Recent Church of England ruiling to allow Woman bishops. (Open Discussion)

Run_to_da_hills

Women as church ministers, Is it Biblical? The recent vote within the Church of England to allow women as Bishops has been attacked by the Roman Catholic Church as an obstacle of reconciliation. Last May, the Vatican issued a decree which vowed to punish attempts in the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women priests with automatic excommunication.

Is it just the Catholic Church that would be opposed to this? There are many Fundamentalist Christian churches throughout the country that would be equally opposed just from reading the following scripture.

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church". 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" 1st Timothy 2:11-14,

What is the general opinion on this?

philologos

It's a crucial question, but did Miriam have the authority to be a prophetess and question Moses? Did Priscilla have the right to teach with Acquilla? Did Paul say that women were truly equal to men?

fitz0

I say theye should be allowed and the Vatican is plain worng and narrow-minded to voice any sort of disapproval. They have subjugated women for centuries (though I suppose all religions have done that) Since women are just as devoted ot their god as any man why shouldnt they be allowed to preach the same stuff?

PDN

I have no problem with women in ministry.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

I have no problem with women in ministry.

What do you think Paul meant by those two verses that RTDH has mentioned?

Fanny Cradock

No problems with it myself.

JCB

It's an interesting question, but I can understand why the Catholic Church would oppose the measure and view it as a block to reconciliation.

Are the Bishops in the CoE supposed to have apostolic succession and possess the gifts of the spirit?

Considering that none of Jesus' apostles appointed with these gifts were women then I'm not sure if the Church has authority to pass on does gifts to women without further revelation.

It certainly breaks with the early church tradition and could be seen as a revisionist measure.

I think it is unfair to label the church discriminatory in this fashion, if Jesus had women apostles and the first church had women priests then this wouldn't be an issue.

If CoE bishops are only teachers - with no gifts of succession - then I fail to see what the problem is.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think Paul meant by those two verses that RTDH has mentioned?

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home. Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church, for in the same letter Paul gives instructions to be followed when a woman prophesies in church.

The second quote, from 1 Timothy, is rooted in Paul's understanding of Genesis - not in culture. Eve was deceived, but Adam deliberately chose to sin, therefore being more culpable. Now, why would it be significant that Adam was created prior to Eve? Certainly being created earlier does not imply authority - for the animals were created before Adam. Could it be that Eve's later creation meant she lacked enough knowledge or life experience to discern the serpent's evil intent? That may equate to Timothy's situation where women lacked education. Therefore, until the status, and education, of women improved it would be dangerous to allow them in leadership or teaching positions. As Christianity improved the status and education of women this temporary state of affairs was rectified.

But of course I may well be totally wrong.

Fanny Cradock

JCB wrote: »

Considering that none of Jesus' apostles appointed with these gifts were women then I'm not sure if the Church has authority to pass on does gifts to women without further revelation.

Just a couple of things. Firstly,there were no Chinese, professional footballers or (presumably) read heads amongst the apostles. My observation is that you are placing too much emphasis on what wasn't found then and not enough on what has been found. Does that make sense? Secondly, surely it is not the churches place nor within their ability to appoint such gifts.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just a couple of things. Firstly,there were no Chinese, professional footballers or (presumably) read heads amongst the apostles. My observation is that you are placing too much emphasis on what wasn't found then and not enough on what has been found. Does that make sense? Secondly, surely it is not the churches place nor within their ability to appoint such gifts.

Are nationalities or professional footballs of human or God's creation, though?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home.

Do you really think it's likely that a woman would shout some theological question from one side to the other of a crowded building when a man in a position of authority was speaking?

PDN wrote: »

Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church, for in the same letter Paul gives instructions to be followed when a woman prophesies in church.

A woman prophesying? I can't recall this bit offhand -- where exactly is it?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Do you really think it's likely that a woman would shout some theological question from one side to the other of a crowded building when a man in a position of authority was speaking?

Well, certainly in some the the moderate to liberal Evangelical traditions it wouldn't at all be uncommon for the audience to shout out interjections. With this in mind, it doesn't seem an impossibility to imagine that 'cruder' utterances went on in a newly established church that was probably a little rough around the edges by our standards. After all, it's not like these early Christians had a friendly local Anglican Minister knocking around to remind them about church etiquette.

