• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What's so great about being a Priest? [W:17]

Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RAMOSS said:
I was discussing Pliny as Deconess .. I suspect we got crossed up, because of the same word.
Click to expand...

Whatever, we can unravel it later.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
I already told you, "deacon" means "servant", not necessarily the same as the office of "Deacon" in the NT Church.
Click to expand...

Based on what? The Word is the exact same Word .... so why would you define it differently when it's Applied to a woman? When clearly it's being used as a title?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
Based on what? The Word is the exact same Word .... so why would you define it differently when it's Applied to a woman? When clearly it's being used as a title?
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the post where I pointed out Paul using "diakonos" for government officials and the servants at the wedding in Cana being referred to as diakonos.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
I guess you missed the post where I pointed out Paul using "diakonos" for government officials and the servants at the wedding in Cana being referred to as diakonos.
Click to expand...

I get that, but in Romans 16:1, it's pretty Clear it's talking about a position in the Church ... otherwise you tell me, when in the NT is diakonos talking about the position of deakon and when is it not?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
I get that, but in Romans 16:1, it's pretty Clear it's talking about a position in the Church ... otherwise you tell me, when in the NT is diakonos talking about the position of deakon and when is it not?
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me. Most of the translations out there translate it as "servant". We'll continue this later, I have to leave now.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
It's not clear to me. Most of the translations out there translate it as "servant". We'll continue this later, I have to leave now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the translations are not the final authority, the greek text is, and the greek text doesn't distinguish it in Romans 16:1 in any way other than it being a Church Office of deacon.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
Yeah, but the translations are not the final authority, the greek text is, and the greek text doesn't distinguish it in Romans 16:1 in any way other than it being a Church Office of deacon.
Click to expand...

Read Acts 6 and get back to me. The Church office of Deacon is distinguished by the laying on of hands by the Bishop. We have no record of Phoebe being ordained, and just about everybody thinks diakonos should be translated as "servant" in this case, judging by the context. You're beating a dead horse.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
Read Acts 6 and get back to me. The Church office of Deacon is distinguished by the laying on of hands by the Bishop. We have no record of Phoebe being ordained, and just about everybody thinks diakonos should be translated as "servant" in this case, judging by the context. You're beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to have a record of someone being ordained for someone to actually be a deacon ... we don't have a record of most of the deacons being ordained .... What context? What is the context that shows it's not a Church position?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
Why do you have to have a record of someone being ordained for someone to actually be a deacon ... we don't have a record of most of the deacons being ordained ....
Click to expand...

Yes, we do, most Deacons become Priests and Bishops, unless they get killed, like Stephen, or remain a Deacon by their own choice, like St. Francis. So we have a record of their ordinations, they have apostolic succession, how many times do I have to explain this?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
Yes, we do, most Deacons become Priests and Bishops, unless they get killed, like Stephen, or remain a Deacon by their own choice, like St. Francis. So we have a record of their ordinations, they have apostolic succession, how many times do I have to explain this?
Click to expand...

Where is the record .... where is the record of how this happened in apostolic times, is there any biblical record?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
Where is the record .... where is the record of how this happened in apostolic times, is there any biblical record?
Click to expand...

It starts in Acts 6. As for the rest, you're going to have to find it. I have my line of succession but I am not posting it here.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
Where is the record .... where is the record of how this happened in apostolic times, is there any biblical record?
Click to expand...

Also, Timothy was considered to be a Bishop.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
It starts in Acts 6. As for the rest, you're going to have to find it. I have my line of succession but I am not posting it here.
Click to expand...

So you think those deacons were the ONLY deacons in the first Century .... really?

Also, Timothy was considered to be a Bishop.
Click to expand...

Ok .... is there record of him being made bishop?

And Phebe is called a deacon of the Church ... its not just "servant" it's written as a title in Romans 16.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
So you think those deacons were the ONLY deacons in the first Century .... really?



Ok .... is there record of him being made bishop?

