Something that confuddles me about the nature of the priesthood

[Brendan]

ChemicalBean:

It seems that here you are insinuating that, to be “equal” under God’s Plan, God ordained that it is the man, and only the man, who brings forth Ontological Life, and that the Soul of a Woman is designed to NOT perform this function.

That is correct.

But earlier you said, that although we define these two distinct entities of the human person, they are united “because we are not dualists.” We denounce abortafacient contraceptives because we believe that from its earliest beginnings (ie: a zygote), human life has both body and soul. We also cite this in denouncing abortions because of the tremendous pain they inflict on women who have them; abortion discards life that originated in their bodies AND their souls.

So, I would say you are incorrect to state that the “Soul of a Woman” does not/cannot bring forth ontological life in the same way that the “Body of a Woman” brings forth biological life. It all happens at the same place and at the same time.

It is a De Fide teaching of the Church that the Soul is Generated by God.

The Soul is imparted to the new creature at the time it becomes it’s own animated entity. Neither the man or the woman creates the soul. But the woman is the Efficent Principle in the Creation of the Body.

I’m not sure that any man ever received the ability to generate Ontological life in that way, either.

I never claimed that humans of any sex had that power

The gospels (as far as I can tell) say specifically that the Twelve were with Christ during his ‘last supper’, although that doesn’t exlude the presence of other followers.

Realistically, the Institution would have been in the presence of Females as well. I don’t know about the custom of women’s celebration of the pasach, but surely some were there to prepare and serve the meal in their own homes.

First of all, that is a presumption, not a fact. The Confection of the Eucharist HAS to be based on more than just a presumption. Because otherwise, we can only presume that what was bread is now Christ Real and Present.

Or that the Absolution given the Confession is only presumed, not Abosolute

It is also De Fide that the souls of those who recieve Holy Orders are indellibly marked, permanent.

We know with 100% certainty that the Souls of Males can be configured to Confect the Eucharist and Absolve.

Do we have equal certainty the the Souls of Women can like wise be configured.

[Now, I’m no theologian, but I don’t think you can just “lose” your ontological life - I thought that was the immortal part of the human person.

So these rites, which became sacraments, don’t actually GENERATE ontological life (that’s already been done), but they do NOURISH and HEAL it, much like food and medicine sustains and heals the biological entity of life.

That’s what Mortal Sin is, the loss of Ontological Life.

We gain that Ontological Life fully at Baptism as a direct act of the Holy Spirit. We lose in in Mortal Sin (no more Ontological Life), regain it in Absolution and nourish it through the Eucharist.

So I think, if we keep using the lines of your argument to defend a male-only priesthood, we’d have to show how God does not call women to nourish and heal the soul.

No, what I am saying is that women cannot be called to nourish and heal the soul in the same way men can be. There are very specific acts that tmen can do in this regard that women cannot.

In much the same way that men can certainly grow and nourish body, but there are certain things women can do in this regard that men cannot.

It’s pretty obvious that they do this anyway from life’s beginnings (as in bearing and raising children). I also know some excellent women dieticians and physicians who, although not physical mothers, fulfill a call to be a “mother” in this way.

Indeed, it is laughable that the Church claims that it cannot call women to do what God has already ordered them to do.

It would certainly be laughable if the Church claimed it cannot do what God said it could, but that is certainly NOT the case here.

That’s putting limits on God or putting ourselves in the place of God. Most people would call that SINFUL.

Is it putting limits on God for a Pope to say that I as a male, cannot bear children. Sure if God wanted me to do so, He certainly can. But no proclamation by the Church would allow me to get pregnant now would it?

So why would it be any more blasphemous for the Church to claim it did not have the Authority to alter a woman’s soul to Holy Orders.
[/quote]

 

[Beaver]

Brendan:

So why would it be any more blasphemous for the Church to claim it did not have the Authority to alter a woman’s soul to Holy Orders.

Christ is the giver of the gift as is God the Father, therefore He could not be the reciever of the gift.

 

[Aureole]

Peace be with you Liberalsaved.

Surely there are many instances in Scripture where women are far greater than men; Judith, Mary Magdalene, Elizabeth, and Mary, Mother of God to name a few. If anyone was worthy of the priesthood, it was Mary. She said “yes” to God; Peter denied Him three times, Thomas doubted Him, Judas betrayed Him. What a priest Mary could have made, or Judith, or Esther, or Elizabeth. Yet Christ did not include them in the twelve.

