What do you think would be the best argument against female priesthood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-37 )

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12 )

It seems pretty clear to me.
 
Last edited:
I think it important to understand the role of the Catholic priesthood, in light of the Old Testament priesthood, because it’s impossible to know the New Testament, without knowing the old. Simply put, priests in the Old Testament, were always male. I don’t know why this is never brought up in conversation on either side, or at least it seems that way to me.
 
The Wedding at Cana. Jesus is the Bridegroom.The Eucharist is the wedding banquet.

Also from the Catechism…

CCC#1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice : “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.”
 
Last edited:
Not clear at all to me. Why are women allowed to speak at all in church (or beyond), in that case?
 
It must have seemed strange to the Corinthians, who were raised good Hellenes. Why can’t a woman be a priestess? It would have been more difficult for them to understand, than it is for us. St. Paul was clear about his divine inspiration when writing about the relationship between men and women in the church, probably because he foresaw the difficulty.

A popular secular argument is that St. Paul was just a sexist Jew, which was a sexist culture, and the entire ancient world was one of male dominance. I think this is the narrative in gender studies courses, and it has gone mainstream. We can use Paul’s other epistles to argue that he was not sexist (see his praise for Phoebe) and valued women in the church. The Greek gentiles were familiar with powerful spiritual authority from women (consider the Oracle of Delphi), and worshipped goddesses; so the popular secular argument is inconsistent with scripture and inaccurate with its historical facts.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Why are women allowed to speak at all in church (or beyond), in that case?
Click to expand...
1 Timothy 2:12 indicates that to speak at church is correlated to having spiritual authority, even because 1 Corinthians 11:5 implies that women can pray and prophesy at church. So women can pray and give lectures, but without liturgical or magisterial teaching authority. They can’t also say the homily.
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone flagged your post because it’s not a “Catholic Answer.” Your profile doesn’t say you’re Catholic though. Posts are too easily flagged.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate…
1 Corinthians 14:33-37
Click to expand...
Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:4-5
Click to expand...
LeonardDeNoblac said:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12 )
Click to expand...
as I recall your sincere faith that first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and that I am confident lives also in you.
2 Timothy 1:8
Click to expand...
Is that enough of dueling scriptures? The situation is far from clear.
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Galatians 3:28 is talking about equality of nature and grace before God. Different context.
Click to expand...
Galatians is talking about baptism which, unlike circumcision, allows women as full members of Christ. If you are looking to understand Jewish practices, it is important to remember that the sign of the covenant is particular to men. And in Christianity, that is not the case. All are baptized into the Body of Christ.
 
Dovekin said:
Galatians is talking about baptism which, unlike circumcision, allows women as full members of Christ. If you are looking to understand Jewish practices, it is important to remember that the sign of the covenant is particular to men. And in Christianity, that is not the case. All are baptized into the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Baptism is the sacrament by wich God’s grace is applied to the person (even thought faith and the desire of baptism are themselves effects of grace ), so it’s still about grace. Also, the fact that only Jewish males were circumcised didn’t exclude the women from the Covenant. The female equivalent of the circumcision would have been the female genital mutilation, wich is extremely dangerous (it was unfortunately a common practice among Israel’s surrounding populations, such as the Egyptians, along with male circumcision, so it seems strange that the Israelites didn’t practice it, unless one attributes this fact to the wisdom of God )
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
I wold argue that, even thought men and women are fundamentally equal in dignity before God, their general natural tendencies are different; God’s plan for the Church is to be a perfect society (even thought, unfortunately, some members of the clergy and of the laity don’t follow God’s plan ), so He has ordained every role in order that only the most suited categories of individuals would play them. So God, in His wisdom, sees men more fitting than women for ministry and spiritual authority, for reasons that only He fully knows.
Click to expand...
This argument, while completely accurate, does not give a reason why women cannot be priests. It just says “thats how it is. All is right with the world.” Not a particularly potent argument when facing a world where not all is right. I would not use it with someone who thinks the priesthood is too sexualized, for instance.
 
Dovekin said:
I would not use it with someone who thinks the priesthood is too sexualized, for instance.
Click to expand...
When a priest commits any kind of sexual sin (fornication, homosexual acts, pedophilia, ecc. ), he’s not doing what he is supposed to do. Indeed, he’s committing a mortal sin.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Also, the fact that only Jewish males were circumcised didn’t exclude the women from the Covenant.
Click to expand...
It shows a fundamental sexist element at the heart of Judaism, that also manifested in an all male priesthood. Jews still struggle with this in different ways. Christians moved past it in part by baptizing women. But not by ordaining women?

The Jewish response is actually informative. Woman, as was the custom in Hellenistic times, are dominant in domestic settings. They do all the work of home and farm, while men sit at the ciry gates and talk about public affairs. (As Proverbs tells us)

I am just providing counter arguments to help you understand and refine your position, not to change your mind. It is a difficult problem.
 
Powdercoater said:
Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride, the priest acts in persona christi, therefore priests are men.
Click to expand...
LeonardDeNoblac said:
When a priest commits any kind of sexual sin (fornication, homosexual acts, pedophilia, ecc. ), he’s not doing what he is supposed to do. Indeed, he’s committing a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly. Are we helping anyone with those issues when we sexualize priesthood as Powdercoater does? IDK. Just pointing out the problem.
 
Bat mitzvah celebrations are a relatively recent phenomena. The orthodox don’t do them.
 
Are you a Catholic?
Because it seems you are not only questioning an infallible teaching of the Church that goes back to Apostolic times and Scripture, but also that you are accusing God Himself, who instituted the circumcision in the Old Covenant, of being sexist.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
It is a difficult problem.
Click to expand...
Is it any more of a difficult problem than any other doctrine? It’s an insurmountable problem if we’re trying to justify it for social reasons. It’s not a problem at all if we believe it on faith. I used to think issues like this might be a cause, in our post-modern era of radical egalitarianism, that people abandon the faith. If that were true, though, then the mainstream Protestant denominations should be flourishing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top