REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But he also said, "This is My body"; "This is My blood". And again, in John 6, "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." I could go on, but that's just a sidetrack, so I won't.

Ah yes... but Jesus also said He was: the Door, the Gate, the True Vine, the Living Water, the Bread that came down from Heaven, etc (I could go on too ). So at some points, He is obviously speaking symbolically. Then it just becomes a matter of determining whether He is doing so at the Last Supper.

EDIT: - Oh, and on the other... just when was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception established?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Secondly, in the Book of Revelation 12:13,14; "As soon as the devil found himself thrown down to the earth, he sprang in pursuit of the woman, the mother of the male child [who was to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre], but she was given a huge pair of eagle's wings to fly away from the serpent into the desert" Many believe the eagle's wings given to the woman (and who but Mary gave birth to the Christ-child?) to represent her preservation from sin (also a gift from God). Neither the woman's wings nor Mary's sinlessness is of herself, but of God. In fact, Mary is the perfect expression of Grace.

Also, there is huge testimony to indicate that the original Christians believed in the sinlessness of Mary. There was a letter from St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John (to whom Mary was entrusted), which spoke of her in a very reverent way; speaking of a very unique devotion to her, and indicating that she was, at the very least, unique in the fewness of her sins, and quite possibly sinless altogether.

BTW, it is not a Gnostic idea; the rejection thereof is. The idea of gender being unimportant in priesthood is far closer to the idea of the vessel being unimportant than it the other way around. But look at it this way:

Jesus Christ is God; Jesus Christ is also Man. From His divine Father is deriven His Godhood; from His human mother is deriven His Manhood. Now, in order that Jesus Christ be perfect, a truly spotless (immaculate) Lamb of God, and in order that He not be infected by original sin, that the Manhood of Christ be absolutely perfect, then it seems to me that it should be that His parents should also be spotless. Of course, the Father is; but it seems to me that it also makes sense that Mary be preserved from imperfection, that the human nature inherited from her by Christ be perfect. Can you understand that; or is it still just someone "thinking too much"?

Re: Priests - we Protestants generally don't even use the term (perhaps Anglicans and some others do, I don't know...). It's not seen in the New Testament Church. Martin Luther expressed the notion of "priesthood of all believers" - that we ALL have access to God (as a priest serves an intercessory role between God and mankind). Hebrews tells us that Jesus is our 'Great High Priest'.

Actually, it is in a way: the word translated as "elder" is in Greek "presybter", from whence the word "priest" is deriven. With all due respect, Martin Luther also expressed the absolute inability of Jews to receive salvation, and that Jesus Christ slept with at least three different women. But the Catholic Church also believes that we all have access to God. Catholics are not only allowed, but encouraged to seek God outside of a worship service; through prayer, through the Scriptures, etc. The ministerial priesthood is not opposed to the priesthood of all believers, any more than the existence of senators and congressmen negates the right of people to vote.

Really, though, not many Christian churches ought to call their ministers "priests". For what is a priest, but one who offers sacrifice? And I'm pretty sure that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones which actually believe in a real sacrificial act, performed by (and through) the priest. The ministers of many Protestants are very much different from the priests of the "high" churches, i. e. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, in that many churches do not believe in any form of "sacramental reality", that the minister really effects any supernatural reality. He (or she) acts as a preacher, as a shepherd, as a visitor of the sick, as an advisor, as one learned in the faith, etc. All of which, in my opinion, a woman can do at least as well as a man.

Of course, Christ is our High Priest. But, to me, a High Priest indicates that there should also be "low priests".

Do I see the validity in it? No "validity" per se.

Of course not. You don't see any validity in the priesthood, period.

Rian: am I correct in assuming that you do not believe in the Catholic Eucharist? If so, then it see above about disagreeing with Ritz crackers.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

quote]Ah yes... but Jesus also said He was: the Door, the Gate, the True Vine, the Living Water, the Bread that came down from Heaven, etc (I could go on too ). So at some points, He is obviously speaking symbolically. Then it just becomes a matter of determining whether He is doing so at the Last Supper.

