Male Priests Only

[GusG]

So far I’ve found two arguments for priests being male only; the persona Christi one, and the Biblical one. My summary of the Biblical argument is:

From the Bible we know Jesus chose no female apostles. We also know that He was not just passively sticking to social norms when He did this, because He frequently challenged and broke unnecessary Jewish traditions. Therefore He must have had an active reason for choosing only men, and this reason must be either personal prejudice, or rational. However, we also know from the Bible that Jesus was not sexist:

"At this point his disciples returned and were surprised to find him speaking to a woman, though none of them asked, ‘What do you want from her?’ or, ‘What are you talking to her about?’ " John 4:27. A Jewish man did not even talk with his wife in public, and Jesus had been discussing theology with the woman, which was even more unconventional. This and similar prove Jesus was not sexist.

Therefore, Jesus must have had a rational reason for choosing only men as his disciples.

Firstly, is my understanding of the argument correct?

Secondly, I wondered if anyone had postulated what Jesus’ reason may have been?

Thanks in advance.

 

[CRM_Brother]

There is a third argument I have encountered. One of my professors in seminary used to be a well-educated Jew before converting to evangelical Protestantism, before converting to Catholicism. He was able to explain the Jewish concept priesthood ‘in the line of Melchezadek’, the priesthood which Christ and Catholic priests identify. His arguments come from the ancient Talmuds which would have been the common theological understanding at the time of Christ. Before the establishment of the Levitical priesthood through Aaron, the duties of priesthood was carried through the patriarch of the family and the firstborn heir. When God commands Adam to “cultivate and care for [the land]” (Gen 2:15), this is the first commissioning of the generational priesthood. The priesthood passes to Cain, as the firstborn, as we find he is cultivating and caring for the land and offers a portion of his crops as an offering of the fruit of his labors. God is displeased by his offering, for Cain does not offer up the first fruits, instead withholding the best for himself. Cain’s offering is an affront to his priesthood, as everything in creation is God’s and he does not offer his Lord His due. This affront is compounded by Cain killing Abel in his fields, that is, in the domain which his father, the high priest, has given into his care. With the affront to his priesthood, Cain was banished and stripped of his priesthood, for God said, “Now you are banned from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a constant wanderer on the earth.” (Gen 4:11-12) Cain was banished from his birthright and priesthood. Adam begets Seth, to carry on his lineage and priesthood in place of Abel and the priesthood continues through his lineage. It is only during the time of Seth’s son, Enosh, that worship of the Lord came into the duties of the priests, for “at that time people began to invoke the Lord by name.” (Gen 4:26)

The priesthood passes through the ages from father to son to Noah and, through Noah, to Shem. Why is this important when speaking of a priest in the order of Melchizedek? Because to the Jews of the time of Christ, it was obvious that Shem was Melchizedek. Some of the Talmuds explicitly make this equivocation, while the other implies it heavily. There are multiple inferences to this in the Genesis account. The easiest to explain is the fact that Melchizedek was a “priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18) and Abraham’s relationship to Melchizedek. The fact that Melchizedek is a priest of the Lord means that he is in the lineage of the firstborn of Seth. If you read the account carefully, it says that “Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Gen 14:20) Why is this important? The tithe of one tenth of your wealth was the tribute of a member of a family to the patriarch. It is important to note that the Israelites grumbled when Moses stated that this tribute would instead be given to the Levitical priesthood when he established it after the Israelite’s infidelity to the Lord.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Up until the time of Moses, we see the powers of the priesthood (sacrifice and blessing) pass from father to firstborn son. In the case of Jacob, Esau had willingly relinquished his birthright as firstborn (the priesthood) for lentils from his brother while he had been off hunting. While originally, Esau had done his duties in the field, hearkening back to the story of Cain, he shirks these duties given to him by his father and going hunting. Jacob gives him lentils in exchange for Esau’s birthright when Esau is hungry after a hunt. This infers that Jacob is already performing the duties of the firstborn in the fields growing lentils in Esau’s absence. And thus, Isaac’s blessing of priesthood passes to Jacob and, through him, to Judah as firstborn.

Christ is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, a priest like Melchizedek of old. He is the High Priest of God. Not only does he receive the ancient priesthood through his lineage of primogeniture but he is also the Firstborn (Only) Son of the Lord. He is a priest above all other orders. The Catholic priests do not hold authority in themselves but share in the priesthood of Christ. As the priesthood of Melchizedek is of male lineage, so too must all who share in that priesthood. The requirement of primogeniture is not absolute as seen Seth and Jacob and can be dispensed by the high priest, that is the eldest in the line of firstborn, but it must always be to males, as it was originally to the male sex that God instituted the priesthood to Adam in His command to “cultivate and care [the land]” (Gen 2:15)

This was the reasoning for a solely male priesthood which really made an impact upon me. Most people never notice this.

I hope this sheds a little light on the issue.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM

 

[Blessedwithfive]

The requirement of primogeniture is not absolute as seen Seth and Jacob and can be dispensed by the high priest, that is the eldest in the line of firstborn, but it must always be to males, as it was originally to the male sex that God instituted the priesthood to Adam in His command to “cultivate and care [the land]” (Gen 2:15)

Interesting and thought out response but the above quote gives me pause. If we can dispense the “first born” part, then why can’t we dispense the “male” part? I know you follow up with “God gave it to Adam” but I don’t think “cultivate and care” really equals priesthood.