And Phebe is called a deacon of the Church ... its not just "servant" it's written as a title in Romans 16.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a certain amount of inefficiency in questioning me about things you have already made up your mind about? Have it your way - Phobe was a Deacon, Timothy wasn't a Bishop, and the Pope's not Catholic, and I'm just a rolling stone...
 
it's just me said:
There are various theological reasons why the Roman Catholic Church and certain orthodox Anglican dioceses do not ordain women to the priesthood, and what it boils down to is that Christ chose men only for his ministry and the Church is simply following his model for the Christian ministry. This is somehow construed by the laity (especially the ones who do not even attend church) as an issue of "equality". There is no doubt in anybody's mind that men and women are "equal", but they are not interchangeable, although in this gender confused generation I am not surprised that people can confuse the two anyway.
Click to expand...

I think you are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "what's so great about being a priest?"; the answer to that question is irrelevant to this topic. The question should be what can men do that women cannot which makes them uniquely qualified to be priests? There were many answers to this question in the early church. For example:

1. Men could read and speak about the Torah, having been taught to read and memorise scripture since childhood. Women were not educated, would have received no instruction on the law, and are unlikely to even be able to read.
2. Men were allowed to speak in public and teach Torah at the temple. Women were not allowed to do this.
3. Men could talk to other men on the street. Women had to wear a veil and look downwards as they walked in the street, never daring to approach an unknown man.

As we can see from looking at the culture they lived in and the restrictions placed on them by the society they were serving in, there were many things men could do that women could not which would have uniquely qualified them to be priests. With those reasons gone, now that we have advanced as a society, women are educated, and are allowed to interact with men, does it still make sense to refuse to ordain women? At this point all we have is an appeal to tradition.

I'd like to bring up two points to circle back towards theology. First, I want to point out that Jesus criticized those who followed the law blindly without stopping to think of what the purpose of the law was. In Mark 2, for example he corrects some teachers of the law about how they have turned something that was meant to benefit people (the sabbath) into something they are slaves to. He is encouraging them to forget about the letter of the law and understand its purpose instead. If we are to do this with the law, how much more with tradition? We shouldn't follow tradition blindly, we should understand why we follow the tradition and be aware of when it is no longer appropriate. Do we follow this tradition because there is a deeper theological significance? or did we create theological structures to support what was a practical decision of the early church? Namely, the decision to ordain only those who were educated, had the ability to speak publicly, had the right to engage other teachers of the law (both Christian and Jewish) in discussion, etc?

Secondly, I want to point out that the first century church faced a very similar dilemma. The big debate around the time the new testament was being written was over circumcision and some of the dietary laws. It was a question over whether we should continue to blindly follow tradition or whether changing circumstances have rendered such traditions obsolete. As we all know, the apostles chose to discard tradition. Although some complementarians do have a strong theological foundation for their belief, I get the impression that most of them would have been the "we must stick to tradition" types that Jesus and the Apostles sided against.

it's just me said:
We offer that women can choose a religious vocation (for those of you on the left, that would mean Sisters, or Nuns) just the way some men choose to be religious (monks).
Click to expand...

No one can choose a religious vocation. Well, they can, but then you recognize them for their ineffectiveness. Rather, people are called by the holy spirit to a religous vocation. One of the challenges facing complementarians is the fact that we see strong evidence of women being called to the priesthood constantly and we see them abandon the church they love and grew up in, heartbroken, in order to pursue a calling that their church is holding back. Complementarians, though well meaning, are attempting to hold back the work of the holy spirit. It will not be held back; they'll simply find themselves on the wrong side of history and in dying churches that failed not just to keep up with the pace of social change, but to keep up with what the holy spirit was doing.
 
CrabCake said:
I think you are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "what's so great about being a priest?"; the answer to that question is irrelevant to this topic. The question should be what can men do that women cannot which makes them uniquely qualified to be priests? There were many answers to this question in the early church. For example:

1. Men could read and speak about the Torah, having been taught to read and memorise scripture since childhood. Women were not educated, would have received no instruction on the law, and are unlikely to even be able to read.
2. Men were allowed to speak in public and teach Torah at the temple. Women were not allowed to do this.
3. Men could talk to other men on the street. Women had to wear a veil and look downwards as they walked in the street, never daring to approach an unknown man.

