Female priests

[Rune]

@Skammer

But all that aside, the Genesis account is pretty clear-cut that it was after Eve was created that God declared all of Creation “very good.” And it was some time later, after the serpent’s temptation, that Adam and Eve fell into sin and introduced it into the world. So attributing the division of the sexes to sin is nonsensical – it was a good thing, according to God.

It is a minority belief, but as far as I can see it is a belief shared by the Christian writers, Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), Maximus the Confessor (7th century) (“When Eve was still in Adam death did not exist. When she was separated from him death came into being”) and John Scotus Eriugena (9th century) (“The dependence of man’s mind on the body and the subjection of the body to the world of sense, as well as the distinction of male and female in the human kind, are all the results of original sin.“ John Scotus Eriugena)

[Skammer]

Interesting, Rune. It’s tempting to blame that interpretation on simple misogyny (which it may well be) but I’ll need to figure out what reasoning they used. I can see blaming the woman for Sin (she ate the fruit first) but I don’t know how you can blame Sin for there being a woman, when she was created first.

[Rune]

@Skammer

Interesting, Rune. It’s tempting to blame that interpretation on simple misogyny (which it may well be) but I’ll need to figure out what reasoning they used. I can see blaming the woman for Sin (she ate the fruit first) but I don’t know how you can blame Sin for there being a woman, when she was created first.

I think the androgyne Adam and Christ are rather attractive interpretations from an egalitarian point of view. In such a way it is not possible to deny that woman as well as man was created in His image and that both are needed in perfection.

[purplehorseshoe]

@Bricker

… The Pope could require that henceforth priests celebrating Mass do so in a tux, top hat, and tails. This would be valid and binding on the church, but not “infallible.”

Awesome mental image.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@purplehorseshoe

@Bricker

… The Pope could require that henceforth priests celebrating Mass do so in a tux, top hat, and tails. This would be valid and binding on the church, but not “infallible.”

Awesome mental image.

All those in favor…

[Zakalwe]

@Polycarp

On the term “priest”:

[snipped]

But the duties of a Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican priest, a Presbyterian preaching elder or presbyter, a Methodist elder, or a Lutheran or Baptist pastor are largely identical.

Poly for SDSAB!

What a fantastic explantion of a complex subject. Thanks!

[BigT]

@Rune

@Skammer

Interesting, Rune. It’s tempting to blame that interpretation on simple misogyny (which it may well be) but I’ll need to figure out what reasoning they used. I can see blaming the woman for Sin (she ate the fruit first) but I don’t know how you can blame Sin for there being a woman, when she was created first.

I think the androgyne Adam and Christ are rather attractive interpretations from an egalitarian point of view. In such a way it is not possible to deny that woman as well as man was created in His image and that both are needed in perfection.

I think that’s pretty clear from the account in Genesis 1:26-27, 31 (NIV):

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
[…]
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.

God created man in his own image, both male and female, and only later said it was good. It’s only in Chapter 2 that we see that Adam was created first. It’s the reason a lot of people see two separate creation stories, while I assume that Chapter 2 just goes into more detail of what happened on that day.

Also, the idea that that verse means that every man was both male and female is contradicted by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:4-6 (NIV):

“Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

[DanBlather]

Jesus was not white, not 50 years old, not gentile, not 6’ 6" tall, not Italian speaking, not born after the first century, not a bridge player, and not a fan of Mariah Carey but I think the Catholic Church ordains people with those characteristics.