Jesus purposely chose the twelve. He chose twelve men. Then, after calling the twelve, Jesus sent them in order to “preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 10:7, pretty much the entire chapter deals with Christ commanding the twelve to preach.) He gave them authority to teach. Not one women was numbered among the twelve. These twelve are indeed the Apostles.

Christ repeatedly talks and teaches to the Apostles. He commands them a great many times. He shares God’s plan with them, tells them of His death and resurrection, shows them many miracles, makes them privy to His glory. These twelve were Christ’s “closest inner circle”. Women had a close place to Christ, some were very likely closer than many of the Apostle’s were, but He did not number them among the twelve.

Then, after Christ commanded the Apostle’s to spread the Good News all over the earth, the twelve found themselves in a daunting, impossible challenge. There’s no way that twelve people could spread the Good News “to the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). Even today twelve people could not do this. The Apostles then followed Christ’s example and appointed others to help them do as Christ commanded them. They chose, out of all the people, some and refused others. They only chose men. Matthias replaced Judas and Paul was chosen to be an Apostle. Other men were appointed to aid the ministry started by Jesus. Of course women were a part of that ministry, but they were not called to the same thing. Not even all men were called.

The fact remains that Christ chose only men to form the Apostle’s. He could have chosen women but He didn’t. The Church is bound by Christ’s own example in this. The Church cannot ordain women, it’s simply not possible.

I apologize for my verbosity, but it must be stressed that Christ didn’t chose a woman to number among the twelve. It was not a choice made by bias or influence from the society. To say that would mean that God is influenced by us. There are, of course, other reasons that the Church does not ordain women. I can’t go into them now as I really ought to get started on my school work. I will provide you with links to the information so you can explore them yourself.

I would *highly *recommend that you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as it will provide you with a much better explanation than I could provide. It’s short so it won’t take very long. It’s also recent so it may speak to you about a few issues you have. I would also suggest that you read two references in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, if you have the opportunity. They’re both much longer but I’m certain they would help to dispel your confusion.

Inter Insigniores is much longer than Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, so it’s much more in depth.

Mulieris Dignitatem should provide you with some insights into what God calls women to do within the Church.

The Catechism, in sections 1577-1578, should also helps to clarify what the sacrament of ordination is. It will also provide you with great resources on this subject.

Another great resource, and someone else already linked this, is Dr. Kreeft’s lecture on Women and the Priesthood. The best thing about this is that you don’t have to read anything. Take a listen, it may help you exponentially. (Of course, you can get section two of it in writing in case you prefer reading, plus there’s a book.)

Take some time to read about this then prayerfully ask God about it and listen to Him. Take your time, be patient with it. Let God guide you. He’s the best teacher of all.

“Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.” (Matt 7:7-8)

May God bless you in your pilgrimage.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Brendan:

It would certainly be laughable if the Church claimed it cannot do what God said it could, but that is certainly NOT the case here.

Is it putting limits on God for a Pope to say that I as a male, cannot bear children. Sure if God wanted me to do so, He certainly can. But no proclamation by the Church would allow me to get pregnant now would it?

So why would it be any more blasphemous for the Church to claim it did not have the Authority to alter a woman’s soul to Holy Orders.

Honestly, I don’t know what you are getting at. But we’ll keep trying. I don’t necessarily agree with (or even get) your point of view, but I earnestly want to understand where you’re coming from.

It would seem to me that we are hung up on the natural fact that men do not become pregnant. You are right. No decision of the Pope can change that - it would be ludicrous of him to try! But pregnancy has nothing to do with being called to priesthood.

Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon. The natural world (in which we participate by virtue of our biological entity) is governed by natural laws, like laws of motion and thermodynamics, and limits like entropy. Following these laws and limitations, along with the divine providence, life as we know it has come to exist. It’s not a man’s fault that he cannot carry the pregnancy any more than it’s a woman’s fault that the male DNA contribution determines the sex of the child. It just happens. Those facts, however, do not keep either the man or woman from fulfilling his/her vocation as parent. Both teach and admonish that child. Both care for the child’s well-being and spiritual life. After birth, there is nothing that my mother can do for me that my father can’t do (and vice versa) except to Love me in his own unique way.

