Male Priesthood


#1

Please give me evidence that the all-male priesthood is a result of biblical and apostolic traditional sources, not just the culture of anti-woman in Jesus’ time. My bio teacher wants to know this. Thanks!


#2

The best evidence is that Jesus, Himself, chose twelve MEN and MEN ONLY to be His first priests…since Jesus did many things, which were considered in His time to be “radical”…He had every opportunity to change any sort of all-male biased present in the culture of that time, by choosing women and men to be Apostles…and He did not…

He DID show how much He honored women in many ways; including when He performed the Miracle of Cana at the request of His mother.

Thus, His choosing men only for His priests was not His way of taking part in cultural bias; but rather His way of showing us that He wanted MEN to be priests.

Priests are to stand as “another Christ” in the Mass…
God could have come into His human form as MAN OR WOMAN…He chose to come as a MAN…and therefore, His priests, as His physical representatives in the Mass… ARE MEN.


#3

Is Jesus our High Priest? Yes.
What is His gender? Male.
What should the gender of His representatives here on earth be? Male.


#4

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html


#5

I certainly have not read through all of this, but from what I did, it would seem like it might be very helpful to you.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm


#6

Jesus did many things to empower the women of His time, which were considered quite radical, at the time. For example, taking on women as disciples would have been considered extremely unusual, yet we read in the Gospels that there were many women following Him, including Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Suzanna, and several people named Mary, including His own mother.

He was also very bold to speak to the Samaritan woman at the well, and to the various women who came to Him for healing, since at that time, it was considered very “not done” for men and women to speak to each other in public. Yet, Jesus did not observe this taboo.

It would not have been that large of a step for him to establish a female priesthood - after all, He had already broken most of the other rules - especially since there were female priests in the pagan religions of the area that He would have been familiar with - yet, He did not.

It does not make sense that Jesus broke all these other rules concerning women being taught about religion and being spoken to in public (including sending them with messages to give to other men - a definite no-no in those days) with no sign that He thought there was anything odd about it, and then that He would suddenly worry about public opinion when it comes to putting women into the role of the priesthood.


#7

I believe from the time of Abraham and Melchidezek through the history of the Chosen People to the time of Jesus, the tradition in Judaism was a male only Rabbinical “clergy”. Only men could be Rabbi’s in the OT. Jesus, being a Jew, continued that tradition in his choice of men only. For his own reasons…

This is conjecture, I am no historian on Jewish OT Tradition. I just don’t remember reading of any female rabbis from Abraham to the time of Jesus. Holy women, yes, but not rabbis. And if I am wrong, I would appreciate some “loving” correction by my jewish friends on this forum.

And by the way, to accuse Jesus of discriminating against women is to accuse Him of the sin of sexism. Something not possible.


#8

Jesus didn’t concern himself with Jewish tradition when he chose his apostles. As has already been said, He broke with it in His treatment of women.


#9

Other religions at the time had priestesses. Thus the assertions that the culture at the time was anti-women is not historically supportable and is, in fact, specious.


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.