JCB wrote: »

Are nationalities or professional footballs of human or God's creation, though?

What about red heads? I understand your point. However I just don't see how your argument (i.e. none of the apostles with spiritual gifts were women...) could be considered anything other than an argument from silence. Still, you are welcome to you opinion.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What about red heads? I understand your point. However I just don't see how your argument (i.e. none of the apostles with spiritual gifts were women...) could be considered anything other than an argument from silence. Still, you are welcome to you opinion.

What about them? Unless you hold young earth creationism then it red hair is a evolutionist byproduct, like skin colour. Gender, i'd hope we recognise is more fundamental than that.

All I can say on the matter is that Jesus did not part His gifts onto His women followers, tmk, and if there is a priesthood with gifts parted from Jesus, then they must maintain the fundamental distinction that Jesus made.

Fanny Cradock

Lets not bring evolution into this. If you dismiss read hair because it was a result of evolution I wonder if I could do the same for gender in humans? Really, this line of reasoning leads to madnesssss.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Gosh, Robin just became a Christian:D

JCB wrote:

I can say on the matter is that Jesus did not part His gifts onto His women followers, tmk, and if there is a priesthood with gifts parted from Jesus, then they must maintain the fundamental distinction that Jesus made.

Ah, and Mary Magdalen? She appears to be quite important, but would the people of that time accept her if she to received the gifts too. Probably not, so maybe they were passed to her in secret.

I have always felt that one of the biggest obstacle to accepting the authority of bodies like the Catholic Church and their involvement in how I live my life was this issue of women and their right to hold office. It was one of the major deciding factors for me in turning away from Catholicism. Could never understand it. That is why I do have a lot of respect for those branches of Christianity that for go celibacy. At lest they have a more rounded picture of family life and are imo better equipped to deal with the needs of their flock.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lets not bring evolution into this. If you dismiss read hair because it was a result of evolution I wonder if I could do the same for gender in humans? Really, this line of reasoning leads to madnesssss.

Tell me how is red hair a fundamental human attribute?

Having two genders is a fundamental human attribute - otherwise we could not survive as a species as we know it today. Which we believe is how God wanted us to be created.

Hence gender is an important distinction.

By witnessing the importance of genders *in general* - evolution is just one avenue to explore this - then a distinction on gender is more significant than whether someone is a football player or tax collector and so on.

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

Ah, and Mary Magdalen? She appears to be quite important, but would the people of that time accept her if she to received the gifts too. Probably not, so maybe they were passed to her in secret.

That's total speculation. Gnostics beleived Jesus revealed things in secret. Maybe Jesus passed on gifts to cats too without telling us?, since that would make His message more acceptable to Egyptians whose ancestors held cats very dearly!

I have always felt that one of the biggest obstacle to accepting the authority of bodies like the Catholic Church and their involvement in how I live my life was this issue of women and their right to hold office. It was one of the major deciding factors for me in turning away from Catholicism. Could never understand it. That is why I do have a lot of respect for those branches of Christianity that for go celibacy. At lest they have a more rounded picture of family life and are imo better equipped to deal with the needs of their flock

Priest's should be looking towards Jesus for direction not what is cultural to their particular flock. Afterall, they received their gifts from Him not those who have lost respect for His message.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but Christians should be more God focused than focused on the forces of public opinion.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

JCB wrote:

That's total speculation. Gnostics beleived Jesus revealed things in secret. Maybe Jesus passed on gifts to cats too without telling us?, since that would make His message more acceptable to Egyptians whose ancestors held cats very dearly!

I am sure you can do better than that. The RC Church has a history of secrecy, but then again, it is not alone there. That also applies to Buddhist too. But this is not the point I was trying to make. Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen. The female appears to hold a very special place in the life of Christ, why would he then bar them from holding office?

JCB wrote: »

I don't mean this to be insulting, but Christians should be more God focused than focused on the forces of public opinion.

Not insulted at all. However, I would have thought that one could not get more God-focused than by meeting the changing needs of those that were created by God in the first place.

TheBigLebowski

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church". 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Is this for real? Is this really from the bible? How do people still find this type of thing acceptable in an organisation that is supposed to lead people and show the right way. Unbelievable...

