Ordination of Women

[nsper7]

In several other threads comparing Roman Catholic and Non-RC theologies (especially the theologies of the Episcopal Church), there is debate over whether women can be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops. I will admit that I used to think women should not be involved in ‘ordained’ ministry (prior to my involvement in the Anglican Communion I didn’t think all those titles and stuff were necessary, but that has changed); however, I wish to state the Episcopal church (technically a campus Chapel) I attend is overseen by a woman who is an ordained priest and I am theologically ‘okay’ with this (as well as with the fact that the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop is female).

After taking a contextualized look at the Scriptural verses that are used to bar women from ordained ministry, I believe that the bar to women from ordained ministry is not Scripturally defensible. By ‘contextualized’, I mean examing the linguistics, other passages on the issue and the socio-historical-cultural context.

I have spoken (actually written through e-mail) to J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and asked him if he had a theological concern with my involvement in a church spiritually directed by a woman and that the Episcopal Church is headed by a female Presiding Bishop. He saw no reason why they women couldn’t be in such ministries and directed me to an article by Glen Miller (of the Christian Think-Tank) that refutes the anti-‘women in ministry’ spin applied to certain Scriptural passages, especially Paul’s words.

Here is the article:
Women in the Heart of God (9): Paul and Women

I’d like to get a good debate/discussion going on this issue. Also, please note that I strongly agree that ordaining unrepentent committers of homosexual activity is wrong, but it is a completely separate issue from the ordination of women.

 

[adrift]

an article by Glen Miller (of the Christian Think-Tank) that refutes the anti-‘women in ministry’ spin applied to certain Scriptural passages, especially Paul’s words.

There is very little refutation in the article that stands up to scrutiny.

Ordination of women is not possible in other words there can never be priestesses.

Those who promote this forget that God could have had priestesses when He established the priesthood. He did not. Jesus could have established Priestesses. He did not.
The article is way to long to refute line by line.
I will make comment on one of the things the article said.

Jesus asserted that a woman could divorce her husband

Jesus did no such thing, Their reasoning was based on the scripture of Mark 10

2
1 The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him.
3
He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
4
They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
5
But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
6
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.
7
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
8
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
9
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
10
In the house the disciples again questioned him about this.
11
He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
12
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Jesus is condemning divorce not asserting that a woman could divorce too.

 

[BlestOne]

OK… I was going to pass this one by until I read the section on wives submitting to their husbands. To me, this is a blatant example of picking and choosing parts of the whole in scripture. Let me show you:

*22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

24 “Church is subject to Christ”… The church then, according to St. Paul, is ever obedient to Christ, and can never fall from him, but remain faithful to him, unspotted and unchanged to the end of the world.*

26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: 30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

Let’s look at the whole… Christ is comparing marriage to the Kingdom of God here. He tells women to submit and calls the men the ‘head’ of the wife as CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH! But also… the part that is totally missed here… Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved his Church… and how is that? Unto death… what greater love indeed! He is to love his wife as his own body too… and through this love she is sanctified. Thus marriage is a holy union (sacramental). Personally as a woman, I think men got the harder command here. It is very easy to submit to someone who loves you as he loves himself. Also notice the next part…For this cause… here he is reiterating the sanctity of marriage as a permanent state. No divorce here!

This verse alone refutes women in a spiritual head over men. I think this is where the Anglican/Episcopal church has strayed into personal interpretation… so let me tell you what is said about that:
Acts of the Apostles Chapter 8:

*26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. **30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.*** 32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? 34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? 37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found in Azotus; and passing through, he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Self interpretation is refuted even in the Bible… imagine that!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In several other threads comparing Roman Catholic and Non-RC theologies (especially the theologies of the Episcopal Church), there is debate over whether women can be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops. I will admit that I used to think women should not be involved in ‘ordained’ ministry (prior to my involvement in the Anglican Communion I didn’t think all those titles and stuff were necessary, but that has changed); however, I wish to state the Episcopal church (technically a campus Chapel) I attend is overseen by a woman who is an ordained priest and I am theologically ‘okay’ with this (as well as with the fact that the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop is female).