This indelible character of priesthood is supernatural phenomena. We can’t deduce the rules that govern the supernatural world (in which we participate by virtue of our ontological entity) by experiments; we just have to go by what God tells us. And God, through Jesus, tells us just two laws:

1.) You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength.
2.) You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus never said that the supernatural Love of a man is of any different kind, character, or degree, than the supernatural Love of a woman. So, God could call, out of this supernatural love, any one of us, man or woman, to live out this supernatural love as a priest, because God can. And maybe God does - we don’t have absolute assurance that God doesn’t because a vocation is never discerned with 100% certainty. (Any humble priest or religious will tell you that!)

And if God does stir into the hearts of women the authentic call to serve as ministerial priests, and the Church willfully (even with good intentions) ignores this call, then yes - we are sinning.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

And if God does stir into the hearts of women the authentic call to serve as ministerial priests, and the Church willfully (even with good intentions) ignores this call, then yes - we are sinning.

As only the Church is qualified to determine if a call is genuine-then the Church has authoritatively spoken on the matter. Women are not called to the priesthood.

Thus, contrary to what subversive theologians would have you believe-Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.

 

[Jennifer123]

ChemicalBean:

Jesus never said that the supernatural Love of a man is of any different kind, character, or degree, than the supernatural Love of a woman. So, God could call, out of this supernatural love, any one of us, man or woman, to live out this supernatural love as a priest, because God can. And maybe God does - we don’t have absolute assurance that God doesn’t because a vocation is never discerned with 100% certainty. (Any humble priest or religious will tell you that!)

And if God does stir into the hearts of women the authentic call to serve as ministerial priests, and the Church willfully (even with good intentions) ignores this call, then yes - we are sinning.

No one here has stated here that Catholic women don’t have authentic ministerial callings. There are numerous examples, both past and present, of women and the ministerial gifts given them.
But those gifts can not be confused with the exact, primary calling of the priesthood, which is the Sacrifice of the Mass. Yes, the priesthood is ministerial, but it is not the entire reason for the priesthood. The priesthood primarily exists to consecrate the Eucharist, in persona Christi.
The ministerial aspects of the priesthood exist to enhance the teachings of the Church and the lives of its members, and I don’t doubt women as well as men who don’t feel called to the priesthood share these gifts. But not all can be priests. It’s a priviledge, not a right, to be called to the priesthood.
I think the suggestion to read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a good one!

 

[Liberalsaved]

daniellet:

Are you male, Liberal?

Liberalsaved:

Even those who were women were influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority\QUOTE]

So, if I am a woman, and don’t believe I should serve in the same roles as men, then I am just a dumb woman influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority? It seem you are the one not giving us ladies much credit.

Perhap’s you don’t understand the Church’s ancient view on women. Why aren’t you here asking why men aren’t allowed to be mothers? I think the argument could be made that motherhood is perhaps the noblest calling as far as roles are concerned. A minor figure in Catholocism, Mary, comes to mind. Your viewpoint exhibits a great deal of sexism in that you believe the male roles are the superior roles, to which women should aspire.

Just a mother,
Danielle

Actually, I beleive they should simply be given the choice. Don’t put words in my mouth, I’ll have to stop being civil.

 

[decn2b]

In a nutshell correct me if I am wrong.

1. You don’t believe in error free scripture

2)You believe that God allowed his eternal word to be twisted.

1. You don’t believe in the Catholic Church as the pillar of truth
2. You think that jesus had women apostles?

What religion do you belong to again?

Because it is definately NOT Catholicism or Christianity for that matter.

You been reading the DaVinci code?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It isn’t a choice for women because there IS no choice. A Catholic priest cannot be female. . .not then, not now, not ever. A Catholic nun cannot be male. . .not then, not now, not ever.

It might not be politically correct to say that there are simply certain callings, or certain physical functions, that can ONLY be done by one gender. . .but it is truth.

 

[Walking_Home]

It all comes down to this.

No matter who wants what.

The Church has no authority from Our Lord to ordain women.

Not in the past, not today, not in the future.

We understand it, adhere to it, and follow it.

A gift from Our Lord to us is our free will. To freely follow Him and His Church.

Just as those that do not want are free to leave.
To make up their own church.

With as many women “pastors” that they want.

Where the laity can “try” to consecrate the Body and Blood to their to their hearts content.

Where Our Most Holy Sacrifice, that one sacrifice, of the Son offering Himself to the Father is replaced. Replace instead with the laity offering “their bodies as a living sacrifice”.

But Our Lord knows to who His Body and Blood will come
And He also knows to who it will not.

 

[tdandh26]

The Catholic Church is the perfected form of the old Jewish religion.