EDIT: - Oh, and on the other... just when was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception established?[/quote]

Yes, but there are some major differences. Firstly, when Jesus refers to himself as something unusual (the Bread that came down from Heaven and the Living Water are ones that I view in at least a nearly literal sense, btw), He almost always explains what He means by the metaphor; He does not at the Last Supper. Also, He often says that He is something, but I'm pretty sure that this was the only time He said that something was Him. Also, many of Christ's disciples outright left Him when he consistently insisted that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He did not correct any misunderstanding, but only turned to the Twelve, and said, "Will you leave me, also?" At other times, He has corrected misunderstandings about His teachings; why not this time?

Also, the text is actually, "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me." This indicates that the remembrance is not all there is to the act; otherwise, most likely the text would have been something along the lines of "This is a remembrance (or memorial) of Me." Also, of interest is the fact that to the ancient Jews, remembrance did not mean a mere bringing to mind; for instance, the Scriptures say ofteh that God "remembered His covenant". I doubt that the covenant had slipped the Almighty's mind. It seems to me that "remember" generally means more along the lines of "make present, apply to the present situation."

Also, I don't think it a coincidence that Scripture tells us that Christ's crib was a manger.

The doctrine was infallibly defined as dogma in the 19th century; it is, of course, much older than that. I don't know exactly how old. Guillame may be able to help you that. But the sinlessness of Mary, like the Real Presence and the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, are doctrines which are documented among Christians from the very beginning.

[Arien the Maia]

Gwai, have you been reading up on Catholic theology? I used to know alot when I was in high school and had to take several classes in different aspects of the Church's teaching. I remember most but I would have to look up my notes (which I kept ) and all the extra handouts to really refresh my memory.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

“Guillame may be able to help you that...� Maybe more than you would like. The topic of my MA dissertation was the ninth century Eucharistic debates. There’s no reason to restate what I’ve already posted about Catholic sacramental theology... so I’ll spare you Gwaimir has already done a good job presenting the teaching, so I’ll just add a few details.

Actually the dogma of the true presence was defined at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The Church makes formal definitions, i.e. dogma, only when traditional doctrines or practices are challenged and clarification is needed. Without the Council of Trent, the Eastern Orthodox traditions insist on the real presence in the Eucharist based on Scriptural and patristic sources, and their traditional liturgical practices. Aside from a dispute over the nature of the Eucharistic presence (was it identical to the glorified body and blood of Christ in heaven?) in the ninth century, the doctrine of the true presence wasn’t seriously questioned until the eleventh century when Berengarius of Tours rejected it outright in the process of applying the philosophical and theological system of Scotus Eriugena to Catholic practice. Berengarius later retracted his position and made a public confession of error before the pope and enjoyed communion with the Church for the rest of his life.

The most serious opposition after Berengarius came in the 16th century with Zwingli of Zurich, who called the true presence “an empty symbol.� Zwingli, however, was not in debate with Catholics, but formulated his theology in opposition to Martin Luther who insisted on the true presence (setting aside debate over “consubstantiation� and “transubstantiation,� of course). John Calvin attempted a compromise between the two Protestant groups, but Calvin’s position was later rejected by both the Lutherans and the Anabaptists. Calvin’s theology became very popular in England, however.

For what its worth, a belief in the true presence in the Eucharist is the traditional practice of Christianity. From the letters of Paul and even the Gospels onward there’s simply too much evidence that places the Eucharist, agape, at the center of communal worship for it to be ignored or termed as “an empty symbol.� That Christians placed the Eucharist at the center of liturgy and believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist can be seen in the Didache (first century), Ignatius of Antioch (AD 50-c.98), Justin Martyr (AD 100-c.165), Cyprian (third century), Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century), Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), John Chrysostom (fifth century). Only with a Zwingli, a splinter group of a tradition that had already severed its communion with the older Christian traditions both east and west, do we see a widespread denial of the practice.

Being the happy person I am, I like the prospect of having such an intimate contact with Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Gospels and read them daily... but actually having that degree of contact... its like actually being there at the tomb and in the upper room. Nothing in my life has ever been as powerful and meaningful... it really is beyond words.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Firstly: one of the unique things about the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they do not come from the Bible; the Bible came from them. The Catholic Church is older than the Scriptures. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Scriptural canon we have today. And, arguably, it was Catholics who wrote the Scriptures.

