Show me how the Episcopal Church teaches Heresy (officially)

I'm quite surprised to see this silly argument being put forward without comment. While in contemporary speech the generic "he" is increasingly being pushed out in favor of a singular "they", the fact remains that in classic, standard English "he" and "man" are often used in a gender neutral sense. This is not to argue that the authors of the articles or the ordinal were somehow envisioning that women might be clergy, but to argue, simply on the basis of the use of the words "he" and "man," that women are excluded, is absurd.

For example, John 10:9: "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."By your reasoning, women are out of luck when it comes to entering through the door and finding pasture.

Likewise when the creed says, "For us men and for our salvation..." I guess women are excluded from that too.

Read any classic English text and you will inevitably come across the use of generic "he", "man", etc.

 

Until fairly recently, employment terms and conditions of public sector staff normally referred to "he" (except nurses where a "she" was used). That has now been modified by a footnote at the end. In the private sector, I still receive documents relating to investments, where the word "he" is used to refer to an unspecified fund manager.

I think that most hymns have now been "altered" to replace references to men, he, etc., though I remember, "sometimes a light surprises a Christian when he sings". I'm not sure how/if that has been changed.

On a lighter note, I gather that in the heartier girls' boarding schools, there might sometimes be a cry on the lacrosse fields of "well played that man" (as in, "you're a brick, Angela").

 

[/QUOTE
What you can't get away from is the fact that for two thousand years there has been no women in liturgical positions. Also, that there has after all this time been an understanding that women are not eligible as Clergy in our Church.

Further, that there was a lot of conservative distrust of not only the idea, but the way the Church went about pushing the matter and overriding not only Anglican sensitivity, all of which shows a lack of understanding both of the more conservative of the membership of their own branch and of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in general. Surely, before going ahead in the face of many members of their own Communion and of both the Papist and Orthodox Communions, it would have been as well to call for talks with the other two first, before causing great divisions within the Body of Christ!

 

My point was not to argue with any of the above, but to just point out that the grammatical argument being used ("the ordinal says he and man, therefore it can't be a woman") is based on a faulty knowledge of English grammar.

That said, it is not true that "there has [sic] been no women in liturgical positions." The order of deaconesses existed in the early centuries of the Eastern church and still persists in some monasteries.

 

I very much doubt if the RCs would call for talks with the Anglicans on matters liturgical. After all, Ratzinger never consulted Archbishop Williams on the "Ordinariate". In fact he kept him in the dark.

When the CofE began its moves towards women priests, it was fully aware that it would cause difficulties, and it has done. But the matter has been handled with great sensitivity and intelligence, and the right decision was taken.

 

That proves nothing, I was told that the Orthodox Deaconesses were simply lay women doing a service for the Church in dealing with women in parishes. There were women of a similar stamp in the Anglican Church, Deconesses, they did a non liturgical service.
They did not do the work of the clergy!

 

Did you watch the debate on BBC TV? Marvellous, the cut & thrust of the argument was exhilarating. Each side suggesting the other was 'gay".There was nothing educational or exhilarating about it about it!As for sensitivity???????

 

You were told wrong then. Ministering the chalice, baptism and chrismation are certainly liturgical services.

Here is the Orthodox order for ordaining a deaconess: http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

 

So? You differ with the Orthodox Priest who told me that info ,it is him you should be abrupt with not myself.He, or one of his companions highlighted ,'male headship,' as a major reason for Orthodox reluctance to say the least regarding W/O..
For myself, the Anglican Church should in all honesty refer to the question of Tradition.

Thanks by the way for the URL!

 

No. I was probably watching football.

 

Women deacons were never in charge of men in the early church. Their job was to minister to the women in the church and they were never ordained to the priesthood, let alone the episcopacy.

 

Which is a separate question from whether they had a liturgical role, which they clearly did.

 

What do you mean when you say liturgical role?

 

See above.

 

Is this what you meant? Chrismation is actually Confirmation in the western, Anglican context, and women had never Confirmed the catechumens. Only the bishops did that, or at most their vicars. Ministering the chalice is not a sacramental or liturgical "service." It is just helping with manual tasks during Holy Communion, something anyone even children can do.

 

For me a Liturgical Role is serving at the LIturgy in a clerical or priestly fashion! You are entitled to your view, but I consider you in error. Don't be shy tell us what the words mean to your goodself?

 

Please refer to highchurchman's previous statement: "for two thousand years there has been no women in liturgical positions." He is referring to the church in general, and not specifically to the Anglican church.

Ministering the chalice is not a sacramental or liturgical "service." It is just helping with manual tasks during Holy Communion, something anyone even children can do.[/QUOTE]

I assure you that children, and laymen in general, are not allowed to hold the chalice or administer communion in an Eastern Orthodox church. I suspect at one point the same was true in the West. Not even lower members of clergy (e.g. readers, subdeacons) may do so. As a layman, I am not even allowed in the altar area without a blessing. Only deacons, priests, and bishops may do administer the chalice- and some people even raise a fuss if the deacon does it. It is indeed a liturgical/ clerical function.

 

Children do not assist at Communion with us either, as I am sure you know. Romanists do have their "eucharistic ministers," but that's something for them to deal with. However to the larger point, it's not that children Cannot assist; merely that the Church doesn't allow them to, for reasons of reverence for the Sacrament. If changes in discipline did allow it, it wouldn't invalidate the sacrament.

All this is to say, that presence or absence of children is a matter of church discipline, not a matter of liturgy or the sacrament. Same with women deaconnesses in the early church. If they helped minister the chalice, it would be just like a child today helping to hand out the Consecrated Body. It in no way qualifies as a liturgical or sacramental "service." It carries literally no importance concerning the liturgy or the sacrament.

 

Are you saying that a female should not even be allowed to administer the chalice? That really does seem unhinged.

 

Spherelink, I refer you again to the ordination service I linked to previously. The deaconess is clearly ordained into a liturgical ministry. Ministering the chalice is not merely a matter of "discipline", but a liturgical ministry requiring ordination. No one can handle the chalice or touch the altar without ordination. Unless you want to argue that deacons, male or female, are not clergy (everyone seems to agree they are) there is no avoiding the fact that the deaconesses are clergy. You seem to be fumbling around for new arguments to make due to lack of knowledge about this particular historical topic.