TheBigLebowski

PDN wrote: »

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home. Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church,

Are you joking here, women weren't allowed to speak because they might not understand and shout across to their husband??? Ha ha. It says "for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive". Is that not clear enough for you? Man, I don't come to this board often but there is some amount of deluded crap spoken here....

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

Not insulted at all. However, I would have thought that one could not get more God-focused than by meeting the changing needs of those that were created by God in the first place.

Thank you Asiaprod, sometimes I feel I come across too passionately!

'Meeting the changing needs' - but where do the changing needs come from? They seem to be people-driven rather than God-driven.

The fundamental unchanging needs - for love, (eternal) life, righteousness and so on are provided for by the message of Jesus and the gifts that He bestowed upon humanity.

For physical needs - food, procreation and so on - God created a physical world -if guided properly - which would satisify those needs. Imagine having a permanent sense of hunger (which due to our terrible stewardship still exists) but not having the capability to satisfy it i.e. not having the ability to eat?!!

Without those spritual gifts - which need to be cherished - our longing for God, goes hungry too.

Societies and Cultures can create temporary needs. Take the situation in Ireland now, where both partners in a couple need to work, not just one. Childminding becomes a temporary need - since if there was enough money the need would disappear. Our challenge as Christians is to show the gifts of Jesus to the world in how they transform us to become better people. It is for these reasons, Christian communities took it upon themselves to educate, nurse and feed those -in need-. With the formalisation of this structure in modern democracy, that Christian mission has been somewhat fulfilled. You will often find Christians at the forefront to help with modern crises - homelessness/poverty are a main focus of Church community services at the moment, it is as you call it - 'meeting the changing needs' - of modern society through the timeless gifts of Christ.

Hope this helps!

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

I am sure you can do better than that. The RC Church has a history of secrecy

The purpose of the cat anology is to show that the truths of Jesus do not necessary match popular opinion. He could have made cats special in certain ways to make His message more palletable to Egyptians because it was popular to do so. Just like it would have been popular for Christians to worship Jesus and Emperor which was popular at that time. If it is popular now for women to hold the position of priestly sacrifice - then that does not make it the correct thing to do. We can only follow His actions.

Tmk, orthodoxy also holds this view on female clergy but is it also considered secretive?

Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen.

That is true, but I fail to see how ignoring what we do have as evidence will do the message and gifts of Jesus anything but a disservice.

The female appears to hold a very special place in the life of Christ, why would he then bar them from holding office?

That is also true, but yet He viewed them in a different way to the apostles. I am not going to judge which was better, God's love is God's love.
Every follower has a role to play. I don't think Jesus descriminated on capability. Women followers have always and still do play vital roles in the church. It is a difficult question to resolve and one I don't take lightly.

Run_to_da_hills

Women should be allowed preach because St Pauls letters were not intended for the 21st Century

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Is this for real? Is this really from the bible? How do people still find this type of thing acceptable in an organisation that is supposed to lead people and show the right way. Unbelievable...

People find allot of unacceptable things in the Bible that they don't like and will not put up with, the Bible is the most offensive Book on this planet and many people refuse to come to Christ and be saved because of the Word of God.

Many of the so called Christian Churches will intentionally omit sections of the Bible that would expose themselves if read out from the pulpit. I doubt very much if any of the churches that openly ordain gay ministers would preach any of Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27 at a service as it would be an embarrassment to themselves. Likewise would you hear certain sects of the Church of England preach 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Bible says that if one has to become a follower of Christ they must take up the narrow road. The true Church is Christ centered while the counterfeit Church suits mankind and is made up of manmade rules and tradition bent around mankind. Christianity is NOT religion! Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with us realizing that we are dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners in need of a Savior!

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

JCB wrote: »

Thank you Asiaprod, sometimes I feel I come across too passionately!

Passion can be good.

'Meeting the changing needs' - but where do the changing needs come from? They seem to be people-driven rather than God-driven.

