Sunday, 4 November 2007
A continuation from T19 on Women's Ordination
There has been a long discussion at Titusonenine over the issue that divides conservative Evangelicals and Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics. I am writing here to offer the space for this discussion to continue on this site. All are welcome to give their views and I do hope that this discussion can continue. The hermeneutical issues recently brought up by IRNS are important for us to look at as we try to understand how the Catholic and Evangelical approaches such passages as Genesis Two. I do hope the readers will keep the comments coming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thak you, Fr, Jeffrey, for offering your blog space for continued conversation on this very important topic.
I agree with Michael Liccione that there is no salvation outside the Church and that this doctrine is inextricably linked to the fulfillment of redemption through the Theotokos. The two are interconnected. The connection is that of blood. The blood of Jesus that makes possible the pleroma of which St. Paul writes, is the blood of Mary.
Genesis 3:14-15 says, "Then Yahweh God said to the snake, 'Because you have done this, accursed be you of all animals wild and tame! On your belly you will go and on dust you will feed as long as you live. I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he [following the Greek] will bruise your head and you will strike his heel."
This proclaims that the children of the devil will be at enmity with the offspring of the woman (not named Eve here). Her "offspring" cannot refer to the human race we are in captivity to the Devil until redeemed by the blood of Jesus, which is Mary's blood. The ultimate victory is not ascribed to the woman's descendents in general, but to a particular Son who allows those who put their trust in Him to share in that victory.
The Latin version reads: "she will bruise..." and has been taken to refer not to Eve, but to Mary, the Theotokos.
Alice,
Thank you! Yes, and Prots will not like that interpretation as you well know. I think we need to turn to the right question about the nature and the sacramental functions of the priesthood. To reduce priesthood to a merely functional status without an ontological status and our ecclesial structure to be taken completely out of the question makes it next to impossible to talk sensibily with people about this.
The topic often doesn't get its theological moment but is reduced to the pentecostal moment that we have received by our railing against any sort of sex discrimination.
There is a lot more to be said about the Church of England's move to allow this novelty as a result of our Church's Synodical structures where lay people who have no knowledge of theology on the issues are in a place where they are asked to vote on theological issues such as this. This opens up another issue for us as well.
Why does the prestige of the female sex depend on whether or not they can be priests? And your point about Mary is actually one of the most important aspects to this theological question of women in the priesthood. She has ultimately been ignored.
Good question, Fr. Jeffrey. It seems to me that the corollary of saying that the prestige of the female sex depends upon the opportunity to be priests is to demand that men be able to bear children.
One aspect I did not see mentioned in the references to Genesis 2 in the Titusonenine comments--and it seems to me to be the heart of the issue--is the question of whether male headship was integral to the created order or was a result of the Fall and thus an aspect of the curse. If it is the latter, then it might be a valid argument to say that one of Christ's purposes for coming to earth would have been to roll it back, just as He rolled back our subjection to spiritual death (though a rejoinder might be that he did not roll back physical death).
On the other hand, if male headship is a part of the created order, intended to model for us the Trinitarian structure, then there is no question of ontological equality requiring functional equality. In fact, to say that all must have access to the same function in the Church is to blur these vital distinctions and thus destroy our ability to live out the Trinitarian model. This not only seems to be St. Paul's argument in several passages but has also been long-standing practice of the Church.
It is our great joy and solemn duty to reflect the mutual submission that is characteristic of the Holy Trinity. We fail in that duty when we insist upon a humanistic notion of equality.
Post a Comment