Women as priests..(*cont from before)

[N/A Gone]

Dear friends,

I spoke to many of you before about an issue I was having where in a gender issues class I was getting preasure to explain and basically defend the Church's teaching on women not as priests. I made a nice statement with links and everything and now I have a response from a dear friend of mine in class. An evangelical woman. Im going to attach her response to me and I would really be grateful for any prayers and help and quotes to how I can properly respond to her on this issue.

[quote]These past two weeks, class discussions and life situations have made me think a lot about value of a human and the stereotypes placed upon a human. This is unconventional for this blog page but I hope that Professor X does not mind because I am going to try and do my best to respond to a dear friend and brother of mine that I care a lot about. As I read his views on the place of women in the role of priestly authority, I am brought to tears. Another type of role placed upon a human because of the gender the human was born into. The gifts that were established within this human are unimportant and inconsequential. The person's gender is what is key.

My dear brother, I love you dearly as you know. Please do not take any of what I am about to reply with offensively or from the perspective that I do not desire to unite in the church with you. While I completely understand what you are trying to convey and the two world views that you are trying to calm in your heart, there is no possible way for me to submit myself to such views. Now, I do not mean that this issue is more important or has primacy over the subject of unity. For the sake of unity, even I will fall silent as Paul had called women to do in Timothy. For the sake of the re-unified catholic (universal) church, I am willing to sacrifice all but the core teaching of the scriptures- which are found in the Gospels and re-expressed the Apostles Creed. But, as a fellow friend, I do not feel this blog will be divisive.

As a member of the Roman Catholic church, there are doctrines that you must be able to respect and uphold to the best of your ability. So, I am going to try and approach from the arguments that were presented within your last blog. The presence of Christ on earth was purposeful and timely and important and proper in the eyes of God. This is certain. I will agree that God presented himself as a man to the world for a reason. But, this does not mean that the whole of God continues to be gender specific. Male and female are called to dine upon the blood and body of Christ. The presence of Christ will descend upon a group of believers regardless of their gender, or their race or their class or their abilities. If it is true that Christ is meant to be represented by men only, why is proper for women to receive Christ and swallow his body and blood that is represented within the Eucharist. Is this not even greater a gift then being able to distribute Christ. To receive Christ and to contain Christ within you, to be assured of freedom from all that the world binds upon you. How amazing a gift.

Also, the Priest is meant to reach out to the whole of the Church. The priest is to be able to speak for the whole of the church. Why is a representation of the church, for the church held to gender specific positions. I am not saying that a male cannot represent the female views of the church well, but I am asking why and how is it improper for a female to represent the male views of the church in the same manner. Never once did Christ say proclaim 'You, male gender, go unto all the nations and proclaim the Gospel, baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the gifts given to your gender.' I use baptism passage because it also is one of the sacraments found with in the catholic church.

I am not arguing rights either. I am arguing that Christ came for all. He did in many ways come against the views that were upheld about women by the world that that time. As a Jewish male, it was thought that it was a great blessing to be male and to be Jewish. To be a woman was in a way a disgrace. Women were to be uneducated, yet Christ allowed Mary to sit at his feet and learn. Women were not to be heard, yet Christ took the time to talk to the woman at that well and purposefully reached out to her. He even used her ( I wrote the word 'used' because I see all Christians as tools of the Lord to profess Christ to the world) to reach the town that she lived in. Women cared for Christ. Women were respected by and allowed to touch Christ. Christ broke many boundaries that were in place. He was not culturally respectful, even in this instance. He may not have said to a person of the female gender, leave this place and come follow me when he called the first twelve. Yet, could there be a reason even for that.