After taking a contextualized look at the Scriptural verses that are used to bar women from ordained ministry, I believe that the bar to women from ordained ministry is not Scripturally defensible. By ‘contextualized’, I mean examing the linguistics, other passages on the issue and the socio-historical-cultural context.

I have spoken (actually written through e-mail) to J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and asked him if he had a theological concern with my involvement in a church spiritually directed by a woman and that the Episcopal Church is headed by a female Presiding Bishop. He saw no reason why they women couldn’t be in such ministries and directed me to an article by Glen Miller (of the Christian Think-Tank) that refutes the anti-‘women in ministry’ spin applied to certain Scriptural passages, especially Paul’s words.

Here is the article:
Women in the Heart of God (9): Paul and Women

I’d like to get a good debate/discussion going on this issue. Also, please note that I strongly agree that ordaining **unrepentent **committers of homosexual activity is wrong, but it is a completely separate issue from the ordination of women.

****I would like to take a Protestant point of view for once. “If (ordaining of woman or homosexuals to be priestesses, deaconesses, bishops) it aint’ in the King James Bible I wont’ believe it.” I dont care what article or newspaper that can fancy you into believing such a thing, it aint’ got no business or authority being in my church, I wont believe it unless it was a practice in the king James bible.

**All kidding aside, Rome has spoken, the Catholic Church cannot change what God has ordained already, She has no authority on earth to change the Teachings of Jesus Christ ever…

Do all Episcopalian and Anglican churches believe in woman ordained priestesses ect. I know of Lutheran churches being divided on this issue.

I dont understand why a woman who has been given the greatest gift, by bringing into the world our savior and Lord Jesus Christ, want to be priestesses when they are already princesesses in the Church and take on a role to change the history of our eternal Covenantal God who does not change.Woman are the only gifts of God to all creation thereby life is given into the world. Why spoil it by wanting to be a priest?
What is the reason behind a woman being ordained? Is it because The Catholic Church say’s a woman cannot be a priest?
I think woman should wait till Jesus comes back so that they can ask HIM. Besides cant woman wait till heaven where there is no male or female, and please dont interpret 21st century thought into that scripture because it does not apply to 1st century thought or custom, traditions. **

Do all woman agree on woman ordination?

Peace, and looking foward to who agrees on ordination of woman.

 

[homewardbound]

Do all woman agree on woman ordination?

NO!!!

Women priests and pastors are a joke. I can never stand to even listen to them speak. Its wrong and unnatural, I felt this way even when I was a Protestant. Women were no more meant to be priests than men are meant to give birth. For me, they are both equally absurd.

 

[nsper7]

BTW- I want to make it clear that I am male, so I have no ulterior motive (i.e. self-aggrandizement) for promoting the ordination of women.

Those who promote this forget that God could have had priestesses when He established the priesthood. He did not. Jesus could have established Priestesses. He did not.

If you are talking about the Ancient Israelite priesthood, manhood wasn’t the only qualification. They also had to be descendents of Aaron or the Levite tribe, as well as being free of ‘blemish’ (i.e. handicap or disfiguration).

Jesus did not, in the Gospels, ordain any male priests either, although He selected the Apostles and original disciples. Although the early Apostles were male, this does not prove that a female could not intrinisically hold an ordained position, only that Jesus didn’t choose any women for the early Apostles (a specialized and limited group). Unless one is going to try to make an argument from silence, the fact that all the original Apostles were men does not ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the place of women in ministry. The diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate were not formed until the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Eras.

Jesus did no such thing, Their reasoning was based on the scripture of Mark 10

If you check out Miller’s other writings, he qualifies the divorce issue.
Women in the Heart of God (6): The Data From the Life and Ministry of Jesus:

Notice that in Mark 10.10ff, Jesus assumes that a woman could initiate divorce–and was equally guilty when done without the ‘exception clause’–When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

(Underline added by me)

Let’s look at the whole… Christ is comparing marriage to the Kingdom of God here. He tells women to submit and calls the men the ‘head’ of the wife as CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH! But also… the part that is totally missed here… Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved his Church… and how is that? Unto death… what greater love indeed! He is to love his wife as his own body too… and through this love she is sanctified. Thus marriage is a holy union (sacramental). Personally as a woman, I think men got the harder command here. It is very easy to submit to someone who loves you as he loves himself. Also notice the next part…For this cause… here he is reiterating the sanctity of marriage as a permanent state. No divorce here!

