Anglican/Episcopal Ordinations

[GKC]

Other lurkers may be interested in Pope John Paul II’s lengthy treatment on “women’s ordination” in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS.

Some Anglicans will even point to it, too

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

To answer the first question I would have to ask: do you believe there is one human nature or two? If you believe there are two do you believe that Jesus’ “male-ness” is the saving aspect of his incarnation? If you believe in one human nature then your question doesn’t matter. The fact that Jesus was incarnate Male has no bearing on who he saved right?

Actually, I would say there is one human nature which exists in two ways. Maleness and femaleness are not categories that Christians understand to be insubstantial, like blonds and brunettes.

 

[Contarini]

Since the idea of a male priesthood is not founded on the idea that women are inferior humans, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

But that’s begging the question. I’m arguing that it does appear to have been founded on that idea. I find it hard to see how anyone could spend any significant time reading the Fathers and the scholastics, or any other ancient/medieval texts, and not see how pervasive and fundamental this assumption was. Look at the way female martyrs were typically praised as in some way “becoming male.” Look at the way female ascetics, a bit later, were routinely spoken of as having transcended the weakness and inferiority of their sex. The idea is all over the ancient Christian texts.

The very fact that only heretics (that is, those who were heretics in certain specific other ways) ordained women in the early Church actually supports my point. What you find is that the groups who ordained women either denied the importance of the body or denied the institutional authority of the Church in the name of spiritual authority (Valentinians and other Gnostics in the first case; Montanists in the second). On either of these premises, the biological inferiority of women would be irrelevant.

You seem to think that because *modern *Catholics don’t rely on this understanding (a fact which I not only admit but use as one of the premises of my argument), therefore the historical evidence is simply irrelevant.

I can just as well accuse you of being a modernist liberal who wants theology to accommodate social norms, but I prefer to stick to the argument you actually present.

I appreciate that. But you mistake the nature of my argument. I am not saying that modern Catholics really think women are inferior (though the “giving/receiving” language you use could be understood to imply a form of this, unless one abandons the traditional understanding that the active is superior to the passive). Quite on the contrary: I’m taking as my premise that they don’t. If you were to argue that women really are biologically inferior, my case would collapse.

Furthermore, the accusation of being a modernist who wants theology to accommodate social norms is an empty one. It has no substantive content, because it doesn’t address the question of what the social norms in question are. Some changes in social norms are good; others are bad. I am starting from the assumption that recent popes such as JPII and Pope Benedict are correct in their general understanding of which modern social norms are healthy and which are not.

If the Holy Spirit can’t overcome supposed biases in those first Christians, who were also quite fond of Mary, we’re all in a lot of trouble.

Only the same “trouble” that we are in with regard to slavery and germ theory and all sorts of other cultural/scientific issues on which the Holy Spirit showed no hurry to make early Christians think like us.

So when you say the Catholic/Orthodox rational makes sense only if women are inferior, we see it as men and women having different gifts inwardly, not just outwardly.

And I’m saying that this doesn’t make sense in terms of traditional Christian anthropology.

Find me any place in the Fathers or the medieval scholastics where male-female difference is spoken of in any terms other than the biological (and consequent mental) inferiority of women. If you find me even one such passage, I will grant that my argument has run into some serious problems.

The idea that men and women have differences that are rooted in qualitatively equal gifts and somehow transcend biology is, as far as I can see, a wholly modern innovation. (By “modern” I mean the last few centuries, not the last few decades.)

Men can’t give birth.

That is, again, a biological difference. And it baffles me how people can possibly set giving birth over against Holy Orders as if they are the same kind of thing. They aren’t. Men and women play complementary roles in procreation.

Women cannot receive Holy Orders. Neither makes either any less human.

Edit to add: Do you know any of the early Christians who specifically argued for an all-male priesthood on the basis of women being less than fully human?

First of all, I never said anything about women being “less than fully human.” Is a disabled person less than fully human? Is a child less than fully human?

In response, I might be able to find something explicit from the early Christians, but I can certainly give you something from the supplement to the Summa:

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.

You can read elsewhere in the Summa just what Aquinas thought this “state of subjection” was, in terms of Aristotle’s philosophy (as I’ve already explained it).

Also, because of your emphasis on “sacramental practice with a particular history and cultural context” do you think Christ and the Apostles’ subsequent selection of ministerial priests was restricted because of cultural context?

Of course. Why on earth wouldn’t it be? This notion that Christ and the Apostles operated independently of culture is just bizarre and irrational.

How, on such a premise, would you explain the lack of a clear condemnation of slavery, or Christ’s “failure” to teach germ theory and thus save millions of lives over the centuries?

Clearly there were a lot of things Jesus left us to figure out over the centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit!

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

A woman cannot sacramentally represent the bridegroom.

Yes. In Holy Orders, the priest is an Icon of Christ.

 

[Mickey]

Then she turned to Zosima and said: “Why did you wish, Abba Zosima, to see a sinful woman? What do you wish to hear or learn from me, you who have not shrunk from such great struggles?” Zosima threw himself on the ground and asked for her blessing. She likewise bowed down before him. And thus they lay on the ground prostrate asking for each other’s blessing. And one word alone could be heard from both: “Bless me!” After a long while the woman said to Zosima: “Abba Zosima, it is you who must give blessing and pray. You are dignified by the order of priesthood and for many years you have been standing before the holy altar and offering the sacrifice of the Divine Mysteries.” This flung Zosima into even greater terror. At length with tears he said to her: “O mother, filled with the spirit, by your mode of life it is evident that you live with God and have died to the world. The Grace granted to you is apparent – for you have called me by name and recognized that I am a priest, though you have never seen me before. Grace is recognized not by one’s orders, but by gifts of the Spirit, so give me your blessing for God’s sake, for I need your prayers.” Then giving way before the wish of the elder the woman said: “Blessed is God Who cares for the salvation of men and their souls.” Zosima answered: “Amen.” And both rose to their feet. Then the woman asked the elder: “Why have you come, man of God, to me who am so sinful? Why do you wish to see a woman naked an devoid of every virtue? Though I know one thing – the Grace of the Holy Spirit has brought you to render me a service in time. Tell me, father, how are the Christian peoples living? And the kings? How is the Church guided?” Zosima said: “By your prayers, mother, Christ has granted lasting peace to all. But fulfill the unworthy petition of an old man and pray for the whole world and for me who am a sinner, so that my wanderings in the desert may not be fruitless.” She answered: “You who are a priest, Abba Zosima, it is you who must pray for me and for all – for this is your calling. But as we must all be obedient, I will gladly do what you ask.” And with these words she turned to the East, and raising her eyes to heaven and stretching out her hands, she began to pray in a whisper.
Excerpt from The Life Of Our Venerable Mother Mary of Egypt
by Saint Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem

---

---

St Zomisa was a great saint of the holy Church and yet he bows down to St Mary of Egypt begging for her blessing. And although St Mary is obedient to his plea, she still points to the diginity of the order of his holy priesthood.

 

[cmodrmac]

The Episcopal Church is a rich ancient Church-as stated it still is the USA member of the Anglican Communion.The Church is just not caught up in issues of human sexuality - it accepts that divorces happen and that a certain percentage of the population is homosexual but all are Children of God-

There have been plenty of homosexuals ordained in the Catholic Church they were just not out of the closet. If they are homosexual but are celibate then all of you should feel that this is fine-if they engage in an open relationship or homosexual sex then they are
“sinners” and you would cast them to the wolves

God made homosexuals -it is not a choice-there are plenty of RC gays and lesbians and surely plenty of Gay Priests

 

[MarcoPolo]

You seem to think that because *modern *Catholics don’t rely on this understanding (a fact which I not only admit but use as one of the premises of my argument), therefore the historical evidence is simply irrelevant.

On another forum, someone who saw this thread told me I was not confronting your argument, so for the purposes of this post, I will assume I have thus far failed to do that. So let’s grant 100% that there was a widespread thought that women were “imperfect males” (not “humans” as you corrected me earlier). Why then, since no specific treatment on the matter such as Paul VI’s Inter Insigniores or John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis appeals to the idea of “women as flawed males” should I assume they are still infected by the antiquated philosophy? Why must their opponents approach their arguments by demanding they defend arguments to which they do not appeal? Can they not BOTH reject the idea of “women as flawed males” AND argue that in order to perform the sacramental true, real, sacrifice of the bridegroom, maleness remains necessary?

Find me any place in the Fathers or the medieval scholastics where male-female difference is spoken of in any terms other than the biological (and consequent mental) inferiority of women. If you find me even one such passage, I will grant that my argument has run into some serious problems.

Off-hand, there is the Scriptural testimony of “there is neither male or female.” And as I pointed out, the great veneration of Mary (or even very early saints like Perpetua, Felicity) which seems to weaken what you say if the Church believed they were inherently flawed in their femininity. And I will try to find you more specifically what you ask for, but I don’t think it matters if I can find an ECF supporting me either way unless that ECF’s argument is embraced magisterially. I can find you testimony among true Christians that circumcision was necessary to join the Body of Christ, but it would not mean I would be right to appeal to them to prove the necessity of circumcision.

That is, again, a biological difference. And it baffles me how people can possibly set giving birth over against Holy Orders as if they are the same kind of thing.

I was pointing out that an inherent difference does not equate to inferiority. At the time I made that, remember, I was under the impression that you were saying if women couldn’t be priests, therefore the Church thought them flawed-men. So I pointed out that the mere idea of a gender “difference” does not equate to that conclusion. So we can leave that aspect of the argument alone for now if you like. I’d rather focus on whether or not:

a) The idea of a male priesthood is founded on the idea that women are imperfect males.
b) And if “a” is true, then does that means no other argument for an all-male priesthood is acceptable.

Of course. Why on earth wouldn’t it be? This notion that Christ and the Apostles operated independently of culture is just bizarre and irrational.

Because Christ was the epitome of counter-cultural, going so far as to mingle scandalously with the woman at the well, dining with sinners, touching prostitutes, etc… Yet His willingness to go against the culture when it comes to women’s ordination is entirely absent according to the Scriptural testimony. Same thing with Paul who both said “there is neither male or female” and yet “woman is not allowed to speak or teach in Church.”

Also, in reading your Aquinas quote: “it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection” –*he is not arguing that women are inferior males. He is rather following up on his argument that “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.” This argument, it seems to me, flows directly from the Scriptural teaching that men don’t cover their heads because they are the “head” of house and women are to obey their husbands (i.e. be in a “state of subjection”). Thus it is in this regard, and in Aquinas’ context, that he did not believe women could be the “sacramental sign of Christ” the head. I actually think he is appealing to what I’ve been saying regarding bride and bridegroom. Aquinas points to the Scriptural teaching on marriage between man and women as the parallel to Christ/priest and the Church. Also, the idea of a male priesthood long predates Aquinas, so it is difficult for me to perceive him as foundational to the teaching of a male priesthood.

I will see if I can get you an ECF quote that speaks of male-female differences other than biological or mental inferiority of women.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi Edwin,

While I agree that there was a real undercurrent of the view that women were imperfect in the ancient and medieval world, it seems to me that it was probably held at the same time as the idea that men were good men and women were good women, and both were a kind of human being.

It seems to me that some of the conclusions the Church came to on various issues points to an awareness of this. For example, the teaching that in Heaven we will continue to be men and women. If women were women by virtue of imperfection, then the conclusion ought to be that they will become men when they get to Heaven.

To me this suggests an awareness that women are their own kind of thing, not incomplete men.

I’m also perplexed at why you are dismissive of the biological differences between men and women. As you point out we are not gnostics who believe the physical is of no import - we believe it is, and the soul is the form of the body. Given that the Church has been clear that we retain our sex in Heaven, and so both sexes are perfectible, would it not make sense to conclude that even our soul has a sex, apart from the body? That sex has a spiritual as well as physical significance? In fact to say that it doesn’t would seem to be making precisely the same mistake as the gnostics.

Or to put it another way - are you suggesting that sex has no spiritual substance?

If we can come to that conclusion then it seems to me to be entirely possible that one spiritual role or another in the Church could theoretically be open to one sex but not the other.

 

[Eugenius]

Regarding HOW a homosexual or female bishop can be elected…from what I understand the Episcopalian/Anglican bishops are elected according to a more democratic process than are Roman Catholic bishops. The Episcopalian Bishop is elected by his/her diocese and then that election needs to be affirmed by a given number of other bishops. Given that the diocese has already elected the bishop, other bishops within the Episcopal church are reluctant to tell another diocese who they can or cannot elect and tend to rubberstamp the will of the people in the diocese. Is my understanding correct? Does the election process vary from province to province within the Anglican Communion?

 

[colkitto]

Regarding HOW a homosexual or female bishop can be elected…from what I understand the Episcopalian/Anglican bishops are elected according to a more democratic process than are Roman Catholic bishops. The Episcopalian Bishop is elected by his/her diocese and then that election needs to be affirmed by a given number of other bishops. Given that the diocese has already elected the bishop, other bishops within the Episcopal church are reluctant to tell another diocese who they can or cannot elect and tend to rubberstamp the will of the people in the diocese. Is my understanding correct? Does the election process vary from province to province within the Anglican Communion?

