What were the reasons early Christiand gave for male-only priesthood?

[AmbroseSJ]

There was no “apostolic office” in the days Jesus was alive. It was him and a group of followers–some of them women.
Mary M helped fund his ministry.
He chose both genders to be involved.

.

Not at the Last Supper when he ordained His Priests when he commanded them “Do this in remembrance of me.”

The priesthood is (and was) established by God in the OT (Leviticus) This priesthood was the new order after the Israelites had defiled themselves by worshipping the golden calf. Previously the father of the family was the Priest (Genesis and Exodus)

The purpose of the priest was to offer sacrifice to God. NOT hold an office or wield ecclesiastical authority.

In the new Priesthood, Jesus replaced the imperfect Levitical Priesthood AND its animal sacrifice, with the new Priesthood created by Jesus Christ, with Himself as the High Priest, (and the Sacrifice) with His Apostles (and their successors) as His ministers in perpetuating His Priesthood on earth after his Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.

That is WHY the Catholic Church states it has NO POWER to alter the Priesthood as it is currently established. GOD Himself in Jesus Christ has established the Priesthood.

It is as ridiculous to criticize and find fault with the “all male” priesthood as it would be to criticize and find fault with the “all female” maternity.

The evil that is perpetrated by those who criticize the “all male” priesthood is founded on the desire for power, without understanding that the Priesthood has (since the beginning) been associated with fatherhood and sacrifice.

 

[thistle]

I don’t agree that Jesus created an all-male priesthood.
He may have picked those handful of men that day to help him with certain tasks on his mission…perhaps there were no women close by in the group at that moment, perhaps he was worried what they were about to do was too physically dangerous or rigorous for women, perhaps he thought the men at that time would be too close-minded to listen to women…(and indeed, as per Paul’s urging that women should not speak in church, he was right).
Perhaps…he did pick female apostles…but when the gospels were written 40 to 60 years later, the writers did not include them because they did not accept it.
But even if he did pick those dozen men that specific day, its doesn’t meant he intended for only men to take on that role…forever.
First of all, he thought the end was coming during that generation.
Second…he had female disciples who preached and broke bread and poured wine when the ceremony was still in the home, from what I understand…and Mary was a devoted preacher/helper, so I think he had big plans for her.

It seems to me that it was the men who organized the hierarchy and official roles of the church many decades/centuries later, after Jesus died, were the ones who decided this.
I don’t think jesus would have agreed or liked this decision at all.

.

Jesus, who is God, gave the Church authority in all matters of faith and morals. Therefore all Church doctrine is fully supported by God. If you say the Church is wrong you are saying that God is wrong.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A male-only priesthood does not imply “sexism” or “anti-woman”. Where do you get that relationship from? The desire to possess something one cannot have. I believe there is a word for that, and it has an ancient origin. I cannot be a priest, though I am a male. I am married, yet I feel no desire to usurp the priesthood just to prove something (equality for all), and if I did manage to usurp the priesthood to not be “anti-married” I would make a very very very bad priest for having done that, because my heart would be in the wrong place.

I didn’t say an all-male priesthood was sexist.
Read carefully.

 

[Deconi]

I didn’t say an all-male priesthood was sexist.
Read carefully.

Probably this bit…

In other words, were early Christians sexist or anti-woman in how they talked about male church leadership?

Looks like a question posed of the early Christians’ aspersions toward…* um, you know…?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Probably this bit…

Looks like a question posed of the early Christians’ aspersions toward…* um, you know…?

Right.

I understand the basic principles the Catholic Church gives in explaining the all-male priesthood. I do not think this position is automatically anti-woman or sexist just because only men can become priests.

But this thread is about the early church’s reflection on the issue. For they may not have held as strongly the reasons the modern church gives.

It’s important to understand the WHY of a belief, or else we end up talking past the critics of the church. Several people may mistakingly think the church’s current position is sexist - and the way the church has framed the issue in the past may be one of the reasons for this.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Right.

I understand the basic principles the Catholic Church gives in explaining the all-male priesthood. I do not think this position is automatically anti-woman or sexist just because only men can become priests.

But this thread is about the early church’s reflection on the issue. For they may not have held as strongly the reasons the modern church gives.

