A couple of days ago, I wrote a somewhat rambling piece about Voice of the "Faithful" (VOT"F") Chicagoland's open letter to the Holy Father*. I focused on one passage in particular, namely the one in which VOT"F"C attempts to rebut the "metaphor argument" (e.g. the "sexual symbolism" argument) against ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood**. However, I had time only to consider the first half of that passage, which concerns their mistaken view as to the role of a priest. Today, I'd like to spend some time considering the second part of that passage, in which they make an even more grievous (and an even less well founded) error concerning Christ himself. Let's have another look at the passage in question, this time with the emphasis on its second part:

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).

The most annoying thing about the heresy of modernity--to which VOT"F" apparently adheres, if one were to judge based on this letter (among other things)--is that it is a bastardized reincarnation of all the old heresies which were for a while laid to rest. Every major heresy, from Arianism to Peliagianism, from Montanism to Nestorianism, and from Manichaenism to Monophysitism (yes, the opposite of Nestorianism) is given a second life under the name of modernity. The particular heresy of which VOT"F" is guilty this time is one of the oldest--perhaps the oldest, since in some ways it predates Christianity--is Gnosticism.

Their interpretation--that the risen Christ is neither male nor female--shows exactly the right kind of disdain for the the body to regard them as a sort of Gnostic. Where, exactly, they get the information that the risen Christ is "neither male nor female," I do not know. It is certainly not from the original sources, of which only the Gospel accounts are extant. Neither do they draw on oral Tradition, nor on the creeds, nor any of the teachings of the Church. These sources, when they speak, suggest the opposite conclusion.

Consider, first of all, the reactions of those who are said to have encountered the Risen Christ. One would think that they would register some form of surprise or alarm had He appeared to them as a hermaphrodite. Instead, the only surprise we hear of is the joy of His disciples on learning of His resurrection. Ponder, for example, the following passage from the Easter narrative of St John's Gospel:

Quote: "When she [St Mary Magdalene] had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away" (John 20:14-15).

She mistook Him at first for the gardener: which seems to me unlikely is the risen Lord was a hermaphrodite, unless VOT"F" wants to now posit that the gardener, too was a hermaphrodite.

Perhaps they are trying to force this interpretation onto the passage from Luke describing the resurrection encounter on the road to Emmaus. This passage, Luke 24:13-35), states only that the disciples "eyes were held, that they should not know him" (Luke 24:13), and that after He broke bread with them "their eyes were opened, and they knew him" (Luke 24:31). Ok, but this does not give any evidence to say that the risen Christ was neither male nor female, only that the disciples didn't recognize Him, much as St Mary Magdalene did not initially recognize Him. This is more a measure of their surprise at encountering a man whom they knew had been executed. They expected to find Him dead in his tomb, not alive and well and traveling with them to Emmaus, 60 furlongs (7.5 miles) away.

There is, of course, far more to this claim that Christ was "neither male nor female" after His resurrection. First of all, it is a denial of bodily resurrection, a point which the Bible practically hammers into its readers. Both St Luke and St John go out of their way to explicitly state that the risen Christ has a body:

Quote: "Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not. But they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and feet" (Luke 24:36-40 with my emphases).

and***

Quote: Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord....Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20: 19-20, 24-27 with my emphases).

Thus, a merely "spiritual" resuscitation is out. He appeared to them in bodily form, which gives two possibilities: the resurrection of His body; or a reincarnation rather than a resurrection. The former means that he retains such features as sexuality--the Risen Christ is still a male--whereas the latter implies nothing whatsoever about His body, only that he happens to occupy a new one. But if he occupies a new body, why does St John go out of his way to state that Christ showed the apostles "his hands and his side" (that is, those places where he was pierced?). Why, indeed, is St Thomas able to put his hands into the nail holes? It would be quite a stretch to say that Christ's risen body retains all of the same features of His old body save for his sexuality.

Moreover, in a reincarnation, there is no need for the old body to disappear, yet all four Gospels are quite clear that the tomb is left empty. Therefore, we conclude that the risen Christ was resurrected, and not reincarnated, which means that he retains the male sexuality. That He was resurrected is the teaching of the Church, of Tradition, and of Scriptures. Consider Christ's own teaching in the gospel of St Matthew:

Quote: "That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven. And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:23-32 with my emphases; this is also recorded by St Mark and St Luke).

Clearly, then, Christ Himself is teaching a resurrection. If The Gospel writers are not clear enough on this point, consider the letters from St Paul, which mention the resurrection countless times. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles records that he disputes with the philosohpers of the Epicureans and the Stoics concerning the resurrection (not the reincarnation or mere "spiritual rising" of Christ). Perhaps most relevant of his letters is the passage from 1 Corinthians 15:11-21 (again, with my emphases):

Quote: For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed. Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep: For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead.

