Women Clergy, Any Good Arguments?

Indeed, and we're seeing a very real struggle for dominance in world Anglicanism developing between the UK/US/Canada and Africa/Australia. (As, of course, you know!) But I would argue that if the latter camp wins an unconditional victory, there would be no "Anglican Communion" at all. The colonial vintages of Anglicanism—including the American and Canadian—are somewhat impure. Groups like The Secker Society recognize that a resurgence of a truly orthodox Anglicanism would mean a resurgence, too, of identification with the English Church, its culture and politics. Our only hope of maintaining "orthodox Anglicanism" outside the C of E is by preserving the C of E itself in our national churches until Canterbury comes 'round again and asks for its heritage back.

 

Thank you for the link to the Secker Society. It looks very interesting.

 

My pleasure! I'd recommend you have a look at Renewal, their quarterly journal. Subscriptions are free, and they're always looking for submissions.

 

I just wrote to them asking for a free copy.

 

The latest is a bit slim; there are more articles in the previous edition. I'm sure they'd be willing to send you both.

 

To my mind you are wrong , or perhaps mistaken is a better word. Anglicanism, as I understand it, is the distillation of two thousand years , or so, of Christianity in this country ! There is only one Church and we're made members by Baptism, this is by water and by word. Apostolic Succession?
This means Membership of Christ, through being washed by water and by accepting faith as revealed by Christ 's Revelation, recorded in Scripture and Interpreted by Holy Tradition, this makes us, Anglican catholics & by way of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Members of Christ and Children of God. In other words Catholics. As Anglicans all we have to do is believe in the Catholic faith as taught by the Church.
It used to be described as Revelation, Scripture and Holy Tradition! Churches used to put up signs telling the members that we were Catholics and born by notice in the Church Porch.It went further than a brief word, but adding the belief in the early Greek fathers.

You refer to the reformation and I agree with you on this. The Reformation Fathers , both early and late accepted the Councils, even Tom More,(in a letter to Crumwell,,just before his execution.) said that Councils were superior to the Pope!

In Queen Mary's reign both Cranmer and Ridley, confessed their acceptance just before they were martyred
the Church held to seven, (Kidde.) it affirmed these in 1536/1542/ and 1572 by means of votes in Convocation. In Eliza's first parliament, the lack of belief in the Councils was made the basis of heresy in the Anglican Church!
The main Anglican theologian of the period wrote that there seven councils, Four Christological, two explanatory and one regarding manners. This was Dean Field, author of the tome, 'The Church!'
Both James the First and the Archbishop inherited of Elizabeth, accepted them as did the best Archbishop we never had, Andrews! Later in the reign of Charles the Martyr, Archbishop Laud when asked by the Jesuit Fisher stated clearly and publicly that general Councils accepted by the whole Church were ,'infallible.'
Even today I'm told that when the C.of E., meet the Orthodox they affirm their Catholicity by attesting to the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone who calls himself Anglican holds to the full truth. But the One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church should do and if we believe and hold to the faith, we are Catholics.
Jesus and a host of His followers asked , 'Do you Believe?

Read the Archbishop's pamphlet in the Archives of Anglican Forums.

HIGHCHURCHMAN.

 

I can definitely stand by that. Why didn't you say that instead of all the other stuff you said?

 

The fact that Jesus spent time with the 12 does not imply that he was "excluding" women – which would have been quite out of character – but simply stresses that the 12 we're not "merely" those who happened to have followed him, but were chosen.

And, look, I'm really not trying to suggest that the Church should now be led by 12
male Jews. I'm suggesting that the argument that we cannot pick and choose between the practices of the early Church has already been lost: we have already picked and chosen. As you point out, when Paul emerged as a leading member of the Church the reaction was not "No, no, there is no 13th tribe, and no 13th throne". The Church adapted. When the Council of Jerusalem decided Christianity was no longer just a movement within Judaism, the necessity for the leaders to be Jews was no longer relevant. The Church adapted.

It has taken nearly 2000 years for women to achieve the same status and receive the same education as men. Now the Church has another major opportunity; perhaps as big an opportunity as the conversion of Paul. Will it adapt, or will it take the same view as the minority at the Council of Jerusalem: "No, sorry, we don't do it that way."

 

Don't we erase the difference between the New Testament and today then?

 

But, Mr Seddell, don't you think there's an issue when (as you admit) the Orthodox, as well as the Roman Catholic and a couple of Protestant, churches also accept the seven ecumenical councils? That might be a component of Anglicanism, but we couldn't rightly say that the OC, RCC, and a number of Protestant bodies are all Anglican+some add-ons. The very least we could say (and I'm not opposed to this) is that the Anglican Church is the legitimate expression of the proto-catholic/orthodox church in England, and in those countries where an Apostolic episcopacy wasn't established in its own right (the Anglican Communion). But this still makes the definition of "Anglican" intrinsically hierarchical, ecclesiastical, etc.; not purely theoretical, theological, ideological...

 

Well, the short of it is that I think most traditional Anglicans can nod and agree with the conclusion, but at the same time cheer on African bishops ordaining a new American "primate" against the ABC's wishes. Again, to quote J.I. Packer, "I hope the leaders of the [Continuing Anglican movement] are clear that their existence is a tragic reality and that they hope for the day when the separate existence of the [Continuing movement] is no longer necessary. I would like to hear them say that more emphatically than they have yet done." Restoring the C of E should be the gravest and utmost priority; defying the C of E and the established episcopacies should be painful. Instead it seems to be done with great relish. There won't be a restoration of orthodox Anglicanism until we start longing for the See of Canterbury again.

 

I think I hear what you're saying. On the other hand I don't think you realize just how much honor and authority Canterbury does command for everyone. In order to break this grip, parallel structures have to be built, where the faith of the C o E is cherished.

 

I could very well be misunderstanding, and I would be happy indeed if you were proven right on that point, Stalwart!

 

I do not say that Anglicanism is ,'the ',Church? Two one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches are enough, leave it for Orthodoxy and Rome. Anglican's claim and I believe it to be true, is that Anglicanism is a Communion of Catholic Believers within the Body of Christ. No more. Christ's Revelation is to be held by the Believers. Not kept as an option.
I left the Church of England some twenty years ago, because of scruples over W/Orders and because as far as I believed they didn't teach the faith of the Councils or the Reformation.

 

Anyone?

 

You'll need to help me. Can you explain?

 

Was it me you meant? I endeavored to say that in comparing the 'progress' of the new testament Era with our times, don't we run the risk of equating our time with the infallible and supernatural canon of the New Testament? Thanks.

 

Perhaps; but it's difficult to argue that (a) we can't pick and choose between the attributes of the early Church and (b) than in behaving like the early Church we are running the risk you describe, isn't it?

 

Maybe I've lost the plot anyhow, but the basics of contemporary catholicity were debated in the early centuries, by the Greek fathers of the First three Centuries and explained,interpreted and completed by the Holy Fathers within the Ecumenical Councils. What we've to do, today is hold to them?

 

Catholic Archdiocese of Boston in favor of women priests...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/28/making_a_stand_for_women_priests/