Would you be more likely to join…

[David Lamb]

The 1 Timothy thought starts in verse 8, with "Deacons likewise..." So it's already discussing deacons. Then we get to verse 11 and the mention of the women/wives, and that's where it's not clear exactly what the author meant; the women deacons or the wives of deacons.

But as I said, the very next words talk about deacons being the husband of one wife. If The wives/women in verse 11 were themselves deacons, how could they be the husband of one wife? And anyway, why employ a word meaning "wife" or "woman" to mean "deaconess"? As far as I know, the Greek word for "man" (I think it's "aner") is never used to mean "deacon".

 

[Paidiske]

But as I said, the very next words talk about deacons being the husband of one wife. If The wives/women in verse 11 were themselves deacons, how could they be the husband of one wife?

It's an idiom for faithful monogamy. If they are speaking of deacons who happen to be a mixed group, then it would be better translated (as some English versions do) as something like, "married only once."

And anyway, why employ a word meaning "wife" or "woman" to mean "deaconess"? As far as I know, the Greek word for "man" (I think it's "aner") is never used to mean "deacon".

I think the sense of it flows like this:

The deacons likewise should be (all the virtues listed), and (just in case there was any doubt) all of this applies to the women deacons as well.

 

[David Lamb]

It's an idiom for faithful monogamy. If they are speaking of deacons who happen to be a mixed group, then it would be better translated (as some English versions do) as something like, "married only once."

I think the sense of it flows like this:

The deacons likewise should be (all the virtues listed), and (just in case there was any doubt) all of this applies to the women deacons as well.

But even if we allow what you say (about an idiom for faithful monogamy), that still doesn't explain why the usual word for woman or wife should in this context be used to mean "deaconess", particularly when the word "diakonos" (servant or deacon) is used of both sexes, though there is, as far as I can tell, only one place where it is specifically referring to a woman (Phoebe in Romans 16), and most English translations have "servant" there.

 

[Paidiske]

But even if we allow what you say (about an idiom for faithful monogamy), that still doesn't explain why the usual word for woman or wife should in this context be used to mean "deaconess", particularly when the word "diakonos" (servant or deacon) is used of both sexes, though there is, as far as I can tell, only one place where it is specifically referring to a woman (Phoebe in Romans 16), and most English translations have "servant" there.

I don't know why, in particular, the author felt the need to emphatically include the women. Maybe that was being disputed already. Maybe there was some feeling that different qualifications for the different sexes might be appropriate, and this was answering that. To answer "why?" we'd have to go into speculation. Nonetheless, that is how I make sense of the text.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The passage is discussing deacons. So the question is, when it talks (in that context) about women or wives, does it mean women who are deacons, or women who are wives of deacons?

I have no problem understanding it as women who are deacons, especially given Scripture elsewhere gives us a woman deacon, but some people who insist women can't be deacons read it as the deacons' wives.

For me, this is a rather "loose" reading. However, even with a very narrow reading, there is no question about Phoebe.

That being said, in our tradition, the roll of Deaconess on one of dedicated service to the Church, outside of the Liturgy. Only men are permitted to serve in the capacity of Liturgical Deacons (both consecrated and lay) and assist with Sacramental administration, or to lead non eucharistic services from the Daily office in the absence of a Pastor.

A good article regarding this can be found here: The diaconate in Lutheran Church–Canada - The Canadian Lutheran

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Well, I am in the middle on this one. Mary gave birth to Jesus, so I feel that women can be vessels for spreading the Good News also, but I will not debate on that.

That is a valid observation, but if you note that although Mary made a significant contribution to the Gospels, she took no credit for it. She maintained the primary Christian virtue of humility.

Her answer to Gabriel was be it done to me according to thy word. We infer her contribution to the Gospels as the writers use phrases like Mary kept all these things in her heart and details are revealed that the writers had no way of knowing unless Mary told them, yet there is no gospel of Mary, she yielded that honor to the writers and the Church authority Jesus ordained

All women should take the example of Mary and stop trying to exalt themselves. If there is no record of the Blessed Mother administering any of the Sacraments, then what makes any modern woman think she is worthy of the role? Does she exalt herself even above Mary?