As a person of the female gender, one was not permitted to learn and to read the scriptures as men were. How much training and understanding of the scriptures would a person need in order to have a person come up to them and say follow me and they do it immediately. It would not be an easy action. It would not be easy to leave your family and the occupation you are holding which would provide for your family and go and immediately follow that person. Christ came to these people and I think they would have had much time and study and development in their faith, spiritually as well as intellectually in order to say yes with little or no hesitation. Women were literally not given the option to learn and to grow intellectually to be able to understand the full magnitude of what they were being called to do and who they were being called by. Now, women were not any more stupid then than they are now but were only taught as their father or husband taught them. They knew nothing more then their male counter parts would allow them to know. It was even looked down upon to teach women in any way. I took the following quote from notes given to us by Doctor Sprinkle in the class women in Scripture. They state,
Some Rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud showed open contempt for women. (from I. Epstein, ed. The Babylonian Talmud [London: Soncino Press, 1948], 351, 570, 425, 311; Leonard Swidler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative JudaismMetuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976; on-line [url="http://global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/womenjudaism.htm"]http://global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/womenjudaism.htm[/url] ; idem., “Jesus was a Feminist,” on-line [url="http://home.swipnet.se/~w-32278/fem1.htm"]http://home.swipnet.se/~w-32278/fem1.htm[/url] ).
“He who follows his wife’s counsel will descend into Gehenna.” (Baba Mezia 59a)
“All may lay hands on the offering except the deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a Gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman.” (Menahoth 93a)
“Happy is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females.” (Kiddushin 82b)
“There is no wisdom in women except with the distaff.” (Yoma 66b)
The famous Rabbi Hillel says, “Many women, much witchcraft.” (Aboth 2.7)
A woman is “a pitcher full of filth with its mouth full of blood, yet all run after her.” (b. Shabbath 152a)
According to the Jewish document the Tosephta, Jewish men prayed three times a day: “Blessed are for not having made me a Gentile; blessed are you for not having made me a woman; and blessed are you for not having made me an ignoramus” (Tosephta Berakoth 7.18.)
These are only a few of the teaching that we common at the time of Christ. As you can see from the link, there are even women who are willing to call Christ a Feminist. Again, I am not trying to express that any gender is better or has a right to priest; but that, all humans, as they are created in the image of God are given gifts, equal gifts and gifts that express themselves to be called to many different places within the church. Even in this, if Christ saw it inappropriate for women to represent himself why was the female gender made in the very image of God no different then the male gender. Why would Christ as a part of the whole of God have a problem with female representation in one area when God does not have a problem with his image being embedded within the same female.

Along with this is also the idea that the body of Christ is made of many parts. No part greater then the other, no part a more proper representation of Christ then the other because only as a part of the whole, is the individual representing the full body of Christ. The place of Priest in the church is no more a representation of the body of Christ then the lay person who works as the janitor within the church. We are meant to serve each other, to care for each other, to edify each other, to uplift each other and to do all for the glory of God, the continuing wholeness of the body, and the continuing sanctification of the catholic Church, which each individual is a part of. If this is the activity of the church, to be the body of Christ unified in each other and in God so that the world will tangibly know God and it is not gender specific, why would one part out of the whole body of Christ be gender specific. Why would God give the same gifts to both genders, yet require that only one type of human, the male, to be placed in the role of priest. Why would members of the female gender, from every walk of life, have the gifts for priesthood, feel called to a position of priesthood but not be able to fulfill that call and that gift that has been given to them.

Dear brother, I also desire to look at Mary, the mother of Christ (who is God), but I fear that this blog is much to long already. So, all I will say about her is a thought, maybe she is able to represent the place of a disciple in the way that she could considering the time she lived in. As as Roman Catholic, I think that you would be able to understand and know the serving will, the serving life, and the immediate willingness to follow and love God found in Mary's life better then I do. Again, remember I love you and I am willing to give up much for the preservation of the body and the unity that John 17 calls us to, as a part of His Church. While I can not agree with you, I am and forever will be willing to serve you and to serve with you in every area possible. Love, your humbly il-knowledged sister, who simply has a big heart. God bless us as we continue to grow in Christ together.[/quote]

Please, any help would be greatly appreciated. This is a dear friend of mine so i want to have gloves on in an ecumenical form, but I also feel that going hard is appropriate as the truth sometimes needs to come with a sword. Thank you.