As we can see from looking at the culture they lived in and the restrictions placed on them by the society they were serving in, there were many things men could do that women could not which would have uniquely qualified them to be priests. With those reasons gone, now that we have advanced as a society, women are educated, and are allowed to interact with men, does it still make sense to refuse to ordain women? At this point all we have is an appeal to tradition.

I'd like to bring up two points to circle back towards theology. First, I want to point out that Jesus criticized those who followed the law blindly without stopping to think of what the purpose of the law was. In Mark 2, for example he corrects some teachers of the law about how they have turned something that was meant to benefit people (the sabbath) into something they are slaves to. He is encouraging them to forget about the letter of the law and understand its purpose instead. If we are to do this with the law, how much more with tradition? We shouldn't follow tradition blindly, we should understand why we follow the tradition and be aware of when it is no longer appropriate. Do we follow this tradition because there is a deeper theological significance? or did we create theological structures to support what was a practical decision of the early church? Namely, the decision to ordain only those who were educated, had the ability to speak publicly, had the right to engage other teachers of the law (both Christian and Jewish) in discussion, etc?

Secondly, I want to point out that the first century church faced a very similar dilemma. The big debate around the time the new testament was being written was over circumcision and some of the dietary laws. It was a question over whether we should continue to blindly follow tradition or whether changing circumstances have rendered such traditions obsolete. As we all know, the apostles chose to discard tradition. Although some complementarians do have a strong theological foundation for their belief, I get the impression that most of them would have been the "we must stick to tradition" types that Jesus and the Apostles sided against.



No one can choose a religious vocation. Well, they can, but then you recognize them for their ineffectiveness. Rather, people are called by the holy spirit to a religous vocation. One of the challenges facing complementarians is the fact that we see strong evidence of women being called to the priesthood constantly and we see them abandon the church they love and grew up in, heartbroken, in order to pursue a calling that their church is holding back. Complementarians, though well meaning, are attempting to hold back the work of the holy spirit. It will not be held back; they'll simply find themselves on the wrong side of history and in dying churches that failed not just to keep up with the pace of social change, but to keep up with what the holy spirit was doing.
Click to expand...

Great post, I always look forward to your comments. This thread was a sort of an answer to another thread in the Philosophy forum, and that's why it has the tone it has.

Number two, you are exactly right when you say no one chooses a vocation, I should know. But I couched this in terms non-believers would relate to. I'll try to get back to this later.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

it's just me said:
Isn't there a certain amount of inefficiency in questioning me about things you have already made up your mind about? Have it your way - Phobe was a Deacon, Timothy wasn't a Bishop, and the Pope's not Catholic, and I'm just a rolling stone...
Click to expand...

well ... you have to make an argument for it .... an argument that makes seance.

I'm not saying Phobe was a Deacon, Paul is. A deacon of the Church.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

RGacky3 said:
well ... you have to make an argument for it ....
Click to expand...

I don't have to do anything, think whatever you want, I'm over it.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

If the Catholic Church is so hateful to women or feel them inferior, why has it exalted Mary to nearl equal status with Jesus (or so it seems to my limited understanding Protestant self)? There was some religious literature that I read referring to her as a "Queen" even.

As a non Catholic, am I being discrimminated against for not being able to take communion in a Catholic mass? I don't think so, I mean, I guess I could fake it and go up there anyway but I don't do that out of respect. We're so conditioned now to take offense at anything that seems exclusionary when, in fact, these things happen all the time. Could a man be a nun? No, right? So where's the outcry?
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

X Factor said:
If the Catholic Church is so hateful to women or feel them inferior, why has it exalted Mary to nearl equal status with Jesus (or so it seems to my limited understanding Protestant self)? There was some religious literature that I read referring to her as a "Queen" even.

