You actually wrote. How can someone who does not claim to know the mind of God, possibly obey what they believe it to be, if they also admit not knowing what it is? .
For the entire two thousand years to which you refer women existed but did not become "priests", motor cars, TV and candy floss did not exist. I see this difference as significant, humans created all the things you list, except women and priests.
Women Priests could not just "Become" anything, on their own. They are MADE to become, by other priests, who up until then had been exclusively only MEN, because only MEN started the whole process OFF in the beginning. Someone had to be first. It just happened to be a man, obviously. Humans decided that the Christian Priesthood, (as it is currently manifested), would consist only of men, in fact MEN alone, decided that it would consist only of men. It didn't change until some MEN priests, who were also bishops, made some WOMEN also priests, by ordaining them. Some men bishops have at long last wisely decided some women are suitably qualified to be ordained so now some women bishops can also decide who should become ordained a priest, whether they be a man or a woman. That is the way things actually happen here on earth. Authority, in the church, comes down from whomever conferred that authority from above you, not from what you have inside your underpants or knickers. .
This..."1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." is the way some of us believe things can happen, even here on earth. In the case of the priesthood, it is about being called, by an authority above us all. Just my humble opinion, a strongly held aspect of my faith, that people do not pick out or decide who is qualified for such a thing, never did. The Lord calls them.
And YOU would say, I suppose that The Lord does not call women but only men? Forgive me if that would seem to me to be a circular and self justified argument on men's part. And anyway, just being called is not what makes one a priest. One has to be examined and ordained by the church. Male or female one can not just decide they simply want to be one. Ultimately, God decides they may perform the duties of a New Testament Priest, on behalf of the church, which is the body of Christ, of which they are a part. .
I would say to be called is a matter of God saying they must, not may. If as you say "Male or female one can not just decide they simply want to be one.", then the question I would have for you is why do you think that "Some men bishops" can "have at long last wisely decided some women are suitably qualified to be ordained" ? If an individual cannot simply decide the matter, can a group of people simply decide ?
Then, would you also say that The Blessed Virgin Mary was forceably impregnated by the Holy Spirit, without her permission? I think God's call to ministry is more of an invitation to participate in God's plans, than simply a command to obey without any right to question, vocations to the priesthood are rather like the Annunciation in that they have to be tested, agreed to and voluntarily accepted before God moves. How do we believers all decide whether a person is sincere and honest when they offer their testimony to us, when they tell us they have heard God's voice? How did those who questioned St Peter on his breaking of tradition reach a conclusion regarding the truth of his testimony? In anwer to your particular question, the answer I feel most appropriate would be that it took time before God decided to convince St Peter to break his tradition of not associating with Gentiles, and it has taken time for God to convince 'Some men Bishops' that some women, as well as only some men, are as capable of discerning the calling of God to ministry, as they are themselves. I don't doubt that for some considerable time after Peter's vision and the church embracing Gentiles as brothers and sisters in Christ, there were STILL many Jewish converts to Christianity who would not associate with Gentile Christians, for many years afterward, because they had no faith in Peter's vision but preferred to stick with their tradition. Paul's letter to the 'foolish' Galatians might seem to confirm it. A Bishop's panel enquires deeply into the character and 'calling' testimony of candidates to the Anglican priesthood over some considerable time. Members of those panels are carefully chosen themselves by the church as being wise, experienced and faithful in the Holy Spirit at discerning truth, but being human, even they can make mistakes. .
Maybe I unwatch them, not that it is any concern of yours, because of the uncharitable behaviour I am seeing from posters such as you. I do not completely unwatch. I do look in to look for posts such as yours which I anticipate. It is not often I am surprised by the lack of anything.
Uncharitable, to simply point out a possible reason someone may have missed some theological reasonings recently? That's a bit harsh.
The Lord has a demonstrable track record (for thousands of years) of only calling men to that sort of leadership position. But we all are imperfect hearers (among the people who think they are called, and among the people who examine them for ordination).
