I'm not beholden to Sola Scriptura, so just the Scripture is thankfully only half the argument for me. I'm not actually one way or the other on female priests. I've grown up with them (I'm 28) and never saw a reason for them not to exist until the topic came up, at which point one does have to look at Church history and see their absence. This doesn't seem to have been an issue that crossed anyone's mind until the later stages of the Reformation, and even with a female head of the Church (Elizabeth), the question seems not to have arisen. I could go either way with arguments and I'm not really swayed hugely in one direction, although I err on the side of non-support owing to the lack of Tradition behind this and its incredibly late development. I don't think the Communion is invalid if given by a woman, however, and when Christ comes back I don't think female clergy will be high on his list of priorities compared to things like Jeff Bezos and the far more satanic things going on around us, such as the huge wealth transfers, housing crisis, homelessness and so on. But all I wanted was an answer and it seems the answer was 'why not?' as though the AC were not swayed by the typical arguments. If that's the case that's the case.
Before I start into my response to the inspired scripture that you have exegetically quoted, allow me to assure you I am not criticising your referring to these passages in support of your contention against the notion that women should be allowed by men, (or for that matter by God), to celebrate the Eucharist, i.e. Thanksgiving. I am merely making the point that, because of our different understanding of what scripture is, where it came from, and what conclusions we should reach from reading and understanding it, we find ourselves in disagreement over the issue of whether women should be allowed, by men or God, to be Priests serving the 'body of Christ' i.e the congregation, at the Lord's Table. You, I take it, regard everything written in the Bible as having been authored and recorded by God for the instruction and obedience of the church, or even the whole of mankind. As 'a rule book on what we are allowed or not allowed to do', I do not see the Bible that way. There are many things written in the bible which believers were once not allowed to do but now are. There are many things NOT written in the Bible which clearly it would be very unwise for believers, or anyone else, to do. So the Bible is not entirely a book which tells us what to do and what not to do. The Bible is mostly a book full of stories. Some of which appear to be telling us what to do and what not to do but in fact are just relating what other people either did or didn't do. Some of the New Testament DOES contain advice on what not to do and what wise conduct is, particularly when it comes to how we treat and relate to our neighbour, which is everyone. Thus, presumably, the way you understand the Bible means that ALL of these following Biblical statements constitute either a command, a prohibition or a permission to do likewise. In other words - instructions from God, all equally 'inspired', all equally stipulating our correct or incorrect conduct as believers. 1. "Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." 1 Cor. 14:1 2."the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." 1 Cor. 14:34 3. "Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures," 1 Cor. 15:1-3. 4. "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" Ps.137:8-9. I have no problem at all with Quote No. 1 being regarded as Apostolic advice, to be taken to heart and regarded as God's will concerning believers. No problem at all. Not because it appears in the Bible though. Simply because it is good, Godly, advice. I have some problems with quote No. 2 though, even though it appears in The Bible and seems to be issuing a command to me, a believer. First there is no actual LAW anywhere in the scripture saying that women must be "subordinate" to men. Only that we must ALL, men AND women, be subordinate to God. Secondly, supposedly, St. Paul, is actually contradicting what he has already written previously at 1 Cor. 14:5. "Now I want you all to speak in tongues," in church, not just the men. (Unless we are to assume that St Paul didn't include women as being in the Corinthian church, which must obviously be untrue, he did include them, and even addressed them personally.) I therefore consider Text No.2 to be somewhat LESS good advice and therefore LESS commanding of me or anyone else, than text No. 1. Text No. 3 seems to me to be saying that St Paul is convinced that we are ALL 'saved', just by hearing and understanding the 'Gospel - good news' that he preached to the Corinthian church, just as he did to all the other churches he established. This is a direct contradiction to "it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." Women are clearly, not, according to the teaching of St Paul the Apostle, 'saved through childbearing'. THAT is a ridiculous notion, they are 'saved', just by hearing and understanding the 'Gospel - good news', just as it is a ridiculous notion that Eve was deceived but Adam was not. Both were present when the temptation took place and Adam did nothing to stop it, but meekly ate the bit that he was offered. Equally duped, equally responsible since it would have been Adam that had failed to pass on correctly to Eve the warning God had given only to Adam, that he should not eat of the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good AND Evil', it would have bad results. Since the supposedly spiritual advice apparently given by whoever wrote this, is so obviously logically questionable, I choose to treat the rest of his advice to me, a believer, as suspect and therefore not binding. It seems to me to be far less 'inspired', for instance than Text No. 1, or text No. 3. In fact, to me it seems quite 'worldly' poor advice but that's just my opinion. Text No. 4. Now, text no. 4 is clearly not advice on how to treat the children of our enemies. I don't think Jesus would recommend it. It isn't an example of how to achieve happiness, by killing babies. It doesn't seem like advice from God on possible ways to please Him, but it also doesn't seem to bother God too much if you choose to get a kick out of smashing Babylonian babies heads against a rock or two. THAT is if you take everything written in the Bible as something you are supposed to do, not allowed to do or can do if you want to, without getting into trouble with God or perhaps immensely pleasing Him. And THAT is why I don't think any of the Texts you have quoted have any real bearing on whether it is OK by God if a woman celebrates the REMEMBRANCE that Jesus died to save us from our sins, in such a manner as to REMIND us of that fact, "Whenever we eat bread or drink wine", in the company of our friends in the faith, in the Eucharist. .
What exactly are you meaning by "Especially since priests are supposed to be an extension of our Lord?" In what way is a priest 'an extension' and who taught you that? Can you quote me some scripture which might explain that notion to me? .
Thank you for that clarification @Elmo I misunderstood what you were asking. I am an Episcopalian. Like you, women in ordained ministry has been a feature my entire life. In fact, we are hitting some important milestones when it comes to women's ordination. We are currently celebrating the 50th anniversary (https://www.episcopalnewsservice.or...s-ordination-explored-at-public-conversation/) the irregular ordinations that eventually pushed the Episcopal Church to make the move to full inclusion of women in the priesthood and episcopal at the GC in 1976. It looks like the arguments for it were primarily centered around gender equality. I would love to find the theological report they referenced in the GC resolution when they approved women's ordination. But alas, I haven't gotten a hold of it. Here is a copy of the resolution itself: https://episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=1976-B005
@Elmo - Here is an interesting theological case for women's ordination made by someone in the Anglican tradition. Maybe this can answer some of your questions. https://womenpriests.org/articles-books/micks-the-theological-case-for-womens-ordination/
There are several areas where a case can be made for understanding that a female person might be ordained a priest. Is there some reason a woman may not be a priest, as in something about her gender that would preclude her ability to serve in this vocation? Historically there were arguments about pregnancy, menstruation, and female brains being different (and presumably inferior) to male brains. Is the role of the priest in some sense innately masculine? The argument for persona Christi seems a little flawed, if you follow the argument of Gregory Nazianzus what he did not assume he did not redeem! Jesus was a man, however, the importance of his gender is nowhere near as significant as his humanity. If you look at John 3 the encounter with Nicodemus and John 4 the encounter with the Woman of Samaria one of the things that stands out is that the discussion with the Woman is far more theologically profound. However, she was an outsider and Nicodemus was part of the theologically elite. The encounter with Mary Magdalene outside the tomb suggests that a woman can be entrusted with the good news of the resurrection, which is central to a priest's work and ministry. The general tradition of a male-only priesthood may reflect more of the culture and society in which the Church came to birth, grew and developed than it says about who God calls to shepherd the flock. I have been part of a Church that has been ordaining women to the priesthood for about 40 years. One of the hopes I had as we moved in that direction was that we might see more kindness in ministry. I am not sure that has played out in practice. Some women priests have been very good and some have been disastrous. That of course has been the case with men priests for as long as I can remember.
There was no continuation of a Jewish priesthood in the New Testament church, apart from the fact that our High Priest, Jesus of Nazareth, is Jewish but not of the lineage of Levi and not descended from Aaron, but of the house of David. The Christian priesthood were not called priests until AFTER the end of the Apostolic age, some time mid second century AD. None of the rules that surround priesthood in the Jewish or Old Testament 'church' necessarily pertain to the modern Roman Catholic or Anglican priesthood. .
My main reasons in support of women's ordination have been the following: 1. Equality: Ordaining women as priests promotes gender equality within the Church. I immediately think of Galatians 3:28, where St. Paul states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I think that this passage emphasizes equality in Christ and suggests that gender should not be a barrier to serving in leadership roles, including priesthood. 2. Diverse Perspectives: Including women as priests brings diverse perspectives and experiences into religious leadership, enriching the overall understanding and representation within the Church. 3. Faithfulness and Commitment: Many women are deeply committed to their faith and feel a strong calling to serve in leadership roles and have been found suitable in their respective provinces. Ordaining women allows the Church to benefit from their dedication and contributions. 4. Adaptation to Modern Values: Adapting religious practices to align with modern values of equality and inclusivity is essential for the Church to remain relevant and accepted in contemporary society. We don't want to be on the wrong side of history here as we, as a church body, were on the issue of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy for far too long. Indifference and neutrality on those issues have cast a long shadow of shame over TEC and the Anglican Communion in general that still has not been fully atoned for. (https://episcopalpartnership.org/race-and-episcopal-church-history/). There's a similar ecclesiastical sin being committed in the way women are viewed and treated in the church that women's ordination helps in a small way to correct. And after reading Dr. Micks' article, written in the time when TEC was still debating the issue, I have several new bases to argue. These are just my reasons for supporting women's ordination. I have no idea whether they mirror the Church's reasons or not.