This is WAY too much extrapolation, IMO. Do you include Moses in the "Catholic Church"? I am NOT a member of the Catholic Church; are the people in my church somehow NOT part of God's church? Am I merely a bridesmaid?

I'm also aware of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, and again think that this is extrapolation (implication) gone too far. And frankly, I think it takes away from the magnitude of what Jesus did for us to say that His mother was without the stain of original sin, because then Jesus would be without a sin nature, and the beauty of what He did was that he overcame sin nature and was sinless. (and I see sin nature as a tendency towards sin; not necessarily being sinful).

And knowing how God looks at the heart, not the outward appearance, I have no problem with having communion with a Ritz cracker, if that's all that's available.

I'm NOT one of those people that think Catholics aren't Christians. I think that some are, some aren't, just like in most churches. However, I think Catholic doctrine contains way too many extrapolations that are then given too much importance.

I would have ABSOLUTELY no problem with disagreeing with the Pope himself, altho I would do so with great respect for him and his position. And I think this is biblically correct.

And I agree with Valandil about the Vine, door, etc.

I don't want to get into a long discussion on these points, because they are SO minor compared to the major points of God's nature and love for us, and the fact that we all fall short of the perfect standard, and God has provided a way of salvation thru Jesus. But I did want to post just to show that there are Christians that have different opinions on these points. But again, these are minor points compared to the main points, and on the main points, I totally agree with Catholic doctrine.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Rian,

I think what Gwaimir means is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches claim apostolic succession from the same people who formulated the canon of Scripture, and he was highlighting that its important from a spiritual, doctrinal and academic angle to realize that Scripture didn't drop out of the sky. The liturgical and communal practices of these various Christian communities pre-dated the writing of the NT.

Its rather a mute point to discuss whether or not Catholic's or Orthodox or Protestants or whatever Christian tradition possesses the fullness of Christian truth. If I thought that the Catholic Church didn't... well... I wouldn't be Catholic. I'm sure you think the same about your faith. This belief is not a hinderance for me, and despite this I'm still an "honorary member" of a local Methodist church where help out and even teach a bible study class. I think that you have to be totally blind to the historical evidence to say that the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Churches didn't pre-date the Protestant traditions, or that the Protestan Movement wasn't a break from the Catholic tradition. BUT both Catholics and Protestants need to realize who is to blame for this division: the blame rests squarely on Catholics! Catholic stupidity and corruption is why there was a Protestant Movement in the first place. This is something that Catholics of every generation will be held accountable.

Btw, the Greek Orthodox Church considers Moses and King David as saints belonging to the Church, and they probably consider many other OT people as saints as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Gwai, have you been reading up on Catholic theology?

Yes.

This is WAY too much extrapolation, IMO. Do you include Moses in the "Catholic Church"?

No of course not. I meant the New Testament Scriptures; my apologies. In what way too much extrapolation?

I am NOT a member of the Catholic Church; are the people in my church somehow NOT part of God's church? Am I merely a bridesmaid?

Goodness, no, of course not! Did I ever say that?

I'm also aware of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, and again think that this is extrapolation (implication) gone too far. And frankly, I think it takes away from the magnitude of what Jesus did for us to say that His mother was without the stain of original sin, because then Jesus would be without a sin nature, and the beauty of what He did was that he overcame sin nature and was sinless. (and I see sin nature as a tendency towards sin; not necessarily being sinful).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the "implication gone too far" bit. I agree with you; what you refer to as "sin nature" is what the Catholic Church calls "concupiscence"; that is, the natural tendency to sin. Unless I'm misreading you... It is separate from original sin. His mother was without original sin; He was without original sin; but neither was without the tendency towards sin.

And knowing how God looks at the heart, not the outward appearance, I have no problem with having communion with a Ritz cracker, if that's all that's available.

Could you please answer my question; do you believe that communion is a strictly symbolic thing? With all due respect, the same argument could be made for a homosexual union, if heterosexual is unavailable. But the very substance of something, what it is made of, is not, IMO, the "outward appearance".

