ALL Holy Orders originate in the 12 Apostles ordained by Christ at the Last Supper when He said: ‘do this in memory of me’. None of the twelve Apostles were women. It is clear that the Blessed Virgin exceeded and exceeds in every way all each and every member of the human race other than her Son, including the Apostles, and yet she was not given the office of priest. Our Lord had no time whatsoever for the unjust prejudices and taboos of his age and culture. His behaviour towards women, gentiles, Samaritans, foreigners and sinners was a cause of shock and scandal both to His opponents and His disciples. The Lord Jesus was not averse to sending women as his messengers to the very men He had ordained as his Apostles. Quite apart from these considerations, to accuse the Lord of cultural conditioning is to repudiate Him, for it is to deny His Divinity, His hypostatic oneness with the Divine Word. The actions of the Lord are thus normative; they are a law for His Church. “The precepts of the Lord are right, they gladden the heart. The command of the Lord is clear, it gives light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is holy, abiding for ever. The decrees of the Lord are truth and all of them just.” (Psalm 19:9 – 10) Let us then examine the fittingness of Our Lord’s actions that we might find light and truth therein.
In this respect St Paul, chosen by the Lord in an extraordinary manner as His Apostle to the Gentiles, both follows Him in his government of the churches and helps us to see the reason behind Jesus’ decision. This reason lies in the great mystery that Jesus revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus when He said ‘Saul, why persecuteth thou me?’ – the mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ.
St Paul commands Timothy ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.’ (1Tim 2:12-13) These are very hard words for this age to accept. And yet, if we are Catholics we must accept that ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching’ (2 Tim 3:16), for this is what the Church teaches. We must take the Word of God as the rule of our lives and not make the prejudices and assumptions of our age a barrier to the Word of God. It cannot be maintained that Christ’s Apostle any more than Christ himself is the creature of his own age. Nor would the evidence support this claim, for St Paul holds to the equality of man and women, Jew and Gentile: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28 -29). Let us then, if we are to understand this great mystery, have recourse to the teaching of the Church which St Paul tells Timothy is ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’ (1Tim 3:15).
The Catholic Church, basing itself on Genesis 1:27, teaches the absolute intellectual equality of man and women. It also teaches the aboriginal intrinsic and essential character of the distinction between the sexes. The purpose of this distinction is generation and the establishment thereby of the family. The intrinsic ordering of human nature to the family renders man an essentially social being in a way that a pure and incorporeal intelligence (an angel) is not. This intrinsic social character, which is the distinctively human aspect of man’s intellectual nature, also contributes to the truth of the statement that man is made ‘in the image of God’. That this ‘Imago Dei’ is an ‘Imago Trinitatis’ is indicated by the use of the first person plural by God in Genesis 1:26, ‘let Us make man in Our own image’. Because man is ordered by his nature to the family, the family, just as much as the individual, precedes the State; though the family by its expansion and needs also generates the state to regulate the greater society to which it gives rise. Thus the individual, the family and the state are natural institutions with absolute rights over and immunities from each other.
“The family, no less than the State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, ‘at least equal rights’; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature.”
Unlike the individual, the existence of the family and the state is one not of substance but of order. This order requires a regulating principle: the father and the sovereign. The authority exercised by the father and the sovereign is written into the nature of generation and of community. The community cannot exist unless its many members are ordered to a single end; but this in no way subverts the equality of the intelligent persons who compose the society, just as the origin of the second and third persons in the first person of the Trinity does not in any way subvert the equality of the persons of the Trinity that the human communities of family and state exist to imitate.
In Genesis, God commands man to do two things – to fill the earth and to subdue it. As John Paul II has observed, the task of filling the earth, of generation itself, is an essentially bodily activity in that it is (as we have observed) only because man is a bodily creature that he reproduces; while the subduing of the Earth is an essentially reasonable task, for it is precisely the subjection of sub-rational material things to the reason of man. Nevertheless, human generation exists so that man might be a more perfect image of the Trinity and thus procreation in its full sense, including the raising and education of children and the preparation of the proper context for this task, must be permeated throughout with intelligence and reason. Likewise, man is only able to subdue the earth because he is bodily and able to act upon other bodies. It is clear both from natural reason and from scripture that the task of filling the earth is appropriated to the woman and the task of subduing it to the man. The woman is equipped by nature to carry her child for nine months and feed it for at least a year. In the absence of human intervention no very long period would intervene before most women would once more be carrying a child. The physical role of man in the transmission of life is, by contrast, incidental. Man is potentially considerably stronger than woman and equipped to labour to provide for the subsistence of his wife and children and to fight in their defence. In Genesis 3:16-19 it is clear that man and women are punished in accordance with their natural roles, each of which becomes a burden to them. The woman finds pain in childbirth; the man discovers that the soil yields him thistles and brambles.
