^Oh I know they do. And that's what makes the Catholic Church look bad. :lol:

 

I disagree entirely. There are legitimate concerns that people may have with regard to the Catholic Church. There are concerns as well, that stem from a lack of understanding about the Church, which I don't consider legitimate. But, whether you feel so or not, one of the best things about the Catholic Church is it's consistency in teaching.

So the Church changed, correct? So why is everyone so against changing it now to allow women become priests?

 

You guys have been saying, the Church doesn't change, yet here you're saying it's okay for it to change. So which is it?

 

Is the Church allowed to change, or is change bad? You can't have it both ways.

 

There was no Church in the Old Testament. There was no Church to be changed.

Getslow addressed this passage previously. It does not mean that women cannot teach...if anything, they are encouraged to do so. They are perfectly capable of, and are permitted to be administrators in schools. The vast majority of the teachers and principals in my diocese are women.

 

I am talking about in a church setting. You are saying that the only spot a woman cannot have is that of a priest. If he is talking directly to the church and he says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." doesn't that mean by bible standards, she cannot teach in the church? Would you consider an administrator teaching in a catholic school violating this? Getslow is contradicting himself from my perspective. He says it is for the church to abide by but all the things I listed is what churches allow women to do and doesn't follow that passage.

I am talking about in a church setting. You are saying that the only spot a woman cannot have is that of a priest. If he is talking directly to the church and he says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." doesn't that mean by bible standards, she cannot teach in the church? Would you consider an administrator teaching in a catholic school violating this? Getslow is contradicting himself from my perspective. He says it is for the church to abide by but all the things I listed is what churches allow women to do and doesn't follow that passage.

 

Women cannot be priests. Outside of this, there are no exclusions to the roles women may play, even to the point of administring the Eucharist.

Women cannot be priests. Outside of this, there are no exclusions to the roles women may play, even to the point of administring the Eucharist.

 

I see this as cherry picking.

 

I take it you are catholic. Are you okay with the fact women cannot become priests because it is not your place?

Women cannot be priests. Outside of this, there are no exclusions to the roles women may play, even to the point of administring the Eucharist.

Or deacons.

I am talking about in a church setting. You are saying that the only spot a woman cannot have is that of a priest. If he is talking directly to the church and he says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." doesn't that mean by bible standards, she cannot teach in the church? Would you consider an administrator teaching in a catholic school violating this? Getslow is contradicting himself from my perspective. He says it is for the church to abide by but all the things I listed is what churches allow women to do and doesn't follow that passage.

 

Well, if "by Bible standards", you mean "when the Bible is taken literally word for word", then you could take that from this passage. But you have to bear in mind that there is material in the Bible that is written in more poetic and/or figurative language - otherwise Jesus would have had to actually destroy a temple and build it back in three days, and in accordance to Mark 9:43, we would all have to cut off our hands if they caused us to sin.

Edited September 23, 201115 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue
Typo

I see this as cherry picking.

 

I take it you are catholic. Are you okay with the fact women cannot become priests because it is not your place?

How could it possible be seen as "cherry-picking?" The office of the priesthood has duties and responsibilities which, in our faith, are proper to a man. The office of nun or religious sister is proper to a woman. It's as simple as that. Everyone has a role to play and everyone is blessed by God with the attributes necessary and proper for fulfilling that particular role. There's nothing arbitrary about it. On the contrary, it's completely and purposely ordered and structured such that we live our faith as in a way that we believe is pleasing to God.

...we would all have to cut off our hands if they caused us to sin.

Hey! You mean we don't have to do that now? Dang it...I was just getting used to typing one-handed!

 

 

...thought these were kind of pertinent (and funny).

 

That's pretty good.

