However, he wasn’t speaking about what we have in modern education, but the development process of young males to men, In those times, a teacher was responsible for the entire life of a young male from pre-adolescence to adulthood. The success or failure of the student was a reflection on his teacher.
This verse is tricky. Because in 1 Cor 11:5, women are speaking in gatherings. If you start from 1 Cor 14:26 and end at the 40th verse, you’ll notice the context is about orderly worship. In verse 39, it’s tells both men and women to be eager to prophesy.
It’s always been my understanding that Paul’s writings on women were addressed to a certain congregation in a certain place and time to deal with certain situations of what was then considered liturgical abuse.
They were not intended as general prohibitions on all women in all places and all times and all centuries, forever.
It’s not too bad. It is what Christ instituted. The church believes it has no authority to change what Christ himself instituted. Therefore it will never change.
At the risk of sounding argumentative. Couldn’t the fact that He chose only men to be apostles be a decision to be understood in the context of the times rather than a universal decision? After all, I think women weren’t educated at the time so their effectiveness as evangelizers, who should probably know scripture, was diminished?
It is directly from Christ. He chose 12 men for his apostles, the successors of whom are today’s priests.
Some may say that Chrust was constrained to men by the culture of Israel at the time, but Jesus threw out a lot of Jewish laws- Those concerning women were not one of them.
But at the time Jesus was alive, He had not yet fulfilled the Law of Moses, and that may be the reason he only chose men as apostles. Maybe after his death Christians were free to ordain women.
Not sure, I’m just conjecturing. Maybe Jesus’ decision to choose only men as apostles could have an explanation based on context, not a universal law. And one of those is the fact that the Law of Moses maybe bound Him to only choose men. I’m a bit too uneducated on this to speak, so it’s likely I’m talking nonsense
This discussion is one that has been covered many times on these forums with all kinds of biblical and document support. Rather than redoing all that, perhaps you could search for some of those threads?
Suffice it to say, he had no problem changing other things concerning women. Additionally if he wanted to ordain women, His mother would have literally been the perfect choice since she was sinless. I suspect she also knew the scriptures rather well herself.
Bottom line, the male only priesthood is here to stay.
I hope this bit of information I have given you will either satisfy your questions or spur you to go looking for more information. Here is the link to a tract right here on Catholic.com that you can refer too.
Jesus was not bound to the Law of Moses… He told His disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood, gravely contrary to Mosaic law… He ‘worked’ on the sabbath, He talked to and healed prostitutes…
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.