It’s important to understand the WHY of a belief, or else we end up talking past the critics of the church. Several people may mistakingly think the church’s current position is sexist - and the way the church has framed the issue in the past may be one of the reasons for this.

The reasons have already been given, with the weight of tradition going already back to the Levites in the Temple. Some people can think it sexist if they want to or think anything they like. Exclusionist is not a dirty word if it keeps men out of women’s bathrooms. Sorry, but all the hoopla about sexism ultimately leads to that.

As a woman, I am happy that women can be doctors or astronauts but I do draw the line at priests.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

There was no “apostolic office” in the days Jesus was alive. It was him and a group of followers–some of them women.
Mary M helped fund his ministry.
He chose both genders to be involved.

.

There was, and twelve men had it. They were chosen by Jesus. NO WOMAN WAS AMONG THE TWELVE.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

DaddyGirl, are you there?

 

[eddie_too]

in the earliest times of the Church, this was not a question. most believers were focused on the Way. the idea that they should challenge the authority of the apostles and their successors did not occur to many. if we read the letters of st. paul, most of those who challenged his authority were doing so from the perspective of judaism. they were men who were trying to add laws and practices of judaism to the Gospel of Jesus as though Jesus taught that these laws and practices were necessary parts of His Gospel.

when it became a question of subsequent generations (those who did not want to accept the authority of the apostles, but still claimed to be followers of Jesus) of the faith, the earliest answer was that this is the way the Lord designed His Church.

it is only when dissenters persisted in pestering the apostles successors in later centuries that the Church’s theologians and scholars developed additional defenses for the all-male priesthood.

as to this, i would say that the all male priesthood is not an issue for people who accept that Jesus gave all authority to His apostles and their successors, but is rather a product of the contentious politics of the current era and is considered a matter for discussion by those whose understanding of the faith is cloudy.

if the answer that Jesus created an all-male magisterium is not satisfactory to some, i suggest they look in to the motivations in their own hearts because there is no more satisfactory reason to be found or given.

 

[catholic1seeks]

in the earliest times of the Church, this was not a question. most believers were focused on the Way. the idea that they should challenge the authority of the apostles and their successors did not occur to many. if we read the letters of st. paul, most of those who challenged his authority were doing so from the perspective of judaism. they were men who were trying to add laws and practices of judaism to the Gospel of Jesus as though Jesus taught that these laws and practices were necessary parts of His Gospel.

when it became a question of subsequent generations (those who did not want to accept the authority of the apostles, but still claimed to be followers of Jesus) of the faith, the earliest answer was that this is the way the Lord designed His Church.

it is only when dissenters persisted in pestering the apostles successors in later centuries that the Church’s theologians and scholars developed additional defenses for the all-male priesthood.

as to this, i would say that the all male priesthood is not an issue for people who accept that Jesus gave all authority to His apostles and their successors, but is rather a product of the contentious politics of the current era and is considered a matter for discussion by those whose understanding of the faith is cloudy.

if the answer that Jesus created an all-male magisterium is not satisfactory to some, i suggest they look in to the motivations in their own hearts because there is no more satisfactory reason to be found or given.

Great answer! Thank you.

This is one of the reasons I am nervous about “women deacons.” For if that office is introduced in whatever sense, I personally feel that the alleged “patriarchy” of the church will be more emphasized. People will ask “Why can a woman only be a deacon (in whatever sense) but not a priest or bishop?”

I think women deacons will make it appear as if there is truly inferiority of women in the church, because it will look as if women can only become deacons – nothing more. So it’s scary when people are celebrating this idea of women deacons for the sake of women’s role in the church. *They’ve almost reached full equality in the church – this is one small step – but they haven’t achieved it yet! *will be the thought among many,

I will be all-for women deacons if it is carefully described and manifestly understood that a “woman deacon” is not a level 1 of Holy Orders.

 

[Darryl_B]

I didn’t say an all-male priesthood was sexist.
Read carefully.

This is your rephrasing of the question.

In other words, were early Christians sexist or anti-woman in how they talked about male church leadership?

In other words? I answered that question mark with a resounding “no”. I have yet to see a society that is sexist or anti-woman. Sure we have been led to believe that America felt that in the 60s but all that was solved as a by-product of that movement was the ugly sisters defeating the princess (Cinderella reference) not the prince.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Daddy Girl?