(Quote) Peter-793888 said:
Gregory, you're absolutly correct, but it runs even deeper then what you said. The pr...
(Quote) Peter-793888 said:
Gregory, you're absolutly correct, but it runs even deeper then what you said. The priest (in persona Christi) is in a mystical way married to His Church (the congregation). The Church has always been seen as feminine (the Bride of Christ). So if you were to have a female priest they would standing in the person of Christ (which is impossible because Christ is male) and would then be married to their congregation (The Church) and you have a female-female relationship (in esssence a Gay marriage).
Thank you for your response. If you want to get all fancy about it, the priest acts "in persona Christi capitis" :) The problem with analogies is that, as they say, they limp. You, for instance, are a part of the Church, the Bride of Christ. Ironically, because of this, someone could argue that the priest is married to you as much as to anyone else, which would be rather gay! Analogies can be pressed too far, yes?
I think in all fairness we should recall that JPII (and Paul VI before him) never said that Jesus couldn't have done otherwise. Ordination is not conferred on women not because they are naturally or intellectually incapable of receiving grace per se, but rather because this is how Jesus planned it. They were anxious to stress that God did not become a man by mistake or the flip of a coin - that he had a reason for doing this, and that Jesus had a definite plan in mind when he linked his *sacramental* priesthood to maleness. By doing so, he thereby established a male-only sacramental priesthood (as opposed to the "common" [i.e., shared] priesthood of the baptized, which men and women both share), precisely as a consequence of the fact that men and women are not substitutible for each other. He seems to be saying that in order for Himself to be sacramentally present at the Mass or as the minister of the sacraments, he must be *fully* present, including his sex, and hence, *in that capacity*, a woman cannot substitute for a man, because a woman cannot "re-present" for a man, nor vice versa. (Sorry if that's a bit muddled, I'm hashing my thinking out as I go.) In other words, Jesus could have perhaps established some other kind of ordained priesthood that would've been open to women, but because he made the ordained priesthood *his own* priesthood, linked to his own personhood and sacramental re-presentation of himself, that therefore the non-substitutability of male and female precludes female participation in this particular priesthood. Because Jesus established it this way, the Church therefore "has no authority" to do otherwise.