When God instituted the priesthood with Aaron and his sons, do you think God was being biased? Jesus perfected the priesthood, while keeping the sacrefices (which are now unbloody). Jesus replaced sin sacrefices with confession. All the duties of the priests today were in some way represented by the male priests of the old Jewish religion.

God does not change and Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill. There are many other reasons why a woman cannot be a priest but some of those have been covered.

To follow your direction of reasoning though, I guess we males (who are not priests) should be upset since we cannot become brides of Christ by becoming nuns. :crying:

 

[daniellet]

Liberalsaved:

daniellet:

Are you male, Liberal?

Actually, I beleive they should simply be given the choice. Don’t put words in my mouth, I’ll have to stop being civil.

But men aren’t given the choice to be mothers (and I’m talking about more than the biological aspects of motherhood). I don’t think I am lacking in civility to ask you to question whether or not your concern for women being allowed into the priesthood is actually a sexist question, framed by a patriarchal worldview. I am asking you to consider the fact that motherhood, as framed by the Catholic Church and as modeled by our holy mother, Mary, is in fact a calling that is as high or higher than the priesthood. You do not lament the fact that men are not given a choice in whether or not to be called to the vocation of motherhood. Is it because you don’t see motherhood as a high calling?

 

[ChemicalBean]

Tantum ergo:

A Catholic nun cannot be male. . .not then, not now, not ever.

Yes he can! It’s called…wait for it…a monk!

Jennifer123, thanks for your charitable response. I actually have read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but not in a long while. (I should be doing homework, not spending time on this forum, but while people are being civil to one another it’s enjoyable to discuss stuff here.) I think the biggest thing that didn’t make sense (and the document did not explain well) was the notion that a woman cannot stand “in persona Christi.”

While we’re talking about monks and nuns, I had to do some research once at my student center on how to do the Liturgy of the Hours. I spent a lot of time reading its General Instruction, just because it was interesting. A couple of things caught my eye then that I made note of, which are inconsistent with “a woman is incapable of standing in persona Christi.” I’ll share them here:

[15] In the Liturgy of the Hours the Church exercises the priestly office of its head and offers to God “unceasingly” a sacrifice of praise, that is, a tribute of lips acknowledging his name. This prayer is “the voice of the bride herself as she addresses the bridegroom; indeed, it is also the prayer of Christ and his body to the Father.” “All therefore who offer this prayer are fulfilling a duty of the Church, and also sharing in the highest honor given to Christ’s bride, because as they render praise to God they are standing before God’s throne in the name of Mother Church.”

[108] The person who prays the psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours prays not so much in his own person as in the name of the Church, and, in fact, in the person of Christ himself.

Here’s the wonderful problem. Not only does no. 108 reaffirm no. 15, 108 says “the person,” as an individual, rather than “all” collectively as in 15. Also, it doesn’t say “the validly ordained”, “the man”, “the Christian”, or even “baptized”. It just says “the person”, which means ANY person. In Persona Christi Capitis. And this isn’t just possibly, or theoretically, or symbolically. It’s in fact.

So basically, lay men and women (monks and nuns in particular) have already been acting “in persona Christi,” offering a sacrifice of praise, for centuries! Although this is not the mass, this whole dialogue of wedding feast and sacrifice has VERY Eucharistic tones.

 

[Liberalsaved]

daniellet:

Liberalsaved:

But men aren’t given the choice to be mothers (and I’m talking about more than the biological aspects of motherhood). I don’t think I am lacking in civility to ask you to question whether or not your concern for women being allowed into the priesthood is actually a sexist question, framed by a patriarchal worldview. I am asking you to consider the fact that motherhood, as framed by the Catholic Church and as modeled by our holy mother, Mary, is in fact a calling that is as high or higher than the priesthood. You do not lament the fact that men are not given a choice in whether or not to be called to the vocation of motherhood. Is it because you don’t see motherhood as a high calling?

I beleive a household can be run by a single male, who would then in effect be the mother and the father. Quite frankly, with the appalling track record of the clergy, I think that would not be something to aspire to. But hey, choices are choices. If a man wants to be a single father, or a woman wants to be a priest, I say let them.

The Church of England allows women to be priests. Are they going to Hell? Of course, you guys’s answer is propbably yes…

And to answer people who have preferred to attack my beleifs, I am both a spiritual and very liberal person. If you cannot reconcile the two, that’s your problem, not mine. Issues with my spirituality can be addressed to me in PM, and this thread saved for the topic at hand. Thank you.

