. You have not responded to ANY of the evidence.

According to scripture, Junia (a female) was an apostle and Phoebe was a deacon. Please explain this if you feel scripture says women can't be ordained.

According to early tradition, we have records of several female bishops. It was not until the 4th and 5th centuries that ordained positions for women were done away with. Just as you have argued that allowing women is caving into to modern political pressure, it can equally (and probably even more strongly) be argued that political pressure of the 4th and 5th century resulted in the original prohibitions. Please explain the lateness of these prohibitions, and the existence of female clergy prior to them.


When you are unwilling to even address these issues, it makes the rest of your comments seem like you are just blowing smoke. Especially when everything you said in the post above could just as equally be applied to those who were prohibitting women in the 4th and 5th centuries.


Hello, Fr. Rick.

"NO substance?" I've cited several different evidences repeatedly. Perhaps you didn't have time to read all the posts. I'm also frankly surprised that a clergyman would not immediately recognize the Bible references involved.

The Bible is not "rhetoric," to me, and traditions are not "(Holy) Tradition." That is why alleged 4th century women bishops are not part of the deposit of Sacred Tradition (or else the Eastern Orthodox would have some). I should also point out that referring to religious groups that were outside the mainstream of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not what we are talking about here and so any reference to those groups is off the subject.

Additionally, you seem to me to have gone out of your way to try to misunderstand some of what you are talking about. It was Paladin, not me, who made the claim that Junia was an apostle. I merely observed that, taking the claim at face value, you still don't have a sound argument since the word "apostle" does not unfailingly indicate a bishop.

We do know, don't we, that the word "deacon" means a servant? Therefore, it is not guaranteed that every servant was an ordained clergyman of the order that the church established to assist presbyters and bishops that we all recognize in our church lives today. We DO know about deaconesses, and that there was a difference.

And so on. Here are some of the Bible passages you asked me to help you with. I don't consider any of them to be "blowing smoke."

1 Timothy 3: 1-7 "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart upnn being an overseer (bishop), he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect...."

1 Timothy 3:8 "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain...."

You'll forgive me if I don't type out all the rest of the verses following. If there are other passages you want printed out, I'll give it a look see.

Holy Tradition is clear. The Bible is clear. If we believe the Bible to be what we say it is, how can reasoning, "common sense" and modern concepts of job equality, etc. be taken as more authoritative?

[PaladinValer]

Albion, that's a logical fallacy; just because the evidence doesn't fit your beliefs does not mean it doesn't fit the beliefs of those Early Christians.

If the word episcopal is used, especially in its feminin form, as we've said, then who are you to say she wasn't?

And you've yet to respond directly to any of the actual evidence.

[pmcleanj]

1 Timothy 3:8 "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain...."

I think you'll find the word "men" to have been introduced by translation. The greek reads "hosautos diakonos semnos me dilogos me prosecho polus oinos me aischrokerdes" -- "likewise deacons: sober, not duplicitous, not addicted to excess wine, not avariscious". Not an "andros" in the whole quote.

[Father Rick]

Just to add..

Albion, you say 'those things outside the mainstream'...
Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). Canon #15 of the Council states: "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." Apparently, the council wanted to start restricting the ordination of deaconesses, which must have been a common practice at the time. And, of course, anyone ordained to the Holy Order of Deacon would be eligible for later ordination to the priesthood as well. When did the Council of Chacedon become outside the mainstream?

You also state that if it were so the EO would allow it... Are you forgetting that the EO did not separate from Rome until 1054? ... the prohibitions of the 4th and 5th century went into effect before the Schizm... therefore the examples given (particularly those in Greece and Egypt) would have been from the jurisdictions that became the EO.


Now as to the 'husband of one wife' for bishops... one must ask the question if Paul was speaking in generalities or specifics. A standard linguistic technique is to refer to people as 'mankind'... when using generalities, it was (and still is) commonplace to refer to all those in the group in the masculine. While that may not be politically correct today, it is how both the English and the Greek languages have been for millenia. Since this is a one time only passage, one cannot say definitatively which way Paul meant this--- as a specific that only those who are the husband of one may be a bishop or only those who are the spouse of one. Now to really compound that arguement is the fact that Paul, as a trained Jewish rabbi, was probably familiar with the ancient Jewish expression regarding a rabbi being the husband of one wife. It basically goes: if a man has one wife, he has time to study and pray; if he has two wives, at least he has time to pray; if he has 3 wives then he needs your prayers. So which literary technique was Paul using? and can you support that view with other scripture which would confirm any theology developed from this one passage?

As a rule, when there may be some ambiguity as to the way a passage may be interpretted, we then look at tradition to see how the early Fathers interpretted it. In this case, we have early examples of female bishops, priests and deacons. We also have a recognized council setting requirements for ordaining female deacons. Now, it is generally accepted by all the historic churches other than Rome that earlier trumps later in that later serves only to interpret the earlier ( with Rome saying Papal Infalliblity means current Papal proclamations trump all else). The earliest records show women clergy.

[PaladinValer]

Father Rick, just for you to know, Albion has said (I believe) that Anglicans need not recognize the Ecumenical Councils, although I assure you that is either just his opinion or his particular church's opinion. It is not the official belief of the Anglican Communion; we are called to uphold all the Ecumenical Councils, and thus, I believe in that too.

[julian the apostate]

pv<<Albion has said (I believe) that Anglicans need not recognize the Ecumenical Councils


last i checked, anglicans were a sacramental church not a confessional one
we dont have litmus tests for fellowship


and yes he did say that, but i believe he was quite beside himself at the time and didnt mean it

[SirTimothy]

But if he does not regard the Ecumenical councils as true, then how can he speak on the matter of Tradition?

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

1. We are a Confessional Church, Julian :)
2. My point exactly, MartianTJ.

[julian the apostate]

paladin (who is apparently preparing to come out of the closet and announce he has gone reformed)

what is our confession beyond the creeds?

anglicans are not a confessional church,, honest (generally speaking, orthos romos old catholicos and heaven help us anglos are not considered confessional communions)

however if you would like to draw up a list ,, perhaps we could vote on it

in fact i will cast my vote first, just to get you started

no

anglicans are not a confessional communion, we tried with the articles, it was like herding cats

[pmcleanj]

we are called to uphold all the Ecumenical CouncilsI'm not sure that we are.

Oh, most of us do, and certainly our theological scholars give them considerable weight. But the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which is the statement of "what are the essentials one cannot overtly and explicitely deny, without breaking fellowship", is (1) Holy Scripture as the rule of faith (2) the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds; (3) the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper (4) the historic Episcopacy.

And as julian says, we're not a confessional church. When someone doesn't even seem to us to meet the Quadrilateral, we're more likely to explore what they do believe than to slam the door. And, in exploring, usually find that underneath a screen of different semantics, they believe more, not less, than the minimum. That's the power of applying the Quadrilateral as a standard which cannot be denied, rather than a standard which must be affirmed. It prevents us from sinning against our brothers and sisters by disfellowshipping them based on a misreading of their words. Explicit and overt denial of one of the four elements of the Quadrilateral can only be intentional.

[AveMaria]

I think you'll find the word "men" to have been introduced by translation. The greek reads "hosautos diakonos semnos me dilogos me prosecho polus oinos me aischrokerdes" -- "likewise deacons: sober, not duplicitous, not addicted to excess wine, not avariscious". Not an "andros" in the whole quote.

Thank you for posting this - I'm cursing myself daily for studying Latin rather than Greek!

*off to browse for a 'teach yourself Koine Greek type book at amazon*

[julian the apostate]

is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that pmcleanj has gotten smarter since she be