I hear where you are coming from and I am much enjoying this dialogue. Thank you for your candor. I tend to view things from the perspective of evolution. Humanity must evolve or it stagnates. As it evolves its need also change. IMO, for any religion to be viable in this day and age it must also change to meet these new needs. Thats not to say it must change its base ideals, but it must be flexible enough to serve those that subscribe to it in such a way as to take into account these new needs.
I am curious. How would you feel if out of the blue the pope suddenly declared that it was ok for women to hold office. Would your views change?

I will resist from bringing free will into this since I am all out of popcorn:)

Slav

Asiaprod wrote: »

IMO, for any religion to be viable in this day and age it must also change to meet these new needs. Thats not to say it must change its base ideals, but it must be flexible enough to serve those that subscribe to it in such a way as to take into account these new needs.

How do you see those Christians that
1. have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually,
and
2. don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Slav wrote: »

How do you see those Christians that
1. have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually,
and
2. don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

Not sure I understand your question, but will try to answer. Bear in mind I generally leave people or organizations to work out their own issues with their own respective authority figures. I only get involved when these bodies try to enact laws or rules that impact on my freedom to follow my own path, or impact on the world or society in which I live.

How do I see those Christians that have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually.

I feel they need to address any fears through dialogue with their respective churches and, in particular, within their congregation. It is only natural to be afraid of change, but change is necessary. Thou shall not kill will always be thou shall not kill so I really cannot see that type of base ideal changing radically. Obviously issues like abortion do cut very close, even contradict, some to the base ideals, but contraception and women ministries should not and need to be addressed now in light of where humanity has evolved to and the issues were currently face.

For example:
1. Contraception, today dwindling resources and over population is a very serious issue that affects everyone on this planet. These issues will not go away on their own. One either addresses them, or buries one's head in the sand. If one buries one's head in the sand and takes no active part in finding a solution to these problems, one cannot whine when others do effect change.
2. Women ministries, to deny women an active role is imo tantamount to worshiping a sexist God. The same God who declared that everyone is equal. That just creates a paradox. The woman's place 2,000 years ago and where it is today are very very different. If the christian God is all knowing he would have taken this into account. Did God actually forbid women this role. I don't believe so, for what ever reason, I believe it was man that did. PDN's answer to the segregation of women and men during worship is a good example, even acceptable for the time in which it was written. Would it be acceptable in todays congregation, I don't think so. I know many women who are far smarter than I am. It could, however, be acceptable in a ritualist or traditional sense.

How do I see those Christians who don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

I am not an authority on what constitutes a "new need." The faithful can, in line with their beliefs, decide that one for themselves. I certainly question the use of the word "might be." Adopting that approach is just a bottleneck to growth. And who decides on if it might be caused by our sinful nature. Here is an interesting point I often ponder on since I experienced it at the hands of so called holy men myself, If women had been allowed to become priests would we have had to deal with as much sexual abuse of young kids as we did? As to products of evolution, medical, gene-therapy, organ transplants, and the list goes on. All product of mans evolution. All developed for the betterment of mankind.

PDN

Asiaprod wrote: »

Gosh, Robin just became a Christian:D

And you too, Asiaprod. May I be the first to congratulate the both of you on your new status as converts (reverts?) to Christianity.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

PDN wrote: »

And you too, Asiaprod. May I be the first to congratulate the both of you on your new status as converts (reverts?) to Christianity.

Why thank you, I blame Robin:)

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

Why thank you, I blame Robin:)

And I blame half a bottle of good Merlot. Thankfully untransubstantiated

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People find allot of unacceptable things in the Bible that they don't like and will not put up with, the Bible is the most offensive Book on this planet and many people refuse to come to Christ and be saved because of the Word of God.

Many of the so called Christian Churches will intentionally omit sections of the Bible that would expose themselves if read out from the pulpit. I doubt very much if any of the churches that openly ordain gay ministers would preach any of Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27 at a service as it would be an embarrassment to themselves. Likewise would you hear certain sects of the Church of England preach 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Bible says that if one has to become a follower of Christ they must take up the narrow road. The true Church is Christ centered while the counterfeit Church suits mankind and is made up of manmade rules and tradition bent around mankind. Christianity is NOT religion! Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with us realizing that we are dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners in need of a Savior!