[N/A Gone]

I guess I have 2 replies to my statement. Here is the second one. Big guns..lets see some stuff This is a great chance to show the truth in an academic bible college



[quote]To sum up - a man is a fitting symbol to represent Christ, because Christ came as a male (going off of your comments) and to deny this would be to deny symbolism.

However, is not the point of a symbol that it is a interplay between leader and participant, culture and response? A symbol makes the people think of something else, which is entirely dependant upon culture, individuality, and instruction.

Now, we understand that we would like to have somebody remind us of Christ as we sit in mass/services on Sunday. Who should that be? Well, we would like somebody who reminds us of what Christ is.

But what is Christ? What are the important aspects of Christ? Is his masculinity one of the defining characteristics of Jesus, or is it an incidental, much like his Jewishness? I argue that it is an incidental and therefore not worthy of building doctrine around.

1) "Not Male/Female" - this well worn passage (at least recently) says something about human nature. In the resurrection, where all will be made as it should be, there will be no distinction between male and female. As the journey of Christianity is one of adventure toward the ideal, we should trek toward the eradication of implicit differences.

2) Teaching - Teaching greatly alters symbols, as a person can be taught to reinterpret something a different way, or to interpret correctly for the first time. If male/female are incidentals, then gender makes no difference. The practice of male priests can be changed and people will learn to deal with it and accept and embrace the idea.

3) Trinity - classic trinity believes that any of the members of the Trinity could have be incarnated. As the Spirit is sometimes talked about in feminine tones, can we say that Christ could have been a woman, had the Spirit been incarnated?

4) Image of God - Both man and woman are made in the image of God. Neither reflects the image less than the other. Since Jesus is God, either sex can suffice in reflecting Jesus to others.

Now, I am not suggesting that all men and all women are eqully qualified to symbolize Jesus to others. All have different gifts, and some do not have the calling to this ministry of service.

The argument of symbolism is strong, but does not mean that we should stop there. To say that Christ can only be personified in a male is to deny: 1) gifts in some women, 2) Equal image of God, 3) Infinity of God.

I will not argue about what is easier for people to see Jesus in. This is not a pragmatic argument. The Christian walk was never meant to be easy.

And, for a parting shot: In the Eucharist, the inanimate bread and the wine become flesh and blood without looking, tasting, and smelling like flesh and blood. If this is possible, Jesus can be reflected through a fellow human being that happens to be female. [/quote]

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Nutshell: priest=bridegroom (like Christ is bridegroom of the Church)

thus, only men can be bridegrooms. women are brides, naturally. the priesthood is not an occupation like a doctor, lawyer, teacher, but a vocation--- a calling that is gender specific. You need (male parts) to be a priest, you don't need (male parts) to be a doctor, lawyer, etc.

[N/A Gone]

Thank you, How would you answer some of the specific statemtnes and questions?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='971530' date='May 4 2006, 08:03 PM']
Thank you, How would you answer some of the specific statemtnes and questions?
[/quote]
lol, she doesn't ask any questions, and all of her statements are from the assumption that being a priest is a career choice-- like being a doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.

I don't think she would say the same thing if you said that priests are the bridegroom of the Church (just as Christ is THE Bridegroom of the Church).

[N/A Gone]

The second paragraph has more questions. The first paragraph shows that she really didnt read my post or links I provided.

Thanks again. I think a problem here is it is a common theme in evangelical theology to make gender roles disappear. Anything resembling a gender role is viewed as dehumanizing. (*wonder why they are having problems with gay issues...hmm) that is a major part of the issue here.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='971684' date='May 4 2006, 09:39 PM']
The second paragraph has more questions. The first paragraph shows that she really didnt read my post or links I provided.

Thanks again. I think a problem here is it is a common theme in evangelical theology to make gender roles disappear. Anything resembling a gender role is viewed as dehumanizing. (*wonder why they are having problems with gay issues...hmm) that is a major part of the issue here.
[/quote]
Oh, I see.. I was scanning for punctuation... which she apparently skipped class that day.