 

[Jennifer123]

ChemicalBean:

Yes he can! It’s called…wait for it…a monk!

Jennifer123, thanks for your charitable response. I actually have read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but not in a long while. (I should be doing homework, not spending time on this forum, but while people are being civil to one another it’s enjoyable to discuss stuff here.) I think the biggest thing that didn’t make sense (and the document did not explain well) was the notion that a woman cannot stand “in persona Christi.”

While we’re talking about monks and nuns, I had to do some research once at my student center on how to do the Liturgy of the Hours. I spent a lot of time reading its General Instruction, just because it was interesting. A couple of things caught my eye then that I made note of, which are inconsistent with “a woman is incapable of standing in persona Christi.” I’ll share them here:

[15] In the Liturgy of the Hours the Church exercises the priestly office of its head and offers to God “unceasingly” a sacrifice of praise, that is, a tribute of lips acknowledging his name. This prayer is “the voice of the bride herself as she addresses the bridegroom; indeed, it is also the prayer of Christ and his body to the Father.” “All therefore who offer this prayer are fulfilling a duty of the Church, and also sharing in the highest honor given to Christ’s bride, because as they render praise to God they are standing before God’s throne in the name of Mother Church.”

[108] The person who prays the psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours prays not so much in his own person as in the name of the Church, and, in fact, in the person of Christ himself.

Here’s the wonderful problem. Not only does no. 108 reaffirm no. 15, 108 says “the person,” as an individual, rather than “all” collectively as in 15. Also, it doesn’t say “the validly ordained”, “the man”, “the Christian”, or even “baptized”. It just says “the person”, which means ANY person. In Persona Christi Capitis. And this isn’t just possibly, or theoretically, or symbolically. It’s in fact.

So basically, lay men and women (monks and nuns in particular) have already been acting “in persona Christi,” offering a sacrifice of praise, for centuries! Although this is not the mass, this whole dialogue of wedding feast and sacrifice has VERY Eucharistic tones.

In persona Christi = in the person of Christ (as you’re aware). The priest acts “in persona Christi” when offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. You could also say the priest acts as “alter Chritsus” = another Christ. THe Mass isn’t just taking place in the present, it’s the actual sacrifice on Calvary, presented in time immemorial. It’s as if the Calvary sacrifice is taking place then, now and forever all at once. By stating that a woman can act in persona Christi is denying Christ’s actions at Calvary at the time of His sacrifice. It’s like denying who He is - He is a man, just as God is the Father. We can’t make any substitute for that. I mean, God could, He can do anything, but we can’t.

We can’t say that a woman can be a man because that is not possible. Gender is not an accident, it’s inherent to who we are. IMHO I think the problem here is current society’s tendency, thanks to radical feminism, to want to believe gender is irrevelant, gender should be “neutral”, and women and men are “the same”. THat’s just not true.

Now, I can’t go into the Liturgy of the Hours because I’m already stretching the limits of my knowledge! I think maybe you could ask people in apologetics to take a look here and maybe they can clear that up.

 

[Jennifer123]

Liberalsaved:

daniellet:

I beleive a household can be run by a single male, who would then in effect be the mother and the father.

With all due respect, a man can not be a mother. It’s just not true.

Quite frankly, with the appalling track record of the clergy, I think that would not be something to aspire to. But hey, choices are choices.

**Don’t let the MSM taint your view of the priesthood. The facts about the current scandal are out there, and our priests are holy men who sacrifice much for love of God. Their commitment should be respected. BTW - the incidence of “pedophilia” (quotes bc facts show it’s not a “pedophelia” problem) is much less than in the public sector. **

If a man wants to be a single father, or a woman wants to be a priest, I say let them.

We’re not here trying to force our opinions on anyone. Ultimately if people want to be single parents or want to become women priests, they will do so, but the role of the Church and of its members is to tell them why they shouldn’t. It’s called bringing the light into the world, letting people know that there’s a better way, the only way to true fulfillment.

The Church of England allows women to be priests. Are they going to Hell? Of course, you guys’s answer is propbably yes…

No, not Hell, but I would say they are mistaken and are ultimately missing the fullness of Truth.

And to answer people who have preferred to attack my beleifs, I am both a spiritual and very liberal person. If you cannot reconcile the two, that’s your problem, not mine. Issues with my spirituality can be addressed to me in PM, and this thread saved for the topic at hand. Thank you.

