How so? How does being a re-enactment make them "the real thing"? A re-enactment is a play, it is theatre. When you watched the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of The Christ", did you believe the red liquid which was sprayed on the pillar and the ground as the actor playing Christ was "scourged" was actually "The Precious Blood of Christ"? How did being a re-enactment make it a reality?
You make a good point. A re-enactment does not make something real, and you are right. However, to make things mere memorial is also weak on your part, if not weaker.
When one participates in the Liturgy, a lot of the prayers do become a re-enactment. When we say "Take eat of it all of you, for this is My body," or "take drink of it all of you, for this is My blood of the new covenant," we are re-enacting the Last Supper, and not merely remembering Him. When we have something as real as the Body and Blood of Christ, mere memory is not enough according to St. Paul, but the way we practice is how we should remember, and the way we practice IS TRULY INDEED re-enactment. I don't see how re-enactment makes something merely "represented." You "re-present" it when you re-enact as well.
And I don't think I called you Protestant, but just your way of thinking. Forgive me if you were offended (I didn't think you were the type of person to be offended anyway), but you seemed to forget that we do re-enact in our Liturgies, and St. Paul even mentions in an indirect manner that we should re-enact. And who else breaks the bread other than the priest? Who else consecrates the wine other than the priest?
Now, let's reverse this question. Who else in the Bible broke bread or consecrated the wine before distributing them? Now that one sees this as a "re-enactment" and not just mere "memorial," the priest is considered the icon of Christ.
And just to be fair, the way you defined "amnesis" was the way I define "re-enactment." So when you say that we don't re-enact, it only made me wonder how you missed out on the Liturgical "re-enactments" themselves, and the Church structure as well.
So who "sups with us" when we are ill and the Deacon brings us the Holy Gifts to Commune? Yes it is Mystery, but you seem to wish to substitute Mystery with Theatre.
You seem to forget that there is a "theatre." What's the point of icons or the Church structure if we don't "re-enact"? What's the point of incense, if it's nothing but what happens in heaven? Or the praise of "Holy, Holy, Holy"? How are all of these not "re-enactments"? When something is "amnesis," not only is it memorial, but we LIVE in the memorial, we LIVE in the roleplaying. Yes, call it a "theatre," but mere theatrics, as you correctly pointed is only fake, but what we have is real and we live in the roles, or as you correctly put it "makes a reality that once was in the past present in the present again." And as Carpatho correctly puts it, not only past, but present and future.
And when the priest issue comes up, the first thing an Orthodox or Catholic Christian says is that men and women have "roles", and that a priest is not superior to laymen neither are laymen, which includes women, inferior to priests, but one submits to the authority of the other, while the other sacrifices himself in the service for the one. The word "role" itself is also extended to those confused concerning homosexual relationships, and how one understands that not only biologically, but even spiritually, God intended men and women to have a heterosexual sort of relationship, if there is a relationship to begin with, but never homosexual. We are in a "divine play," not just "memorial statues," and we live the role for the sake of grace, not just pretend to live the role for vanity's sake.
As for your question, when the priest eats and drinks, not only is it for His own good, but clearly, as a conclusion to the thought of Him being the icon of Christ (or even the icon of the Father, which all the more proves the point), he represents Christ who said to "sup" with us. And yes, Christ is supping with all of us, when we eat it. He passes the Spirit of this Icon to all of us.
We also say amongst ourselves that when we kiss the hands of a priest, we are kissing the hands of Christ.
Now anticipating to what you may say, that doesn't mean we don't see Christ in anyone, for Christ came for everyone salvation, and the Image of God is in both man and woman
. It is only different when roleplaying and re-enacting, we imitate things divine for the grace that is provided for us, and that goes for both priesthood and marriage. It was a logical outcome for the Anglican Church to go from female priesthood to the acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life because of merely practicing a memory, and not a true re-enactment.
So, by this logic, not only can women not imitate the Apostles, they cannot imitate Christ. Christianity is therefore a faith only for males.
Where did I say that? He asked those to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Not only does this mean in righteousness, but also in context of this verse, he writes in the next verse: "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." This included the head coverings and the spiritual teachings behind the head coverings and ends it with "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." St. Paul starts with a plea and ends with stubborness. This is serious stuff.
Thus, when asking people to imitate him, and that man is the head of woman, while Christ is the head of man, is he saying that woman is inferior to man? If not, then how is it that you can misconstrue my words into thinking Christianity is only for males? When I say that St. Paul to imitate him, I was:
1. Referencing 1 Cor. 11, which is personally a pivotal point to the dialogue.
2. Saying that one should keep the tradition as it always was because there's a spiritual reason (the Father is the head of Christ).
If we imitate St. Paul, we are not only imitating what he's doing but also what he's teaching, and what he taught is very important. And when I say we should imitate things divine as Christ, St. Paul, and the Apostles taught (such as husband and wife in relation to Christ and the Church), then this does not exclude women (otherwise, you would be asking men to become wives). Or when I write something like:
And surely enough, St. Paul in that same Chapter gives an explanation of the man being the head of the woman.
If women are excluded from Christianity, then how can I even say that man should be the head of woman, unless a man wants to make himself a woman?