On the whole the Episcopalian/Anglican part of the Church adopts the old system from the early fathers and as we have been told virtually , “that early is better,” or hold to the old ways what can we do?

 

[Magnavox]

God made homosexuals -it is not a choice-there are plenty of RC gays and lesbians and surely plenty of Gay Priests

I disagree here, God did not make homosexuals.

If we go with this line of reasoning then God made murderers, thieves, liars, rapists, etc.

One grave sin is like the rest, and God did not make sinners. He gives us the choice to choose him or not. Non-celibate homosexuals are choosing to live in open rebellion against his will.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Find me any place in the Fathers or the medieval scholastics where male-female difference is spoken of in any terms other than the biological (and consequent mental) inferiority of women.

Ok, as promised, I am addressing the above request. In reviewing the ECFs, I suspect that when an ECF mentions wives submitting to husbands or the man as the head of the woman, that ECF is considered to think that women are “inferior” when that is not what they said. Rather they were quoting the Scriptures.

A couple examples:

*"[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ". (Apostolic Constitutions, 3.9)*A couple thoughts on that excerpt. 1) The idea that man is the head of a woman is a theological reflection on women, not a philosophical error about women being “inferior men.” So I don’t think one can say the ECFs were sexist while holding that Scripture is not; 2) the excerpt points out that there are other contemporaries making “women priests” so it cannot be said that the Church didn’t ordain women historically because it conformed to culture (if I recall correctly, the Gnostics and Montanists were others that did this). *Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, “Peter, do you love me more than these?” Yet He might have said to him, “If you love me practise fasting, sleeping on the ground, and prolonged vigils, defend the wronged, be as a father to orphans, and supply the place of a husband to their mother.” But as a matter of fact, setting aside all these things, what does He say? “Tend my sheep.” For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also; and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others, and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature: or rather far more. (St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 2.2)*And a couple thoughts on St. John Chrysostom’s excerpt: 1) he said that women might be able to do many functions of a priest just as well as men which does not support the notion that they are inferior males; 2) he includes the “majority of men” as incapable of fulfilling the call of the priesthood. So if the early Church didn’t ordain women because they thought they were inferior men, then by the same token would not one have to argue that the “majority of men” were also “inferior men” if that is the foundational reason to withhold ordination? St. John here is putting the majority of men on par with women, so the distinction is not one of “biological inferiority.”

St. John Chrysostom also frequently spoke of men and women in reciprocal terms. For example, he said:

• from the very beginning woman sprang from man, and afterwards from man and woman sprang both man and woman (John Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians)
• When therefore you see an harlot tempting you, say, My body is not mine, but my wife’s. The same also let the woman say to those who would undermine her chastity, My body is not mine, but my husband’s. (John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on 1 Corinthians)
• to men, peace, because of their war; joy to women, because of their sorrow. (John Chrysostom, Homily 86 on the Gospel of John)
• the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife. (John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on 1 Corinthians)

He has many reciprocal comparisons like this showing a solidarity between men and women. Yet as we saw above, he did not believe women were capable of being priests. Therefore it seems his rationale for that belief is not due to thinking women are biologically or mentally inferior men.

One other related quote:[F]or in the compound nature of man we may behold a part of each of the natures I have mentioned—of the Divine, the rational and intelligent element, which does not admit the distinction of male and female; of the irrational, our bodily form and structure, divided into male and female: for each of these elements is certainly to be found in all that partakes of human life. (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, 16.9)It seems here, St. Gregory is saying that all mankind has two parts, a divine, thinking part and a physical form. I don’t see a suggestion that women have any less of the divine rational part. Yet St. Gregory only referred to “men” when he spoke of priests in all the examples I could find.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Also, when I find more time, I plan to make another post going a little further into the affirmative theology of a male priesthood rather than dwell on the issue of bias which I must conclude is untenable.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

God made homosexuals -it is not a choice-there are plenty of RC gays and lesbians and surely plenty of Gay Priests

[forgive me for cutting down your quote- it wasn’t in order to misquote you but to elucidate on this point specifically]

God didn’t make homosexuals; man made homosexuals.

I speak of the categorization itself. The change occurred in the 19th century. Traditionally, sodomy was regarded as a crime against religion. Starting with the French Revolution’s National Constituent Assembly, which on September 25 of 1791 passed a resolution which abolished blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft as crimes at the same time- Deorum injuriae Diis curae (Injury to the gods are the gods’ concern)- what was once a judicial matter about a lapse became a persona; a character with a history, a background, and a way of life. He could not escape his persona because it became part and parcel of who he was and like the “heterosexual” (also a 19th century invention) these acts were no longer habits one practiced but foundations of one’s nature.

From there, “homosexuality” became a condition to be treated; a medical/psychological curiosity that didn’t fit into the scientific human categories. This of course, couldn’t hold, because there is no ontology to back up the “homosexual nature” as being somehow ill compared with the “heterosexual nature.” And so we find ourselves in the present predicament where “homosexuality” is an identity looked to be validated.

From being a vice to be overcome to being a condition to be treated to being a valid identity. None of this shows a growth of respect for a person with a mind that reflects on its own activities or a will to determine the acts it initiates.

So what is clear is that God made humans with certain inclinations and habits while in relations with other people but nowhere did he make prefix-sexual people whose habits define their natures.

 

[Magnavox]

Is there anywhere online that could you watch an Episcopal (Anglican) service?

There are several places to watch daily mass, but I can not locate a place where episcopal services are available to watch?

 

[hn160]

The most important thing outside of ordination of women and homosexuals by The Episcopal Church is their belief in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. The Episcopal Church is all over the map on this subject. The Calvinist influence is great in this Church as well as the Anglican Mother Church in England.

 

[nhylan]

The most important thing outside of ordination of women and homosexuals by The Episcopal Church is their belief in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. The Episcopal Church is all over the map on this subject. The Calvinist influence is great in this Church as well as the Anglican Mother Church in England.

I don’t its that all over the map, maybe thats how you see it but the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common prayer EXPLICITLY says in the Rite of Holy Eucharist that this is “the body and blood of Jesus Christ” how much more specific do you want it to be? Are there individuals that don’t believe in it? sure, same as Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

MarcoPolo,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’ll try to summarize some of the issues before responding to specific points, so as to keep this discussion within reasonable bounds.

I think one preconception that gets in the way is that I must somehow be making a moral accusation against the Fathers and other premodern Christian theologians. You use words like “bias” and “sexism” to describe what you think I’m alleging. But I have not used those words. Obviously such things are very likely at work in shaping cultural attitudes–sinful men are likely to jump at anything that gives them a reason to see themselves as superior. But on the other hand, it’s equally true (as conservatives point out) that modern egalitarianism may appeal to human sinfulness–that much feminism seems driven by pride and anger. So I suggest that we simply rule out such loaded terminology on both sides. I am not speculating as to why ancient people thought about gender the way they did. I can think of plenty of reasons why these views seemed reasonable. What I’m concerned with is the double fact that these views were held (for whatever reason) and that they are clearly no longer the basis for the Catholic position. Again, you seem confused about my position in this regard–you point out that modern statements of the Catholic position don’t rest on the idea of women as biologically imperfect, as if that harmed my argument. In fact that’s the basis of my argument.

My point is that Catholics appeal to tradition while rejecting the cultural assumptions that shaped the tradition. That may be legitimate. But what bothers me is that conservative Catholics don’t even seem to admit that this is what they are doing. A lot of folks seem to believe that the traditional view really is in some way “complementarian,” when as far as I can see it is nothing of the kind (well, except in the obvious sense that you need both men and women for procreation).

The “bridal mysticism” argument is, I think, the strongest one, and I will grant that my objections to it may stem from my relatively more Protestant understanding of ordination–i.e., I’m uncomfortable with a view of ordination that sharply separates the ministerial from the royal priesthood. Since this discomfort is definitely shared by many other Anglicans, perhaps that’s the best response to make to the OP, and perhaps the question of why many Anglican bodies ordain women should be separated from the question of why Catholics don’t!

But again, if only as a matter of clearing the ground for the real argument, I must insist on the fact that when I look at the Fathers and other premodern theologians, I see quite different assumptions. And as I’ll show, your own chosen examples make this point.

So let’s grant 100% that there was a widespread thought that women were “imperfect males” (not “humans” as you corrected me earlier).

Again, I think it’s hard to communicate here because of the modern egalitarian assumptions that keep pushing their way in. I am claiming that women were seen as imperfect biological expressions of humanity. But that doesn’t mean that they were seen as not fully human. The best analogy would be a disabled person or a child.

Modern secular understandings of humanity tend to assume that if we say that humanity is not being fully expressed, then we say it isn’t fully present. Modern secular folks don’t think in terms of an essence which may be fully present even if not all its potential is expressed. But traditional Christians do/did. This is a key issue when it comes to abortion, for instance. I am speaking in traditional Christian terms, not in the terms of modern egalitarianism. I have no problem saying that a blind person is biologically inhibited in expressing the full potential of human nature, while still being fully human. While I don’t think this is true of women, this is what I’m saying Christians once generally believed about women.