This verse alone refutes women in a spiritual head over men.

Even assuming a prima facia decontextualized reading, Ephesians 5 is addressing the home life between husband and wife. This does not address unmarried women or women’s roles/involvement outside the family/home.

Self interpretation is refuted even in the Bible… imagine that!

1. This verse is addressing how the eunuch came to faith through the prophecy of Isaish and how he was taught by the Apostle Philip.
2. Philip, as a direct disciple/Apostle of Jesus, is in a position that no one is in today. He interacted with and was directly taught by Jesus.

I do not see what this has to with the issue of ordination of women. Paul discusses women several times, but those verses appear historically misinterpreted (this is according to Miller).

All kidding aside, Rome has spoken, the Catholic Church cannot change what God has ordained already, She has no authority on earth to change the Teachings of Jesus Christ ever…

Well, nothing personal, but I’m not Roman Catholic and I am not inclined to agree with every teaching they put out.

Do all Episcopalian and Anglican churches believe in woman ordained priestesses ect. I know of Lutheran churches being divided on this issue.

No. The opinions within the worldwide Anglican Communion vary from no ordination of women, to female deacons only, to female priests only, to female bishops allowed but no currently ordained, to currently has ordained female bishops (the Episcopal Church not only has female bishops, but one of them is the Presiding Bishop; when I asked J. P. Holding, he felt it was okay that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church [he is personally affiliated with the Southern Baptist Church, although his website is more non-denominational]).

NO!!! !!

Women priests and pastors are a joke. I can never stand to even listen to them speak. Its wrong and unnatural, I felt this way even when I was a Protestant. Women were no more meant to be priests than men are meant to give birth. For me, they are both equally absurd.

I can’t speak for you, but the chaplain (ordained priest, she is called a Chaplain because she spiritually oversees a campus Chapel) at the church/chapel I attend is female and she does a very good job. She is knowledgable of Scripture and other religious issues (i.e. methods of prayer, etc.), but also (as best as I can tell) humble, loving and caring and seeks after God (again, only God knows a person’s heart).

Now, I am not saying a church should be forced to ordain women, that women should be forced to seek ordained positions or that people should be forced to attend a church spiritually directed by a woman. I am merely saying that Scripture does not categorically condemn the ordination of women. If the Roman Catholic Church does not wish to ordain women, I am not saying the RCC should be denied the right of organizing themselves as they see fit (Scripture does not apparently demand that women be ordained either).

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

There are essentially two important duties of a priest:

1. 
   *]to hear confession and say “I absolve you of your sins”
   *]say mass and say “This is my body” for the eucharist.
   
   But a priest can only do these if he acts in persona christi (in the person of christ). Jesus is the groom and the church is the bride. The priest shares in Christ’s nuptial relationship with the church. That’s why a woman can’t be a priest - a woman can’t be a groom.
   
   Anyway, that’s the best explanation I’ve heard and it works for me. :twocents:

 

[adrift]

BTW-

If you are talking about the Ancient Israelite priesthood, manhood wasn’t the only qualification. They also had to be descendents of Aaron or the Levite tribe, as well as being free of ‘blemish’ (i.e. handicap or disfiguration).

So? It still was male only by God’s design.

Jesus did not, in the Gospels, ordain any male priests either, although He selected the Apostles and original disciples. Although the early Apostles were male, this does not prove that a female could not intrinisically hold an ordained position, only that Jesus didn’t choose any women for the early Apostles (a specialized and limited group). Unless one is going to try to make an argument from silence, the fact that all the original Apostles were men does not ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the place of women in ministry. The diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate were not formed until the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Eras.

Jesus did ordain a male priesthood. He chose the Apostles, trained them and ordained them giving the mission to act as His witnesses going out and baptize. If Jesus wanted women in this role, He would have done so. It is strange that you say it doesn’t prove anything. Jesus went against tradition many times. That He didn’t send one of His women followers is significant.

If you check out Miller’s other writings, he qualifies the divorce issue.