St Paul teaches us in Ephesians 5:20 – 33 that the institution of marriage is a symbol of the union of Christ and the Church. We can see from Genesis why this is so. Woman is a symbol of the bodily perfected by reason, and man of reason (logos) enfleshed. St Paul reinforces this conclusion by comparing the union of man and woman to that of head and body. It is not in their humanity as such, in which they are both essentially intellectual-corporeal beings and absolutely equal, that this analogy exists; but in their gender, which is distinct from their humanity while inseparable from it. Ultimately gender exists to order man towards a community of persons by which the Imago Trinitatis of his intellectual powers (memory, understanding and will) goes out of itself and is perfected in spousal, parental and filial love and ultimately in the love of charity. But in doing this, gender also reveals the second great mystery of salvation, that mystery by which the mystery of the Trinity was itself revealed: the Incarnation, the unity of Creator and Creature in Christ and between Christ and the Church. Gender is like the sign of the cross written into human nature. So St Paul says ‘I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.’ (1Cor 11:3). Like marriage, ordination is a sacrament. In ordination a baptised Christian is made ready to stand in the person of Christ and mystically commemorate the moment when Christ on behalf of the Church laid down his life on the cross. He died for her and he fed her upon the altar, and at the table, of the cross as the perfect spouse of an immaculate bride. In their community Man and Wife form a family whose members, as baptised rational animals, form an image of the Divine Trinity whose equality they imitate; this image calls for a mutual submission. But they also form an image of the Incarnation, and in this the wife as image of the Church submits to the husband as image of Christ. So St Paul says in Ephesians,
“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:22 – 32)
In each Sacrament Christ takes something which is a natural symbol of the reality He intends to make supernaturally present and he makes this ‘matter’ the instrument of that presence in his hands: oil for strengthening and healing, water for cleansing, bread and wine for food. When we say the matter of every sacrament is a ‘natural symbol’ we mean that its symbolism is not something imposed upon it by human will but something proper to it and grounded in its essence. God made Man and Woman to symbolise Christ and the Church: Christ who feeds and gives up His life for his bride in the holy Eucharist, the Church which bears and nourishes for Him countless spiritual children. Just as oil, because it is a natural symbol of strengthening, carries the same symbolism through the sacraments of confirmation and anointing, so gender determines that maleness symbolises Christ the Head and Bridegroom both for the married and the ordained.
In the images of the Bridegroom and the Mystical Body, of the grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies that it might rise again to feed the multitude, we approach the heart of the teaching of Christ and of His person. Just as to dispense with His choice and example in the ordination of priests is to betray His person and deny His divinity, so too it is to distort His teaching and to falsify the sacramental economy which He instituted and by which He remains with us until the end of time.
January 24, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“God made Man and Woman to symbolize Christ and the Church”? What happened to “love God and serve Him?” And can you have a symbol before you have the reality, i.e. the Church which is made up of men and women? Who was there to “read” this symbol? The angels? Or is that women’s purpose in eternity: “Oh look! I’m a symbol of that which I am already!” It doesn’t wash.
And I can’t believe you’re putting St. Paul on a level with Jesus Christ. Jesus was not “a man of his time” except, perhaps, insofar as humans are of their time; the Apostle of Jesus WAS. What is this obsession with being as ahistorical as possible? You seem to be devaluing history. I think what Chesterton meant was that a Catholic is not reduced to being a man (or woman) of his (or her) time. He or she still is, but their faith makes them the children of eternity.
I don’t really like to do this but (stretches) some of this article inspires me to quote the otherwise heretical Mary Daly: “If God is male, then then male is God.”
You might say that a man and a woman symbolize (for some; interpreting a symbol is subjective) Christ and the Church, but you can’t say God made Man and Woman for the purpose of being symbols. Cui bono?
What are you defending here? What’s the bee in your bonnet? Disobedient women? Women professors? It takes a lot for me to dredge out the hermaneutic of suspicion, but I have been goaded into it.
January 24, 2008 at 10:50 pm
God created the Universe because of the Incarnation for the sake of the Church the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. We were made for what we are to become not for what we were even in paradise. The destiny of man is written into his flesh.
