It's an interesting perspective with no backing anywhere.
Women are allowed to (and often do, tbh) teach in seminary. They're not allowed to become priests, just as priests can't get married after ordination.
The role is not something "anyone at all!" can do.
Women are allowed to (and often do, tbh) teach in seminary. They're not allowed to become priests, just as priests can't get married after ordination.
The role is not something "anyone at all!" can do.
Comments
In that era, women would just sit in the back and chat, because pagan priests (in this era) considered women "intellectually incapable" of understanding the mysteries. St. Paul rejects this, saying that they are to listen as the men do.
https://medium.com/inspire-believe-grow/the-sexist-writings-of-st-paul-2526c957751b
"Telling me that read in their cultural context, we can find liberation rather than oppression in the writing of Paul. I agree with you."
I'm not sure what "Church" is being referenced, because the author isn't clear.
Yes. That's why a priest reads them and instructs the people regarding its meaning, in the liturgy. That's by design. It's there because you can get instructions about life therefrom.
But, when it comes to doctrine, both you and the author of that post don't know how they were implemented by the Orthodoxy (nor Catholicism). Maybe the 1950s USA, but that's not the "Church". Never was.
We just keep them on-hand because priests need to know how to administrate their flocks and we'd rather not reinvent the wheel.