Anglican/Episcopal Ordinations

[Contarini]

"[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.”

I’m not sure I understand your separation of theology and philosophy here. The language of “head” and “body” used here is, again, typical of the ancient understanding that men are more rational and women are more “fleshly.” Theology doesn’t float above one’s assumptions about the way the world works–it’s deeply embedded in those assumptions.

The language of “first” and “last” here clearly implies superiority and inferiority. This quote supports my argument thoroughly.

So I don’t think one can say the ECFs were sexist while holding that Scripture is not

To rephrase without the loaded language: yes, I think it’s definitely true that the Pastoral Epistles reflect the assumptions I’ve been describing, although more vaguely than many later writings do. Whether that means that we should adopt these beliefs as divinely revealed, or whether they are simply the cultural framework in which divine revelation comes to us, is a matter of debate, though as far as I can tell Pope Benedict seems to come down on the latter side.

1. 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).

I have already explained why this was the case, and why this supports my point. I have not claimed that giving women ritual roles was contrary to culture (pagan priestesses were not, as far as I know, leaders of religious communities in an official capacity). Nor have I said that early Christians didn’t go against culture. Going against culture is still working within the framework of the culture. Of course a religious group could give women a leadership role, as the Valentinians and Montanists did. But by doing so you would be sending a message that bodies didn’t matter–that only the spirit mattered. That was a heretical message and rightly rejected by the Church.
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

Many functions, but not those that involve being in charge of a large group of people. Women cannot do this because they are not sufficiently rational.

1. 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?

Absolutely. I find it amusing that you doubt for one instant that this is what they believed. Of course most men are inferior–any ancient person would tell you that. Most men are dominated by the passions rather than reason. Human nature is best seen not in the average man but in the superior man. You keep reading the ancients through modern democratic lenses.

St. John here is putting the majority of men on par with women, so the distinction is not one of “biological inferiority.”

The distinction is based on whether the governing faculty of reason is sufficiently strong in you. This is impossible for women because of their biological weakness, but it’s not the case for most men either.

St. John Chrysostom also frequently spoke of men and women in reciprocal terms

Indeed. But none of the examples you cite say that masculinity and femininity are complementary aspects of a nature equally shared by both. And the example you gave above shows clearly that he didn’t think this, or he wouldn’t have equated “all women” with the inferior majority of men.

 

[Contarini]

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.

That’s an interesting point. Gregory is certainly one of the best candidates, in my opinion, for a relatively egalitarian view of gender. I have not read this particular work of his, alas, but in scanning it briefly I was startled by the absence of the Eve=flesh identification that is prominent in Origen and Augustine.

St. Gregory is certainly not typical, but I said to find me one Father. . . . .

Perhaps Gregory of Nyssa is a good starting point for modern Catholics in this as in so many other ways. (At least, many of the Catholic theologians I know seem to find him very exciting–many of the Protestants too.)

I will look into his view of gender further. Thanks for the good, solid discussion!

God bless,

Edwin

 

[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, most of your own chosen examples make this point.

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]

You are attempting to argue from a point of logic and reason

Certainly. I am arguing with Catholics, who accept the validity of reason. See Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address.

If you do not accept the validity of reason, then there is not much point in further discussion, is there?

shaped by the liberal leanings of your ecclesiastical formation.

I am certainly shaped by the belief that the universal and royal priesthoods are closely connected. That is the only premise from which I am arguing that is perhaps not fully Catholic (though I’m not sure about that), and it’s not in fact the basis for most of what I’ve been saying in this thread. Nor is it exactly “liberal” any more, though perhaps it was in 1520.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

If you do not accept the validity of reason, then there is not much point in further discussion, is there?

Flawed human reasoning shaped by the liberal episcopalian understanding of “ordaining” women to the priesthood, does not trump Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Church. This nonsense about metaphysical gaps and cultural assumptions is ludicrous…and yes…there is not much point to such a silly argument.

 

[Contarini]

Flawed human reasoning shaped by the liberal episcopalian understanding of “ordaining” women to the priesthood, does not trump Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Church. This nonsense about metaphysical gaps and cultural assumptions is ludicrous…and yes…there is not much point to such a silly argument.

I note your unwillingness to address the question, and your insistence that I am shaped by a “liberal” understanding in spite of your failure to point to a “liberal” premise anywhere in my argument.

Again, if you deny the value of reason, and if you ignore evidence in the name of reverence for “Tradition” (what is left of Tradition if you ignore what the Fathers actually say?), then I fail to see what we can accomplish by further argument.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

I note your unwillingness to address the question

I note your unwillingness to accept the obvious answer.

Obedience to the Sacred Tradition of the Church…Divine Law.

Again, if you deny the value of reason

The value of the “reason/logic” that you offer…has no value at all…because it flies in the face of Sacred Tradition and is shaped by your affiliated bias.

I fail to see what we can accomplish by further argument.

Exactly! Your argument is completly erroneous.

 

[Contarini]

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.

If you mean that there was a parallel tradition holding that men and women were complementary and equal expressions of human nature, then all I can do is ask for evidence–“probably” isn’t enough, because as far as I can see your estimation of probability is based on your own 21st-century assumptions.

MarcoPolo did point to a passage from Gregory of Nyssa saying that both masculinity and femininity were characteristic of “lower” human nature. And that’s the only form in which you are going to get any form of egalitarianism in ancient Christianity.

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.

Indeed, and there were those who taught this. For instance, some of the Gnostics seem to have thought this (though probably as a metaphor for “getting rid of the body altogether”). It’s instructive that Gnostics were also the folks most likely to treat women equally in practice–because they thought the body didn’t matter.

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

Well, it was an expression of faith in the resurrection of the body. But yes, I do think that this (and indeed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body generally) was a genuinely “counter-cultural” belief of the early Christians. A friend of mine who now teaches theology at Wheaton wrote her dissertation (now a book published by Oxford) on the resurrection of the body drawing heavily from Augustine, arguing that Augustine’s belief that the supposedly “inferior” female body would be raised and glorified is a basis for talking about women’s dignity from an orthodox Christian perspective.

I would say that this is an example of a basic principle of revelation embedded within human culture and slowly transforming it.

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?

No, it wouldn’t at all. That’s a rather baffling non sequitur. As you say, the belief that we retain our sex in the glorified state is a consequence of belief in the resurrection of the body. If we had only souls, we would have no sex. Peter Kreeft’s idea that “souls have sex” is a particularly bizarre example of the innovative, utterly non-traditional anthropology I’ve been criticizing throughout this discussion. It makes no sense at all in terms of traditional Christian theology.

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?

I certainly think that body and soul are closely connected. But sex/gender pertains to the body, certainly not to the soul apart from the body. Many modern Christians would question the whole concept of a “soul apart from the body,” but in that they are breaking with tradition. If you can talk about a soul apart from the body at all, then such a soul certainly doesn’t have sex/gender, it seems to me.

I suppose on Thomist grounds you could argue that the soul between death and resurrection has somehow been “sexed” by the body, just as Aquinas thought it had been individualized by the body. But Aquinas’s teaching that matter is the principle of individuation (which led him to that rather odd and awkward formulation) was one of his more controversial and idiosyncratic ideas.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I note your unwillingness to accept the obvious answer.

Obedience to the Sacred Tradition of the Church…Divine Law.
The value of the “reason/logic” that you offer…has no value at all…because it flies in the face of Sacred Tradition and is shaped by your affiliated bias.

Yet you can’t show that this is the case.

You just affirm that it’s the case.

You can’t obey Sacred Tradition until you can discern what it is.

Is the belief that women are imperfect males part of Sacred Tradition? Why or why not? You need to use reason and historical inquiry to answer this question. Similarly, if you answer the question “no,” then you need to use reason and historical inquiry to decide whether the male-only priesthood (shorn of its historic context) is part of Sacred Tradition.

You just can’t say that whatever has been practiced for a long time is Sacred Tradition. It isn’t a position you can maintain consistently, and the insistence of some ultra-conservative Orthodox that they *do *maintain it simply discredits their version of Orthodoxy.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Yet you can’t show that this is the case.

2000 years of Apostolic teaching, Church history, and Sacred Tradition is witness to the truth of the all male priesthood.

You can’t obey Sacred Tradition until you can discern what it is.

For 2000 years, the all male priesthood has been taught and practiced as a holy Mystery (Sacrament) of the Church. The Church Fathers never taught anything to the contrary. It is you who cannot discern Sacred Tradition.

you need to use reason and historical inquiry to decide whether the male-only priesthood (shorn of its historic context) is part of Sacred Tradition.

If we are in serious theological error [regarding the all male priesthood], how did we get that way? We got that way from the previous generation of Christians. Okay, how did they come to be in serious theological error? Apparently they got it from the generation before them, and so forth. A slight difficulty arises here, however, because it is a matter of historical fact that all generations of Orthodox Catholic Christians for roughly 2,000 years have been opposed to the ordination of women. Why? Because of the supposed vestigial Manichaeism of St. Augustine and his alleged sexual hangups? Be serious. Just where did the error come from?

The Last Supper, that’s where. If we are in error, it is penultimately because the Apostles themselves got it wrong. And if the Apostles themselves were in error, they received that error from the One who told them what to do and how to do it. And if that Person was in error, we—those among us who believe him to be the Son of God, the Savior of the world and its only hope—have a rather serious problem on our hands.
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=06-01-022-f

You just can’t say that whatever has been practiced for a long time is Sacred Tradition.

LOL! You think that is what I am saying?

It isn’t a position you can maintain consistently,

2000 years of Sacred Tradition maintains the consistency. It is you who cannot prove otherwise with twisted logic and bizarre explanations of metaphysical gaps and cultural assumptions

and the insistence of some ultra-conservative Orthodox that they *do *maintain it simply discredits their version of Orthodoxy.

LOL! The Holy Tradition…the Sacred Tradition of the all male priesthood as set forth through the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Orders--------is a point of agreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

How odd and desparate that you attempt to paint it as some sort of ultra-conservative movement.

 

[Contarini]

Mickey,

It is not the practice of the male-only priesthood that I depict as “ultra-conservative,” but the claim I thought you were making that any historical or rational analysis aimed at distinguishing Tradition from longstanding custom is unnecessary. You seem to find it laughable that I would think this, but I don’t know what else to conclude from your breezy dismissal of my attempt to engage in such inquiry.

You do not seem interested in a serious discussion of this subject, and I will not respond to you further unless you wish actually to address my arguments. You are welcome to think them silly–I am not trying to convince you. But I would appreciate it if you would cease trying to get in the way of those of us who do wish to discuss this topic.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

but I don’t know what else to conclude from your breezy dismissal of my attempt to engage in such inquiry.

I would not say it is a breezy attempt. I would say that it is tornadic. It is offensive when someone attempts to dismiss 2000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Church…a Sacred Tradition connected with the Sacrament of the Holy Orders.

You do not seem interested in a serious discussion of this subject,

I am quite serious…and I think I have made my point. Your attempt to question the Sacred Tradition with metaphysical and cultural meanderings is disturbing to say the least.

and I will not respond to you further unless you wish actually to address my arguments.

I have addressed your “arguments” with a superb response. It is a response that dismisses any theory that you are trying to formulate in an attempt to place questions marks on the Mystery of Holy Orders and the all male priesthood of the Apostolic Church.

Of course you have the free will to stop responding to me or place me on your ignore list.

I am not trying to convince you.

And you never shall.

But I would appreciate it if you would cease trying to get in the way of those of us who do wish to discuss this topic.

Get in the way? The explanation of Sacred Tradition is not “getting in the way”…and I am confident that most other Catholics and/or Orthodox who might engage you on this issue would agree with me.

Peace

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

It seems quite a break in the practice of the ancient Church to refrain from defending serious questions, even by heretics, by elucidating the relevant theological points.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you mean that there was a parallel tradition holding that men and women were complementary and equal expressions of human nature, then all I can do is ask for evidence–“probably” isn’t enough, because as far as I can see your estimation of probability is based on your own 21st-century assumptions.

MarcoPolo did point to a passage from Gregory of Nyssa saying that both masculinity and femininity were characteristic of “lower” human nature. And that’s the only form in which you are going to get any form of egalitarianism in ancient Christianity.

Indeed, and there were those who taught this. For instance, some of the Gnostics seem to have thought this (though probably as a metaphor for “getting rid of the body altogether”). It’s instructive that Gnostics were also the folks most likely to treat women equally in practice–because they thought the body didn’t matter.

My point was that this was a Christian teaching, and one that couldn’t have come from the supposition that you are suggesting is the universal early Christian view.

It is certainly possible that it is a point that was insisted upon by the deposit of faith, and that the implications were only felt over time as you suggested below, I would tend to take that position myself. But in the context of this question, my point is that there was another undercurrent that informed Christian thought during this period.

Well, it was an expression of faith in the resurrection of the body. But yes, I do think that this (and indeed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body generally) was a genuinely “counter-cultural” belief of the early Christians. A friend of mine who now teaches theology at Wheaton wrote her dissertation (now a book published by Oxford) on the resurrection of the body drawing heavily from Augustine, arguing that Augustine’s belief that the supposedly “inferior” female body would be raised and glorified is a basis for talking about women’s dignity from an orthodox Christian perspective.

I would say that this is an example of a basic principle of revelation embedded within human culture and slowly transforming it.

No, it wouldn’t at all. That’s a rather baffling non sequitur. As you say, the belief that we retain our sex in the glorified state is a consequence of belief in the resurrection of the body. If we had only souls, we would have no sex. Peter Kreeft’s idea that “souls have sex” is a particularly bizarre example of the innovative, utterly non-traditional anthropology I’ve been criticizing throughout this discussion. It makes no sense at all in terms of traditional Christian theology.

I certainly think that body and soul are closely connected. But sex/gender pertains to the body, certainly not to the soul apart from the body. Many modern Christians would question the whole concept of a “soul apart from the body,” but in that they are breaking with tradition. If you can talk about a soul apart from the body at all, then such a soul certainly doesn’t have sex/gender, it seems to me.

I suppose on Thomist grounds you could argue that the soul between death and resurrection has somehow been “sexed” by the body, just as Aquinas thought it had been individualized by the body. But Aquinas’s teaching that matter is the principle of individuation (which led him to that rather odd and awkward formulation) was one of his more controversial and idiosyncratic ideas.

Edwin

I have to strongly disagree here, as far as I can see what you have said is simply incoherent. The soul is the form of the body, it is what makes it one thing or another. If the soul did not have a sex, neither would the body. It sounds like you are saying that sexual differentiation somehow arises spontaneously from the unformed flesh. The only way I think one could possibly say that a soul didn’t have sex is in the same way one could say it isn’t really human.

If sex is really essential to us, it must belong both to body and soul, not one or the other.

 

[Invictus_88]

I would not say it is a breezy attempt. I would say that it is tornadic. It is offensive when someone attempts to dismiss 2000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Church…a Sacred Tradition connected with the Sacrament of the Holy Orders.
I am quite serious…and I think I have made my point. Your attempt to question the Sacred Tradition with metaphysical and cultural meanderings is disturbing to say the least.
I have addressed your “arguments” with a superb response. It is a response that dismisses any theory that you are trying to formulate in an attempt to place questions marks on the Mystery of Holy Orders and the all male priesthood of the Apostolic Church.

Of course you have the free will to stop responding to me or place me on your ignore list.
And you never shall.

Get in the way? The explanation of Sacred Tradition is not “getting in the way”…and I am confident that most other Catholics and/or Orthodox who might engage you on this issue would agree with me.

Peace

Indeed so. It is strange and unsettling when people arrive with preconceived notions and then set about trying to bend (break) reality to conform to those notions.

 

[tomarin]

Indeed so. It is strange and unsettling when people arrive with preconceived notions and then set about trying to bend (break) reality to conform to those notions.

What this boils down to is whether the arguments given for the male-only priesthood are rational. I think it’s only fair for those who say they are to be asked to show how they are, as long as we continue to make the claim that our religion is fully compatible with rationality.

If someone comes along who feels that in this situation the reasons given equate to saying 2 + 2 = 5 (and he has gone into great detail here and elsewhere as to why he feels that way) what is that person supposed to do? Put up or shut up?

 

[Contarini]

My point was that this was a Christian teaching, and one that couldn’t have come from the supposition that you are suggesting is the universal early Christian view.

And I think that’s a valid point. Logically speaking, the cultural assumptions of early Christians would lead them to one of two conclusions:

1. Female subjection will continue in the Kingdom (I can’t think of anyone who actually taught this, which is a strong point in your favor); or
2. The male-female distinction will vanish in the Kingdom (a number of theologians *did *teach this, but it came to be seen as an unorthodox position).

I have to strongly disagree here, as far as I can see what you have said is simply incoherent. The soul is the form of the body, it is what makes it one thing or another. If the soul did not have a sex, neither would the body. It sounds like you are saying that sexual differentiation somehow arises spontaneously from the unformed flesh. The only way I think one could possibly say that a soul didn’t have sex is in the same way one could say it isn’t really human.

Sexual differentiation arises in exactly the same way as other bodily properties, like hair color or height. There are lots of properties of the body that are not determined by the soul. I fail to see how this idea is incoherent. I think you misunderstand the implications of the soul being the form of the body, at least from a Thomistic perspective. Aquinas believed that the soul was individualized by matter. So all those things that distinguish one human being from another would come from the body, not the soul itself.

It may be that the very concept of a soul-apart-from-a-body is problematic, but it’s certainly a traditional Christian concept. And it is not the traditional Christian teaching that such things as sexual differentiation belong to the soul as abstracted from teh body.

If sex is really essential to us, it must belong both to body and soul, not one or the other.

Again, it may be that this dualistic way of speaking is not the best one. But I think it’s begging the question to say “if sex is really essential to us.”

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

And I think that’s a valid point. Logically speaking, the cultural assumptions of early Christians would lead them to one of two conclusions:

1. Female subjection will continue in the Kingdom (I can’t think of anyone who actually taught this, which is a strong point in your favor); or
2. The male-female distinction will vanish in the Kingdom (a number of theologians *did *teach this, but it came to be seen as an unorthodox position).

Sexual differentiation arises in exactly the same way as other bodily properties, like hair color or height. There are lots of properties of the body that are not determined by the soul. I fail to see how this idea is incoherent. I think you misunderstand the implications of the soul being the form of the body, at least from a Thomistic perspective. Aquinas believed that the soul was individualized by matter. So all those things that distinguish one human being from another would come from the body, not the soul itself.

It may be that the very concept of a soul-apart-from-a-body is problematic, but it’s certainly a traditional Christian concept. And it is not the traditional Christian teaching that such things as sexual differentiation belong to the soul as abstracted from teh body.

Again, it may be that this dualistic way of speaking is not the best one. But I think it’s begging the question to say “if sex is really essential to us.”

Edwin

It may be, but I take the position that our sex is essential, in a way that hair colour is not, to be a point of revelation rather than something that we reason our way to.

It sounds like you believe that in Heaven, one soul will be indistinguishable from another, or at least only different in as much as it has been influenced by its time in the body. But how well does that fit with the idea of the individual creation of the human soul, which seems from a Christian perspective to be rather different from the way an animal or plant soul is made?

 

[Contarini]

It may be, but I take the position that our sex is essential, in a way that hair colour is not, to be a point of revelation rather than something that we reason our way to.

On what basis? And what do you mean by “essential”? As you rightly say, we are not just souls–bodies are part of who we are. So I’m not saying that sexual differentiation is peripheral to our identity as individuals–quite the contrary. I’m saying that it pertains purely *to *our identity as bodily individuals.

It sounds like you believe that in Heaven, one soul will be indistinguishable from another, or at least only different in as much as it has been influenced by its time in the body.

What do you mean by “Heaven”? In the resurrection we will have bodies. That’s a basic Christian teaching. If you mean the “intermediate state”–well, I believe there is such a state, but it’s hard to speak definitely about it on the basis of revelation. Aquinas’s idea that the soul remains individualized by the body from which it has been detached seems a bit awkward to me, but maybe it’s the best approach. I’m not sure I have a better idea.

But how well does that fit with the idea of the individual creation of the human soul, which seems from a Christian perspective to be rather different from the way an animal or plant soul is made?

The soul is created together with the body. It’s not pre-existent.

Again, I don’t know that I agree with Aquinas on the soul being individualized by the body. I think that there’s room for a lot more thought on this subject in light of modern neuroscience, etc. I don’t claim to have a good answer to these questions. But if we’re speaking on a Thomistic basis, then there’s certainly no ground for saying that the soul, regarded in abstraction from the body, has sexual differentiation.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Indeed so. It is strange and unsettling when people arrive with preconceived notions and then set about trying to bend (break) reality to conform to those notions.

Agreed. In this case we have an individual who makes no apology regarding his support for female pastors in the Episcopalian assembly. He then proceeds to question the Apostolic Holy Tradition of the ordination of the all male priesthood by employing his own reason and logic. He then dismisses the 2000 year witness of the Church Fathers on the basis of cultural assumptions and/or metaphysical gaps (with the exception of St Gregory of Nyssa)—in essence denying that those very same Church Fathers are part of the Holy Tradition of the Church.

His veiled attack is slick…but not convincing.