Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

We all know Jesus had chosen his apostles who are all men. But is there any passage in the bible that says Women cannot become priests?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by DJClayworth, Caleb Jun 27 at 5:32

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1  
    
Are you looking for the reason Catholics don't ordain women, or specifically for Bible verses? –  DJClayworth Jun 27 at 3:12
    
@DJClayworth i am looking for verses. thanks for that link it somehow enlightens me. –  Ragnarok Jun 27 at 3:14

1 Answer 1

The closest Scriptural verse that could support why the Sacrament of Orders cannot be conferred on a woman is 1 Tim. 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."

Plus, is there any biblical precedent for priestesses "according to the order of Melchisedech" (Psalm 109/110:4)?

Here's St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation for why "the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders:"

Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question [32], Article [2]) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder.

Thus, a female cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders just like a priest cannot baptize with motor oil or consecrate a dorito chip.

Every sacrament requires the proper:

  1. Matter (e.g., unleavened bread for the Eucharist or water for baptism)
  2. Form (the correct words pronounced to effect the sacrament)
  3. Intention (to do what the Church does)

If any of these are lacking, the sacrament is not valid.

share|improve this answer
    
Do Catholic Priests claim to be in the order of Melchizedek? Wow, I've never heard that before. –  curiousdannii Jun 27 at 1:50
    
But in my opinion, I believe that women are capable of administering the sacraments the priests are doing. And I believe that women can fully represent God. –  Ragnarok Jun 27 at 1:55
    
@curiousdanii, actually of course it is Christ who was "in the order of Melchizedek", but the priest is acting "in the person of Christ". –  Matt Gutting Jun 27 at 2:11
1  
@Ragnarok, Then become a Methodist, because obviously the RCC ain't changing its position anytime soon. :) –  david brainerd Jun 27 at 2:42
1  
@Ragnarok, My point is what you think might matter somewhere else, but not in a hierarchical church where the laity gets no say, just as it wouldn't in a purely scriptural church where neither clergy nor laity have power to change doctrine. One strange thing is the RCC would have a better argument if they didn't reject the rules in the pastorals (like 1 Tim 3:2) that the presbyter and bishops must be "the husband of one wife." They could easily say "see, has to be a man" but since they reject this in favor of priestly celibacy... –  david brainerd Jun 27 at 2:57

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.