As a non Catholic, am I being discrimminated against for not being able to take communion in a Catholic mass? I don't think so, I mean, I guess I could fake it and go up there anyway but I don't do that out of respect. We're so conditioned now to take offense at anything that seems exclusionary when, in fact, these things happen all the time. Could a man be a nun? No, right? So where's the outcry?
Click to expand...

Thank you for that very honest assessment. FYI, they won't even serve me communion if they know who I am, so don't feel bad. The Mary adoration thing gives me the heebie jeebies, but I don't bother them with it, I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt thinking that maybe someday it will make sense to me. That might be what you'd call "tolerance".

There is discrimination everywhere, often among the people who rail against discrimination all the time. But, you knew that.
 
CrabCake said:
I think you are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "what's so great about being a priest?"; the answer to that question is irrelevant to this topic. The question should be what can men do that women cannot which makes them uniquely qualified to be priests? There were many answers to this question in the early church. For example:

1. Men could read and speak about the Torah, having been taught to read and memorise scripture since childhood. Women were not educated, would have received no instruction on the law, and are unlikely to even be able to read.
2. Men were allowed to speak in public and teach Torah at the temple. Women were not allowed to do this.
3. Men could talk to other men on the street. Women had to wear a veil and look downwards as they walked in the street, never daring to approach an unknown man.

As we can see from looking at the culture they lived in and the restrictions placed on them by the society they were serving in, there were many things men could do that women could not which would have uniquely qualified them to be priests. With those reasons gone, now that we have advanced as a society, women are educated, and are allowed to interact with men, does it still make sense to refuse to ordain women? At this point all we have is an appeal to tradition.

I'd like to bring up two points to circle back towards theology. First, I want to point out that Jesus criticized those who followed the law blindly without stopping to think of what the purpose of the law was. In Mark 2, for example he corrects some teachers of the law about how they have turned something that was meant to benefit people (the sabbath) into something they are slaves to. He is encouraging them to forget about the letter of the law and understand its purpose instead. If we are to do this with the law, how much more with tradition? We shouldn't follow tradition blindly, we should understand why we follow the tradition and be aware of when it is no longer appropriate. Do we follow this tradition because there is a deeper theological significance? or did we create theological structures to support what was a practical decision of the early church? Namely, the decision to ordain only those who were educated, had the ability to speak publicly, had the right to engage other teachers of the law (both Christian and Jewish) in discussion, etc?

Secondly, I want to point out that the first century church faced a very similar dilemma. The big debate around the time the new testament was being written was over circumcision and some of the dietary laws. It was a question over whether we should continue to blindly follow tradition or whether changing circumstances have rendered such traditions obsolete. As we all know, the apostles chose to discard tradition. Although some complementarians do have a strong theological foundation for their belief, I get the impression that most of them would have been the "we must stick to tradition" types that Jesus and the Apostles sided against.



No one can choose a religious vocation. Well, they can, but then you recognize them for their ineffectiveness. Rather, people are called by the holy spirit to a religous vocation. One of the challenges facing complementarians is the fact that we see strong evidence of women being called to the priesthood constantly and we see them abandon the church they love and grew up in, heartbroken, in order to pursue a calling that their church is holding back. Complementarians, though well meaning, are attempting to hold back the work of the holy spirit. It will not be held back; they'll simply find themselves on the wrong side of history and in dying churches that failed not just to keep up with the pace of social change, but to keep up with what the holy spirit was doing.
Click to expand...

The way I read it, Jesus wasn't arguing with the traditionalists because they were traditionalists, he was arguing with them because they weren't following the true faith as he saw it, and they weren't even living up to their own rules. Still, when he cleansed the lepers he sent them to the priests, and he even told his followers to listen to what the Jewish leaders were saying because they sat in Moses' seat. (I don't have time to look up the scripture references for those but I am sure you recognize them anyway.)

Number two, I don't believe the Catholic tradition of male only priests is arbitrary, I think the threefold ministry of male deacon/priest/bishop is rooted in the threefold ministry of priest/high priest/levite found in the OT, in the same way that the liturgy of the hours and the Mass is rooted in the Shema. The apostles did not discard that.

