gtsecc said:
For 2,000 years, in the sacrament of HolyOrders, Priests have been men.
For 2,000 years the person a woman marries, in the sacrament of marriage, has been a man.
And for 2,000 years the ordinary minister of Holy Baptism has been a man, even though it's been valid theology across Christendom that a woman is equally capable of baptizing.
I don't see the equivalence. Other than, "That's what we've done, and it happens to be (male human being) men, in each case."
The questions in my mind are:
What are the characters implicit in the minister of the Eucharist, that make the nature of the person who confects it such as to make it valid or invalid?
What is the theology of marriage, that warrants establishing criteria as to who may validly contract it in sacramental fashion?
Reducing it to the basis of sex (gender) is highly simplistic. As well might we have decided, some years back, "A bishop must always be a man, because only a man may sit in the House of Lords; any English bishop is entitled to sit in the Lords if he holds one of five sees or is among the 23 other most senior bishops; and it is appropriate that all bishops be held to the same standard throughout the communion."
There may be valid reasons against women receiving Holy Orders. (I haven't heard any myself.) But the idea that it's a parallel to gay marriage just plain hits my boggle quotient.
By the way, how about the reverse in your second historical statement:
"For 2,000 years the person a man marries, in the sacrament of marriage, has been a woman."
Should this be taken to infer that
only women should receive ordination?
