Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt
From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni on women priests
Message-ID: <5449@duke.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 16:07:12 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5449
Posted: Wed Feb 20 16:07:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 04:45:52 EST
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 24

[From Vince Marchionni:]
> Christ was(is?) a man.  The essence of the priesthood is sacrfice.  Christ is
> offered to the Father at every Mass through the actions of the priest. He is
> both victim and principal priest. The priest takes the place of Christ in
> the eyes of the faithful in most things, so since Christ was a man,
> his earthly representative should also be a man.  Christ came as a man and
> said the first Mass at the last supper therefore his reps should be as like
> Him as possible..therefore men.

   I too have heard this argument (in an Anglican context).  Although it
seems plausible at first glance, upon reflection I am not convinced of its
validity.  Let us grant that the priest is an image of Christ at the Eucharist.
Even so, we do not require that the priest be exactly like Christ in all
details:  It is not necessary that the priest be of Jewish ancestry, of
Israeli nationality, have (I'm making an assumption here) a dark complexion,
speak fluent Aramaic, or -- perhaps the most important quality -- be
sinless.  Why then should masculinity be singled out as Christ's one
characteristic that must be shared by the priest before the priest
can act in place of Christ?  I could see requiring sinlessness of one
who acts as a representative of Christ -- except no one would qualify --
but masculinity hardly seems the essential attribute of the Christ.

                                     N. L. Tinkham
                                     duke!nlt