Sounds like a strange situation. If the church wardens, on whom I believe the responsibility falls, and the entire PCC have invited this priest to celebrate the Eucharist it doesn't sound like either a Catholic or Evangelical parish. Are this small minority hounding her because she is female or do these people not like this particular person. However, I wasn't referring to a situation like this but rather to the more instituional hounding of Catholics and Evangelicals by the Church of England as an institution.
Anthropomorphism is no part of the argument; everyone understands that God is not "Father" in the sense that He is like human fathers, as though He bears in His Essence some human attribute. Rather, created reality is like Him. Each individual creation bears an analogy to Him in its own distinct and respective way, as per the historic doctrine of God and creation. Masculinity and feminity are not interchangeable as analogies to the Divine Nature. They each have their own distinct symbolic meaning, and bear analogy to Him in distinct ways. I can sense the air of this thread becoming sour, so I'll leave it that for now.
Anthropomorphism most certainly does come into this though. There are some, that I know personally who like to imagine the physical person celebrating the Eucharist is actually Christ himself, and this phantasy would be disturbed and disrupted for her, she reasons, if another woman were to be the celebrant. She has given this reason to me for excusing herself from any communion service presided over by female clergy. It is, for her, not personal dislike of the celebrant which disturbs her peace of mind. It is entirely her view of what is actually happening before her eyes which drives her away from the discomforting experience of meeting Christ in the Eucharist, face to face with a woman. It is my opinion only, I know, but I think such reasoning would actually be generated by an unhealthily idolatrous desire. I also think such anthropomorphism is a common factor among both male and female objectors to WO, though few would openly admit it or care to accept help theologically, in expoloring the possible root of their problem. No one is compelled to contribute to any debate in this forum, and anyone can leave whenever they like, but I have not noticed the air becoming sour in this one, unless someone is feeling personally challenged when examining the psychological reasons for their own discomfort when confronted by the spectacle of a female Eucharistic Celebrant. It is, after all is said and done, not a sacrifice presided over by an executioner. It is a 'Thanksgiving' presided over by an honourable fellow member of the body of Christ. .
Though not directly spoken to me, this^, even if delivered in a spirit of humor, is one of a few examples on the thread of sour air. While I don't hold it against you, or dangle it over your head (as I myself am not immune to being unnecessarily rude), nor am I even offended, nevertheless it is an indication that what began as a discussion is turning into a resentful quarrel. I only say this to clarify that I wasn't referring to the intellectual, reason-based nature of the debate, but rather those things which seem to depart from it.
I take your point. Looking at it through the eyes of another I admit it was jokingly in bad taste. I agree with your observation and now think better of the comment I made at #34. I'm hoping no offense was taken by Rexlion, none was really intended. .
I sometime make some pretty sick jokes myself. Say, did you hear about the butcher who backed into the meat grinder? It wasn't too serious, but it did make him get a little behind in his work.
Well, thank you for your helpful and thought-provoking comments. Seems there's a few different sides to this issue being raised and with a few different views on each of them. I was really just wondering how likely it would be that the apostolic succession ( thank you ) will be preserved in future and the answer I've gathered is nobody knows but that it is likely to get harder. Also I get that there's a debate about how "pure" this idea is currently in practice. It is quite interesting that for some reason I have got down to dotting the "i" s and crossing the "t"s quite a bit since looking into churches. I have decided to become Anglican and as I have started to find out more about it, I have become more anxious about niceties of the church. I've become preoccupied with apostolic succession and I've gone from not caring to being quite anxious about what happens if I die beofore I can get baptised, confirmed and take the eucharist. Is this normal? I mean I admit I'm a pretty neurotic convert, but is some anxiety usual or am I doing this wrong? I ask half in jest and 3/4 serious
Oh, my. You are asking a very serious question. Here is what Jesus said on the matter: John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Is your faith (trust, firm persuasion) for salvation resting upon Jesus Christ, His promise, and His finished redemptive work of the cross? Or is it resting on the physical work of being baptized? If the former, God sees the heart and has already entered in to make His home in & with you; He knows your desire and plan to be baptized as soon as possible in obedience to His will, and (as Jesus also said) him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). Be comforted and of good cheer, for the Lord holds you safely in the palm of His mighty hand.