Inspiration precludes any error whatsoever in the sacred scriptures. As Vatican II teaches “God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”
God’s wisdom, the created aspect of His Word, His plan from the beginning of time, preexists all other creatures. As she says in Proverbs,
“The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, one of the earliest non-Testamental Christian writings, the Church is depicted as a woman older than the universe and perpetually young. Adam and Eve were created in the state of grace so even in the form of concrete human beings the Church is at least as old as our first parents.
I believe many of the Fathers held that Lucifer fell when he discovered through God’s revelation to our first parents, accomplished in the creation of Eve, that the Word would assume human nature and he would be expected to worship a human being. The devil could not accept this.
Our Lady is the immaculate conception because she is the type and the model of the triumphant Church for which God created the universe. Totus Christus “The Church, Which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all.”
January 24, 2008 at 10:52 pm
(Shoot, just lost massive amoutn of prose and classification of definitions calls.)
Now you chickpea, Seraphic, need to stop spooking at bogies in the hedge, if I may use an equestrian expression.
“God made Man and Woman to symbolize Christ and the Church” Fear not. God made ME to know Him, love Him etc. There is not a Boy’s Own Penny Catechism and a different one for girls.
No symbol before the reality?
I have often thought, since it first struck me some years ago, that the whole of creation, as well as of the Old Testament, is designed to speak to us of the love of God. “εγω ειμι η αμπελος η αληθινη” – vines were brought about so that Christ might be able to say that. And so that there might be wine – as wheat was brought about so that there might be bread – so that there might be a fitting way for Christ to show His love for us.
Moreover, as Thomas points out, God is unique among authors in being able to write with events. The most famous examples are crossing the dead sea and all that. Still, there had to be Egyptian slavery for there to be a symbol for the slavery of sin. And the Hittites and Babylonians and the captivity and so on were not just accidental things that were allowed to happen while the main story carried on. Nor were the Greeks, nor the Romans. Culturally conditioned? Absolutely. And by divine providence so. God provided the time, place and culture for the birth of His Son, and of His Bride the Church. The Romans and Greeks as well as the Jews, the bread and wine as well as the temple sacrifices.
well, back to subsumptive definitions, whatever they are.
January 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I wrote mine before A put his up!
January 24, 2008 at 11:03 pm
In fact, a Lapide says something like Our Lord “is” the true vine, and the rest are only analogically vines – our Lord is the platonic vine, if you like, and the rest shadows.
January 24, 2008 at 11:46 pm
OK, so what was the Greek? ‘I am… and…’ – ?
‘God made Man and Woman to symbolize Christ and the Church’ – Seraphic, dilecta, would this fall more happily upon your ears if you thought of it not as ‘Deus virum et mulierem creavit ut Christum et Ecclesiam figurent’, but ‘Deus fecit virum et mulierem figurare Christum et Ecclesiam ‘ – ?
(Just pretend I’ve got the conjugation of that verb right. This computer is too slow to look up Lewis and Short online!)
‘“If God is male, then the male is God.”’ – Do you really think Aelianus is saying the first half of this sentence? (I think he is not.) Or indeed that the logic in that sentence washes? (I am highly suspicious of it, but it seems to be based on a misapprehension anyhow.)
January 25, 2008 at 12:11 am
okay I was just pretending to be a Scripture scholar – I got it off of Biblegateway, but i thought it guessable from context – I am the true vine.
January 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And can you have a symbol before you have the reality, i.e. the Church which is made up of men and women? Who was there to “read” this symbol? The angels? Or is that women’s purpose in eternity: “Oh look! I’m a symbol of that which I am already!” It doesn’t wash.
Most certainly you can have the symbol before the reality – to suggest otherwise is to fatally compromise the importance of the Old Testament for the Church.
God created the Universe because of the Incarnation for the sake of the Church the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. We were made for what we are to become not for what we were even in paradise. The destiny of man is written into his flesh.
Barth said something to the effect that creation is the extrinsic condition of possibility for the covenant, whilst the covenant is the intrinsic presupposition of creation. In other words, God created in order that he might choose, but this ‘being chosen’ required that we be created. One could re-work that insight to apply to the Incarnation and the Mystery of the Church.
I’d be interested at some stage to read an elaboration of what you say above, Aelianus. Do you take a ‘Scotist’ or an ‘Thomist’ (problematic terms, I know…) position on the extent to whether the Incarnation is somehow in response to the Fall. It seems to me that Vatican II seems to pull in more of a Scotist position, but I wonder if whether the so-called ‘Thomist’ position couldn’t be rescued by reference Augustine’s thought on predestination, election, foreknowledge, etc…
Fascinating stuff… through in the problem of the Supernatural (The destiny of man is written into his flesh.) and one has the real possibility of tying oneself into theological knots.