I would have ABSOLUTELY no problem with disagreeing with the Pope himself, altho I would do so with great respect for him and his position. And I think this is biblically correct.

Neither would I. VERY rarely does the Pope make a statement which, I believe, is preserved by God from error.

they are SO minor compared to the major points of God's nature and love for us, and the fact that we all fall short of the perfect standard, and God has provided a way of salvation thru Jesus.

I must say that I disagree. Many of these differences are FAR from minor. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is, for Catholics, sheerly, completely, and absolutely awesome.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Btw, I think its amazing that so many people on a non-Catholic forum even know what the IC is. I, a cradle Catholic, was a freshman in college before I learned that the IC refered to Mary and not Jesus! Then again I was and remain a pretty dense kid.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Btw, I think its amazing that so many people on a non-Catholic forum even know what the IC is. I, a cradle Catholic, was a freshman in college before I learned that the IC refered to Mary and not Jesus! Then again I was and remain a pretty dense kid.

alot of people I know who were born and raised Catholic, really have no idea of what the Church's teaching on things are....I remebr one time talking to one of my friends who was like I said, born and raised Catholic, and he didn't even know what Purgatory was!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Btw, I think its amazing that so many people on a non-Catholic forum even know what the IC is. I, a cradle Catholic, was a freshman in college before I learned that the IC refered to Mary and not Jesus! Then again I was and remain a pretty dense kid.

That's because we're all Tolkien fans, and therefore, all smart.

[Valandil]

Gwaimir and Guillaume,

Now, I'm not trying to be difficult ... but I am curious. For Mary to have been born without original sin, would HER mother and father have also had to have been without sin? Obviously, that could be taken back ad infinitum (is that Latin for 'infinitely'? I'm not sure, but it sounds cool and seemed appropriate! ).

I just don't see the difference. If Jesus had to be born from a woman without original sin, would that woman also have to have sprung from parents without sin?

Not having had to deal with original sin, did Mary not need a savior?

Now - something Gwai said makes me wonder - what was that word - 'concupiscence' - do you say that Mary had THIS? That almost sounds like 'original sin' to me.

I find that very often, theological disagreements can be traced to slightly different definitions of the key words. Maybe this is just the case here... (for instance, dealing with the issue of 'sin' takes on two entirely different meanings between the definitions of 'missing the mark' and 'wilfull violation of a known law of God')

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Valandil
Gwaimir and Guillaume,

Now, I'm not trying to be difficult ... but I am curious. For Mary to have been born without original sin, would HER mother and father have also had to have been without sin? Obviously, that could be taken back ad infinitum (is that Latin for 'infinitely'? I'm not sure, but it sounds cool and seemed appropriate! ).

I just don't see the difference. If Jesus had to be born from a woman without original sin, would that woman also have to have sprung from parents without sin?

Not having had to deal with original sin, did Mary not need a savior?

Now - something Gwai said makes me wonder - what was that word - 'concupiscence' - do you say that Mary had THIS? That almost sounds like 'original sin' to me.

I find that very often, theological disagreements can be traced to slightly different definitions of the key words. Maybe this is just the case here... (for instance, dealing with the issue of 'sin' takes on two entirely different meanings between the definitions of 'missing the mark' and 'wilfull violation of a known law of God')

I know this isn't addressed to me but since I'm Catholic, I thought I could try to clarify some things. Concupiscence is the inclination to sin...it is different fro Original sin, which is the sin of Adam and Eve that lead to their death. now, if someone is born without Original sin (or sin in general as Adam and Eve were made free from sin) they still would have a choice in what they wanted to follow. Adam and Eve were given a choice to follow God or not too....Now I'm sure Mary had many chances of sinning because she like everyone else, has free will and can choose to go against God's teachings. However, we have no knowledge I think of her doing this.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Rian,

I think what Gwaimir means is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches claim apostolic succession from the same people who formulated the canon of Scripture, and he was highlighting that its important from a spiritual, doctrinal and academic angle to realize that Scripture didn't drop out of the sky. The liturgical and communal practices of these various Christian communities pre-dated the writing of the NT.

OK, thanks
I consider my church to be in this same line. Do you? I'd like to hear your opinion on this, if you would, please.

