4. Eucharist & Priesthood: Different Modes of Presence

An Argument Against Priestesses

"The eucharistic elements after consecration into Christ do not convey a masculine appearance; similarly, there should be no requirement that the ordained priest signify such a masculine appearance."

Bishop Untener made this mistake a few years ago, but at least he had a working knowledge of Greek. He interpreted the word, "prosopon" referring to the mask used in Greek tragedy as merely the "appearance" of the priest's maleness at Mass. However, the Greeks actually gave the word, "prosopon," an ontological depth. The actor became the character he played. To avoid confusion, the West opted in its theology of holy orders to replace this word with "persona". The priest's manhood cannot be reduced to the external. Like the Eastern icons, the image is not simply a painting, it is a sacramental which conveys presence. By the sacrament of holy orders, the undivided male humanity of the presbyter conveys the living and acting presence of Christ. This all sounds pretty complicated. My grandmother would simply say you are mixing apples and oranges. While the Eucharist and priesthood are crucially linked, they are, nonetheless, separate sacraments of the new dispensation. Your logic here alludes me. What would you have had Jesus use at the Last Supper, Ginger Bread Men? In any case, the teaching of the Real Presence in the Eucharist mandates that we believe the Lord is wholly made manifest under the consecrated elements. Body, Soul, Divinity, he is present-- and while he is vivified or alive-- he also remains by virtue of the incarnation-- eternally male. That which is usually bread for physical life is transubstantiated into the bread of eternal life. While both the Eucharist and the priesthood signify Christ's presence, one is in the manner of food and the other is in the mode of an acting person. Did you think that Jesus somehow lost his "masculinity" or maleness after the resurrection? The Gnostics proposed a similar heresy by denying his humanity altogether. Oh, yes, and these heretics had women priests.

"If our Lord really wanted to stress a masculine appearance, he could have instituted the Eucharist with meat and blood from a male lamb."

You really see meat as signifying gender? No such notion ever entered into it. As a good Jew, I do not see Christ violating one of their most serious taboos, the drinking of animal blood. He conformed himself to the rubrics of the paschal meal which already had two elements perfect for his purposes. He knew that sacramental references to the cup and consecrated bread would be hard enough for some of them to endure; he would not press upon them the vulgarity of what you suggest. The whole notion of a sacrament which we hold dear would become crude if such had been the case. Christ made a major move away from the old covenant's sacrificing of animals to the new covenant's unbloody sacrifice. Otherwise, Christ's unique sacrifice would be blurred in the repeated killing of lambs for Mass and the consumption of the flesh and warm blood. No, I think this "could have" argument leads nowhere except into more idle speculation. Christ is made present-- his full risen identity-- no male external signs are given because it is taken for granted. After all, as both priest and victim, he is already signified by the priest before the altar. Thus, your question, "since both bread and wine transcend gender, was he not making a clear statement that what nurtures our spiritual life are his body and blood, and not his maleness?" is deceptive. The Christ who spiritually feeds us is complete. As mentioned before, your theology of Christ's real presence is separatist.

"Despite arguments to the contrary, the lack of masculine accidents in the Eucharist should be pertinent in the argument for women priests."

Again, I might as well be talking to a wall! This business of gender-neutral food pointing toward a similarly disposed priesthood will earn you nothing but laughs, even from sympathetic Protestants! Your literalism makes the fundamentalism of which I have been accused by critics pale by comparison. If I were to play your game, I would remind you that we are Latin rite Christians and that the word "panis" (bread) is a masculine noun. But again, you are drawing at straws. The Eucharist conveys the real and undivided presence of Christ. Christ is priest and victim. The maleness of Christ signified by the priest at the altar overshadows and is one with that of Christ in the Eucharist. Not unlike Nestorius, you would create two Sons-- the incarnate male Jesus and the neutered version upon our altars. Like the Gnostics, you would spiritualize the Lord so that "in persona Christi" would be robbed of any real relation to the physical God-man Jesus who offers his life on Calvary. Your interpretation of "in persona Christi" as relegated ONLY to the "one Divine Person who transcends gender," resonates with the first heretics who claimed that our Lord only pretended to die on the cross." I cannot believe you persist in your heresy. The divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is forever and always one with Jesus of Nazareth! And, as you attack it with no explanation, the mediation of the Church is RESTRAINED by the revealed will of Christ, and such has been always and everywhere against the ordination of women. The Church, and not you, is the arbiter of this truth. If the Church says that it is not Christ's will, and here I mean the shepherds appointed for this task, then it is not God's will. This perpetual and intrinsically consistent doctrine of the UNIVERSAL ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM is a teaching to which every Catholic must render RELIGIOUS ASSENT, even if unconvinced by argumentation. The Holy Spirit can be trusted to be with these authorities in such a serious matter. Christ would not have allowed the Church to fall into error about such an important aspect of her constitution.