Melody,
Interesting quote, though I don't completely agree. In any case, the prohibition against female ordinations beyond that of deaconess in all the pre-Reformation churches is not based solely on the Pauline epistles. I'd actually argue that it isn't even mainly based on those epistles. Nor is it based on an argument that all the Apostles were male (especially considering the number of women we consider equal to the Apostles - St. Mary Magdalene, for instance, is often called the Apostle to the Apostles). Our opposition to female ordination is based far more on the position of the priest as an icon of Christ (who was male) and as such is based in Holy Tradition. In effect, the female Church is headed by the male Christ and the local church (also thought of as feminine) is headed by the male priest (to put it extremely simplistically). I realise this is slightly off-topic, as the thread is about whether or not female priests are Biblical, as I understand it. To show that it is, however, would require more than a few vague ideas that some passages may be reinterpreted in a way supportivce of a female priesthood, and I simply don't believe that there are any passages in the New Testament that one could cite as Biblical support for female ordination. I, then, would rather follow Holy Tradition, as have my forebears in the faith for the last 2000 years, than I would modernist theologians who appear only too happy to abandon ancient doctrine to cling to the latest social trends. The faith is supposed to be timeless and true, not of this world.
James