If Scripture as a whole is not clear enough, then it is worth also turning to the Historical creeds. The Apostles' Creed concludes by stating that "we believe...in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." Similarly, the Nicene Creed gives "We believe...in the resurrection of the dead." As for the lesser-known Athanasian creed, it states that

Quote: Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.....At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

This is the Faith of the Church, outside which salvation is not to be found. But why is this so important, other than all of the reasons which I have so far presented? Here we return to the question of Gnosticism, which denied that Christ was "true man" (and often, that He was "true God"). Suppose we take the last remaining way "out" for VOT"F"C's and say that while all of these passages are true as far as they go, there is a hidden interpretation (that is, hidden knowledge, hidden gnosis) which is oh-so-easy to overlook. Specifically, the most explicit passages concerning the body's resurrection are not necessarily specific to Christ, but rather to mankind.
[br Here is rank Gnosticism in its most blatant form. For if Christ's risen body is to be a reincarnation rather than a resurrection, then we must ultimately deny the original incarnation: perhaps He was and perhaps He was not truly and fully God****, but He was most certainly not fully man, that is, a man. This is ultimately what VOT"F"C's position ultimately boil down to, and it is identical to the teaching of the Church's early Gnostics.

It also has an unfortunate implication, to which I alluded earlier in my selection from St Paul's first Letter to the Corinthians: "For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:21). In other words, if Christ was not truly and fully man--in addition to being truly and fully God--then we have no resurrection, no salvation, and no hope for new life in the world to come. The act of salvation must also be an act of reconciliation between God and Man, and thus require both God and Man to participate fully.

Thus, to state, as VOT"F"C did, that "the Risen Christ is neither male nor female" is to ignore both Scripture and Tradition, to embrace Gnosticism, and to separate oneself from the Church. It is, moreover, to embrace a theology which ultimately rejects the body--indeed, one which abolishes man--and which in the final measure denies not only Christ's resurrection, but also our own salvation.

_____

*As to the Holy Father's own opinion on this matter, he has noted (when he was the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) that the teaching in Pope John Paul the Great's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. Additionally, in his most recent book, Jesus of Nazareth, the Holy Father writes (emphasis mine):

Quote: Here [John 15:6-8] John very obviously gives the motif a polemical turn against a form of Christianity that acknowledges Jesus' Baptism as a saving event but does not acknowledge his death on the Cross in the same way. He is responding to a form of Christianity that, so to speak, wants only the word, but not the flesh and blood. Jesus' body and his death ultimately play no role. So all that is left of Christianity is mere "water"--without Jesus' bodiliness the word loses its power. Christianity becomes mere doctrine, mere moralism, an intellectual affair, but it lacks any flesh and blood. The redemptive character of Jesus' blood is no longer accepted. It disturbs the intellectual harmony. Who could fail to recognize here certain temptations threatening Christianity in our own times?

**There are, of course, a number of arguments against ordaining women as priestettes, as well as rebuttals to the arguments in favor of women's ordination. I've noticed, in any case, that the trend amongst those who want women to be ordained is that they do not really comprehend what the sacrament of ordination is or what it does. They take it as a matter of right, like a political office, when in fact it is a duty. The believe that people choose this sacrament, when in fact if they have discerned properly, they find that they are actually chosen by God. Among other things, this means that those women who think that they are called to be priestettes have not properly discerned God's calling to them--if they have bothered with discernment in the first place. On a related note is that a crisis in discernment also often underlies a couple's decision to contracept, thus furthering the parallels between the priestly role and the fatherly one.

***A more humorous rebuttal on this point is given by Mr LarryD of the Acts of the Apostasies:

Quote: Apparently, these folks take St Thomas the Apostle's declaration a bit further than he had ever considered. All he wanted to do was probe the nailmarks with his finger, and put his hand in Jesus' side, and then he would believe. I get the impression that the VOTF Chicagoland group - and quite possibly many others like them - would only be convinced of Jesus' gender should they lift His toga. And even then they wouldn't believe their own eyes.

****An additional question raised by VOT"F"C's statement about the resurrected Christ is whether or not they believe that Christ is fully God or not. Moreover, it is reasonable to ask if they subscribe to the heretical belief that Christ was "just a man" before His Death, but was raised to or united with the Godhead after His resurrection. Was Christ or was He not truly and fully God, equal in the Godhead with the Father, to paraphrase the Atahanasian creed? And was He always God--the God Who became a Man--from the moment of His conception, or was He a Man who later became a God?

-----

Note: While this article originally appears on the Nicene Guys site, and also here, where it may be viewed with all of the original formatting and links intact.

Tags: Heresies Theology Apologetics Catechesis Culture Abolition Of Man

Bookmark: