Ecclesiology & Women Priests

My friend over at Priests & Paramedics tipped me off to a thoughtful article at pontifications on women priests. I’ve just read the article (pt I, at least) for the first time, but my initial responses, as I rehearse them, seem to be bound around one particular thought, which has less to do with the ordination of women, perhaps, and more to do with the Church:

It should come as given to any Catholic that anyone born into the tradition must accept that what is, as far as the Church is concerned, is what is. While we may be able to speak in ideological terms, if we hold to any expression of a visible Church, it seems we cannot allow ourselves to imagine that the Church is any more or less that what it actually is. Certainly, this was true across “the globe” up until 1054, or perhaps until the early 1500s. But what of now? After 1054, or after 1500, do we accede that the Roman Catholic Church is the “One, True Church”? (It is, after all, popular lingo within Roman Catholic circles.) I guess what I mean is, is only the Roman Catholic Church that which God has intended? Is she the sole keeper of orthodoxy? Although those are not the same question, I believe them to be related, and I find it very difficult to answer “yes” to either. Of course, this raises further questions. How do we find any semblance of an answer to these questions? True, they may not be “Catholic” questions, but that doesn’t do me much good, as I am not a Catholic. Five hundred years of “Protestant” thought has served to shape and mold the philosophical, epistemological, social, educational, etc., etc. context in which I entered life and grew up. And, of course, to say that I must abandon all my “Protestant” thought in order to become a “true Christian” (i.e., member of the One, True Church) seems tantamount to Muslims saying the only way I can really read the Qur’an is to have grown up speaking Arabic.

Let’s face it, though, the Church (and here, I am speaking of many denominations, including Roman Catholicism) has problems. To their credit, Catholics and Orthodox have retained an overall institutional structure (which is needed, in my opinion) that has survived with great integrity. I admire that. But I must also admit that I admire the missional fervor of the Southern Baptists. I admire the Scriptural saturation of many evangelicals. I admire the mystery of Eastern Orthodoxy, the liveliness of Pentecostalism, and the salt-of-the-earth nature of many Lutherans I’ve met. But all of these denominational expressions have severe problems, too. I doubt anyone seriously denies that.

A huge question, for me, then becomes: “how do we map ecclesial change—whether it’s appropriate or inappropriate?” Oh, what a muddled, muddled question. As a “good Anglican”, my default authority structure (inherited as it is) is Scripture, tradition, and reason. And now, finally, coming to the issue of women in the priesthood: you’re right…I’m still considering it. I may always be considering it. Currently, I’m willing to say that it may have been a reform that was long in coming, but was likely made the standard too quickly. I shudder at the rate of change in lots of Protestant denominations around such issues. It could be that it was instituted erroneously, as some would argue it shatters all three legs of my “authoritative stool”. But I have to land somewhere, and, for now, it’s here:

1. I don’t think it violates Scripture. Yes, there are troublesome verses to this stance, to be sure. But I don’t think, applying the same (or very similar) hermeneutical method, that one must consequently be in favor of the ordination of homosexuals (a common argument these days). In fact, if I were mounting a case for homosexual ordination, I don’t think I’d lobby for the same hermeneutical method.

2. Tradition is, admittedly, the toughest of the three for my case. Of course, it is an innovation introduced only in the last half-century. This is the one that most often “keeps me thinking” on this issue. But it should be noted that my cultural context again speaks loads into the way in which I process this information…and my ecclesial cultural context (as well as my ‘secular’ one) was one saturated with women in all sorts of roles formative to my development as a man of faith.

3. Not currently subscribing (totally, at least) to a Roman Catholic understanding of the priesthood, I believe that the ordination of women is actually more reasonable than their non-ordination. Although more discussion is here warranted, I defer to my explanations above for now.

Finally, I would address the two quotes in the article, responding in the way my brain often does, with follow-up questions:
I find Pope John Paul II’s quote interesting, because I still don’t understand the papal role. It seems that in order for him to speak thus, he must have authority over (and thus outside) the whole church. But evidently his authority is enough to make such declarations, but not enough to institute that level of reform. This is puzzling to me, not least because it again insinuates to me that there is no papal accountability to the church. I must be reading it wrong.
I find Fr Alexander Schmemann’s quote puzzling, unless either the “speaking for all Orthodoxy” is incorrect or that the word “dialogues” was only in reference to dialogues on the issue itself, as there continue significant Anglican/Orthodox dialogues into the present day (click here).

Thoughtful and helpful comments are, as always, welcome!

The Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church

The picture above was taken on a vacation/pilgrimage that friends Adam, Erik, and Abu Daoud, and wife Kendra and I took to Rome last week. The experience has left much on which to reflect. Benedict's message was on Tertullian, and moreover how this Church Father's engagement with "secular" philosophy could be a guide for how we, as 21st-century Christians, can engage with our culture.

But I find myself ruminating more on the essence of the Roman Catholic Church. Help me out, here, readers: I know the Pope is held to be the "Vicar of Peter"...apostolicity incarnate, through succession, tracing back to Christ's institution of Peter as the Rock on which Christ would build his Church.

But what, exactly, is the Pope's relationship to/with the Roman Catholic Church? Is the Pope seen to be the representation of the Church entire? Or merely the apostolic head thereof? Or am I erring greatly in my usage of such terms?

I guess one of the things I'm trying to figure out is how one "evaluates" (yes, a very Protestant way of thinking--see post below) the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps most especially in terms of practice. Does one consider merely the Pope himself? The full magisterium? Clergy and lay persons alike? Some representative cross-section?

These concepts are important to my seeking understanding of the essence of the Roman Catholic Church. Admittedly, I am very much influenced by my Protestant and American bent toward pragmatism (something I'm dealing with in another corner of my mind)...but for the present, it's where I am. Helpful advice welcome!