 

Maybe my perception is off, but it does seem like people are generally quicker to criticize Christianity while giving other religions a pass on similar issues. Of course, it is a little like BGP featuring a lot of talk about UK basketball. In America, Christianity is the most common religion, so it is only natural that it would be discussed and targeted more. Perhaps if Buddhism were the dominant religion, this thread would have been different. Perhaps if Islam were the dominant religion, this thread would not exist.:lol:

Thoughts on women's role in church:

Biblical-era society was very much male-dominated. The status of women was much like that of children today -- totally subservient to the male head-of-household. It would have been considered scandalous and an affront to the sanctity of worship for a woman to take a leadership role. Not only were women prohibited from taking any role that would appear to be dominant over men, they were urged to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9-10) and wear their hair long (1 Corinthians 11:15) according to the customs of the time. Both men and women were urged to observe the gender-appropriate conventions for head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:4-7). Biblical-era women were not educated and were confined to domestic duties. A woman would not have had the education needed to take a teaching role.

 

The young Christian communities in the Mediterranean area were already looked upon as hotbeds of dangerous heretics by the pagan majorities. The apostle Paul and other church leaders were very concerned about avoiding any appearance of scandal that would make a bad impression on the people they wanted to convert to Christianity (Titus 2:3-8, 1 Corinthians 14:22-24), or worse, that could be used to justify persecution of Christians. Much of Paul's writing is concerned with instructing Christians in proper behavior and correcting problems within the Church (1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 1:10, 11:18-22, etc.)

 

Humility is an important theme throughout the New Testament; suffering for our faith in this life will bring great rewards in the life to come. Virtue comes from obedience to God, not from rebelling against society's norms (1 Peter 2:13-17). Thus, slaves should accept freedom if offered, but, if not, should be obedient to their masters in all things (1 Corinthians 7:20-24, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Peter 2:18-21). Similarly, women should not rebel against their lot in life (1 Peter 3:1-6).

 

Many others view the New Testament prohibitions simply as practical advice to preserve the sanctity and tranquility of the church and to avoid scandal. Although the New Testament writers passively accepted slavery (1 Corinthians 7:20-24, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Peter 2:18-21), few people would argue today that we should return to the horrors of slavery. In the same way, although the New Testament writers passively accepted the oppression of women, it does not imply that a leadership role for a woman would be wrong in today's very different society. In fact, some of the great leaders and prophets of Israel were women (Exodus 15:20, Judges 4:4-5, Esther 4:15-17, Luke 2:36-38, etc.), so God could not have intended to exclude women from spiritual and political leadership.

 

Paul's proclamation of equality (Galatians 3:26-29) and Jesus' willingness to defy convention and accept women into his larger circle of disciples (Luke 8:1-3, 10:38-39) should be the guiding principles rather than the customs of the Roman Empire in the first century. Women took as large a role in the early Church leadership as was allowed by the conventions of that society (Acts 1:12-14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16), so women today should be able to serve the Church in whatever positions they are qualified for & are called to do.

 

Personally speaking I am a Sunday School teacher in the Adult class at my church. This was something that I was called to do for the last 15 years. I love my role as a woman in the church & feel blessed that God has given me this wonderful opportunity.

Girl, thats wonderful, but I don't know if I could be in your class, I'd love to hear you do a lesson, so I'm not so hard headed where I wouldn't at least try.

Paul doesn't imply anything. He says outright that a woman is not permitted to have authority over a man. Maybe it was intended for the time, but I'm not comfortable making that assumption. Does that not open the door for us to decide what applies unequivocally and what was just meant for the first century? For example, as the church gained political power after Constantine, they justified exercising that power to punish their enemies and force people to become Christians, rather than obeying Christ's command to love their enemies. Are we only to love our enemies when we're in a position of weakness?

 

I don't say that to criticize you or your opinion. When I've encountered this in real life, it doesn't always seem so black and white. I know of one woman pastor at a church and there's no man there to fill that role. What are they supposed to do? Disband the church? Go elsewhere? The people I know that know her speak highly of her. So while Paul wrote what he wrote, perhaps we need to be cautious of getting bogged down with our obsession to the letter of the law. I don't know. This one isn't easy for me to reconcile with my logic.:idunno:

 

To another point you make when you say virtue comes from obedience to God, not from rebelling against society's norms and on to the statements about slavery and oppression of women. That is the beauty of following Christ. It isn't dependent on anything except you and Him and your desire to follow Him. Your lot in life, no matter what it is, does not prevent you from following Christ.