Ship of Fools: Mary as priest and the Ordination of Women?

Thread: Mary as priest and the Ordination of Women? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028532

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

This is a spin-off from the thread over in Purg about the tradition of depicting, and possibly conceiving of, Mary as a priest.

It has raised questions about the implications for the ordination of women, so I'm bringing that question over here.

I'd like to pick up with this bit from leo:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It would certainly challenge the suggestion that there is an ontological impediment to ordaining women. If Mary was a priest, then it seems very difficult to suggestion that other women could not validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Provided these other women were immaculately conceived.

So men can be ordained only if they are sinless like Our Lord? 'Cause I thought the argument was that only men could be ordained because Jesus was male. Emphasizing the difference between Mary and all other women while emphasizing the similarity between Jesus and other men seems disingenuous.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, there's also a really nasty implication sitting in there that somehow ordinary women are too 'dirty' for the job. They're not 'pure' like Mary.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Well I think on the point that other women might need also to be immaculately conceived, we need to remember the sacrament of baptism. As the Catholic Encyclopedia has it:

quote:
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism.

Of course, the Encyclopedia is using the language of its time and I am sure its authors would not deny that female recipients of the sacrament of baptism are also cleansed from sin.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Agree. What I said was a wind up!

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Agree. What I said was a wind up!

Nevertheless, you hit a nail on the head, I think. The idea that men are somehow more like Jesus than women are like Mary seems to lurk in here somewhere...

I've always wondered about this metaphysical claim that women aren't the "right" matter for ordination to take place. In what way are women different matter than men? ISTM that in order to make such metaphysical claims, one would have to be able to demonstrate what difference the purported metaphysics makes. You can't claim to be a realist (i.e., believing in the reality of things metaphysical, such as formal causes and the like) and hold that metaphysics makes no discernible difference in the tangible world.

And if men and women are of such different matter that women can't be ordained on the basis that Jesus was male, how are women redeemed? ISTM this implies, using the "chain of being" in antiquity, that men are everything that women are, with something more. That something more must be the matter required for ordination. What is it?

I've never understood the metaphysical claims. I think they only make sense to people who want them to make sense, i.e., people they serve.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Well I think on the point that other women might need also to be immaculately conceived, we need to remember the sacrament of baptism. As the Catholic Encyclopedia has it:
quote:
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism.
Of course, the Encyclopedia is using the language of its time and I am sure its authors would not deny that female recipients of the sacrament of baptism are also cleansed from sin.

Yes!

So the only possible thing to do is deny Mary's priesthood. Otherwise, you can't keep women out of ordained ministry.

There are too many inconsistencies (including the fact that ordination is kept from women on the basis that priests represent Christ in some special way and Jesus was male; and then women can't be deacons either for no clear reason).

The testimony of many women who have been ordained to the priesthood, the witness of their priestly charism and the efficacy of their ministries make a serious counter-argument, I think. You can only ignore it if you have a prior prejudice (I mean that in a neutral sense, like it's used in legal speech) that women can't be priests.

Christianity didn't come into being because someone deduced it from first principles. It made no sense based on prior tradition. The reality and experience of Christ shattered the prejudices of the people who encountered him. His Spirit continues to do the same, leading us into all truth. The "proof" isn't in metaphysics, it's in lived experience.

IMO.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Agree. What I said was a wind up!
Nevertheless, you hit a nail on the head, I think. The idea that men are somehow more like Jesus than women are like Mary seems to lurk in here somewhere...

In one sense men are more similar to Jesus. He is male. it had nothing whatsoever to do about 'perfection.'

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Agree. What I said was a wind up!
Nevertheless, you hit a nail on the head, I think. The idea that men are somehow more like Jesus than women are like Mary seems to lurk in here somewhere...
In one sense men are more similar to Jesus. He is male. it had nothing whatsoever to do about 'perfection.'

