of course if members are too lazy to click ….. but prefer to write long postings …. then a poll makes no sense
I am not sure about the whole poll thing. We had polls in Australia about whether or not Cardinal Pell was guilty. Guilt or innocence should not simply be a matter of uninformed opinion, but rather considered brutal assessment of the known facts. Ultimately when the verdict was quashed the poll was shown for what it was worth. None the less I have complied and voted in the poll as requested. God is not determined on the basis of a poll, and neither is correct theology. It is interesting that here where the topic was for a long time off limits, that there is a diversity of opinion.
I actually agree with what you say here. This subject has been discussed at length and rarely has it been necessary for the Mods to censor contributions to the debates. If contributors to the threads on this subject get abusive then it is very understandable that their posts should be curtailed or removed. I am dubious about the value of merely polling the numbers of 'fors' or 'againsts' though. I can see no possibility of that information, once we have it, ever changing anyone's opinion either way or even increasing anyone’s understanding of the issue itself. .
I'm not an Anglican, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth. I voted no. My reasoning is that female priests were never a part of the early church (at least, as far as historians can tell). Some say that it was just because the culture at the time wouldn't have allowed women to be priests. But I don't buy that argument because Christ was openly counter-cultural on a number of things. He certainly wouldn't have been a respecter of this cultural custom if it was opposed to his will. So I think an entirely male priesthood is by divine design, not an accident of cultural history.
I could point out of a number of flaws in your reasoning. Are you willing to discover and discuss them?
First - I respect your reasons for believing what you do, based as it is on rational thought. The emotions the subject stirs up are really what causes the problems surrounding the issue. Religion has, from the very beginning of things characteristically possessed the potential to divide humanity brother against brother and brother against sister and sister against sister, and division is usually a bad thing unless it is concerning The Way, The Truth and The Life. Now - Actually - Priests were never a part of the early church. There is no historical evidence for a male or female priesthood, (as we now know it), in the Christian sect of Judaism until well after Gentiles were admitted into it and it became known as the Christian church, around the end of the 2nd century AD, though Jesus Christ was named as a 'Great High Priest' by the author of The Letter to the Hebrews, Heb.4:14. Until the end of the 2nd century ALL 'followers of The Way', as the Christian church was then known, were regarded as 'priests' 1 Pet.2:5-9. That being the case the Apostles drew no distinction whatever between male and female believers. Peter did not consider women to be excluded from the church, and it is the whole church, men and women, he is referring to when he calls us 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.' And he goes further to declare the function of that priesthood of men and women believers. It is - 'that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.' So the function of a priest, according to Peter and also the author of Hebrews is a prophetic one, i.e A ministry of proclamation of Christ's deeds. This is epitomised in celebrating the Eucharist in which Christ's greatest deed, His ultimate achievement, His sacrificial offering to God of himself, once for all, is expressed and commemorated in thanksgiving. Misogyny, along with many other heretical notions was creeping into Christ's church from the day of it's inception. Many churches were led by educated and socially elevated wives of wealthy Roman officials from their own homes. such as Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2), Priscilla (Acts 18:26), and Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3). Most of the teachings of the apostles are clarifying the faith in practical terms and combatting heresies of one kind or another, mostly from either the Gnostics or the Judaizers among the flock. So even the early church was not ever 100% following patterns of leadership set in stone by God himself. They have changed considerably through time. By the time the church reached the end of the 2nd century the church had developed a leadership structure in which MEN had assumed exclusive authority, being influenced more by pagan society around them in that respect than by the teachings of St Peter and the other apostles. It was further cemented into male only leadership by Constantine who saw the church as a way of uniting his secular empire and quelling religious dissent by making Christianity the State Religion. Even at this stage though there were still many in it entertaining anti-gospel heresies of one sort or another, misogynistic attitudes among them. Eventually much later the church even began to insist on celebate men only in the priesthood. Actually the predominant culture at the time was paganism and it had a predominance of women priests. (That became a problem for the church). Christianity however sprung from Judaism, which did not have female priests. But Christianity, as I explained earlier did not have priests, because their function was now completely redundant. They no longer slaughtered animals and burnt them or cooked them as ritual meals to be eaten by the worshippers who had transferred their sins to the living animal so that the animal received the penalty, death, for the worshippers sins. Heb.10:1-4. Christ was now our passover victim and he had died ONCE and for ALL. Heb.9:23-28. No repetition of that event was either possible or necessary, so a priest was no longer needed to kill and cook anything for anyone in a Christian church. So Why have priests? So they didn't. We cannot assume that as 'Great High