This got me thinking on women priests...

1. I don't see the Lord saying that there are no longer divisions that separate maleness and femaleness. Man has the primacy of leadership & authority by nature, not by Law; woman is the companion & helper of man. God reveals Himself as "Father", "Son", and Holy Spirit - not, as some feminists joke, "Two Boys and a Bird". There's something of Cosmic import in this. It's the only reason I reject women clergy, because otherwise there are compelling reasons to accommodate the idea.

2. Where do you see women bishops? Presbyters? Leaders? When Paul calls a woman a "minister", "ho diakona" with a masculine article, there's no reason to believe that he is referring to leadership.

3. Mary Magdalene reported the Resurrection, and then we do not hear from her again. The Lord used her to deliver the initial message, and then she ceased to be of importance in the Gospels. Your attribution of apostleship to her would have more credit if she was even mentioned in Acts at all. Anyway, there are no Apostles alive today, so what of that?

4. Receiving the truly-consecrated Body and Blood of Christ from the hands of a sinful man who is ordained is indeed better than eating stale bread from a person who has no ability to be ordained - and pretending it's the Body & Blood. I hardly treat a sinful minister as an ideal, however, so that's a strawman.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear, yes if you slip out discreetly thats fine everyone has a choice and they must do what they feel is right for them, but a person I know did this after confronting the vicar in question at a service about why they were leaving the church and made a fuss about walking out of the church in question. Needless to say this upset quite a few people. (he moved to another parish and refused to attend the local church while she was there, she still serves that parish and he has kept to his word and never been back)

 

I don't think the issue is really about sacramental v memorial but what gives the sacrament its power. Really there are two basic views as far as I know for those with a high sacramental view of communion. Either the efficacy of communion is from the consecration by a priest/bishop who because of his ordination possesses special powers to make the sacrament real, or the sacrament gains its efficacy by God's promises received in faith.

 

Why can't it be both? God works through men, especially in providence, but in all things ecclesiatical as well. There's always this "either/or" mentality flowing around. That just won't do! We cannot make men opposed to God and God opposed to men, now that the covenant of divine grace has been fully established in providence.

 

Really its impossible to hold both. If you hold that the power of the sacrament comes from the word of God atached to it then why doubt that promise because of the person administering it? You are not trusting in God's word bu the validity of the priest.

if you believe its both then it can cause doubt if you received the sacrament at all, is the minister properly ordained, did the fact I receieve it from a woman a layperson make it invalid? Did they have apostolic sucession? etc etc. For me those thigns fall int he background. Christ said "This is my body" not "this is my body only if celebrated by a minister validly ordained" It's simple, Christ gave us this promise, we receive it havign absolute confidence His Word accomplishes what it says . See the difference?

 

Actually the apostolic prohibition against female priesthood was radical for its time.

You surely have heard of the female priestesses, in both the Greek and Roman cultures? Remember even something as recent as the movie "300" , with its famous depiction of the prophetess at the Temple of Delphi, who was able to speak the very words of God, something neither the male attendants, and certainly not Leonidas himself could do? Here is a still with her from the movie:



Here are other examples of how prevalent female priestesses were in the Culture into which Christians were born:



Some helpful articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestal_Virgin


In this context, then, the Christians' rejection of female priesthood was radical and unheard of. That Paul said that women must be silent in the Church, or, that "as man is in the image of God, so woman is not in the image of God, but in the image of man", that was radical. When Christ our Lord ordained only men, that was radical.

Far from accepting the mores of the culture around them, the Christians were radically opposed in important elements to it.

 

Wow, bravo Stalwart. You've shored up what was flagging in me.

 

I must say i forgot all about the Pagans ! Such a thought provoking topic this has turned out to be, Well done to every involved .

 

You're taking a single prescriptive order from Paul which is in response to an isolated problem within the Corinthian church, and making a sweeping doctrinal statement. How do you reconcile I Corinthians 14:34 with 11:5? Was this order also given to other churches? How did the women of Roman's 16 rise to such prominence and importance if they were silent wall flowers?

Jeff

 

Luke what a brilliant well thought out post - I totally agree with every word you said..... As far as women priests go they were prevalent in the Pagan groups, I actually believe that Paul was trying to distance the early Church from paganism, and keep in line with the Jewish tradition to some extent. Good Bible commentaries that provide the differing arguments say much the same as what I said above.

 

Jeff over the years I seen so many times the use of cherry picking scripture to support a differing view and always come back to what you are saying here and I totally agree with you.

I believe anyone who decides they are going to use scripture to argue their point should first of all know how to read scripture and be aware of the different ways to read and understand the differing types of writing in the scriptures. I don't necessarily agree with everything these guys say but a good starting point is a book called:

How to Read the Bible for all it is Worth - by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart

and a second book by the same authors

How to Read the Bible Book by Book.....

In my opinion they are great books to have in your reference library...

They actually talk a lot about what you were saying with regards to:

 

I just want to ask: do any of you who are "pro-women-clergy" recognize a most-valid or strongest argument against the ordination of females to the presbyterate and episcopate? I ask because I think it's one of the hallmarks of an honest, rational, sound mind that it can recognize good arguments from opposite viewpoints.

 

You know where I am coming from brother or I think you do you have known me for a while...

In my opinion any argument that excludes another person based on gender, race, colour, or creed is invalid and is not based on Christs teaching about Love and inclusion of all peoples.

 

So does this inclusion of all people mean that all people are basically equivalent?

Can fathers give birth? I ask respectfully, Gordon. I've a point in asking that question, so please humor me.

 

[quote="Consular, post: 12757, member: 820"]I just want to ask: do any of you who are "pro-women-clergy" recognize a most-valid or strongest argument against the ordination of females to the presbyterate and episcopate? I ask because I think it's one of the hallmarks of an honest, rational, sound mind that it can recognize good arguments from opposite viewpoints. [/quote]
You didn't quote verse, so I'm guessing you're speaking of the instruction in 1Timothy regarding Bishops, but the simple truth is that merely reflects the social prejudice of middle eastern culture. 1 Timothy 3:8 mentions the qualifications of Deacons, and the Greek word used in Romans 16:1 to describe Phoebe is diakonon, or Deacon. Is Paul contradicting himself here?

Jeff

 

My brother Jeff, do you believe the holy Scriptures are inspired by God? I ask because you're saying the Holy Spirit was prejudiced by primitive eastern sexism when laying down the true doctrine of the Church's ordering for thousands upon thousands of years. How can you say such a thing about the Lord?

Anyway, I should've phrased my question better. When asking whether you can think of the strongest argument against women-clergy, I was asking if you can think of one at all.

In 1 Timothy 3, Paul specifically gives instructions for the selection of women deacons in the midst of instructions for male deacons. He says "and the women likewise", not "and the wives of deacons likewise". There is nothing wrong with women-deacons, as attested in the Scriptures.

 

Sure I will try to humour you....

Of course fathers cannot give birth, nor can the mother pass on sperm to enable the her egg to become fertilized in the first place. In some cases males are stronger then females and in other cases females are stronger then males. When it comes to intellect, the ability to Love, to teach, to pray, to be compassionate all people are basically equivalent.

 

So does Scripture contain biases? This violates the basic tenets of our Church where Scripture is the holy Revelation from God, and not a biased and dirty sinful human work.

I say all this with the the utmost respect for you as a person:
When we call Father a "he", is that a bias too? When Christ says that many are called but few are chosen, is that just a "bias", because hey, he did die for "all" the world right?

Is the institution of bishops and priests just a bias... why can't any Christian just take upon themselves the rulership of the Church? When Scripture calls God the Father a "he", and when Christ calls the holy Spirit a "he", that is just a blemish and a bias. Jesus Christ was a biased man, flawed, and not immune from the biases of his time. Some say he was God, but in fact, he was biased.... yes?

The problem with all this is: what can't be interpreted as a "bias"? This is the great sledgehammer Liberals have used to try to demolish the church, because using the hermeneutic of "bias", no sacred tenet of Christianity is safe. The only way to protect Christianity is to come back to the Divines and Fathers of our Church, both modern and Ancient, all of whom argued that Scripture is holy inviolate and without blemish. It does not contain biases or prejudices. Everything within it is just, holy, and sacred. If Apostles express a preference for one entity over the other, that preference is grounded in a real reason. Everything in the Scriptures is real, and true. Without this belief, there cannot be a Christianity.

What's the contradiction? Deacons could, and still can be, female.

Ok so fathers cannot give birth. But I thought all humans are equivalent? :think:

 

Sorry I don't get your point... are you trying to say that women do not equal to men because they give birth? If that is the case then I would suggest that men should be classed a lower then women because they cannot complete the creation process....

 

No I am not saying that anybody is lower than anybody else. I am saying that if everybody is equivalent, then men do give birth. If the terms "man" and "woman" refer to two basically identical human beings, really one human being, then both versions of that word should be able to do all activities.