[i]"If it is true that Christ is meant to be represented by men only, why is proper for women to receive Christ and swallow his body and blood that is represented within the Eucharist. "[/i]
Because receiving is a feminine act in itself. Christ GIVES of Himself to the Church (which is feminine) through the priest in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the Church, as woman, RECEIVES the great grace and gift of Christ. (Just as in sexual intercourse between a husband and wife, the man gives his seed and the woman receives it... this is why we say the relationship between the husband and wife is an image, albeit imperfect, of Christ and the Church).

Now, all analogies fall apart at some point, because they are not perfect. But, in relation to God, all of humanity is "feminine" in a sense because we must receive from God. But woman, in themselves, specifically relay this message to the world through their very bodies (as being receptive).

Thus, man can be a priest because he has been endowed with an imaging of the giving of the Creator, which women do not possess. But women can still receive the Eucharist because the RECEPTION aspect is written not only in the very nature of humanity, but this is IMAGED in the woman herself who is an image of all humanity (i.e., Eve is called the "Mother of the living") by her receptive nature.

[i]"Why is a representation of the church, for the church held to gender specific positions. I am not saying that a male cannot represent the female views of the church well, but I am asking why and how is it improper for a female to represent the male views of the church in the same manner."[/i]
Because the priest-Church relationship is the same as the Christ-Church relationship (the priest is "married" to the Church). Christ is not homosexual. The Church is feminine in nature (as being receptive from the giving of the Trinity)--look even in the OT where Israel is referred to as feminine. The priest is bridegroom (with and under THE Bridegroom) and the Church is Bride. It has nothing to do with "resprenting gender views".

[i]"If this is the activity of the church, to be the body of Christ unified in each other and in God so that the world will tangibly know God and it is not gender specific, why would one part out of the whole body of Christ be gender specific. Why would God give the same gifts to both genders, yet require that only one type of human, the male, to be placed in the role of priest. Why would members of the female gender, from every walk of life, have the gifts for priesthood, feel called to a position of priesthood but not be able to fulfill that call and that gift that has been given to them."[/i]
It's a misguided/misinterpreted "call" for a woman to feel she is being called to the priesthood.

Gifts of the Spirit are meant for the edification and building up of the Church-- and, just as with the reception of Communion, women are especially fitted for the role of "building up" through their motherly/materal self-giving. Women are called to be images of the Church, and men are called to be images of Christ (the great High Priest). This is ingrained into the very nature of our bodies as male and female. The male body is the giver, and the female body is the receiver. Christ is the Giver, and the Church is the Receiver.

And it is not at all degrading to be the beloved of the lover (or the Beloved of the Lover).

[N/A Gone]

I wish I had a reply to when she talks about being brought to tears. I dont know how to handle that

[Fides_et_Ratio]

It's only because she doesn't understand the role of the priest. She thinks it's all about leaving out women--as though doing so degrades women. And that is not the case (as should be apparent by my previous posts).

It is no degradation to women to say something of who they are as women (i.e., bride, etc.). But it is a grave degredation of women to say that they have to "act like a man" (and take on manly roles like the role of the bridegroom/husband) to have dignity. That brings me to tears.

[Brother Adam]

Fides is right on. The Church upholds and venerates true femininity. Look at how the Church views Mary, the Blessed Virgin. She, as a women, is the highest creature of the created order. Men start orders and consencrate themselves to serve her. The Church asks men to be men and women to be women. It asks that women do not insist on being men and that men do not insist on being women.

[morostheos]

I think a good book for some background would be "The Privilege of Being a Woman" by Alice von Hildebrand. It's a short read, and pretty much all of it pertains to the subject, although not directly.

[Era Might]

I'll be honest, I didn't read through the whole thing. Just skimmed it.

She appears to be confusing DIGNITY with VOCATION. Of course a Priest and a layman (a janitor in her example) have equal dignity, not only as Christians, but as human beings. But they still have different VOCATIONS, different calls. A janitor is called to mop floors. A Priest is called to offer the Sacraments.

