Women Priests

[Sir_Knight]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.
2. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
3. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.
4. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.
5. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.
6. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.
7. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

… thanks in advance.

 

[Newbie2]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.

Non sequitur. Sharing in the “new priesthood” does not literally mean being open to Holy Orders.

1. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.

Empowered to preside. Another Non Sequitur.

1. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.

Christ chose no women. The Church has no power to do so.

1. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.

“Full sacramental ordination”…um, no.

1. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.

Bizarre notion. Not worthy of a response.

1. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer ***other Christian Churches ***now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.

Other “churches” are not properly called “churches”, rather, ecclesial bodies. Other “churches” handle snakes too. A “me too” mentallity, methinks.

1. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

I discern myself to be a pope. We should not ignore that, should we? “Wannabe” mentality, methinks.

… thanks in advance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders. No, it doesn’t. Men and women both share equally in possessing physical bodies, does that mean that men are ‘equally open’ to generating a child in a (male) womb?
2. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist. Um, “empowered?” Gee, I guess there is no ‘agenda’ here. Empowered. And where did the 'men and women" idea come from? Historical revisionism.
3. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders. SURE it was, and there is a lovely bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to offer these clowns. . .Jesus was powerful enough to save humanity yet powerLESS to keep His Church from making a huge ‘mistake’ due to CULTURAL BIAS? Oh, the 60s just won’t DIE in the minds of some people, and everything is about "cultural bias’.
4. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained. No, women fulfilling a deaconNESS function were NOT sacramentally ordained.
5. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome. Oh, so on one hand we have the ingrained cultural bias and on the other, we have an ‘equivalent’ tradition of Mary the priest (NO!!). . .do these people even bother to look at the evidence they are spewing out to notice that they’re contradicting themselves???
6. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ. OH wait, you mean that truth is something that is determined by MAJORITY vote??? I suppose that we need to permit abortion and remarriage after divorce and premarital sex and gay marriage too. Why not? What makes ‘women priests’ acceptable by ‘converging consensus’ (read, loud-mouthed bullies) and other things ‘not acceptable?’
7. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore. Oh it’s a sign of a spirit no doubt but the HOLY Spirit? Not hardly. He doesn’t teach AGAINST Himself.

These people make me so tired. It’s as though they think that if they scream enough, everything they want will come to them because they want it. And they really want what they ‘can’t have’. Once they ‘get’ it, it’s on to the next ‘cultural bias’ to ‘conquer’ and they’ll ignore any flak or fallout. Free love was great, but all the STDs and broken homes aren’t due to an unwise capitulation to sin, they’re due to ‘cultural biases’ somewhere. And the worst thing is, that you can’t REASON with people like this because they just don’t want to hear. LaLaLaLa, they put their fingers in their ears and keep on bleating, “BIAS! BIGOT! PHOBIA! UNFAIR!”

 

[Spencerian]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.
2. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
3. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.
4. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.
5. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.
6. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.
7. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

… thanks in advance.

Hi.

I’ll add some sources that refute these as I go.

1. Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders. False. There is nothing in Scripture or Sacred Tradition that shows any women that are validly ordained or perform acts of valid ordination. They are just making this up. Baptism removes Original Sin, and that is all it does.
2. At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist. False. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that Christ’s directives or actions were done to any others but the Twelve, who were all men. Mary may have been there, but her role was already fulfilled, and it wasn’t as a priest. Further, if there was anyone who could be an outstanding priest, wouldn’t it seem logical that Christ would choose his sinless mother? He didn’t. That’s also supported at his crucifixion, where the Apostle John receives Mary under his care by Christ’s request. If she were priestly, why would such an act be necessary?
3. Women have been deacons. False.. Romans 16:1 notes Phoebe, a “minister” as described by St. Paul. The early Church may have had need of extraordinary ministers (as it does today), and Phoebe likely filled a similar role. But this is a rare example among no other instances where women aren’t mentioned as presbyters or bishops. Many men today are deacons but, due to various reasons, can never become priests. Extraordinary ministers cannot perform acts reserved for the ordained.
4. Cultural bias. False. The Old Testament showed God appointing men and men only as priests, calling for women in special roles throughout history in leadership roles for special occasions, such as Deborah. But Deborah was not a priest. Further, the Womenpriests group is creating a straw man argument about the intolerance of cultural bias today, which had nothing to do with Christ’s decision to pick twelve men only. Is the group suggesting that Christ did something wrong? It was not men that defined the Church. God did.