Originally Posted by Women in the Heart of God (6): The Data From the Life and Ministry of Jesus
Notice that in Mark 10.10ff, Jesus assumes that a woman could initiate divorce–and was equally guilty when done without the ‘exception clause’–When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

The passage was a condemnation of divorce. Jesus wasn’t saying it was alright for her to divorce but the opposite. There is no exception clause that is a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. However, that is another thread.

Well, nothing personal, but I’m not Roman Catholic and I am not inclined to agree with every teaching they put out.

You are on a Catholic Forum

.

If the Roman Catholic Church does not wish to ordain women, I am not saying the RCC should be denied the right of organizing themselves as they see fit (Scripture does not apparently demand that women be ordained either).

It is not a matter of wishes it is a matter that the Church can’t ordain women because this was not the will of God. Yes the scriptures do show this.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

NO!!!

Women priests and pastors are a joke. I can never stand to even listen to them speak. Its wrong and unnatural, I felt this way even when I was a Protestant. Women were no more meant to be priests than men are meant to give birth. For me, they are both equally absurd.

WWhhooo, that’s a relief :

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

BTW- I want to make it clear that I am male, so I have no ulterior motive (i.e. self-aggrandizement) for promoting the ordination of women.

Well, nothing personal, but I’m not Roman Catholic and I am not inclined to agree with every teaching they put out.

No offense taken, Just stating the position of the Roman Catholic faith.

By the way are these ordained women subjecting themselves to their founders teaching on these matters? or are they just doing this themselves? and have they received authorization from the Anglican Church to ordain women? Or will they be excommunicated to start their own splinter Protestant Church adding to the thousands alreadiy in existance?

Peace be with you

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…

Here is the article:
Women in the Heart of God (9): Paul and Women

You might consider also this article, by an Anglican…

Priestesses in the Church?
by C.S. Lewis

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I’d like to get a good debate/discussion going on this issue.

I hope you understand that this is Catholic dogma in the sense that it is de fide tenenda, and therefore infallible by virtue of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Coming to a Catholic forum to debate this is as absurd to Catholics as debating the dogma that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father.” (Although I’ve known Protestants who have denied this dogma too).

However, if instead of “debate” regarding dogma, you wish to better understand this Catholic dogma from the perspective of Catholic theology, I recommend the following book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/11WQSNVYNTL.AA140.jpg

**Priesthood and Diaconate: The Recipient of the Sacrament of Holy Orders from the Perspective of Creation Theology and Christology
**by Gerhard Ludwig Muller

You see, you don’t share the same epistemology as do Catholics. So a “debate” has no common foundation. Theology is based principally on AUTHORITY, not debate.

 

[rpp]

Well, nothing personal, but I’m not Roman Catholic and I am not inclined to agree with every teaching they put out.

Okay, we will not take it personally, but that is not a reasonable response. You see, you started this topic on a Catholic Forum. To just dismiss what the Church teaches because you say you are not Catholic, seems like a a cop.

Then to go on scold us and tell us how great the Anglican priestess is at your Anglican chapel seems more like you are not really here to learn anything. For example, I have not seen anywhere where you have asked why the Church teaches against priestesses.

I am not interested in having a conversation with someone who is just trying to scold people. Honest debate requires that both sides show respect.

 

[graceandglory]

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”(1)

Sorry, I’m new here, and I haven’t figured out how to do quotes.
This is quoted from:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis–John Paul II on Male Priesthood

In addition, I would like to add some thoughts connecting the Theology of the Body to the all male priesthood

1. Priests have taken vows, and are “married” and faithful to the Church.
2. The Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ in the Bible. (See Ephesians 5 and the book of Revelations)
3. Only a male Priest can take a Bride. Only males and females can come together to create life. A female priest married to the Church, the Bride of Christ, would therefore be homosexual, and definitely not able to produce life.
4. Priests act officially “in persona Christi,” at Mass and at Confession. Only a man can act “in persona Christi.”

 

[blacktiger057]

Those who promote this forget that God could have had priestesses when He established the priesthood. He did not. Jesus could have established Priestesses. He did not.

No, he could not have. The time of Jesus was when women were looked down upon as the bringers of evil into the wrold, and they had no rights compared to that of men. If Jesus suggested women be priestesses as well, he would have been killed even sooner.