No, women’s liberation and the patriarchy are modern deceptions and fall outside the grace of God. John Paul II declared infallibly that the Church has no authority to ever ordain women.

If somehow she is deceived to ordain women, I would fast and pray in dust and ashes, as grave deception would have come upon us, but I can’t leave the Church, as she is the Body of Christ ordained by God, not the will of men I would just be sure to never attend a parish where a woman endeavored to administer the sacraments, as they are invalid by definition

 

[AlexB23]

That is a valid observation, but if you note that although Mary made a significant contribution to the Gospels, she took no credit for it. She maintained the primary Christian virtue of humility.

Her answer to Gabriel was be it done to me according to thy word. We infer her contribution to the Gospels as the writers use phrases like Mary kept all these things in her heart and details are revealed that the writers had no way of knowing unless Mary told them, yet there is no gospel of Mary, she yielded that honor to the writers and the Church authority Jesus ordained

All women should take the example of Mary and stop trying to exalt themselves. If there is no record of the Blessed Mother administering any of the Sacraments, then what makes any modern woman think she is worthy of the role? Does she exalt herself even above Mary?

No, women’s liberation and the patriarchy are modern deceptions and fall outside the grace of God. John Paul II declared infallibly that the Church has no authority to ever ordain women.

If somehow she is deceived to ordain women, I would fast and pray in dust and ashes, as grave deception would have come upon us, but I can’t leave the Church, as she is the Body of Christ ordained by God, not the will of men I would just be sure to never attend a parish where a woman endeavored to administer the sacraments, as they are invalid by definition

This is an old post, so sorry, I do not get the context of this anymore. God bless, though.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This is an old post, so sorry, I do not get the context of this anymore. God bless, though.

Peace be with you

 

[AlexB23]

Peace be with you

Thank you, and peace be with you also.

 

[David Lamb]

staff edit

Mary did not "ask Jesus to turn water into wine." What she said to Him was:

“They have no wine.” (Joh 2:3 NKJV)

Even if she had asked Jesus to turn water into wine, are you really suggesting that that is a justification for a "woman priest" to ask a "male priest" to play Jesus in a communion service? Indeed, the whole notion of anybody "playing Jesus" as part of a communion service is wrong. Jesus told His followers, "Do this in remembrance of Me," not "Reenact this, using role-play, in remembrance of Me."

 

[Love365]

Mary did not "ask Jesus to turn water into wine." What she said to Him was:

“They have no wine.” (Joh 2:3 NKJV)

Even if she had asked Jesus to turn water into wine, are you really suggesting that that is a justification for a "woman priest" to ask a "male priest" to play Jesus in a communion service? Indeed, the whole notion of anybody "playing Jesus" as part of a communion service is wrong. Jesus told His followers, "Do this in remembrance of Me," not "Reenact this, using role-play, in remembrance of Me."

According to the Catholic Church,
only a male priest can represent Jesus during Communion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

According to the Catholic Church,
only a male priest can represent Jesus during Communion.

You are correct, and not only in the Catholic Church but in the Orthodox Churches and Confessional Lutheran Churches like my own.

The doctrine is called "in persona Christi"; this is not "playing Jesus", rather it is a divine mystery that transcends both time and space with heaven and earth coming together in eternal worship, praise and grace together with all the faithful who have preceded us. It extends beyond the celebration of the Eucharist.

In early Lutheran practice, maintained only in the most conservative Lutheran churches today,[12] when a Lutheran pastor offers the sacrament of Holy Absolution, he acts in persona Christi.[1] This informs the theology behind the seal of the confessional.[1] Because the priest "acts in Christ’s stead when he absolves a sinner (Luke 10:16; 2 Corinthians 2:10), he acts in Christ’s stead also when he hears a confession."[1] As such, "He may therefore not reveal what Christ Himself does not reveal” (Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 31:34)."[1] In persona Christi - Wikipedia​

staff edit

The Celebrant does not "play" Jesus

I suggest rather than showing us how little you understand it might be more beneficial for you to ask questions about what we actually believe and do, rather than telling us what you think we believe.

 

[David Lamb]

According to the Catholic Church,
only a male priest can represent Jesus during Communion.