The Priestly ministry is a call reserved to men. Why can't men be mothers? Because Christ didn't intend the role of a mother to be carried out by a man. Women have unique gifts to fulfill that vocation. In the same way, the role of a Priest is as an "alter Christus", the presence of Christ's headship in the local Churh. When you look at St. Paul's teaching on headship, the man is always the head of the family, just as he is always the head of the Church. Christ is the true head, but men are his "incarnation", so to speak. They make present his headship. God became a MALE for a reason. Men are, by nature, the head of the human family, leaders.

She also seems to be valuing the authority of the Priestly ministry over service. But the greatest in the Church are not Priests, but Saints. Look to St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese, Mother Teresa, St. Hildegard, and Our Lady. None of them were Priests, but all are Saints. Men may be the head of the Church, but women are its heart. And that is no small vocation.

[N/A Gone]

This morning in class I sited the arguments made here and some others that a big brother hooked me up with(*instead of doing his phinals)

yet, I was told I was not doing proper theology, but simple apologetics because I was not listening to the concerns of the girls writing or starting with scripture, instead I started with the doctrine and provided a defense. hmm

Im kinda sore...

[N/A Gone]

cont...

So basically because we do not understand how we are keeping women out of leadership. Because women are not allowed to be in leadership it is wrong. The language of the church as woman because she receives is "telling us that women should bend over and just take it"(*as my teacher said this morning)

grr..I need the spirit to help me here. Im outnumbered if it wasnt for the phatties here

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='972300' date='May 5 2006, 11:34 AM']
cont...

So basically because we do not understand how we are keeping women out of leadership. Because women are not allowed to be in leadership it is wrong. The language of the church as woman because she receives is "telling us that women should bend over and just take it"(*as my teacher said this morning)

grr..I need the spirit to help me here. Im outnumbered if it wasnt for the phatties here
[/quote]
You know, I don't think it's appropriate for a teacher to use that kind of tone or language.

God has a greater plan for women than priesthood. He wants them to be wives and mothers, whether that's biological or spiritual. The character of priesthood necessitates a male first because priests are married to the Church and second because a priest needs primarily to be a shepherd (read: provider and protector) for his community, not a nurturer. Anyone who reduces the priesthood to nurturing essentially reduces it to the social justice and more fluffy side of the pastoral ministry aspects. Men are better geared by their nature to provide for and protect their congregation. It follows from their nature. Grace builds upon nature...men who are ordained become Fathers, not Mothers. Women who receive the (non-sacramental) grace of vows become Sisters or Mothers. For a woman to be the sacramental spouse of the Church would be a lesbian relationship.

Furthermore, while it is not necessary to be a man to be human, masculinity (or femininity) is not merely secondary or accidental. It is integral to who we are as persons. Christ came as a man. I would argue that it was fitting and not necessary that He come as a man (if I'm wrong, someone correct me), but the fact is that He came as a man, most likely because man came before woman and was supposed to be the supreme (but gentle) ruler over all creation, even in charge (but lovingly and respectfully, submitting himself to her own benefit) of his wife. It makes sense that Christ would come as a man in order to redeem mankind, since man was, even more than woman, meant to be the "gardener" as it were. This is a priestly role and duty, to take care of the original temple of creation. It in no way demeans women. Finally, it makes sense that this role is fulfilled and perfected in ordination and that the grace of the sacrament, which is the fulfillment of natural manhood, would build only on natural manhood.

If they don't want to accept the fact that they are women and that they are different (but equal), then tough. Tell them to get over it. Even we men have to accept the fact that we are lower than the angels, but you don't see us whining about that. We are meant to be filled with Christ on whatever level of creation we exist, not to be, by nature, the closest to Him (although by grace we are higher than the angels). So it is with women. Plus, they are equal to us, not lower...so it's an even better relationship between men and women that it is between humans and angels. They have nothing to whine about...we're meant to serve them, not to lord it over them. They need to accept their difference, realize that we are not meant for anything greater than them because we're all called to the same reward, get off their soapbox, and embrace the dignity of womanhood, at the service of which is all manhood.