I do not think it was the Church of England’s intent to preserve apostolic succession as Rome and the Orthodox understand it, i.e., as the continuation of a sacrificial priesthood. When the Tractarians started claiming that English bishops were successors of the apostles, many Anglican bishops around the world published official statements claiming to be no such thing. Those statements are easily accessible in the public domain today. Anglicans are not ‘anonymous Orthodox’. If you’re measuring Anglican teaching and practice by what the Orthodox do, why be Anglican? That’s the question, I think, that you have to answer, and only you can answer it.
Let me add that, personally, I don't understand why a church would delay or put off a baptism for any significant amount of time. It seems odd to me. (There are some churches where the pastor would probably offer to baptize a new convert "right on the spot.") Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
You mean, like, until adolescence or adulthood? One or two decades counts as a significant amount of time, does it not?
Allow me to rephrase my statement: I don't understand why a church would delay or put off the baptism of a faith-filled new convert for any significant amount of time. And I think you knew what I meant, but I don't mind spelling it out for you in case I was writing 'over your head.'
It’s because they don’t understand the true relationship between a believer’s subjective act of faith and the objective fact of baptism, the understanding enshrined in the Prayer Book, Articles, etc.
What Rexlion says here is absolutely good advice. I can only add the question: "Do you fully understand the teachings of Jesus Christ and have submitted totally to his discipline as Lord and Master, willing to learn from him how to conduct yourself in every aspect of the rest of your life on earth"? (As education, at the very least nowadays you should have read and understood all four Gospels and Paul's Letter to the Romans, before kneeling and saying the sinners prayer, then openly declaring you allegience to Christ before friend, family or stranger.) If the answer to that question is YES, then you are already saved and no denomination on earth can make it more certain by baptism or any other 'right of entry' to it's body of believers. (but if you have not yet submitted to it, by all means, get baptised, it seals the deal) Just one warning. Don't fool yourself into thinking you have made a fully thought through commitment to Christ, when you still might not have. If you have become truly a disciple, then the Holy Spirit, who is your Lord, will be helping you with settling in your own mind whether your commitment is sincere. This alone will be your evidence that HE, Christ, has chosen you to be his servant, but even more, to be his friend. .
I don't want to send this thread off in to another tangent. However, I must point out that two things here should not be confused. A male only clergy and apostolic succession are not the same thing. For those who accept the concept of apostolic succession, and some Anglicans don't, it is only bishops who have it, not priests.
"They"... the church... don't understand. Could be right. I will have to think about giving your comment a "like" for that one. Dangling pronouns...
A bishop who is in apostolic succession may dare to consecrate as priest a person who could not be in apostolic succession were (s)he to be later elevated to the bishopric? How interesting. Never thought of it that way before.
By the way, how is Apostolic succession, infallibly verified, and if one accepts the posibility that there was at least one female apostle named in scripture, how can gender be assumed to be a clincher regarding absolute confidence that one has it, even if one is distinctly male, that alone seemingly being no guarantee of being in any kind of unbroken succession of Apostles? The whole idea seems to me to be similar to the notions which drove Jews to place so much faith in 'lineages'. .
Not that I get excited one way or the other about succession, but I thought I'd share Barnes' commentary on the question. Among the apostles - This does not mean that they “were” apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For, (1) There is no account of their having been appointed as such. (2) The expression is not one which would have been used if they “had” been. It would have been “who were distinguished apostles;” compare Rom_1:1; 1Co_1:1; 2Co_1:1; Phi_1:1. (3) It by no means implies that they were apostles All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before “he” was himself converted. They had been converted “before” he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles. (4) The design of the office of “apostles” was to bear “witness” to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ; compare Matt. 10; Act_1:21, Act_1:26; Act_22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been “witnesses” of these things; or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office. (5) The word “apostles” is used sometimes to designate “messengers” of churches; or those who were “sent” from one church to another on some important business, and “if” this expression meant that they “were” apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business; see Phi_2:25; 2Co_8:23.