Priest' of the church of Christ, Jesus saw himself as the High Priest of an exclusively male priesthood, (of the kind that existed in Judaism), for two distinct reasons: (1) Jesus Christ is the High Priest of a completely DIFFERENT priesthood than the Old Testament Aaronic one. He is of the order of Melchiz′edek not Aaron the brother of Moses. Melchiz′edek comes before Aaron and predates him, in the time of Abraham. Aaron's priesthood was male only. We do not know, and are not told what gender Melchizedek's priesthood was. It could well have been both men and women. Both men and women were priests at that time. Certainly it is quite possible that Jesus Christ as High Priest, of the order of Melchiz′edek, presides over a male and female priesthood also, just as St Peter suggests here. 1 Pet.2:5-9. In any case Aaron's priesthood was defective by comparison to Christ's because it was integral to the Original Covenant which is fading away. Only males were given it's sign and seal, namely circumcision. Christ's is of a New and BETTER covenant which naturally includes females as well as males in it, through baptism. If indeed Christ presides in heaven over a mixed priesthood, there is no reason whatever he should not also do so here on earth. Rev.1:6, Rev.5:10, Rev.20:6. (2) WE really do not know what the will of Christ is on this matter. Anything we decide is an assumption. What we may assume though from reading what the author of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote, is that Christ is High Priest over a NEW and DIFFERENT priesthood than the Old Testament One that was replaced as redundant, by Christ's BETTER one. Heb.8:1-13. The priesthood of the Old Testament may have been, as you say, by divine design but it was also defective, inadequate and replaced by a New and BETTER One. Heb.8:1-13. If one of the inadequacies of the Original Covenant was that only males received the sign and seal of it and it involved the shedding of blood, (circumcision), one of the enhancements of the NEW Covenant could well be both males and females can receive it, and water is cleansing, not injurious to us. It is highly likely that just as Jesus received and taught female disciples, he also has ordained female priests into his High priesthood of the order of Melchiz′edek. Priests no longer slaughter anything. They aren't told to fling blood over and around the altar, they don't have to cook anything. ALL THAT HAS GONE. All they have to do is "declare the wonderful deeds of him who called us out of darkness into his marvellous light". .
A bit disingenuous. While there weren't priests as we know them there were Elders and Overseers (Bishops). Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was appointed by the Apostle John. Ref. So perhaps we should say that there is no evidence that female presbuteroi or episkopoi were a part of the early church. Within the churches Paul established we have his word that women were not to be appointed to these positions.
The elders and overseers later became deacons and bishops were not by any means equivalent to the Bishops we have today. They were far more local in their jurisdiction. There was no person in any leadership role in the very early church equivalent to a Levitical Old Testament Priest. There were no leaders required, by the faith of the Christian Church, to perform the functions or duties of a Levitical Old Testament Priest. There was no requirement that any leader in any role should now be a descendant of Aaron, simply because there was no requirement for any priests at all. All leaders were only required to be 'believers' in Jesus of Nazareth, risen, and confess Him as Lord, The Christ. After a very short time, there wasn't even any essential requirement for leadership to be Jewish or presumably male, until later on. The style of leadership and the realisation that the offices carried out in the temple were now redundant and unnecessary became the distinctive difference between Christianity and Judaism. It became the reason that Saul sought permission to persecute the sect, because they broke the LAW of God in this manner. .
Sorry for the delayed response. Here are some of my thoughts as I read through. I've always read that there was a difference between the priesthood of all believers and the sacerdotal priesthood. Christianity doesn't continue the Levitical priesthood, but understands the sacerdotal priesthood to follow Christ in the order of Melchizedek. But even without taking that into consideration, the early church didn't have every Christian consecrating the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood for themselves. So I would wonder where they got the distinction from, if they saw everyone as priests and had no other form of priesthood. These references are on the vague side. It mentions Phoebe as a deacon, but there is still considerable debate as to whether female deacons were ordained to the diaconate, or unordained in order to help women be baptized for modesty's sake. I agree with you that without a firm historical record, all we can do is assume, if we're not relying on tradition. The converse of the new covenant allowing male and female priests is that the old is a foreshadowing of the new. As a foreshadowing, the male-only priesthood would arguably be preserved. So it wouldn't follow that because the new superceded the old, and both boys and girls could be baptized into it, that women were allowed to be sacerdotal priests in it as well. We would have to remain agnostic on the question, from this evidence alone. For me to be convinced, I would need to see some real evidence, like a writing from an apostolic father, or something from the early church, that describes a woman serving in that sacerdotal capacity, without it really being able to be interpreted any other way. Without that, it seems like an argument from silence - "women likely could be priests in the early church because we don't have any explicit reference that they couldn't be." And maybe there is - I'm not well versed in patristics. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct on that point.