Fortunately, we know the RCC revelation in this area is false, as Peter and John teach the priesthood of all believers. I am glad that the error of the RCC is so easily handled.

The Catholic Church has a biblical approach for handling heteropraxy on this issue:

“The Rev. Roy Bourgeois, the missionary priest from Lutcher who has devoted his career to opposing U.S. policy in Latin America, appears to be on the brink of excommunication from the Catholic church for participating in a ceremony that purportedly ordained a woman to the priesthood.

Bourgeois, a member of the Maryknoll order, said the Vatican recently gave him 30 days to formally recant his position in favor of women’s ordination, or face excommunication.

In a response posted on the Web site of the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper, Bourgeois told the Vatican he could not in conscience do so. He said he believes a call to the priesthood comes from God and it is inappropriate for the church to interfere with it.

“Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral, ” he wrote.

The Catholic church teaches that men and women are of equal dignity and entitled to equitable treatment at home, work and in other arenas. But it holds that Christ defined the priesthood as an all-male corps modeled on himself, and it is powerless to change that.”

Excerpted from: Vatican might excommunicate activist priest from Lutcher for favoring the ordination of woman

In other places Paul refers to specific people using generic terms. And he also refers to specific people using names. My take is that the difference when the ref. is negative is one of degree; you name the deceivers and do not name the ones that are not deceivers. It would certainly be ministry limiting to be named by Paul in a letter and that what his point, I think.

Don Johnson,

Your interpretation of a single isolated woman under disciplinary action and remedial instruction is interesting, BUT, I think St Paul’s sense here is general, regulatory, and abiding.

Vladimir

Sue,

This is exactly why I think “faithful spouse” makes the most sense. When one does not read an idiom as an idiom, one gets something that was not intended by the author.

Further, would a man lose his Church office if his female spouse died. I would say no, BUT St Paul does not say explicitly.

If Paul does not say that a single man can be an elder then I think that we have to assume that he cannot. Perhaps a widower would not have to give up being an elder. I think it is ckear that a man has to show that he can manage his family first.

Vladimir,

That is, the repeated hesuchia forms an inclusio.

bethyada,

I agree that 1 Pet 3 is sometimes TAUGHT that it means wives are to obey, but it does not actually say that and I think it is important to see that it does not say it explicitly. It says wives are to submit which is different than obey, altho some teachers confuse the 2, as do some translations. One POSSIBLE way to submit in a specific instance is to obey, but obeying always is not taught.

On submission, all believers are to do that to all other believers, per Eph 5:21, so a husband is to submit to his wife and in some cases even obey her, ala Abraham.

The situation in that culture was it was hard for a wife to disobey her husband, so if she felt she needed to go along with her husband’s request, Peter is giving her encouragement, by pointing to Sarah, who went along sometimes and God protected her.

Vladimir,

Yes, I would like to see the inscriptions also, I gave you what I have. But I assume the scholar who reported it is not a liar, so I accept his claim of what he found. I agree this is not 2 witnesses, so it may not be compelling, but assuming it is out there, someone will find it again and report it.

Another point is given mias gunaikos andros means faithful spouse, this explains how Phoebe can be a diakonos. If Paul had meant to just refer to her being a servant, he would have used the fem. form. Diakonos also has the same guideline/requirement, as I am sure you know.

On 1 Tim 2 and Paul’s not permitting, if it was a specific woman, then any enduring limits are tied to her, even assuming they are enduring. Because of the repeated hesuchia, I read 1 Tim 2:11-12 as a coupled instruction. The command/imperative in this couplet is for the woman to be allowed to learn, radical for the culture; while learning she is not to teach, which is not too surprising.

From the Balcony,

Thanks for your comments and if I offended you – I apologize. But I do not retract my remarks and have been sorely offended by those among those whom I have described thus:

“The fact of the matter is no one has settled this issue – exegetically. If the exegetes were arrayed along denominational lines the Methodists, the PCUSA ists, Anglicanismists [sic] the Pentecostalists, the libertine Baptists as well as the ignorant, backwoods plebs and sophistic secular humanistic feminists would all plead justification in the espousal of their misnomerd erudition.”

Historically, once a denomination takes the course that it has taken it never returns. But, God works miracles. It could happen.

But, I for one, will view it from afar.

Vladimir