[Tax-chick]

I don't understand why this is ever a topic of discussion. Our Eucharistic theology requires that the alter Christus offering the sacramental sacrifice embody the original Christ who offered the original sacrifice. (Thanks to Mad Dawg for the verbiage.)

Anything else casts doubt on the incarnation of the Son of God as a human man.

If an average suburban mom with a degree in Management can understand this, anyone can.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's how I see it --- open to correction of course!

A woman can (symbolically) be "The Good Shepherdess," the "Prodigal's Mother," etc. With the necessary gifts, women can and do fill the "roles" of preacher, prophetess, mystic, counselor, minister-of-whatever, president of the Parish Council, judge on a Marriage Tribunal, Chancellor of the Diocese, rector of a Pontifical University, even Doctor of the Church.

She can be above and beyond all things, a handmaid, and a saint.

THE one thing she cannot embody is Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church.

If the priest represents Christ in some symbolic sense nuptially --- and to me, the argument rests on this ---then a woman cannot possibly "embody" Christ the Bridegroom.

Women, like men, are called to be members of the very Body of Christ and "partakers in the Divine Nature," according to St. Peter (2 Peter 1:4)!

So it's not --- to me --- precisely that a woman can't be "in Persona Christi," but that she can't be as "Christus Sponsum" --- Christ the Husband: not as an embodied sign.