I used to be liberal too, so don’t worry. There’s still hope for ya!!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

or a woman wants to be a priest, I say let them.

The Church hasn’t the power to ordain women-and that is what the Church freely admits-it CAN NOT ordain women, even “if” it would want to for some strange reason.

The Church of England allows women to be priests. Are they going to Hell? Of course, you guys’s answer is propbably yes…

We never presume upon anybody’s salvation, however, the Anglicans are at least material heretics and heresy is an objectively mortal sin.

Here’s the wonderful problem. Not only does no. 108 reaffirm no. 15, 108 says “the person,” as an individual, rather than “all” collectively as in 15. Also, it doesn’t say “the validly ordained”, “the man”, “the Christian”, or even “baptized”. It just says “the person”, which means ANY person. In Persona Christi Capitis. And this isn’t just possibly, or theoretically, or symbolically. It’s in fact.

So basically, lay men and women (monks and nuns in particular) have already been acting “in persona Christi,” offering a sacrifice of praise, for centuries! Although this is not the mass, this whole dialogue of wedding feast and sacrifice has VERY Eucharistic tones.

Who, praytell, has the sole perogative to interpret its own documents? The Church. Private interpretation of Church documents is just as anathema as private interpretation of the Bible. The Church has said that the office of Priest belongs exclusively to the male sex and there it stands, unassailed.

We all act “in persona Christi” to one way or another in being part of the Mystical Body of Christ. We also share in the “priesthood of all believers” but that does not allow us to share in the same ordained priesthood as the deacon, priest, and bishop ordained validly and licitly through Apostolic Succession, in union with the Holy See.

 

[pnewton]

To address the topic of the thread, your befuddlement, it is precisely because you do reject Church teaching, you do reject the Bible and you do reject Church authority that you are so confused. Women priest are not a topic here since that is a non-issue. Rome has spoken. The Bible has spoken. That’s pretty much all the divine revelation there is, so God has spoken. It is He you reject.

Your issues can not be addressed on any level I know of because I do not have any idea of what you consider authoritative, unless it is just your innner conscience, in which case, it is still not possible to discuss.

 

[pnewton]

Liberalsaved:

And to answer people who have preferred to attack my beleifs, I am both a spiritual and very liberal person. If you cannot reconcile the two, that’s your problem, not mine. Issues with my spirituality can be addressed to me in PM, and this thread saved for the topic at hand. Thank you.

So are satanist (and satan, for that matter). I mean spiritual, not liberal before any of you fine democrats accuse me of putting Old Nick in your political party. I am not calling you evil, just pointing out that being spiritual is vaguely irrelevant term.

 

[palmas85]

A very interesting thread. Not being a theologian, I cannot quote scripture and not being a church historian, I cannot really say with any certainty why the Church does not allow female priests, deacons, Bishops etc. I could throw in a few ideas, but that would be all that they are. First, according to scripture the twelve were all men, sent forth to spread the word. Now I belive that, and I believe that they wrote the truth in the gospels for one compelling reason.

Ready?? The disappearance of the Lords body was discovered not by the the twelve, but by one or more of the women. It is a constant in the narratives. I accept that as the truth because it probably was a bit embarrasing for one of the twelve not to have discovered that significant fact. It probably would have been covered up had they been able to but since they could not, it was put in. That tells me more than anything else that the gospels accurately reflect what happened.

That being said, women at that time in history and in that area were underdogs? considered lesser beings perhaps, who knows? Christ did show favored treatment to women in his group. So why not use them as priests, probably because people would not have taken them seriously at the time. Nothing more and nothing less. And yes I do know that a least one and posibly two women were mentioned as being deacons in the early church.

I think that when you start breaking things down like gender equality and other things like that, you tend to lose sight of some very salient facts. One of them is simply that men and woman are different

And I mean different in many respects As an example, I am involved in Police work, and have been for well over twenty years. You will never have total gender equality in my field due to certain differences. For instance, women, by and large are much better at observation and interviewing people. Overall I would say that they make better detectives and investigators then men do. Men by and large are much better at routine arrests and arrest procedures. Those are not blanket statements and there are always exceptions, but they do reflect a significant reality.

Now can a woman do the job of a priest? Good question. I don’t know. But I have faith in the Holy Spirit and when we as a people are ready, if ever, and women are in His plans to be Priests, I’m sure that it will happen. If not, it will not.

IT REALLY ISN’T UP TO US