5.* . . .The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition. One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest…* False. Same answer as to item 2.

1. The wider Church accepts women priests. Non sequitur. The Womenpriests group notes non-Catholic organizations and their choices to appoint females to their clergy. The Catholic Church’s authority, or lack of authority in this case, rests with God’s pattern of choosing priest, not our popes or bishops. The “wider Church” is not the Catholic Church.
2. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests. False. God’s pattern in choices of priests is patently demonstrated in Old and New Testaments. We are all called to vocations; parenthood and marriage, for instance. Some men may be called to the clergy. But women have the most special role of all, for only they can make more people to be called. Christ is the groom to His Bride, the Church. Christ’s mother represented the new Eve, and He the new Adam. For a bride to take up a bride is not logical and is theologically impossible.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Just FYI, the Catholic Church has no official position on whether early deaconesses received sacramental ordination. There are Catholic theologians and historians on both sides of this issue.

 

[Onyx88]

Those are the best argumentts i’ve ever heard ~ i wish you could tell this to everyone who thinks women can be priests ~

if this subject comes up at such a such place my only answer is that the church has to follow apostolic succession ~ i can explain that part but that’s about it.
:):):)

 

[GeorgeSword]

I think the simplest argument for those who say that women should be allowed to be priests is this one;

1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
2. Christ was male.
3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also be male.

It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it. And besides, if women were supposed to be priests, why weren’t there any female apostles? Or female presbyters? If God wanted women to be priests, does He have to wait nearly 2,000 years for a group of people to make it happen?

 

[puzzleannie]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.

no they are baptized into the baptismal priesthood, not the ministerial or sacrificial priesthood, any more than men not called to ordination

1. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.

no gospel clearly shows no women were at the last supper, only the 12

3

. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.

Jesus made a practice and was accused of scandal several times for his unconventioanal anti-cultural conversations with women and gentiles, so this is hoooey on the face of it. you are attacking the Son of God with gender bias?

1. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.

not a scintilla of evidence for this claim which has been debunked here so many times it has tread marks on it. women were deaconesses in the early 4-5 centures NOT an ordained office but a ministry to help with baptisms of females

5

. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.

there is no such orthodox devotion in any tradition of the Church

6

. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.

no most mainline Protestent denominations actually reject the entire notion of the sacrificial priesthood, since they reject Mass and Eucharist as a real presentation of Christ’s priestly sacrifice, they may have women ministers, but they are not priests.

1. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

no the HOly Spirit will not and cannot by his nature work against the Church, nor can the Church work against the Holy Spirit so it is impossible for any woman to have an authentic call from the HOly Spirit to the priesthood, since the Church has declared infallibly women cannot be priests because of the manner in which Christ himself, totally linked with the Father and Spirit, instituted the sacrificial priesthood

 

[crazzeto]

Can someone help me address these misrepresentations …

1. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
2. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.
3. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.
4. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.

… thanks in advance.

Mainly I want to point out these four points, because they’re self contradictory when you take them as a whole. And you certainly have to take their argument as a whole to evaluate the merit of it.

Edit:
If you are a little lost as to what I mean, focus mainly on points 3 & 4 and it will become clear.

 

[Erich]

The difference is between the “universal priesthood of believers” and the “ministerial priesthood.”

As members of the “universal priesthood of believers” we are *all *called to serve God – through our worship, prayer, etc.

Only the “ministerial priesthood” is specifically called to serve the people of God – by offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, etc. The Levitical priesthood which offered sacrifices in the Temple (and which ceased to exist after the destruction of the Temple) was also an all-male priesthood.

 

[joandarc2008]

Lets talk about Apostolic Succession which actually gives the rights to Holy Orders:

Acts 1: 15-26: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Acts 14:23: And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 18:24-28: Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

I see not one woman. I also see not one woman that was eating at that table.

Now what were women doing- they were serving. They prepared Christ’s body. They prepared the tomb. They made the meals.

This may not seem “PC” but what can we do today - lay ministry, altar serve, EMHC, all those things that involve serving without the benefit of Ordination. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not going to be popular with this and it’s SO not politically correct but I am a woman and here goes.

Most women, historically speaking, have been nuturers. Servants, if you will. Putting themselves last and others first. It’s really a nature thing with many if not most women, especially until the last century or so.

Most women have also historically speaking been more spiritual, more inclined to listen, more receptive to ‘the gods’ and of course, to God.

So what do you think God, in His first covenant with the Jewish people (who were surrounded by people for whom priestesses–that is, those spiritually receptive women, those culturally-approved-to-be-the-ones-who-worked-with-the-gods etc.) would require of His people?