[morostheos]

Ok, I'm going to try and posts some excerpts from "The Privilege of Being a Woman." It starts from scripture, so I think it would be helpful for you.

[quote] In order to understand the greatness of a woman's mission, we must open our minds and hearts to the message of the supernatural. It is the key that will reveal to us the greatness of femininity. It is one thing to read a text; it is another to interpret it correctly.[/quote]

[quote] Indeed, the punishment meted out to Eve, as de Beauvoir points out, was particularly severe. As mentioned above, when referring to excruciating pains, the Old Testament mentions the pangs of childbirth. But, in light of redemption (which has given a sublime meaning to suffering), to suffer agony to bring another human being into the world is a premonition of the sufferings of Christ whose blood has redeemed us. [/quote]

[quote]The New Testament highlights magnificently the glorious role assigned to women. At the Annunciation, the Angel Gabriel addresses himself to a young virgin betrothed to Joseph. She is offered the overwhelming privilege of being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and becoming the mother of the Savior. She declares herself to be the handmaid of the Lord and conceives the Holy One. [i]Saint Joseph - a man and a fiancee - is neither present nor even informed [/i] of the amazing miracle which has taken place in the one he loves. The humble Virgin of Nazareth is alone in center stage. It is only when he notices that she is with child that he is informed, in a dream, of the mystery that has taken place in his chaste financee's womb. The Gospel is silent about the sufferings that Mary must have undergone until Joseph was informed that he was engaged to the most blessed of all women. Faith and an immense confidence in God must have sustained them both during this trial. Revelation limits itself to telling us what we need for Salvation; many sacred mysteries are left in the dark. It is only in Eternity that we shall be privileged to contemplate the fullness of God's loving plans.

...Moreover, the Stations of the Cross honor women. The fourth station pictures the Savior meeting His beloved mother; not a word is said about this heartbreaking encounter, but the faithful are challenged to meditate reverently upon this scene of ultimate love and ultimate sorrow which renders words meaningless. Simon of Cyrene did indeed help carry Christ's cross, but Saint Luke tells us explicitly that "he was forced" to do so. The holy women certainly envied him: how they would have welcomed the possibility of partaking physically in the sufferings of the one they loved so ardently. .... The holy women were assembled at the foot of the cross. No woman was privileged to see Christ transfigured on Mount Tabor, but they were there at the Crucifixion. This is - once again - deeply meaningful: They were not given to see Him transfigured; but they were permitted to see Him "bruised for our iniquities, smitten by God and afflicted." The apostles had fled. Saint John - the disciple Jesus loved - did come back; and it was to him that the dying Savior confided His mother withthe words: "This is your mother."[/quote]

[YMNolan]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='972300' date='May 5 2006, 10:34 AM']
cont...

So basically because we do not understand how we are keeping women out of leadership. Because women are not allowed to be in leadership it is wrong. The language of the church as woman because she receives is "telling us that women should bend over and just take it"(*as my teacher said this morning)

grr..I need the spirit to help me here. Im outnumbered if it wasnt for the phatties here
[/quote]


The Church is not a government. Being a priest is vastly different than holding political office. People really need to step out of the box and realize the Church isn't parallel to the American government. In fact, if you want to be a priest because you want to be involved in "leadership", well that's a very poor reason. Any good priest knows it's about serving and submitting your life to Christ's Church, not to be looked at as figure head ruling over people.

[thessalonian]

This seems to be the heart of her arguement.

[quote] If it is true that Christ is meant to be represented by men only, why is proper for women to receive Christ and swallow his body and blood that is represented within the Eucharist. Is this not even greater a gift then being able to distribute Christ. To receive Christ and to contain Christ within you, to be assured of freedom from all that the world binds upon you. How amazing a gift.[/quote]

The Eucharist which she speaks is pure grace.
Here question seems to be, why do both women and men recieve grace. If you take this to an extreme it means everyone is exactly equal and gets equal grace, either that or some are not fit for Christ's grace and his salvation. It is true that we all have access to grace:



Rom 5
2: Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.