I always thought the Melchizedek part tied to the book Hebrews and the priesthood of all…

 

[1ke]

I suggest you read Ordantio Sacerdotalis.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...p-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

 

[goout]

This is also rooted in philosophy.
It’s essential to understand the nature of vocation, and the difference between “work” and “vocation”.

It’s also essential to understand Theology of the Body. Ephesians 5 is explored extensively by JP2 and some of the same things applying to marriage also apply to vocation.

It’s also essential to understand Christian conceptions of power and position. Christian conceptions of power and position are not those of the world. Being a priest is not a right of power and position, it is a call to service (Eph 5 again).
Our ultimate identity is not in what we can do, it is who we are.
For instance, in the world, being president is a right of power and position. I aspire to it, I gain the power and status, and I do it. That’s not a vocation, and in the end it is not real power, it is worldly power.

It’s also essential to understand the relationship between “equality” and “uniqueness”. Equality cannot deny uniqueness.
For instance, Mary the Mother of God shares in humanity with the rest of us, yet she is unique among all human beings in her vocation as the sinless Mother of God, Mother of the Church. A woman is Mother of the Church. All women share in this vocation of motherhood, although not in the same unique manner. (And it is not just a matter of bearing children…)

We as Catholics are much to blame for not understanding and actually living this way, instead we subscribe to worldly notions of power and lord it over others.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I’ve always thought that women already play their part in the priesthood in that they are essential in supplying the priests, so to speak. They carry them, give them birth, nurture them, teach them the faith by word and deed from their youngest age and if the son is called by God to the priesthood, then she has given of her body like Christ on the Cross when the Church was born from his side. That is her sacrifice that is unique to her and the priesthood is the sacrifice that is unique to men.

Men don’t have a biological way of sacrificing their body for the sake of another like women do in carrying and giving birth, feeding and nurturing. The sacrifice of their body is something explicit that they do when they answer the call of the priesthood to stand in persona Christi and offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

Women have been given a noble, privileged and unique way of participating in the sacrifice on the Cross and imaging Christ through their body. What need have they of admittance to the priesthood as well and robbing the man of his unique sacrifice? The priesthood and motherhood are dependent on one another. Christ and Mary are the greatest example of this.

 

[rose321]

The easiest to explain is the fact that Melchizedek was a “priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18)

Repectfully opinion only. Is it not important to read Biblical Verses that come before Genesis 14:20 to understand better all what is taking place?

Not only was Melchizedek a priest, but Melchizedek was also the >>>>King of Shalem Genesis 14:18 : “King Melchizedek of Salem and he was a priest of the Most High” Most Kings were known also as priest in ancient times where they not? Had their belief of the own Empires they ruled over? Was King Cyrus not only a King but also a High priest over His priest and empire?

Abraham was thanking King Melchizedek a priest also, for feeding Abraham’s 318 soldiers or family within > bread and wine eho had fought in battle and released his brother Lot from being held in bondage by another King, Abraham 318men >>were hungry were they, travelled from even as far as Dan?.

Abraham was greatly known by those who dearly Loved him, etc for being>>> Hospitable>>> all through out his whole life toward others in great need etc. Was not a poor man was he?

Abraham, did not want anyone saying the >>>King had made him rich, why Abraham also refuses to take all the goods <<>>>>>he took from the place that held his nephew Lot in battle>>>>when Abraham, won the battle, saved his nephew Lot and left all the goods Abraham left there >>he left with the King of Sodom

For Abraham was looked upon by King Melchizedek, a Priest also>> who praises God for His Blessings upon Abraham>> of the Most High God.

Abraham gives King Melchizedek 10% for feeding his 318 Men who fought in battle.

Abraham as written was a Righterous man of the most High God>>Abraham, took nothing from anyone for nothing, for Abraham was Greatly Hospitable to all those who were in need in Life.

Even thou Abraham became wealthy>> he shared with others all that he had to offer also, being thankful, greatly hospitable all through out his whole Life.

King Melchizedek, priest even thou he gave Abraham men 318 of them, bread and wine to ear after their battle>> King Melchizedek did not asked Abrabram for nothing in return>>but Abraham as he said a solem promise to
God, he would take nothing>> in verses that follow.

Abraham would not keep nothing!

.Genesis 22-24 " But Abraham said to the King of Sodom " I have sworn to the Lord, God most High, maker of heaven and earth that I would not take a thread or a sandal…" but what the young men of eaten>>

Abraham was grateful to King Melezchizedek>.for being hospitable>toward his men, feeding them and Abraham being greatly Hospitiable righteous man of God>>> gave the King 10% for his hospitality>>for his kindness and he feed Abraham men.

Jesus cured freely, feed 5,000 freely>>> God>> has provided for all of Human Beings, freely to continue to exist, evolve and HE provides for all our needs?

Abraham knew did he not that Hospitality is greatly important to the Most High , found pleasing to the Lord? Sermon on the Mount?? When I ( God) was hunger did you feed Me ( God)?