Jewish men are more similar to Jesus than Gentile men. Yet we don't exclude Gentiles from Holy Orders.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There is a current series on Radio 4 called Banishing Eve which is discussing the archaeological evidence for the role of women in the early church and saying that women were heavily involved in the early church as priests, presbyters, deacons and bishops - this is from Lydia's role in Paul's ministry in Rome onwards.

[ 21. March 2010, 15:58: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Wottinger (# 13176) on :

Our church blog with its discussion on Mary as Priest has certainly started some discussion! - Comments there would be welcomed, I know.

I do think there is something in the difference between 'Mary as priest' and 'Mary as a priest'.

The former I see as symbolic, the latter relating more to function.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a current series on Radio 4 called Banishing Eve which is discussing the archaeological evidence for the role of women in the early church and saying that women were heavily involved in the early church as priests, presbyters, deacons and bishops - this is from Lydia's role in Paul's ministry in Rome onwards.

Yes - and the Pastoral Epistles, which don't allow women roles of leadership in the Church seem to be written later as part of a strategy of accommodation to an imperial "family values" campaign. You have to keep in mind how gender was constructed (particularly masculinity) in antiquity. Jesus wouldn't be considered fully male, thanks to his execution.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wottinger:
I do think there is something in the difference between 'Mary as priest' and 'Mary as a priest'.

Eh?

You only have two choices for the article in English. It's either 'the' or 'a'.

The definite article 'the' is clearly incorrect. To suggest that Mary is 'the' priest, as in the one and only, just doesn't work.

So you're left with 'a' priest.

The fact that the sentence has been contracted to 'Mary as priest' doesn't alter this in the slightest. Whether her priesthood is 'symbolic' or 'functional' is an entirely different question which would still arise regardless of whether you put 'a', 'the' or neither.

[ 22. March 2010, 07:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

In one sense Mary is indeed a priest(ess): she is part of the Church, part of the baptismal priesthood. But that is different from the ministerial priesthood.

A a priest(ess) in the former meaning she gave herself completely to God; and we are told to "to present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is [our] spiritual worship." (Rom 12:1)

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a current series on Radio 4 called Banishing Eve which is discussing the archaeological evidence for the role of women in the early church and saying that women were heavily involved in the early church as priests, presbyters, deacons and bishops - this is from Lydia's role in Paul's ministry in Rome onwards.

I think another point was that in the very early church there were no priests - Christ's sacrifice was made once and for all time, so he was seen as the only priest.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a current series on Radio 4 called Banishing Eve which is discussing the archaeological evidence for the role of women in the early church and saying that women were heavily involved in the early church as priests, presbyters, deacons and bishops - this is from Lydia's role in Paul's ministry in Rome onwards.
I think another point was that in the very early church there were no priests - Christ's sacrifice was made once and for all time, so he was seen as the only priest.

Which is historical nonsense.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think another point was that in the very early church there were no priests - Christ's sacrifice was made once and for all time, so he was seen as the only priest.
Which is historical nonsense.

No it isn't. Its plainly true. All explained in great detail in the epistle to the Hebrews.

In the earliest Church, Christian elders (presbyters) were not regarded as being equivalent to sacerdotal temple priests. No individual Christian is called a sacrifical priest in the New Testament - we are said to collectively participate in the priesthood of Jesus, which is not the same thing at all.

Confusion reigns in English because our word "priest" derived from presbyter is used for both offices. But they are distinct offices in the New Testament.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a current series on Radio 4 called Banishing Eve which is discussing the archaeological evidence for the role of women in the early church and saying that women were heavily involved in the early church as priests, presbyters, deacons and bishops - this is from Lydia's role in Paul's ministry in Rome onwards.

A good programme in lots of ways, but I got very irritated by the way Bettany Hughes sounded as if she was gushingly revealing deep dark secrets that the Church has been hiding from us for all these years as if Church history can only be interesting if dressed up like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or The Da Vinci Code.

But most of what she said would have been in any ordinary history of the early Church published in the last five hundred years. And quite a lot of it is in the New Testament. I was hearing sermons on some of it twenty-five years ago.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0