So you unwatch them but not completely unwatch them. You seem a bit inconsistent ! If it's no concern of mine, why tell me? Sometimes I wish you would follow your own advice, "AnglicanAgnostic member: Ignored " (Common Worship post #35 28th Aug 2022). I sort of wore this "Ignored" as a badge of pride, sometimes people don't like hearing the truth. I would never Ignore someone here. My theory is people should be able to say what they like (apart from abuse) even if they don't like it. If I object it is my job to argue against it, not just suppress it. General question; if someone does "Ignore" me on this forum, will the forum let me know of this new status?
You do not know who or how God has called anyone, (except possibly yourself), to anything along the lines of ministry. Celebrating the Eucharist is not 'leadership' and priests were not leaders in the way leadership is thought of today. Joshua, Moses, Solomon and Barrabas were 'leaders', not all of them good ones, but also none of them even Old Testament priests. Jesus demanded that leaders in his New Testament church should be SERVANTS to all, and not exclusively macho, die hard, red necked males. How do you know God has only called men? Only by the fact that the male priesthood in the Christian church has, until recently, only ever accepted men as being able to be called, so rejected the calling of women, without even testing and trying their call to a vocation as priest. None of those MEN knew for sure whether GOD might have CALLED any women. They all only, (until recently), PRESUMED it was not possible. And without being able to know God's mind, (which none of them could), they were being truly PRESUMPTIOUS. .
[QUOTE="Tiffy, post: 62090, member: 2772] Only by the fact that the male priesthood in the Christian church has, until recently, only ever accepted men as being able to be called, so rejected the calling of women, without even testing and trying their call to a vocation as priest.[/QUOTE] I do believe there was no shortage of women accepting the same thing, and the fact that the church has always believed a thing is certainly not a reason to doubt it. Of course, if it is just some assumption then it is open to change, but as the OP requested the theological justification for this change, is "some of us just figured the exlusion was sexist" really a theological basis for the decision?
The fact though is that the Christian Priesthood was chosen by MEN from only MEN for nearly 2000 years and MEN are not the whole church of Christ. The Church has been deprived of the talents of HALF of the body of Christ, for nearly 2000 years. Fortunately, I believe, God has finally been allowed by MEN in the church to utilise some in the other half of the body of Christ, to the benefit of Christ's church and the furtherance of the Kingdom of God on earth. Actually I don't give a lot of credance to the 'sexist' accusation myself. Any truly Spirit led Christian who objects to women's ministry, in my opinion, probably does so out of sincerely formed theological reasons, justifying their 'gut feelings'. The problem is getting them to drop their 'gut feelings' for long enough to rationally discuss their theological reasonings, so that they may begin to see a way through the issue, rather than just fighting their corner on what they truly believe is God's behalf. A sensible principle would be what Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, proposed. i.e. wait and see what God does about it, otherwise you might find you were actually opposing God rather than enforcing what is only thought to be God's will, but actually may not be. Acts 5:17 to Acts 8:1 is a longish read, but aptly illustrates what injustice a blind adherance to tradition can lead to, for individuals on the receiving end of those being solely driven by it. .
I suppose.... if we allow women to be priests, then men can legitimately be married to their priests, thus men might regularly make love with priests, and it won't even be as scandalous as it sounds....
I do wonder why you felt it was useful, helpful or enlightening to post this. I guess the laugh emoticon is to allow us to think that it was funny, or not to be taken seriously. I hope you can do better.
Women already have made love with their priest husbands and produced families with them, (so what would be new). before RC priests got told by a Pope their husbands weren't allowed to any longer and from then on priests weren't allowed to marry in the RC church. It doesn't sound scandalous to me at all. Why should it be scanalous to anyone else? Seems like you may be getting nearer to the REAL reason some men dislike the idea of women priests, but are ashamed to admit and name it openly. That would be scandalous. .
Sorry, I thought it was humorous. My upbringing was Roman Catholic so that might color my thinking. If you ever fail to see the humor in one of my jokes, please just disregard it.