Bingo. He wanted men to be priests. Why? Because it is so counter to the average man and average ‘male’ inclination.

Historically speaking, men have not wanted to serve, or to listen, or to put others first. Men have wanted to be ‘the top dog’, have wanted to be the ones speaking, and deciding, and planning, and being rugged individuals.

But God wanted His priests to be more like the women. . .serving, listening. He wanted them to give up the power and start **being the servants. **

NOT because He was saying, "Women are better, be like them."

But because He came to serve. And while in things like marriage, for example, we need men to be the strong ones, the doers and shapers, the ‘head’, the leaders. . .in our priests, we need the servants. And we need them to be men precisely because it IS such a different thing for a man to do. Without taking away from the fact that men have a role as leaders (outside the priesthood), having MALE priests be ‘servants’ and humble both highlights the dignity of the ‘male leader’ as head of his family, and as ‘separate’ in his role from a priest, as well as showing the HUMILITY of the priest in giving UP that leadership role and being a servant.

Now let’s give men credit. They have done God’s will for the last 2000 years.

Now we women need to see if we can profit by their example.

We need to let men be priests because men need to BE priests. They NEED to have the experience of being humble servants, of turning things over to God.

We women now need to reject the Evil One who is trying to take the priesthood away from men and ‘give it’ to women. We don’t need it. Only a few women who have been gulled and duped into thinking priesthood is POWER instead of service actually want it. The few women who truly do wish it as a service would be perfectly content in being nuns or sisters instead if, indeed, they truly wish to SERVE God and not to be what they erroneously think of as “Nopes” or to 'get them some of that POWER".

 

[EasterJoy]

1. One priesthood in Christ - Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.

This is a confusion between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the baptised. According to this line of reasoning, we can just throw out the whole concept of the ministerial priesthood, because everyone who is fully initiated is the same.

1. Empowered to preside - At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.

There is no evidence that the Apostles, who were there, came away with this understanding. If they had, how could Paul have said that he didn’t allow women to teach? Rather, the epistles draw clear distinctions between men and women.

1. Cultural bias - The Church’s practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a three-fold prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.

As I haven’t read their entire argument, I can have no exact idea what prejudices they’re talking about. Since Jesus chose only men to be in the Twelve, though, it must be a “prejudice” that Our Lord shared.

1. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.

**The Church even today allows lay people who have not been ordained to perform baptisms, when there are compelling reasons. There were women who had the ministry of baptising adult women, in order to respect the modesty of the women, since the baptism was done by full immersion. It is not surprising that this ministry was given to particular women of recognized merit, as these baptisms were done without any priest present.

There is not evidence that women held the office of deacon as it is understood today, let alone the ministerial priesthood; that is, that they ever ministered to men, let alone offered Mass.**

1. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church’s latent Tradition -One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the ‘sense of the faithful’, in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.

**The word “latent” is telling. It means dormant or hidden. In other words, they are claiming a tradition that is unseen. That is fairly convenient.

The age-old devotion to Mary is not as “Priest”, but as “Mother of Priests”. She is “Mother of God”, too, but that doesn’t mean anyone thinks she is a goddess. If a Catholic community ever made either mistake, that community was in serious error.

Non-authoritative errors happened in the Church over the centuries, and still do. Even if we could find evidence that a baptised Catholic wrote something, that does not make it authoritative. They will not find authoritative evidence that the Church ordained women. If a woman was invalidly installed as a bishop, that would not be evidence of ordination, any more than evidence that some bishop attempted the invalid marriage of two men would be evidence that the Church performed same-sex marriages or baptism of a dog would be evidence that the Church ever believed animals to be proper matter for baptism. **

1. The wider Church accepts women priests - After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.

**After serious study and prayer, I am sure, feeling free to ignore the teaching authority of the Church was arrived at by “converging consensus” a long time ago. That is why there are thousands of Protestant churches, after all. There are too many heresies and errors to count that are held by “converging consensus.” It is not because these fellow Christians quit praying, lack conviction, or don’t believe they follow God’s will. It is because they abandoned the idea that they are not the best judge of what God has revealed. They are unwilling to accept that God could legitimately give teaching authority to someone else.

By this line of reasoning, disbelief in the True Presence must be according to the mind of Christ, too, since most Christians outside the Catholic Church do not believe in it. **

1. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests - The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

**Many men believe themselves called to be priests, but are not ordained. Priests are chosen according to the discernment of their bishop, not according to their own self-assessment. That is the age-old tradition of the Church. Heaven forbid we expect the bishops to ordain everyone who comes to him, claiming to have a call.