But I wouldn't imagine that the Roman Catholic church teaches that anyone "plays Jesus." In Baptist churches, the bread and the wine represent Jesus, not the pastor or whoever is distributing the emblems.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

Folks, this thread had a small clean up. Remember the flaming rule. It includes:
​

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.​

EDIT
Further clean up was done. Please speak respectfully when discussing the communion practices of other churches. Please do not use negative or disrespectful terms like 'playing Jesus'.​

 

[The Liturgist]

The 1 Timothy thought starts in verse 8, with "Deacons likewise..." So it's already discussing deacons. Then we get to verse 11 and the mention of the women/wives, and that's where it's not clear exactly what the author meant; the women deacons or the wives of deacons.

We do know the early church had deaconesses, however, they were celibate and usually widows. Originally the minimum age was forty, but was later increased to sixty at the Quinisext Council.

Also the Armenian Apostolic Church never entirely abolished the order of deaconesses, and we have an Armenian friend on the site who recently provided some interesting history on the subject, i think in this thread. The Copts I have heard have reintroduced them in part to run the large number of orphanages that are required by Egypt’s cruel Shariah-based ban on adoption even of orphaned children.

 

[okay]

My answer to the OP is NO.

I have no trust in streams of Christianity like the Catholic Church or Southern Baptists that have such terrible recent track records on protecting congregants from predators. The way both place essentially all power in the hands of men might be part of the problem, so perhaps allowing women priests might help. But I still wouldn’t trust them.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

My answer to the OP is NO.

I have no trust in streams of Christianity like the Catholic Church or Southern Baptists that have such terrible recent track records on protecting congregants from predators. The way both place essentially all power in the hands of men might be part of the problem, so perhaps allowing women priests might help. But I still wouldn’t trust them.

Would you have left Israel because Saul was an evil king, or because of any of the other evil kings in her history? Would you have fled to an imitation Israel if there was one while the Ark was in Jerusalem?

 

[Love365]

My answer to the OP is NO.

I have no trust in streams of Christianity like the Catholic Church or Southern Baptists that have such terrible recent track records on protecting congregants from predators. The way both place essentially all power in the hands of men might be part of the problem, so perhaps allowing women priests might help. But I still wouldn’t trust them.

Women bishops and women cardinals
would have the power to stop any abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

Women bishops and women cardinals
would have the power to stop any abuse.

No, look, they don't. For two reasons.

One is that there are always abusers in the church, because the church is made up of humans who are sinners, and this is one form that that sin takes. We can aim to minimise it, we can limit opportunities, we can try to screen abusers out of positions of power, we can refuse to cover it up but I don't believe we can ever entirely stop abuse.

And the other is that women, too, abuse. Not as often sexually or physically, it is true; but women leaders abuse emotionally and spiritually. There's no reason to think that women, given access to positions of power, would be so self-aware, so virtuous, and so holy, as to totally avoid doing so, because we are human.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

No, look, they don't. For two reasons.

One is that there are always abusers in the church, because the church is made up of humans who are sinners, and this is one form that that sin takes. We can aim to minimise it, we can limit opportunities, we can try to screen abusers out of positions of power, we can refuse to cover it up but I don't believe we can ever entirely stop abuse.

And the other is that women, too, abuse. Not as often sexually or physically, it is true; but women leaders abuse emotionally and spiritually. There's no reason to think that women, given access to positions of power, would be so self-aware, so virtuous, and so holy, as to totally avoid doing so, because we are human.

A woman seeking power from which she has not a right is not acting in humility
We take the example of our Lady. She bore the Savior. He grew inside her body. The Creator of the universe grew inside her, and He was subject to her for 30 years. They must have had many conversations. If any one would seek power it would be her, but she did not. She accepted her humble role as a woman.

She knows God better than anyone, yet she yielded to God’s will and let the Gospel writers take the credit, but a good deal of information came from her. She let the Apostles have the authority over the Church as that was God’s will.
She is the only one ever who can read the Bible and say, “That’s my boy”, yet she humbled herself and she was exalted to Queen of Heaven and Earth.

If she could do that, what benefit do modern women hope to gain by exalting themselves over God’s Church? Nothing good will come of it. Not to the women, not to the Church