Its rather a mute point to discuss whether or not Catholic's or Orthodox or Protestants or whatever Christian tradition possesses the fullness of Christian truth. If I thought that the Catholic Church didn't... well... I wouldn't be Catholic. I'm sure you think the same about your faith.

Well, no, if I understand what you're saying ... I don't think ANY church "possesses the fullness of Christian truth". I think they all possess some truth and some error, since we are in a fallen world. (and btw, I think God is even stronger than error - IOW, He uses error for His good purposes, too.) But the MAIN truths (those preached in Acts by Paul and Peter and co. ) are in common in Christian churches all over the world. And also, I think that the Catholic church may be best for one person, and a Protestant church for another - there's not a single "this is the best church for everyone" thing going on, IMO.

This belief is not a hinderance for me, and despite this I'm still an "honorary member" of a local Methodist church where help out and even teach a bible study class.

Oh, I'm glad to hear that! Good for you!

I think that you have to be totally blind to the historical evidence to say that the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Churches didn't pre-date the Protestant traditions, or that the Protestant Movement wasn't a break from the Catholic tradition.

But I consider the Protestant tradition to not be a break, but a branch off of the Catholic tradition. They have the same root, IOW. Do you see what I mean? The roots of the Protestant church are the same as the roots of the Catholic church, IMO.

BUT both Catholics and Protestants need to realize who is to blame for this division: the blame rests squarely on Catholics! Catholic stupidity and corruption is why there was a Protestant Movement in the first place. This is something that Catholics of every generation will be held accountable.

This is very kind of you, Guillaume - I'm very, very touched by your courtesy.
I don't quite agree with you, but it doesn't matter

Btw, the Greek Orthodox Church considers Moses and King David as saints belonging to the Church, and they probably consider many other OT people as saints as well.

I think they are, too.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
I know this isn't addressed to me but since I'm Catholic, I thought I could try to clarify some things. Concupiscence is the inclination to sin...it is different fro Original sin, which is the sin of Adam and Eve that lead to their death. now, if someone is born without Original sin (or sin in general as Adam and Eve were made free from sin) they still would have a choice in what they wanted to follow. Adam and Eve were given a choice to follow God or not too....Now I'm sure Mary had many chances of sinning because she like everyone else, has free will and can choose to go against God's teachings. However, we have no knowledge I think of her doing this.

The closest thing would be Jesus somewhat rebuking her at the wedding at Cana, but I wouldn't base much on that.

I guess I don't see the difference, then, between concup. and original sin, if you're saying that all people are born with both. Can you or anyone explain some more, please?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
No of course not. I meant the New Testament Scriptures; my apologies. In what way too much extrapolation?

you said : "Firstly: one of the unique things about the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they do not come from the Bible; the Bible came from them. The Catholic Church is older than the Scriptures. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Scriptural canon we have today. And, arguably, it was Catholics who wrote the Scriptures. "

I think it is incorrect extrapolation backwards (extrapolation can go both ways, of course) to say that the writers of the NT were part of the Catholic church, if by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic. I think they ARE part of the Church, which includes any true church (and of course, the Church is the believers, not an organization).

Goodness, no, of course not! Did I ever say that?

Well, things like your sig referring to the One True Church, which I think you think is the RC church (is this right?) makes me think that.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the "implication gone too far" bit. I agree with you; what you refer to as "sin nature" is what the Catholic Church calls "concupiscence"; that is, the natural tendency to sin. Unless I'm misreading you... It is separate from original sin. His mother was without original sin; He was without original sin; but neither was without the tendency towards sin.

It's things like your "His mother was without original sin" - this may be implied, but is not stated anywhere, only implied by things like "full of grace", and IMO takes on too much importance. I tend to side with James and his focus on other-ness in "real religion", as he calls it, and with direct communion with God - for me, there's just too much emphasis on implied things in the RC church, and that's why I'm not a member of the RC church. But if it's right for you, then go for it, and God bless you!

Could you please answer my question; do you believe that communion is a strictly symbolic thing?

I do not think it is strictly symbolic.

With all due respect, the same argument could be made for a homosexual union, if heterosexual is unavailable.