If we all followed the Bible to the letter, we would be out sacrificing animals left right and centre, not to mention stoning people to death for mowing their lawn on a Sunday. It would kind of justify what the british did to ireland for years as well, as I understand it is acceptable to enslave people from a neighbouring country.

The way we interpret the Bible is key and there are a great many things that we should re-examine as the CoE has done frequently over the last few years.

The two most important commandments in the Bible are these, "you shall lover the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind" and "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". I fail to see where the CoE is breaking either of these, in fact, it looks to me as if they are following them.

Run_to_da_hills

Women should be allowed preach because St Pauls letters were not intended for the 21st Century

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If we all followed the Bible to the letter, we would be out sacrificing animals left right and centre, not to mention stoning people to death for mowing their lawn on a Sunday. It would kind of justify what the british did to ireland for years as well, as I understand it is acceptable to enslave people from a neighbouring country.

The way we interpret the Bible is key and there are a great many things that we should re-examine as the CoE has done frequently over the last few years.

The two most important commandments in the Bible are these, "you shall lover the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind" and "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". I fail to see where the CoE is breaking either of these, in fact, it looks to me as if they are following them.

If one followed the Bible Correctly one would not are sacraficing animals, stoning people to death for mowing the lawn on "Sunday", keeping slaves etc. All this was belonged to the "Law" i.e. the Old Testament. When Christ came he fulfilled the law. Christian Churches to_day use the old testiment for reference as if one reads it is linked in with the new testiment. The RC still holds on to many of the traditions taken directly out of the old testiment to this day.

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If one followed the Bible Correctly one would not are sacraficing animals, stoning people to death for mowing the lawn on "Sunday", keeping slaves etc. All this was belonged to the "Law" i.e. the Old Testament. When Christ came he fulfilled the law. Christian Churches to_day use the old testiment for reference as if one reads it is linked in with the new testiment. The RC still holds on to many of the traditions taken directly out of the old testiment to this day.

so what are you saying, we ignore the old testament completely, or just the bits we don't like?

Nevyn

I was intrested in taking part in this discussion but it seems I am unwelcome but not due to being a woman.

(Christian Response only)

robindch

Thaedydal wrote: »

I was intrested in taking part in this discussion but it seems I am unwelcome but not due to being a woman.

Perhaps our esteemed moderators could open up another thread for us heathens, and move the unwanted posts in there?

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Thaedydal wrote: »

I was intrested in taking part in this discussion but it seems I am unwelcome but not due to being a woman.

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps our esteemed moderators could open up another thread for us heathens, and move the unwanted posts in there?

I would be very happy to do so. In fact I will since this is a really interesting topic and I would like to read input from non believers also. The new thread is called "New CoE Ruling to allow Women Ministries (Open Discussion)". The charter rules also apply to this post. If you want posts moved across please let me know which ones are appropriate.

Run_to_da_hills

Women should be allowed preach because St Pauls letters were not intended for the 21st Century

Asiaprod wrote: »

I would be very happy to do so. In fact I will since this is a really interesting topic and I would like to read input from non believers also. The new thread is called "New CoE Ruling to allow Women Ministries (Open Discussion)". The charter rules also apply to this post. If you want posts moved across please let me know which ones are appropriate.

I have removed the limitations.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I have removed the limitations.

Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Then I will close the new thread and keep everything here in one place.

PDN

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what are you saying, we ignore the old testament completely, or just the bits we don't like?

No, we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. So, if the New Testament says that the OT law is like a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and that once Christ came it had fulfilled its purpose, and that therefore much of the OT ceremonial stuff doesn't apply to us anymore, then we go with that.

BTW, neither the Old or New Testament has anything at all to say about mowing your lawn on a Sunday.