Finally, if you think the HS is calling women to the priesthood, then I trust the Church to make that judgement, and I will also add that if that is the case, nothing will stop it, and if it is the reverse, nothing will make it come to pass.
 
it's just me said:
The way I read it, Jesus wasn't arguing with the traditionalists because they were traditionalists, he was arguing with them because they weren't following the true faith as he saw it, and they weren't even living up to their own rules.
Click to expand...

I never claimed he was arguing against anyone for being a traditionalist. What he did in the verse I brought up is he rebuked someone for turning something that was meant to serve man into something that man serves. Blind obedience to the law is what led to that condition. My point isn't that Jesus was against tradition, he clearly was not, and indeed he even created new ones. My point is that Jesus taught us to undestand the law and not simply obey it blindly. If he did that about the law, how much more about traditions?

it's just me said:
Still, when he cleansed the lepers he sent them to the priests,
Click to expand...

Of course. Until the priests certified them as clean they weren't allowed back in the community. We know this from the reading the laws concerning leprosy in Leviticus.

it's just me said:
and he even told his followers to listen to what the Jewish leaders were saying because they sat in Moses' seat.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is relevant. No one is arguing against church authority.

it's just me said:
Number two, I don't believe the Catholic tradition of male only priests is arbitrary, I think the threefold ministry of male deacon/priest/bishop is rooted in the threefold ministry of priest/high priest/levite found in the OT, in the same way that the liturgy of the hours and the Mass is rooted in the Shema. The apostles did not discard that.
Click to expand...

No one has claimed it is arbitrary either. You seem to be attacking straw men today. No one has made the claim that Jesus was against tradition, no one has tried to argue against church authority, and no one has claimed that the tradition of priests being male was arbitrary.

I clearly pointed out that it was not arbitrary, that it was necessitated by the culture in which they lived. Of course only those who: are educated, know the law, are allowed to speak at the temple and interact freely with others on the streets are qualified to be priests.

Now, it seems we have two options here; I'm sure there are more, but just from the options we have presented so far:
1. The apostles established a male-only priesthood because there were countless things men could do back then that women could not and men were the only ones who were literate and educated. It was a tradition bred from necessity. It simply wasn't an option to have a woman priest because they didn't have the education or the rights required to be effective in that office.
2. The apostles established a male-only priesthood as a kind of re-imagining of the OT priesthood (let's ignore for a moment the fact that one of the three groups you mentioned included women).

One of those two sounds more probable than the other.

it's just me said:
Finally, if you think the HS is calling women to the priesthood, then I trust the Church to make that judgement, and I will also add that if that is the case, nothing will stop it, and if it is the reverse, nothing will make it come to pass.
Click to expand...

The danger isn't that it won't happen. Like I said, it will happen with or without the complementarian hold-outs. The danger is that those stuck in those ways of thinking will fade into irrelevance as they prove themselves incapable of keeping up with what God is doing.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

As someone who actually studied for the priesthood in the 90s, I can tell you that some people fell called by God to that specific type of ministry. Doubtless, some of them have been women.

I think you could really say the same thing about any profession. Take a proctologist, for instance. OK, you want to be a doctor, but you can do that without being a proctologist. While the money may be better, at the end of the day your job is to check out people's assholes and study their ****. What makes a person say "You know, being a doctor is great, but what really interests me is butts and poop?"
 
CrabCake said:
You seem to be attacking straw men today.
Click to expand...

Nope, just expounding on the debate as I understand it. I was a little pressed for time this morning, perhaps I should have been clearer.

The danger isn't that it won't happen. Like I said, it will happen with or without the complementarian hold-outs. The danger is that those stuck in those ways of thinking will fade into irrelevance as they prove themselves incapable of keeping up with what God is doing.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for filling me in on what God is doing. I shall endeavor to keep up.
 
Re: What's so great about being a Priest?

rocket88 said:
As someone who actually studied for the priesthood in the 90s, I can tell you that some people fell called by God to that specific type of ministry.
Click to expand...

if you don't mind me asking, why didn't you finish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom