The Anglicans are Coming! (maybe)

[eucharisteo]

Jesus is God. God is neither male nor female, or perhaps equally male and female. Any church that automatically restricts any of the sacraments to half of the population based solely on the appearance of their genitals can be only, at best, half holy.

I use much the same argument to argue against priestly celibacy – we are all created in God’s image, yet we can only reach our fulfillment as humans in God’s image when united as one flesh in holy matrimony to a partner of the opposite sex. Anybody who aspires to lifelong celibacy is denying half of their Godly nature (in addition to their human nature).

It’s obvious you do not either understand or accept the sacrament of ordination.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Correct; some view ordination as some social justice “right” rather than a calling from God Almighty, set apart from the night of the Last Supper to this day to be in persona christi. It’s just feminism gone wild…

It’s obvious you do not either understand or accept the sacrament of ordination.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Jesus is God. God is neither male nor female, or perhaps equally male and female. Any church that automatically restricts any of the sacraments to half of the population based solely on the appearance of their genitals can be only, at best, half holy.

I use much the same argument to argue against priestly celibacy – we are all created in God’s image, yet we can only reach our fulfillment as humans in God’s image when united as one flesh in holy matrimony to a partner of the opposite sex. Anybody who aspires to lifelong celibacy is denying half of their Godly nature (in addition to their human nature).

Wrong. Christ our God is a male in the flesh. Adam, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, David, and the Levitical priests were all types of Christ, and participated to some degree in his priestly ministry. Exclusively, they have been male. Christ operated his priestly ministry as a male, and ordained only male apostles. The apostles ordained only male bishops.

The only sacerdotal function that women have had is as deaconesses who performed the baptisms of female converts.

The essence of God is neither masculine nor feminine. However, God is a man, and that man is male. Our only intercessor, mediator, and high priest is a male. We have no authority to decide, 2,000 years after the fact, that women can be ordained to a priesthood that they have never held.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great points…and I might also point out that Jesus was no shrinking violet afraid of offending the sensibilities of the powers-that-be in his age. If Jesus had wanted female priestesses, it would have happened, period.

And if anyone would’ve been deserving had female priestesses been a reality, would’ve Mary Magdalene, the Blessed Virgin, etc. have been at the top of the list? If those ladies weren’t ordained, no female should be!

Wrong. Christ our God is a male in the flesh. Adam, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, David, and the Levitical priests were all types of Christ, and participated to some degree in his priestly ministry. Exclusively, they have been male. Christ operated his priestly ministry as a male, and ordained only male apostles. The apostles ordained only male bishops.

The only sacerdotal function that women have had is as deaconesses who performed the baptisms of female converts.

The essence of God is neither masculine nor feminine. However, God is a man, and that man is male. Our only intercessor, mediator, and high priest is a male. We have no authority to decide, 2,000 years after the fact, that women can be ordained to a priesthood that they have never held.

 

[Melquita]

But what about Paul saying that it is better to live as he was living, celibate? Paul and Our Lord discuss the virtues of lifelong celibacy and how holy it was. We are told a man who is married, cares about his wife and the things of this world where an unmarried man cares about the things of God. Right? I personally am ok with a married priesthood myself but it would be inaccurate to act as if virginity and celibacy was not considered a high virtue and even preferable by the Lord and Paul as well?

And sacraments and priesthood are not about genitals, as you so crudely put it, but rather the nature of men and women. Men are fathers, women are mothers. A priest acts in persona christi from the Catholic point of view. He is a father for the congregation when sacrificing the Eucharist and in the confessional, etc. A mother cannot be a father. 2,000 years of tradition and the Holy Scriptures are against your argument. Your argument is based on secular values of the age we live in. “My ways are not your ways” says the Lord…

You say a priest acts in persona christi, but that is the basis of my argument. Christ is not male, and to view Him as such is to deny His divine nature. For a church to claim that its ministers represent Christ, those ministers should, prima facie be drawn from both sexes. I’m well aware that this goes against tradition; I said before that I viewed this particular aspect of tradition as the greatest tragedy in the history of Christianity. The Church, and Christianity as a whole, would be fundamentally different had women always been ordained as priests alongside men, and I greatly lament that that is not the world we live in. I’m not convinced that female ordination goes against Scriptures. There are plenty of people who argue that it does and plenty of people who argue that it doesn’t, and I’m not interested in getting into that argument now. I’ve never been really enthusiastic about textual biblical inerrancy in any case, especially given that God’s Word is so much bigger than any human language can seek to encompass.