Michael G

For the purpose of informed debate, here is the thinking behind the Catholic Chuch's belief that the ordination of women to the priesthood is impossible (not undesirable, by the way — impossible): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Michael G wrote: »

For the purpose of informed debate, here is the thinking behind the Catholic Chuch's belief that the ordination of women to the priesthood is impossible (not undesirable, by the way — impossible): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

From the document in question:

The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way."(4)

and

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Thanks Dave, helps a lot. The above passages in bold really stuck out for me. I cannot help but feel they are very convenient get out of jail free cards. Interesting that the Church can stick its finger in just about every other issue that concerns mankind, but in this instance it is "Not Authorized" It is a stretch of the imagination to say that just because Christ did not select a female apostle, or that is was not recorded, makes it the established rule. I don't buy this one. According to Consensus early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called, except the young apostle, St. John. Many references exist to show that Jesus treated woman with respect and as equals. Many were listed among his disciples. Mary and Mary Magdalene feature prominently throughout the Gospels. At Jesus' execution, several women remained faithful when the male disciples had apparently scattered. Women were the first to witness his resurrection, a significance fact in a society in which the testimony of a woman was not seen as equal to that of a man's in a court of law.

So what happened,

I have research this issue quite a lot, I did at one stage of my life seriously consider a vocation, but this denial of women was one of the main driving forces behind why I ended up leaving Catholicism. From what I have found, and this is again my opinion and open to correction, a married clergy was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes, with offspring, are known to us. Mandatory celibacy was enforced for many reasons, but I believe primarily because because there was so much political and economic power attached to the papacy, especially during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Church adopted celibacy as a matter of discipline, not as a matter of doctrine. Until that is, we have this amazing infallible statement the the church is suddenly after 19 centuries in 1954 "Not Authorized." That sucks. It also raises an interesting question. If pope A declares something infallible, can pope B suddenly come along and revoke that infallibility, which pope is correct?
I'm sorry, one would need to be really stupid not to see where all this rubbish stems from. While I have great respect for any who follow a chosen path, I have none for the governing body that controls the Catholic Church. It became for me a protectionist old boys club.

Rant over, sorry its a touchy subject with me. A sexist church goes against the grain of the ideals it proclaims to follow and is therefore IMO not worthy of patronage. I challenge anyone to show me where Christ or God, and not mans interpretation, specifically denied women the right to priesthood.

robindch

Michael G wrote: »

For the purpose of informed debate, here is the thinking behind the Catholic Chuch's belief that the ordination of women to the priesthood is impossible (not undesirable, by the way — impossible): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Thanks also for that document.

It's quite clear from that just how thoroughly weak the ban on women priests really is -- nothing more than noticing that Jesus didn't employ any women. Well, so what? He's not recorded as laughing either, or eating pizza, or flying in planes, and the church hasn't failed to permit them.

As Asia suggests, the most entertaining, or horrible, part of it all is not the intrinsic weakness of the justification, but the splendidly passive way in which the church excuses itself from being able to do anything about it.

robindch

...and, now that I remember:

PDN, where exactly in that letter of Paul is the bit about women preaching? I certainly can'r remember it and a quick look through the text doesn't produce anything likely.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

...and, now that I remember:

PDN, where exactly in that letter of Paul is the bit about women preaching? I certainly can'r remember it and a quick look through the text doesn't produce anything likely.

Prophesying rather than preaching. 1 Corinthians 11:5

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

And that could open up another can of worms!

My point, however, is that Paul would hardly set guidelines for women covering their heads when prophesying if they weren't allowed to speak in church.

Fratton Fred

PDN wrote: »

No, we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. So, if the New Testament says that the OT law is like a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and that once Christ came it had fulfilled its purpose, and that therefore much of the OT ceremonial stuff doesn't apply to us anymore, then we go with that.

BTW, neither the Old or New Testament has anything at all to say about mowing your lawn on a Sunday.

mowing a lawn is kind of agricultural work, I like to quote that when people are being too prescriptive over the Bible.

I like the way this thread has gone, I am all for Churches being inclusive of all the community and that includes all the way to the top. Asiaprod sums up my feelings nicely

robindch

PDN wrote: »

My point, however, is that Paul would hardly set guidelines for women covering their heads when prophesying if they weren't allowed to speak in church.

I don't at all see why you link the two. One can prophesy from the comfort of one's own armchair without risking that it would be any less accurate than it might otherwise be. Not so?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I don't at all see why you link the two. One can prophesy from the comfort of one's own armchair without risking that it would be any less accurate than it might otherwise be. Not so?

Most commentators believe that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, is giving guidelines for what happens in public worship. That consensus is reflected in the (non-inspired) headings that most Bibles give to this section such as biblegateway.com's Propriety in Worship.