I have to agree with Seraphic on one point, Aelianus. Your statement concerning St Paul is most ambiguous. He cannot be detached from his own age in precisely the same way that Christ can. Certainly, we need to preserve the universal and eternal validity of the Sacred Writings as inspired by God and understood by the Church, but your statement about St Paul could be misunderstood to deny the importance of his historical and cultural context in a manner which would make a nonsense of Pius XII’s teaching on biblical interpretation: Divino Afflante Spiritu 33. As in our age, indeed new questions and new difficulties are multiplied, so, by God’s favour, new means and aids to exegesis are also provided. Among these it is worthy of special mention that Catholic theologians, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers and especially of the Angelic and Common Doctor, have examined and explained the nature and effects of biblical inspiration more exactly and more fully than was wont to be done in previous ages. For having begun by expounding minutely the principle that the inspired writer, in composing the sacred book, is the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit, they rightly observe that, impelled by the divine motion, he so uses his faculties and powers, that from the book composed by him all may easily infer “the special character of each one and, as it were, his personal traits.”[Cf. Benedict XV, Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus; Acta Ap. Sedis XII (1920), p. 390; Ench. Bibl. n. 461; supra, pp. 46-47.] Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavour to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.
34. Thus can he the better understand who was the inspired author, and what he wishes to express by his writings. There is no one indeed but knows that the supreme rule of interpretation is to discover and define what the writer intended to express, as St. Athanasius excellently observes: “Here, as indeed is expedient in all other passages of Sacred Scripture, it should be noted, on what occasion the Apostle spoke; we should carefully and faithfully observe to whom and why he wrote, lest, being ignorant of these points, or confounding one with another, we miss the real meaning of the author.” [Contra Arianos I, 54; PG 26, col. 123]
January 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I do not think that Vatican II takes a Scotist position on the Incarnation. As I understand it St Thomas’s position is not that Christ would not have come were it not for the fall but that the question is not capable of an answer. God created the world in the knowledge that the fall would happen. The idea of God making contingency plans and hypothetical orders of providence should His will be frustrated by human freedom is essentially pagan. This is the problem with the Scotist position on the Incarnation: the question itself not the answer.
The considerations Pius XII raises are important even for understanding (the limit case) Our Lord Himself. As such therefore they have no relevance to the time bound or culturally conditioned nature of the Saints, especially when writing as inspired authors. Presumably the only human person entirely free of the distorting effects of her age and culture was Our Lady. But precisely because of Our Lord’s death and resurrection it is true of all Christians that we dwell in our own time but we are not of it. The more the Spirit lives within us the less we are entombed therein.
It seems to me that the central issue is the capacity of human reason elevated by grace to arrive at true conclusions speculative and practical. Do we believe in Christ’s promises of emancipation? Do we believe that the deposit of faith is preserved in the Church? That the Doctors are exemplary proponents of it? That Augustine is right when he says to his flock “O God’s own people, O Body of Christ, O high-born race of foreigners on earth”. Can we more easily speak with and understand our brothers and sisters across the centuries or are we more comfortable with the worldlings of our own age? If the latter the very possibility of revelation is compromised and the identity of the Church.
January 25, 2008 at 5:33 pm
On the natural/supernatural end point, I think de Lubac is wrong to say that any intellect has an active natural desire for the beatific vision (I know there is argument as to whether he did say that but people at the time thought so). Anyway this position has now been condemned by Pius XII. I think an intellect would desire the vision of God but discounts the possibility without considering it on account of the infinite divine condescension involved. The possibility of this condescension is intimated not demonstrated to human beings by the natural symbolism of the sexual difference. This intimation is enough to render men morally incapable of avoiding sin without sanctifying grace. It leads them otherwise to seek infinite satisfaction in finite objects. This would mean that if God were to have created man without a supernatural end He would have had to create him with some preternatural gift that either suppressed the sexual difference or prevented man from perceiving its significance. The state of pure nature (which is, + accumulated social and possibly physical disorders since the fall, what we are now born into) could only be penal.
January 25, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I thought this was great and made things very clear, except there were a couple of sentences I didn’t understand. First: “Woman is a symbol of the bodily perfected by reason, and man of reason (logos) enfleshed.”
Also, “Ultimately gender exists to order man towards a community of persons by which the Imago Trinitatis of his intellectual powers (memory, understanding and will) goes out of itself and is perfected in spousal, parental and filial love and ultimately in the love of charity.”
If you have a moment to clarify those I would much appreciate it.
I am going to save this post for possible use in future discussions. My mom, the Lord bless her, though a very devout and good woman, is my usual debating opponent on this issue.
January 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Aelianus,
Many thanks for the clarity of your explanations. You’ve given me much food for thought.
God bless!
January 26, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hey, where’d Seraphic go? I thought she was ignoring me because I use short words, but she seems to be ignoring Zadok saying the same thing in a scholarly way, so that can’t be it.
January 26, 2008 at 3:49 am
“Woman is a symbol of the bodily perfected by reason, and man of reason (logos) enfleshed.” – This is because the tasks of filling the earth and subduing it are appropriated according to reason and revelation to woman and man respectively. Filling the earth is an essentially bodily task which cannot be fulfilled by human beings otherwise than rationally while subduing the earth is a rational task that cannot be fulfilled otherwise than bodily.
“Ultimately gender exists to order man towards a community of persons by which the Imago Trinitatis of his intellectual powers (memory, understanding and will) goes out of itself and is perfected in spousal, parental and filial love and ultimately in the love of charity.” – The three powers of the human soul form the primary image of God in man but these powers have to be perfected by virtues generated by acts. Our acts are directed first of all to others rather than ourselves by virtue of our nature itself. Naturally speaking human beings only ever come into existence as a result of the union of two other human beings of opposite sexes. Thus, man is an intrinsically social animal an imago Trinitatis in his social nature.
January 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The culture in which the apostles lived certainly influenced there writings in some ways at least. Even with words of Our Lord Himself I believe some distinctions must be made: Certainly we are not to annoint our faces with oil when we are fasting nowadays, since this custom has no longer the significance it had then; nevertheless we still ought to be cheerfull. While being perfectly aware how easily one can exceed the principle in one direction, I believe there are several passages where the intention of the writer and the external expression, no longer a current custom, have to be distinguished.
(No, come on, smash me with some brilliant theology, Aelianus … 😉 )
January 26, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ad Biblegateway: Though I read that the original manuscripts of the New Testament had only capital letters, no spaces between words, let alone accents or breathing marks, I nevertheless find the absence of the letter two a heavy stumbling stone for those capable of reading only very little Greek anyway. Sigh. Moreover, the text looks very aesthetically appealing and somewhat exotic with all the little squiggles everywhere.
January 26, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The negative precepts…bind always and in every situation 🙂 [edited to add: this was a joke, before anyone leaps in to bit emy head off]
January 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Berenike,
I’ve never before heard it said that my lack of brevity might be a reason for someone to stick around.
January 26, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Its one thing to say that one needs to understand the culture of the time in which the scriptures were written in order to understand the meaning of various comments and quite another to say that one needs to understand that culture in order to determine which verses are tied to that culture rather than truly inspired. One approach reflects a desire to discover the full sense of scripture in order to accept it in full, the other a desire to set oneself up as the judge of scripture and subject it to the test of compatibility with the fashions of one’s own age. While one may find large amounts of scripture acceptable on this second approach, in fact one has long abandoned any notion of inspiration and merely treats the Bible as a fallible human text. The rational basis for supernatural faith is gone. If one applies this to the words of Our Lord Himself one implicitly repudiates the Hypostatic Union itself.
January 28, 2008 at 6:19 am
aelianus: I’ve got it now, thanks much for the explanation.
January 15, 2009 at 12:58 am
Howdy!
WORDPRESS says that our two blogs (at least our most recent posts) are related, so I came by to check you out–I hope you enjoy my slant on the topic, albeit brief (even if we are not in total agreement). Please stop by my blog and let me know what you think: Jesus + Compassion.
God bless you!
Cd
January 17, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Welcome Dave! Thanks for dropping in. As you see, the blog at the moment is somewhat at a lull, as the contributors, it appears, are either busy or, well, at least trying to spend less time on the internet… I will have a closer look at your blog ASAP. God bless!
March 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm
[…] “Gender and Sacrament”. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)123 Meme, blogging on a SundayLawyeringRenewing […]
May 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Thanks Berenike for posting the link. Re: types, an interesting comment here is Zadok the Roman who says the OT shows you can have the symbol before the reality. I agree in the sense he means (or I think he means) of typology and prophecy, but I don’t think this argument extends to, for example, earthly vines being created specifically as imitations of the true vine.
Yes the 25th/26th is the end of July! That is when I am (probably) going away, so you can book your plane tickets but be warned – I might end up staying in Newcastle that last week of July and going in the first week of August instead. So that drink with me might become unavoidable, lol x
May 7, 2009 at 8:12 am
You need to read Plato 🙂
Postpone that trip!