If God is calling you, He will let the bishop know, too.**

 

[FrCorey]

and priestesshood just sounds sort of pagan too.

 

[EasterJoy]

and priestesshood just sounds sort of pagan too.

Well, yes, but…

IMHO, that particular objection is fairly rejected by the other side as irrelevant, and so it is better to avoid it. Women attempting ordination to the priesthood do not call themselves priestesses, because the term priestess implies an office reserved to women alone. Objecting to ordination of women on the grounds that the term priestess sounds pagan would be a bit of a red herring, then. That argument isn’t going to fly with those we might hope to persuade.

 

[OraLabora]

I think the simplest argument for those who say that women should be allowed to be priests is this one;

1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
2. Christ was male.
3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also be male.

It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it.

That’s the bottom line for me too, really. The Eucharist is the Lord’s sacrifice and the priest is taking on the persona of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper.

Imagine setting out to do a film on WWII and choosing Katharine Hepburn to take the role of Winston Churchill. It would be ridiculous. She may have been one of the finest actresses ever, but would be totally unfitting in the role of Churchill. Or imagine doing a film about Marilyn Monroe and choosing Harrison Ford in the lead role.

I love women, I am married to a very capable woman who is a respected family doctor in our community. But she could no more take on the priestly role of standing in for Jesus Christ than I could have a baby.

Equal, does not = identical.

 

[legendashmore]

1. Women have been deacons - Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.

I know someone has already said something about this but here I go:

Those “Deaconesses” were very necessary when baptism was done by full immersion. Now we couldn’t have male priests baptizing fully nude women, now could we? Deaconesses only baptized women and that was their only role. They could do nothing else. They were there to protect the woman’s modesty, and to make her much more comfortable. It would be rather unsettling for me to be fully immersed and baptized by a female, just as it would be for women to be baptized naked by a male.

This information makes your argument moot!

 

[corsair]

Whatever the case; the Church has spoken; NO FEMALE PRIESTS.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not going to be popular with this and it’s SO not politically correct but I am a woman and here goes.

Most women, historically speaking, have been nuturers. Servants, if you will. Putting themselves last and others first. It’s really a nature thing with many if not most women, especially until the last century or so.

Most women have also historically speaking been more spiritual, more inclined to listen, more receptive to ‘the gods’ and of course, to God.

So what do you think God, in His first covenant with the Jewish people (who were surrounded by people for whom priestesses–that is, those spiritually receptive women, those culturally-approved-to-be-the-ones-who-worked-with-the-gods etc.) would require of His people?

Bingo. He wanted men to be priests. Why? Because it is so counter to the average man and average ‘male’ inclination.

Historically speaking, men have not wanted to serve, or to listen, or to put others first. Men have wanted to be ‘the top dog’, have wanted to be the ones speaking, and deciding, and planning, and being rugged individuals.

But God wanted His priests to be more like the women. . .serving, listening. He wanted them to give up the power and start **being the servants. **

NOT because He was saying, "Women are better, be like them."

But because He came to serve. And while in things like marriage, for example, we need men to be the strong ones, the doers and shapers, the ‘head’, the leaders. . .in our priests, we need the servants. And we need them to be men precisely because it IS such a different thing for a man to do. Without taking away from the fact that men have a role as leaders (outside the priesthood), having MALE priests be ‘servants’ and humble both highlights the dignity of the ‘male leader’ as head of his family, and as ‘separate’ in his role from a priest, as well as showing the HUMILITY of the priest in giving UP that leadership role and being a servant.

Now let’s give men credit. They have done God’s will for the last 2000 years.

Now we women need to see if we can profit by their example.

We need to let men be priests because men need to BE priests. They NEED to have the experience of being humble servants, of turning things over to God.

We women now need to reject the Evil One who is trying to take the priesthood away from men and ‘give it’ to women. We don’t need it. Only a few women who have been gulled and duped into thinking priesthood is POWER instead of service actually want it. The few women who truly do wish it as a service would be perfectly content in being nuns or sisters instead if, indeed, they truly wish to SERVE God and not to be what they erroneously think of as “Nopes” or to 'get them some of that POWER".

 

[Digitonomy]

There is no evidence that the Apostles, who were there, came away with this understanding. If they had, how could Paul have said that he didn’t allow women to teach?

Just to nitpick, I don’t think this is a very strong argument, since Paul wasn’t present at the Last Supper.