How can you make this argument, when homosexual behavior is explicitely called out to be sinful???
Will you change your mind on this?

Neither would I. VERY rarely does the Pope make a statement which, I believe, is preserved by God from error.

Then perhaps I misunderstand your sig. I need to read thru the article you sent me on this subject, but I also wanted to ask - were the articles written by accepted authorities in the church, or laymen?

I must say that I disagree. Many of these differences are FAR from minor. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is, for Catholics, sheerly, completely, and absolutely awesome.

I mean "minor" ONLY in the sense of they are not salvation issues, IMO, and they are not the "basics" preached by Peter and Paul and co. in Acts (as Paul said, "we preach Christ crucified"). I'm glad for you and Guill. (need to find a good abbrev. for him!) that you are very blessed by this. I am always blessed by taking communion, too - in fact, our church does this weekly.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The closest thing would be Jesus somewhat rebuking her at the wedding at Cana, but I wouldn't base much on that.

I guess I don't see the difference, then, between concup. and original sin, if you're saying that all people are born with both. Can you or anyone explain some more, please?

I wouldn't call MAry's bahavior at the wedding at Cana sinful...she only asked Jesus to do something about the wine shortage...I don't think she knew that His time hadn't come yet.

Original Sin is the sin of Adam and Eve. Concupiscence is different than Original sin...original sin is a SIN and concupiscence is only the temptation/inclination to sin.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
"...certain temporal concequences of sin remain such as suffering, illness, death and such frailties inherant in life as weaknesses of character and so on as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence or metaphorically the tinder for sin( formes peccati); since concupiscence is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ. Indeed an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."

I hope this helps some

[Rían]

But if "Original Sin is the sin of Adam and Eve", then no one but Adam and Eve have original sin yet you seem to be saying that Mary was unique in NOT having original sin

And what I mean about the Cana situation is that IF Jesus rebuked her (and it seemed more than just a "it's not time yet" - don't have time to look it up, tho) THEN there was sin involved, even tho her words look fairly innocent - it may have been a pride issue on her part...

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But if "Original Sin is the sin of Adam and Eve", then no one but Adam and Eve have original sin yet you seem to be saying that Mary was unique in NOT having original sin

And what I mean about the Cana situation is that IF Jesus rebuked her (and it seemed more than just a "it's not time yet" - don't have time to look it up, tho) THEN there was sin involved, even tho her words look fairly innocent - it may have been a pride issue on her part...

ok, again from the Catechism "all men are implicated in Adam's sin as St. Paul affirms: 'By one man's disobediance many[ that is, all men] were made sinners':'sin came into the world through one man and death through one sin and so death spread to all men because men have sinned '(Rom 5:12,19). The Aposltle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. 'Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.' "

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
This isn’t about “receiving� a sacrament, its about being a sacrament... The priest doesn’t receive a sacrament when he acts in persona Christi. His body is the visible sign of the invisible reality, as such the priest, himself, must conform in species....

So, what you are saying is that since Jesus was born a male, priests must be male as well. Is that right? He has to have a penis?

...The rest of the passage from Ephesians reads thus:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her [in other words, He died for the Church] to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present himself to the church in slendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

I present the definitions of the following...
submit: To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
love:
1) A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2) A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3) a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.

Its clear that Saint Paul puts a much greater burden on the husband, who must go so far as to die for his wife, than he places on the wife. What’s more, the submission he speaks of is the same submission that is to be practiced by all Christians in regards to God. This submission is a paradox for Saint Paul. Its a happy slavery, for in the Christian’s commitment to God, the Christian finds her greatest freedom--the fulfillment of human nature:

There is nothing subordinating in Christian submission.

Thanks, but I don't think I'd ever be a happy slave.

If it were an equal relationship, then he would also submit to her, but he doesn't and is not told to. I've actually heard a lot of men who were Christians say that the man is the head of the house, makes the rules, and over rules the wife as per god because of that one passage... wives submit to your husbands. Also, if she doesn't, she's not being a good Christian wife. It is the same submission used in the dictionary.. there is no separate definition for Christian submission. Paul could have used another word if he'd wanted it to be more equal... but again, it was the times. Women DID submit to the will of their husbands and WERE all things for him.