I’m willing to begrudgingly accept celibate priests because of Paul, but I see him as an ideal which is more unattainable than is commonly understood, and the norm of priestly celibacy as an arrogant aberration. Jesus did not marry, and ultimately could not marry, because he was both God and human, man and female. For us mere mortals who aspire to live in God’s image, one sex is not enough – we’re simply incapable of being as Godly as we can be if we don’t marry. For some people, denying the concerns of the flesh and concentrating all mental energy on God may suffice, but ultimately I think that certainly at least the vast majority of religiously celibate people would be better off marrying. We should not so easily believe ourselves to be so holy that we do not need to marry.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You say a priest acts in persona christi, but that is the basis of my argument. Christ is not male, and to view Him as such is to deny His divine nature. For a church to claim that its ministers represent Christ, those ministers should, prima facie be drawn from both sexes. I’m well aware that this goes against tradition; I said before that I viewed this particular aspect of tradition as the greatest tragedy in the history of Christianity. The Church, and Christianity as a whole, would be fundamentally different had women always been ordained as priests alongside men, and I greatly lament that that is not the world we live in. I’m not convinced that female ordination goes against Scriptures. There are plenty of people who argue that it does and plenty of people who argue that it doesn’t, and I’m not interested in getting into that argument now. I’ve never been really enthusiastic about textual biblical inerrancy in any case, especially given that God’s Word is so much bigger than any human language can seek to encompass.

Here is the crux, then, of the problem. You want the Church to change its views on female ordination not because God has revealed through His Scriptures, which are His self-revelation, or apostolic witness, that He wants females to be ordained to the priesthood. Instead, you want the Church to believe that God desires a male-female priesthood based on your socio-political views. I am sorry, but that is not how the Church determines the will of its Lord and Savior.

 

[Melquita]

Great points…and I might also point out that Jesus was no shrinking violet afraid of offending the sensibilities of the powers-that-be in his age. If Jesus had wanted female priestesses, it would have happened, period.

And if anyone would’ve been deserving had female priestesses been a reality, would’ve Mary Magdalene, the Blessed Virgin, etc. have been at the top of the list? If those ladies weren’t ordained, no female should be!

I’ve said before that I believe he did make it happen. I believe Junia was female, and an apostle. Mary Magdalene is often called “apostle to the apostles”; if her role were properly understood in a Christian context, I don’t think it would be too outrageous to consider her the first pope. The Virgen Mary is too holy for ordination to have any meaning for her.

 

[Melquita]

Here is the crux, then, of the problem. You want the Church to change its views on female ordination not because God has revealed through His Scriptures, which are His self-revelation, or apostolic witness, that He wants females to be ordained to the priesthood. Instead, you want the Church to believe that God desires a male-female priesthood based on your socio-political views. I am sorry, but that is not how the Church determines the will of its Lord and Savior.

Perhaps you’re right. I think that any human understanding of God’s will is by necessity gravely flawed. I think that our understanding of His desire would be much less flawed were women full participants in all aspects of divining that will.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Perhaps you’re right. I think that any human understanding of God’s will is by necessity gravely flawed. I think that our understanding of His desire would be much less flawed were women full participants in all aspects of divining that will.

It is not necessarily flawed. It is necessarily limited. God’s will is not revealed in our ability to divine it. It is revealed in that which He has revealed it, which are the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments. Unless you can build your position on female ordination based on an exegetical examination of those writings, your social views cannot influence the decisions of the Church, because the Church is not guided by political viewpoints whether rightist or leftist.

 

[WetCatechumen]

You say a priest acts in persona christi, but that is the basis of my argument. Christ is not male, and to view Him as such is to deny His divine nature. For a church to claim that its ministers represent Christ, those ministers should, prima facie be drawn from both sexes. I’m well aware that this goes against tradition; I said before that I viewed this particular aspect of tradition as the greatest tragedy in the history of Christianity. The Church, and Christianity as a whole, would be fundamentally different had women always been ordained as priests alongside men, and I greatly lament that that is not the world we live in. I’m not convinced that female ordination goes against Scriptures. There are plenty of people who argue that it does and plenty of people who argue that it doesn’t, and I’m not interested in getting into that argument now. I’ve never been really enthusiastic about textual biblical inerrancy in any case, especially given that God’s Word is so much bigger than any human language can seek to encompass.

I’m willing to begrudgingly accept celibate priests because of Paul, but I see him as an ideal which is more unattainable than is commonly understood, and the norm of priestly celibacy as an arrogant aberration. Jesus did not marry, and ultimately could not marry, because he was both God and human, man and female. For us mere mortals who aspire to live in God’s image, one sex is not enough – we’re simply incapable of being as Godly as we can be if we don’t marry. For some people, denying the concerns of the flesh and concentrating all mental energy on God may suffice, but ultimately I think that certainly at least the vast majority of religiously celibate people would be better off marrying. We should not so easily believe ourselves to be so holy that we do not need to marry.

Christ is male. To deny that is to deny his human nature, and therefore the Incarnation. To deny that is to deny his mediation and his reconciliation of us to God.

I agree that celibate priests should be an aspired to goal. However, I think that it should not be the norm. It’s only been the norm in the West for 1,000 years. However, this has a basis in tradition. However, to deny that half of one’s self is to reflect a greater union with Christ. It is better to be celibate, but marriage is necessary for the spiritual health of some and the continuance of the human race.

I think that opening the priesthood in the Latin Rite to married men would be great, but it’s not necessary. However, it wouldn’t be violating tradition - it would only be returning to it. Women’s ordination would be creating a tradition from nothing.

 

[Melquita]

It is not necessarily flawed. It is necessarily limited. God’s will is not revealed in our ability to divine it. It is revealed in that which He has revealed it, which are the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments. Unless you can build your position on female ordination based on an exegetical examination of those writings, your social views cannot influence the decisions of the Church, because the Church is not guided by political viewpoints whether rightist or leftist.

There are plenty of people, much better exegetes than you or certainly than me, who have done just that, within both a Jewish and a Christian context. They hold a minority view, of course, but that doesn’t mean it is an invalid view.

 

[Melquita]

Christ is male. To deny that is to deny his human nature, and therefore the Incarnation. To deny that is to deny his mediation and his reconciliation of us to God.

I agree that celibate priests should be an aspired to goal. However, I think that it should not be the norm. It’s only been the norm in the West for 1,000 years. However, this has a basis in tradition. However, to deny that half of one’s self is to reflect a greater union with Christ. It is better to be celibate, but marriage is necessary for the spiritual health of some and the continuance of the human race.

I think that opening the priesthood in the Latin Rite to married men would be great, but it’s not necessary. However, it wouldn’t be violating tradition - it would only be returning to it. Women’s ordination would be creating a tradition from nothing.

Christ had a male body. To say that He was male I see as a form of Arianism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

There are plenty of people, much better exegetes than you or certainly than me, who have done just that, within both a Jewish and a Christian context. They hold a minority view, of course, but that doesn’t mean it is an invalid view.

That is certainly true. However, their view is a minority view for a very distinct reason. That being that their exegesis is poor, and usually involves the same societal, political, and cultural arguments that you are making.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Christ had a male body. To say that He was male I see as a form of Arianism.

It is His nature, not just a body. It is still the nature that He possesses, reigning at the right hand of God. We can certainly agree that God does not possess a body of one particular sex, as God is spirit. However, that does not change the fact that God has revealed Himself to have a paternal identity. God reveals Himself as He, as opposed to She or It, for a very distinct reason.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Christ had a male body. To say that He was male I see as a form of Arianism.

What you are saying to me seems to be Apollinarianism, which says that while Christ had the use of a human body, he could not really be called truly human because he lacked a human soul.

Christ is a human and he is male. Just as we say that Mary is the Mother of God, likewise, God is human of the male sex. The divine essence did not originate in Mary. Likewise, the divine essence is not male. However, God has a mother and God is male.