 

[blacktiger057]

1. Priests have taken vows, and are “married” and faithful to the Church.

1. The Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ in the Bible. (See Ephesians 5 and the book of Revelations)

1. Only a male Priest can take a Bride. Only males and females can come together to create life. A female priest married to the Church, the Bride of Christ, would therefore be homosexual, and definitely not able to produce life.

1. Priests act officially “in persona Christi,” at Mass and at Confession. Only a man can act “in persona Christi.”

1. That is purely symbolism. The priests are not separate from the Church, they ARE the Church. The CC is almost completely male, except for the women who attend Mass. The Church is in hardly any way female.
2. But again, this is only symbolism. Christ was not actually married to the Church.
3. How can we give a building gender? It is those who inhabit the building who give it that, and those are males. People become one with the Church, not separate and married to it. And females are the carriers of life, and can be much brighter and full of life than some priests!
4. Priestesses could act “in persona God”, since you believe Christ is God, and God does not have a gender. Since God does not have a gender, it could be either one.

But nothing in the Church will change, because at the time when it came about, man was dominant. Since the Church refuses to change and grow after 2,000 years, man is still dominant in the Church.

I prefer a religion where both men and women can become leaders, and without traditional discrimination.

 

[mikew262]

NO!!!

Women priests and pastors are a joke. I can never stand to even listen to them speak. Its wrong and unnatural, I felt this way even when I was a Protestant. Women were no more meant to be priests than men are meant to give birth. For me, they are both equally absurd.

I’ve listen to a woman preach and she did a fine job. I don’t think anybody who spreads the Word of God is a joke.

 

[AquinasT]

The idea that God (Jesus) “could have” chosen women but did not, is actually a very good argument in favor of the male-only priesthood. It cannot be brushed aside by saying that God was restrained by the customs of the times or the mindset of the people in that region. Why would God limit Himself in that way? Let’s face it, no one thought that the Hebrew God could become a man and die on a cross either. That event shook most people’s concept of God and His purpose for humanity. If God had wanted to institute a female priesthood it would have been far less shocking to the people of that time than a God who died a “disgraceful” death at the hands of His enemies. God is not restrained by our own preconceived ideas. He would not wait 2000 years to suddenly reveal that priestesses were part of His original plan for His Church.
There are many good reasons to have a male only priesthood. Chief among these (as has been mentioned in this thread already) is the priest’s role as representing Christ to us. Physical symbolism is important in the Church, and a male priest is a more complete symbol of the man Jesus than a woman would be. Also the idea of Jesus as “husband” to the Church (the priest representing Jesus in this role) is key. The priest is called to represent this role to us. The passage concerning marriage in Ephesians is particularly useful in understanding this. The Church is the “household of God” Scripture tells us. The husband is head of the household. The priest is “Father” to us as we are “born” at baptism into the household of God, the Church being our “Mother.” Obviously Mary’s motherhood is intimately linked to the Church - she is the symbol of the Church - its prefigurement. The priest is called to be a symbol of Fatherhood to us - the Fatherhood of God. The priest is called to a life of sacrifice on behalf of the bride - the Church. It is not a glorious role, it is a role of humility, following Christ’s example. And it is the role domestic fathers are called to emulate as well. We cannot reverse the role of father and mother; nor can we grant women a “right” to the priesthood, if it is not in God’s plan.
It is important to realize that the priesthood is not a “right” that can be granted by the Church, like the right to free speech or other such rights. The priesthood is a vocation that was established at the foundation of the Church. As such, even the male priests we have today are not exercising a “right” to their vocation, they are answering a call from God. And it is clear from Scripture and the history of the Church that this call was intended for men.
Thomas

 

[rpp]

No, he could not have. The time of Jesus was when women were looked down upon as the bringers of evil into the wrold, and they had no rights compared to that of men. If Jesus suggested women be priestesses as well, he would have been killed even sooner.

Incorrect. Many other religions at the time had priestesses or women oracles. The famous oracles at Delphi and the Vestal Virgin in Roman paganism are examples of this.

To make this assertion is to buy into the false history promoted by radical feminism.

 

[drafdog]

All of the verbiage out of Rome notwithstanding, I hold with St. Paul. (Gal 3:27-29) Even Rome has not the authority to contradict scripture. Maybe they just haven’t understood what it means.

Matthew