Note: this post was originally published on my Equus nom Veritas blog. It can be read in its original format, with all relevant links and a prefatory rant there. The recently written letter by VOT"F"C to the Holy Father is smarmy, arrogant, and filled with distortions, half-truths, and outright heresies. However, the passage which I find most interesting is this:
|
Quote:
"The metaphor argument, that the priest should be male because he represents Jesus, the male priest, is simply fallacious. The priest does not represent Christ, but serves as leader of the community of men and women worshiping God in communion with Christ. Further, since the Risen Christ is neither male nor female, any gender based symbolism ascribed to the presider is meaningless" (emphasis mine: this is what I will be focusing on tonight).
|
I find this interesting for a variety of reasons. First, the real fallacious statement here is the denial that the priest acts in persona Christi. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
|
Quote:
Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation (Paragraph 1348)....In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:
It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ. (Paragraph 1548, emphasis in original)
|
This is, in fact, the main reason why a priest is needed to say Mass, rather than any lay member of the congregation or even a deacon. Indeed, the bible has quite a few references to this mystery, of Christ being head of the Church; this is a centerpiece of St Paul's theology. In his letter to the Colossians, he writes that "And he [Christ] is the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18). Thus, even in the context of the priest being "merely" the leader of the local community, it is still fitting to say that he acts in persona Christi.
But is the priest only the "leader of the community," as per VOT"F"C? I answer that he is not. It was, after all, Christ Himself who told the Apostles (and by extension their successors the bishops, along with the priests--collaborators of said bishops) that
|
Quote:
"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20).
|
By which is implied that Christ would be acting through His apostles and their successors and collaborators in a unique manner (see also Mark 13:34, which Christ addressed specifically some of His apostles).
As to the priest being a "leader of the community," ideally he is this, but he is also by nature something more. Perhaps a more fitting thing would be to say that the priest is a local commander in God's army. For it is important to remember that we are not merely any religion, but rather a religion which is at war, tasked with laying siege to the gates of hell to help retake those who are hostages within. Mass is not merely a group meeting, group therapy, or even a group prayer session; rather, it is a meeting of God's army, a time to be strengthened, a time to receive our orders for the coming campaign (to borrow from C.S. Lewis' analogy).
Often I've heard the cry that a good priest ought to be "pastoral." That is to say, he is a good counselor, "
nonjudgmental," kindly--and not the least bit authoritative. Well, it's true that a good commander keeps in mind the morale of his troops. In this way the priest may be "pastoral", may act to counsel his flock, but this is not the most important job of a commander. Rather, the job of the commander is to command, that is, to give direction in a time of battle. We go to our pastor for aide in the spiritual battle which we fight, which may involve counseling. It most certainly involves orders, that is, the orders which have been handed down to him: repent, and sin no more (see, for example, John 5:14 and 8:11).
VOT"F" has a false and limited understanding of the role of the priest. While it is true that the priest should be "leader of the community," this is only the first part of his job description. If this were his only job description, then perhaps the job really would be open to women as well as men (on the other hand, see 1 Timothy 2:12). Because they have a flawed understanding of what the priesthood is, VOT"F" wants to see it changed into something which it is not. However, as Chesterton once warned, the greatest reason not to change something is because it is understood poorly.
Tags: Culture Theology Catholicism Abolition-of-Ma N Apologetics