 

[Contarini]

Off-hand, there is the Scriptural testimony of “there is neither male or female.”

Indeed. A denial of difference, not an expression of complementary difference. Precisely my point.

And as I pointed out, the great veneration of Mary (or even very early saints like Perpetua, Felicity) which seems to weaken what you say if the Church believed they were inherently flawed in their femininity.

Not if you get beyond the mere fact of the veneration and look at the specific language used. For instance, in Perpetua’s vision of wrestling with an “Egyptian,” she says that she “became a man” (Passion of Perpetua 3.2). Female saints were seen as overcoming the natural weakness of their sex through their great holiness. Thus, they could be venerated and regarded as models for all Christians while still being incapable of holding any position of official public responsibility (as shown by the quote you give from Chrysostom in a later post).

The extent to which women could overcome their “sex” was a matter of debate. The more spiritualized one’s conception of humanity, the more open one would be to such an “overcoming.” Hence, the heretics who rejected the body outright were willing to give women positions of public responsibility within the church–the body didn’t matter any longer for a truly spiritual person. Orthodox Christians rightly rejected this approach. For orthodox Christians to ordain women, the assumption that women’s bodies were inferior had to be abandoned.

And I will try to find you more specifically what you ask for, but I don’t think it matters if I can find an ECF supporting me either way unless that ECF’s argument is embraced magisterially.

Yes, it matters, because my argument isn’t about “magisterial” teaching, but about the cultural context that shaped practice.

I’d rather focus on whether or not:

a) The idea of a male priesthood is founded on the idea that women are imperfect males.
b) And if “a” is true, then does that means no other argument for an all-male priesthood is acceptable.

I am certainly not arguing b.

What I’m arguing is that the traditional practice makes most sense historically if seen in that context, and that the contemporary Catholic position has not sufficiently addressed the metaphysical gap left by the abandonment of that cultural assumption. Hence we get statements like “Jesus only chose men to be members of the Twelve,” with no serious attempt made to answer the obvious question, “So what?” The significance of this would have been obvious given the premodern assumptions. It’s not obvious if you reject those assumptions. So you have to fall back on the very weak “counter-cultural” argument.

Because Christ was the epitome of counter-cultural

I’m not even sure what it would mean to be the “epitome” of “counter-cultural,” but I’m pretty sure that that’s not what Jesus was. Jesus was not the “epitome” of any 21st-century abstract notion. Jesus was Himself–God Incarnate and a first-century Galilean peasant simultaneously, without prejudice to either.

Of course Jesus was counter-cultural–but what you mean by “counter-cultural” seems to be something like “totally detached from the cultural norms of His time,” which is pretty obviously false.

You did not address my point about slavery and germ theory. I think it needs addressing. You can pick out certain ways in which Jesus went against cultural norms (though still in ways that made sense given the culture, I’d argue), but you are then simply ignoring the many other ways in which He didn’t.

Also, in reading your Aquinas quote: “it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection” –*he is not arguing that women are inferior males.

Yes, he is. To understand what he means by “the state of subjection” you need to look at Part I, Question 92, Article 1. In his reply to Objection 2 Aquinas speaks of woman being subject to man “because in man the discretion of reason predominates.” Note also his reply to objection 1, in which he says,

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex.

Also, the idea of a male priesthood long predates Aquinas, so it is difficult for me to perceive him as foundational to the teaching of a male priesthood.

I’m not claiming anything of the kind. I’m pointing to him because he’s a particularly profound and systematic Christian thinker who fleshes out the philosophical implications of what was already believed. Certainly he did innovate and say some controversial things (like the unicity of forms, or the idea that every angel is its own species). But these innovations were widely commented on by contemporaries.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

What I’m arguing is that the traditional practice makes most sense historically if seen in that context, and that the contemporary Catholic position has not sufficiently addressed the metaphysical gap left by the abandonment of that cultural assumption.

You are attempting to argue from a point of logic and reason shaped by the liberal leanings of your ecclesiastical formation. Catholics and Orthodox do not need to defend the all male priesthood due to metaphysical gaps and cultural assumptions….that is utter nonsense. We know that the bishop/priest is an Icon of Christ and the Mystery of Ordination is part of the Tradition of the Church….not a man-made tradition….but the Sacred Tradition. It is an understanding that begins with Sacred Scripture and continues through the teachings of the holy Fathers of the Church.