Dear Cronos, jo kus, and anyone else,
First, see #17:
"Well, if that was what jo kus was saying, then it was unclear to me. However, I could just be dense. ;-)
"In that case, I offer my comment as explanation for the equally dense."
If I "jumped quickly," my apologies.
But jo kus' post was ambiguous to me, and frankly, folks' efforts to clear it up don't entirely remove the ambiguity.
Jo kus initially said:
"Women are quite 'capable' of being a priest. Certainly, they can present homilies and execute the sacraments, humanly speaking."
At the very best, this is very ambiguous, and can easily be interpreted as an error. Women cannot "execute the sacraments" (save baptism). Period. A woman could kneel before the bishop, the bishop could lay hands, say all the right words to ordain the woman, and nothing would happen. The woman would not become a priest.
Upon being not ordained, if the woman were then to hear her first confession, or say her first Mass, nothing would happen at the words, "I absolve...," the bread would stay bread and the wine would stay wine at the words, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood."
That's not "executing the sacraments." That's simulating the sacraments.
Now, jo kus added "humanly speaking." Perhaps by that, he is more or less changing the meaning to "simulating" the sacraments. That doesn't seem the best reading, but if that was his intention, then that's great, and I offer my comments only as clarification for his otherwise excellent points.
The problem is that the language after the "However" is also ambiguous, and not clear to my slow, dense mind. My apologies for that, too.
Jo kus doesn't say, "We can't use motor oil to baptize..." but rather, "We don't use motor oil to baptize."
He goes on to say, "We don't use broccoli and root beer to confect the Body of Christ. And we don't use woman to be 'in the person of Christ' simply because Jesus was a man."
Again, not "can't" but rather "don't."
This leaves open the possibility that what's being said is that these things are being proscribed, they are forbidden. One could interpret this paragraph to mean that to do them would be to violate God's Law. That to ordain a woman would violate Divine Law. That for a woman to confect the Blessed Sacrament would be a violation of God's Law.
Well, again, if jo kus didn't mean it that way, again, I apologize. However, I think that interpretation is more than reasonable. And untrue, or at least quite incomplete.
Ordaining women, women hearing Confession or saying Mass are not like murder, theft, or adultery, where one SHOULD NOT do the thing, but certainly could. They are impossibilities.
It isn't that it is forbidden to ordain women, or for women to perform the sacramental functions. It is that it isn't possible to ordain a woman, or for her to perform the sacramental functions. Nothing actually happens if the words and rubrics are followed on or by a woman. That is why Pope John Paul II did not teach that the Church SHOULDN'T ordain women, even that it is forbidden by Divine Law, but rather that the Church CAN'T ordain women, that it is beyond the power of the Church to do so.
If that is what jo kus MEANT, that's great.
But that wasn't at all clear to me, and from Cronos' reply, which seems equally ambiguous, I'm not sure it was clear, generally.
sitetest
we are on the same page, brother. Sorry for the confusion and lack of precision. I thought my first post was clear enough to show that women were physically capable of performing the rite, but sacramentally, nothing would happen, since Christ chose not to come as a woman and the celebrant is supposed to be acting "in the person of Christ". God COULD have chosen to come as a woman, OR COULD HAVE chosen to make His Presence known through broccoli. The fact is that He didn't. The sign is supposed to carry out what is symbolizes.
Regards