The covering of a woman's head, for instance, is thought to be related to the practice of Corinthian temple prostitutes having uncovered, or even shaven heads. Such a cultural factor would only apply to a public setting rather than into the privacy of someone's home.

Slav

robindch wrote: »

I don't at all see why you link the two. One can prophesy from the comfort of one's own armchair without risking that it would be any less accurate than it might otherwise be. Not so?

Paul goes even further in Romans 16:1-2 as he's giving us an evidence that most likely there were deaconesses as early as around 58 CE. It's unlikely that his recommendation for ladies to be quiet in church would help deaconesses in their duties.

On the other hand I would not oversimplify the issue of female bishops or priests so it's only seen as a matter of equality and anti-sexism. Within many Churches there is strong opposition to ordaining women equally from boys and girls. If there is a chance that the changes would lead to a schism then it's certainly would do more harm then good. However if these changes are welcomed and desired by the vast majority of the members then I don't see a problem here.

Michael G

The Catholic position is a little bit more complex than some posters would acknowledge. First of all, the Catholic (and Orthodox) concept of priesthood is different from the Protestant one. In Catholic/Orthodox churches, the priest at Mass, in Confession and in the other Sacraments is acting in persona Christi. Sacraments are external signs of an event. The priest at that time puts aside his human identity and becomes Christ, who is the one actually performing the action. That is why the Catholic Church gives so much importance to the fact that Christ gave the power to consecrate the bread and wine, and to forgive sins, only to his male followers.

The Protestant concept of priesthood is different and indeed the term priesthood is not really appropriate. For Protestants, the priest is a human presiding at an event like the Eucharist, which is seen as a meal in the presence of Christ rather than a re-enactment (in the most literal sense) of his death and resurrection. For Protestants there is clearly no reason not to give this function to both men and women. Liberal Catholics since Vatican II prefer to play down the emphasis on Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and on redemption (hence their unhappy reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ) and tend towards the Protestant view of priesthood — hence extraordinary views like those expressed in the Irish Times here yesterday by Fr Sean Fagan. But such opinions are not in line with what the Church teaches.

The other Catholic argument against ordaining women is a highly complex one, which I don't feel competent to explain, about the distinct, complementary but not interchangeable natures of men and women.

robindch

Slav wrote: »

Paul goes even further in Romans 16:1-2 as he's giving us an evidence that most likely there were deaconesses as early as around 58 CE. It's unlikely that his recommendation for ladies to be quiet in church would help deaconesses in their duties.

That passage you mention has one Phoebe described as as a 'deaconess'. Well, the word used is διακονος, for which Liddell & Scott provides "a servant, a waiting-man, a menial", as the primary meaning, while secondarily, in ecclesiastical terms, a "deaconess" with no further elaboration. There is nothing from the context to indicate that Phoebe has any more status than that enjoyed by many women in catholic and orthodox churches today, namely, as the sweepers of floors and the wiper-uppers of candle-wax. It really does stretch belief past breaking point to claim that a somebody with menial/servant status could refer to somebody important enough to interpret the god's instructions to crowds of the faithful.

The far simpler and uncontrived meaning of the original passage is the straightforward and obvious one in which the author is telling women to "keep silent", to "remain submissive" in building in which, for them alone, "it is shameful to speak" in a world where the bible does not "suffer a woman to teach". It really is as clear as that.

Slav wrote: »

On the other hand I would not oversimplify the issue of female bishops or priests so it's only seen as a matter of equality and anti-sexism.

There's very little in the above to over simplify. And the exclusively-male hierarchy is going to have a tough time convincing people that they're not just simply trying to protect the very considerable privilege that it's traditionally enjoyed.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Most commentators believe that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, is giving guidelines for what happens in public worship.

Does that mean that in your own church, when women are preaching -- as I assume they do -- that they cover their heads as it is written they should?

philologos

robindch wrote:

Does that mean that in your own church, when women are preaching -- as I assume they do -- that they cover their heads as it is written they should?

1 Corinthians 11:13-16 wrote:

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Note the bold. Just curious given what robindch said, does this mean that we are of freedom to come to our own conclusion on this issue given the passage saying "judge for yourselves", and "we have no such custom".