Interestingly this year celebrates the 80th aniversary of the first woman to be ordained in the Anglican Communion. .
What is the Anglican justification for female priests? At least in Australia there isn't a whole Anglican position as 18 out of 23 diocese accept women's ordination and 5 don't so it is based on a diocese by diocese level. Each may have different justifications. This is for Ballarat. Support for the ordination of women to all three orders in the church is based on the understanding that the overwhelming trajectory of Scripture points to the ‘essential equality, dignity, and complementarity of the whole of humanity before God’. Both men and women ‘serve with equal authority in the universal ministry of representing God within the whole created order’. The texts which seem to mitigate against this, noted below, need to be understood in the light of the overall picture presented by the scriptural witness. This is the document that the above comes from, starting at page 4 it expands on the support. https://murray.anglican.org/assets/2023/the-ordination-of-women-as-priests-for-ballarat-82.pdf Hope this is what you are looking for Elmo.
This thread was not meant to be about opinions and I'm not sure why it confused so many people though. It's like folks had trouble until I gave my opinion. Are you guys cautious until you know someone's view? It seems odd to me. I just expected someone to say here are the reasons why the Anglican Church accepts female priests. I'm confused as to why that is confusing.
I think the problem lies in the fact that arguments against women in the Christian 'Priesthood' tend to be on the one hand 'Tradition' and on the other 'Scripture texts', not always understood in their context but treated by those that deploy them as commands universally affecting praxis for God's church. Whereas the case for women in the Christian 'Priesthood' tends to be less clearly delineated, by either tradition or scripture and involved many YEARS of debate within the Church of England and the Anglican community, based upon an overall view of the main thrust of scripture and the view that 'tradition' is not always right or in accord with where the Holy Spirit has been attempting to guide, and is guiding the church to be going. There is scriptural precedence for both of those points of view to be capable of validity. The Church is being guided still, and the church has not always been 'right' in its praxis. The questioner seems to be assuming there is a simple , straightforward answer to be had, when there might not be one. Not all questions have a simple or straightforward answer, and scripture nor tradition are able to settle by simple or straightforward answers, every question anyone can pose. You may as well have been asking us to simply draw you a square circle or a circular square. .
I was asking for actual quotes supporting your position. I am aware of none. However, being human, I am also flawed. Not trying to start an argument, just would like correction if it is warranted. Peace be with you!
Leviticus has no bearing on the Christian priesthood. Leviticus has bearing on Levites of the Israelite faith, of the Levitical priesthood whose High Priest always had to be descendant of Aaron. Lev. 21:17. The High Priest of the Christian priesthood is not Aaron but is Jesus Christ himself, of the house of David. So I don't know what you are talking about. .
Well, usually there are theologically based answers whether not one agrees with them; answers that can be laid out in bullet pointed sections. The problem with not being able to do this is that the person asking the question will then assume there is no answer. If someone asked me why the RCC believes in transubstantiation, I'd give a list of reasons backed up with either Scripture, Fathers, creeds or otherwise. It'd have to be a decent theological exposition of why this is the case, broken down into manageable chunks. If someone asked you why you don't accept Arianism, hopefully you'd be able to give a solid answer as to why you believe in the full deity of Christ; it's not just some opinion. Women's' ordination is a matter of theology, not sociology.
Well, I have been in fact explaining why the Christian priesthood has no connection whatever and is not a continuation of the Levitical priesthood, with all its various prohibitions, exclusions and requirement of only ancestry descended from Aaron. Many people think that 'PRIEST' in Old Testament means 'PRIEST' in New Testament but it most certainly does not, in fact the New Testament church does not have an Old Testament style 'priesthood' at all. Christian 'priests' have a completely different function than Israelite ones did. A completely different function in fact than 'priests' of any other faith or religion than Christianity. Leaders and celebrants in the Church of Jesus Christ, (there is only one), were not called 'Priests' by the church until the late 2nd century AD. It was only after that that the church started using the word 'priest' to describe the church's leadership at all. The 'Christian' clergy-priesthood is therefore an invention of the church and therefore it is entirely up to the church to decide if that priesthood is also open to women who are equally with men saved by God's grace and their faith in Christ. Women are just as able to call to our remembrance Christ's sacrifice for us and just as entitled to call upon God's Holy Spirit to rest upon the sacraments and the congregation as is any man. The church in England has so decided, so women are now accepted by the church into its uniquely Christian 'priesthood'. That's all there really is to it. .
The issue here is that it already assumes a lot of things from Protestant theology. Those things need explaining and Anglicans especially are wont to disagree with more overly Protestant teachings. Such as the idea that priests are not functionally the same. Well, for nearly all of Christian history they were - they were offering a sacrifice, and still do in the RCC, OC and some ACs. Then you will be taken up on there not being priests, and on the fact that the Fathers clearly have an episcopal system that is pretty much unquestioned. Etc.