 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Gloria Mundi
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| First Name: | Gloria Mundi | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
Please remind me where in scripture that I may find only men were chosen for the priesthood and bishopric and reasons why.
Thank you for your help.
Regards
Gloria.
Last edited on Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:07 pm by Gloria Mundi
|
|
|
BeProf
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 75 |
| First Name: | Ed | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Fundamental Baptist - Atheism - Christian & Missionary Alliance |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 01:47 pm |
|
From a Protestant perspective...
I Tim 3:1-7 (ESV)
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Notice... the repeated use of the word "he." The word translated "Overseer" here is the direct translation of the word "episkopos." Traditionally, in English, we call these men Bishops.
There is a similar instruction in Titus 1:5-9 about both Priests (elders) and Bishops (overseers).
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Throughout both the New and Old Testaments, there are no examples of female Priests or Bishops. There are *arguably* female Deacons but that's not the topic at hand.
Paul specifically lays out in I Cor. 33b-35 that, by a long standing Jewish tradition, that women are not permitted to speak in church.
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Does that mean that women can't utter a single solitary peep in church? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that women can't speak as part of the service. Earlier in I Corinthians, Paul establishes that women are permitted to pray in church (and by "pray" he means pray out loud, as in lead in the congregation in prayer) so long as her head is covered.
In this context, Paul is speaking "prophesying," which contrary to popular belief (at least in the churches I attend) has nothing to do with "foretelling" the future. Prophesying is "forthtelling" from the Word of God. It's preaching. When my Pastor stands up and gives a sermon, he's prophesying. When your Priest delivers his homily, he's prophesying. Why? Because the primary ministry of a Prophet isn't to tell the future. It's to deliver to us the word of God. By opening and interpreting the Bible for us, the Priest or Pastor is bringing the word of God into our lives.
Finally, and while tradition doesn't have the same impact in my Protestant church that it will in yours, there is no... zero... evidence (at least to my knowledge) to suggest that the early church ever ordained women as Priests or Bishops. Again, maybe Deacons... maybe... but never Priests or Bishops.
That's my evangelical protestant perspective. In my particular denomination we do perform "consecrations" on women who commit themselves to full-time christian service, but we do not permit women to serve as Pastors or Elders. We do permit women to be Deacons, but our Deacons and Deaconesses have no liturgical function, their specific ministry is restricted only to acts of charity. Generally this plays out as the Deacons being responsible for the benevolent fund and the Deaconesses being responsible for bringing meals to the sick.
There are obviously other perspectives
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 118 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
Just could not resist having some fun   Attachment: sign AC home.jpg (Downloaded 41 times)
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
Michael2
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | South Shore, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| First Name: | Michael | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | former Episcopalian -wife former Baptist-Episcopalian now both Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 02:08 am |
|
I think also in Acts, when Jesus and his deciples were in the upper room he asked for two men to be brought forward so he could choose someone to replace Judas...There was also mention that "there were women present in the room"....Jesus was one of the most un PC guys to live. He ate with prostitutes, loved tax collectors, conversed with the gentiles so if he had wanted a woman as one of his disciples he would have very likely chossen one..Why he didn't , we'll have to wait until we pass to the other side to know for sure..But he chose a man (Mathias) to replace Judas...
In this PC world today, and especially in some denominations, the metanarriative or women priests and homosexual priests fits right into the mindset..And remember in America you get to choose what you want to do and what you want to believe....Even if its wrong.....The Anglican communion, do mostly to the lack an ultimate "overseer" allows each priest and bishop, each parisoner to interpret what they think the Bible says...In other denominations, if you don't agree with what said , you just go out and start your own church..
The great thing about the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that we have a Pope and a magisteriam and together they through the "truth" of their position tell us what is and what is not..to believe in that is "Catholic"....
Last edited on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 02:12 am by Michael2
____________________
"sic transit gloria mundi"
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 03:55 am |
|
Michael2 wrote: I think also in Acts, when Jesus and his deciples were in the upper room he asked for two men to be brought forward so he could choose someone to replace Judas...
Actually, as recounted in Acts 1, it was Peter who said this. It took place in the upper room after the ascension of Jesus into heaven, so Jesus was no longer present.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 930 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
Michael, what you pointed out was superb. One of the outstanding, and certainly less well-publicized facts is how the Vatican goes out of its way to ensure that the rights of all Catholics are equally and respectfully treated.
I'm asking too much to believe one day that the the patient handling of the St. Kostkas parish in St. Louis recently would be fairly contrasted with that of the recent NEO-STALINIST handling of dissident traditionalist priests within the Episcopal Church.
What does the media do? They complain about "long-drawn out" proceedings carried out against our former dissidents, some of whom who are no longer practicing Catholics (because the Church wouldn't all of a sudden bow to their pride and personal wishes) and became Protestants. But then they were practically demanding near auto da fes for priest who were only accused, not even found guilty by both civil and church courts. Instant and public defrockings, much alike what we'd see in a war movie--not enough; the bloodsuckers in the media and blogs couldn't pile on more charges, innuendoes, etc.
But silence for the Episcopal priests who've been betrayed by their church. Oh, maybe something in the Hartford Courant, but by and large, they've been left to fend for themselves. By and large, the nation is relatively in the dark on this other scandal of misjustice and a complete lack of Christian charity.
At least evangelicals have a loose confederational set up where all they have to do is go church hopping for that ever-so-right "Bible Church" but even some very astute and honest evangelicals roll their eyes upwards at this Quixotic pursuit. It still comes down to the pastor's personality, in-house office politics and who gets to do what ministry, etc. Any of those areas falters, you might as well sit and watch the domino theory at work.
I'd like to know how many people left one "bible church" for another because the pastor played nepotism, or allowed it to be played by his favorite subordinate clergy. There's nothing more jarring than to see a head pastor's wife referred to as "First Lady." Catholic men have "First Ladies" to answer to as well, the Blessed Mother, their wives and (if not married, their moms.) If they don't do a good job answering to their earthly First Ladies, they'll have a real interesting session with the FIRST Lady of us all.
God help the brave church member who smells a rat and wants to say something about. When I mentioned to a good evangelical friend why my wife was turned off (long dull sermons geared towards the academics that dominate both area and church) and an increasing "contemporization" of even the "Traditional" Baptist service we used to attend, he voiced umbrage. That wasn't enough. Why the pastor works so hard crafting his "messages" and so forth.  I mentioned a lack of a Real Presence at Communion and was given a response once that it's something he ought to take up with the pastor. In fairness to the pastor, I doubt if he'd be so bold to just declare a sudden "Real Presence" in a Baptist "Eucharist" some Comm. sunday morning.
What never fails to interest me is how some evangelical churches will boot a fellow protestant out the door in no time flat just so long as they know that dissident Protestant will just join a local Bible Fellowship down the country road. But if that person they're ready to boot all of a sudden voices an desire to head our way, they'll circle the wagons faster than a NASCAR Redneck Chariot zooms around Daytonna. (Pardon me, I'm a Formula One fan.) They can risk losing somebody to more falsehoods but all Protestant hell will break loose if they can't save that person from the awful fate of Catholicism? To their credit, even Episcopalians aren't that smothering.
As Marcus pointed out, one of evangelical Christianity's biggest flaws is that lack of unity in what's being taught out of the same Book. Small wonder that they can't get anything else right. (Well, at least in the liturgical Protestant denominations they used to, until the past 40+ years when all of a sudden people became so wonderfully "enlightened" with all of these liberating thoghts in favor of women clergy, gay clergy, gay bishops and now "gay marriage.")
Welcome home to the real world, Michael (& Missus!)!
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
Current time is 03:29 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
