And the CoE just continues to fall apart

I know where you're coming from, but as a woman working towards seminary in my own religion (Reform Judaism), I say good for the Anglicans.

God had no qualms about Deborah or Miriam leading the people, nor did He express indignation when Sarah and Rebecca took charge of their families and overruled their husband's wishes--in fact, He told Abraham directly to defer to Sarah, and supported Rebecca's deception.

If God can act through an idolator and his donkey, He can certainly act through a woman. He's done it many times before.

Yes, and God had no problem with St. Catherine telling the pope to go back to Rome either, but that's quite different from the scenario of her assuming the the position of the pope.

Pappy, the reasons the Catholics give for not allowing women priests (at least, the ones I've always heard) are these:

1. Priests/Bishops are the successors of the apostles and there were never any women apostles.
2. In the book of Genesis, women are made subordinate to men, and thus shouldn't be allowed to lead them.

Reason number one is trash because there was at least one female apostle mentioned in the Bible: Junia.

Reason number two is garbage because there are clear exceptions in the Tanakh (what you call the "Old Testament"), such as Sarah and Rebecca being given charge over their husbands and Deborah serving as Barak's superior on the battlefield.

Thankfully, though, my own religion has no problem with ordaining women, so this doesn't really affect me. I'm just ornery. ;)

Kat,

Good to see you still around!

When we say that Jesus chose only men for his Apostles, we're referring to the Twelve in the capacity of bishop. While there might have been some women labeled "apostles", none were among the Twelve nor is it clear they were bishops. Besides, the reference in Romans 16:7 seems to have two doubts about it: Whether it refers to Junia (a woman) or Junias (a man), and whether it means this person is "prominent among the apostles" in the sense of "a prominent apostle" or in the sense of "well-known to the apostles". In any case there is no proof this person was ordained a bishop (or a priest).

As for your second argument, I usually don't hear such an argument used to advance an all-male priesthood. The argument I usually hear is that there is a nuptial relationship between Christ and the Church (see Eph 5:25-33) where Christ gives his very life to the Church (chiefly through the Eucharist) to sustain her and cause her to bear fruit and bring forth, and the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) acting sacramentally in that role of impregnating the Church with the divine life of God. Therefore it is fitting for him to male as he is in the sense the husband on earth of the church representing her Husband in heaven.

Also, technically, only some of your religion doesn't have a problem ordaining women. :-) Clearly the Orthodox Jews do. Depending of course on how you define what your religion is, I suppose.

Kat

I have never heard the subordinate argument, in fact the church teaches that Genesis affirms that men & women are created with equal worth and dignity.

I think the chief reason that the church doesn't ordain women is because God doesn't call women to Holy Orders. I don't know that
anyone knows with certainty all of the reasons why God doesn't do
this. However, as Eric points out, revelation provides types/analogies that provides certain reasons why God has set
these things up the way He did.