It is His nature, not just a body. It is still the nature that He possesses, reigning at the right hand of God. We can certainly agree that God does not possess a body of one particular sex, as God is spirit. However, that does not change the fact that God has revealed Himself to have a paternal identity. God reveals Himself as He, as opposed to She or It, for a very distinct reason.

God has revealed himself paternally, and for that reason we call him “He”. However, while God does not merely possess a body of one particular sex, God does have a body that is male. Christ is a human person. His human soul is united to his human body. His divine nature and his human nature are united in a single hypostasis. This hypostasis is inseparable from his soul and his body, which are united together forever at the right hand of God the Father in heaven. To say, “God is not a human of the male sex,” is incorrect.

 

[TriuneUnity]

God has revealed himself paternally, and for that reason we call him “He”. However, while God does not merely possess a body of one particular sex, God does have a body that is male. Christ is a human person. His human soul is united to his human body. His divine nature and his human nature are united in a single hypostasis. This hypostasis is inseparable from his soul and his body, which are united together forever at the right hand of God the Father in heaven. To say, “God is not a human of the male sex,” is incorrect.

Yes, that is true, in referring to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as mentioned in my earlier posts. Using God here as the divine essence, as opposed to the individual, distinct Persons within the Godhead.

 

[Melquita]

That is certainly true. However, their view is a minority view for a very distinct reason. That being that their exegesis is poor, and usually involves the same societal, political, and cultural arguments that you are making.

I said before that I like diversity. I’m simply unwilling to say that any exegetical interpretation that is reasonable is invalid. (What exegetical interpretations may be seen as unreasonable is an argument for another day.) I would prefer it had Catholicism and Orthodoxy always ordained female priests, but it is not an unreasonable interpretation to claim that only men may be ordained. As such, I’m happy for churches to exist that only ordain men, and I’m happy for churches to exist that ordain both men and women. I’d even probably be happy for a church to exist that only ordained women, to even the score, as it were, but I’ll admit that that would be a harder sell. I don’t believe that the ideal of Christian unity demands that we all believe the same thing with regards to such matters.

Of course, all of that is just more social commentary!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Christ had a male body. To say that He was male I see as a form of Arianism.

It is not even remotely close to Arianism. The heresy of Arianism is not that Christ’s human nature is a created, finite, human male nature. The heresy of Arianism is that Christ’s divine nature was a being created in time, that did not always exist, lower in power and authority than God the Father.

Christ’s human nature, male participation in the act excepting, is a normal, finite, flesh and blood nature the same as any other human male with a human soul. If Christ’s human nature is not a true human nature, then we are still in our sins.

 

[Melquita]

It is not even remotely close to Arianism. The heresy of Arianism is not that Christ’s human nature is a created, finite, human male nature. The heresy of Arianism is that Christ’s divine nature was a being created in time, that did not always exist, lower in power and authority than God the Father.

Christ’s human nature, male participation in the act excepting, is a normal, finite, flesh and blood nature the same as any other human male with a human soul. If Christ’s human nature is not a true human nature, then we are still in our sins.

I see it as Arianism in that the characteristics evident in Christ’s human nature should not be imputed to, nor should they detract from, His divine nature. Jesus of Nazareth was male; Jesus Christ is not. To say that Jesus is male, full stop, is to say that God is male. You may believe that He is, but I do not.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I see it as Arianism in that the characteristics evident in Christ’s human nature should not be imputed to, nor should they detract from, His divine nature. Jesus of Nazareth was male; Jesus Christ is not. To say that Jesus is male, full stop, is to say that God is male. You may believe that He is, but I do not.

That is Nestorianism. There is but one hypostasis; you propose two persons. Jesus of Nazareth, a human, who was not divine, and Jesus Christ, God, who is divine.

Jesus Christ is but a single person. He is both divine and human. Because he is human, he has a sex. His sex is male.

The person Jesus Christ existed eternally. At his Incarnation, without subtracting form his divinity, he added to himself humanity. In adding humanity, he picked up physical maleness.

To say that Jesus Christ is not a male is incorrect.