We are not all given equal or should I say the same grace:

Eph 4
7: But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.



Paul says he has the grace to be a minister and in another place an apostle. Yet we know that not all are ministers and apostles.
So some are given certain graces and some not.

Col
28: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29: Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30: Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

It just so happens that all that he chose as Apostles were men. Why no wome? Well it is because the image that Christ chose was of a man and as our brother.

Romans 15
15: But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God
16: to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.


[quote]Also, the Priest is meant to reach out to the whole of the Church. The priest is to be able to speak for the whole of the church. Why is a representation of the church, for the church held to gender specific positions. I am not saying that a male cannot represent the female views of the church well, but I am asking why and how is it improper for a female to represent the male views of the church in the same manner. Never once did Christ say proclaim 'You, male gender, go unto all the nations and proclaim the Gospel, baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the gifts given to your gender.' [/quote]

Actually he did say "you male gender...." because those that were standing around him were his Apostles, men. Those at the last supper were men. He chose no women as Apostles! He did in fact as an example on this earth for us (jesus was all about showing us the way) choose men. This does not mean that women do not have important roles or are not chosen for things based on gender. For all time he had Mary chosen based on her gender to bear the Son of God! What greater role could there be. It is a great honor for her. Your friend needs to be careful that she is not looking down on the role of child bearing and raising which women have the brunt of. My wife has more influence on their devolping faith than I. She is with them more and does much of the teaching to those who are homeschooled. All roles for men and women are of service and it seems that women these days have an envious desire for what God chose plainly as a male role. Here view that women logically would not be able to recieve the Eucharist if they were not chosen for the priesthood as well is a non-sequitor.


My thoughts anyhow. Hope it is of some help.

One more thing. If she is brought to tears by this and will not submit over it she has a problem. Jesus chose men. Does this leave her in tears as if he was wrong for choosing twelve men as apostles. When Paul went out and set up churches throughout the world, he as the example provided for him chose men. Timothy, Titus, etc. etc. Show me where he mentions a woman that he put in leadership over the Church. He even says women should not be leaders of the Church.

Blessings

[N/A Gone]

Thes, you are amazing sir..

btw, finals are done on wed and I can send you the package. Turns out a classmate had one of my books. Im having problems tracking my library lately. I tried to load a version of my business inventory program to load for my library, but it isnt working..hehe

[N/A Gone]

Here is the latest response back to me..good stuff



[quote]I think you're missing matters of understanding which are core to the Gospel (yes, I know you say you are merely presenting the argument of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't excuse you from thinking through these things):
1)The twelve apostles were male in order to represent the patrilocal tribes of Israel, however, what Christ does by including all those previously excluded (see Isaiah 56.1-8) is to make all (regardless of social distinctions) fully sons in responsibility and priviledge (so that therefore in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; see Galatians 3).
2)You also miss the point that this new community created by Christ is consequently empowered and gifted by the Spirit in like manner-- without regard to social distinctions (see Joel 3, Acts 2, etc.). Therefore, some are prophets, teachers, apostles, etc., though the text does not specify tasks within the Body as being divided on the basis of social distinctions.

Also, to say that males more fully represent the Image of Christ misses another core principle of Christianity: that Christ restores to us what was lost in the Fall-- full personhood.

Before the Fall, it is clear that male and femal, being made in His Image, existed in relationship without hierachy (where difference produced beauty of unity rather than struggle for power) and where the responsiblity and priviledge of shared dominion over (inheritance of) creation was given equally to both members of Eden's couple. It is only after the Fall that subordination on the basis of social distinction comes as a result of sin, as a curse (not that power of male over femal is not given as a blessing, but rather as a distortion of humankind's representation of the divine life as a result of sin).

Distinctions you seem to be affirming, of giving as a male act and receiving as a femal act seem highly problematic in this light. It seems incongruatous to assert that males alone can hold the position of "bridegroom" on the basic of their "male parts," as they are part of the Church which is the Bride of Christ, wherein there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (see Galatians 3).[/quote]