We have been hosting an interfaith gathering at my Abbey this week. I had an interesting and enlightening experience that has changed my views on the issue of women's ordination. I intend not to start another drawn-out debate on the topic but rather share my experience and thoughts. I hope some of you may find it interesting or helpful. The group visiting the abbey includes many different denominations but mostly TEC. I've had a negative view of TEC for a while, and I didn't think much of their clergy. I resended that opinion at least partially after talking to a few of their priests. Then I was introduced to one of the visiting clergy members, a young lady who was ordained fairly recently in TEC. She was the celebrant for the Eucharist one of the days. As one of the abbey's sacristans, I stayed to help set things up and clean up after the service. My opinion of women priests before this point was not good. From my personal interactions with several female clergy members I had formed the opinion that their desire for ordination was based more on tearing down the patriarchy and furthering an agenda than serving God and His people. I also held the view that their orders were uterly invalid in all cases. My gut reaction when I met this visiting priest was less than charitable based on my past prejudices alone. Then I talked to her and saw how much she loves God and the people of God and my opinion softened. Then I watched her celebrating the liturgy and my heart was moved. I felt the presence of God, and heard his voice through her as she gave her homily. Then the thing that shattered my past perception was seeing her distribute communion. I was struck by the sense of her love for souls and desire to share Christ with them. I think it was a grace from God in how profound the whole experience was. I walked away with the understanding that she has both a legitimate ministry and a true calling from God. From all my time as a protestant I had seen first hand that God calls who he calls and uses what he wills regardless of denomination or "proper form and substance". Somewhere along the way I had forgotten that. I can still respect and hold to the RCC, Orthodox, and early Church's teaching on ordination and Holy orders as the established norm, but limiting God by refusing the possibility that he could work through a woman or someone of a different denomination is wrong. I personally will be viewing my interactions with all members of the clergy and more over all my brothers and sisters in Christ in a different light from now on. Hopefully I'll be far less quick to judge.
It's my opinion that Protestants really shot themselves in the foot when they did away with monasticism and nunnery. There always has been, and always will be pious women who are meant to help with the mission of the Church. Mary, the Mother of God should be proof enough of this. When churches don't have a role for them, they often wind up being shot-horned into roles they weren't intended for. I feel like that's something we often see in TEC and some aspects of the greater Anglican movement.
Except that the Church of England and Anglicanism as a denomination are not specifically 'Protestant', neither have they they 'shot themselves in the foot by doing away with monasteries and nunneries', and although some monks and friars were members of the priesthood, no nuns were ever priested or ordained. Nuns had to have a male priest visit the nunnery to provide communion for them. They were not allowed to do it by the male clergy, even for their own closed community. .
Luke 19:17. All priests in the church are examined by the church and declared fit to perform the offices of a priest, whether or not they may be either male or female nowadays. There are many, both male and female, for various reasons, not chosen for ordination. Those that have been, whether male or female, were chosen to fulfill the duties of a priest by the church. It is therefore highly disrespectful and potentially insulting to the church and the Saviour it serves, for any individual to refuse to receive the sacraments for reason of the eucharist having been celebrated by a woman, merely because she IS a woman. Those that refuse the sacraments, refuse Christ, and insult the church. If they cite theological reasons for doing so they should re-evauate their understanding and their reasoning, and examine their behaviour in the light of the teachings of Christ on how we should treat Him and his servants. .
Unfortunately a woman priest is not legitimate. Some proclaim it heretical. A priest is ‘Alter Christus’, the living icon of Christ, who is male. A female cannot do that. However, to say there is no role for women in the church would be equally wrong. Jesus embraced the deaconess and history is replete with women who have faithfully spread the Word as such.
Where does the heretical notion come from, that under the New Covenant, "A priest is ‘Alter Christus’, the living icon of Christ". Can you provide me with chapter and verse justifying such a weird and idolatrous theological idea? It doesn't look like it could possibly have come from Holy Scripture. A New Testament priest's function is 'To declare the wonderful deeds of him who called us out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light'. Any regenerate believer, who is saved themselves, can do that, male OR female. I can't find anything suggesting 'a priest is a living icon of Christ'. That idea couldn't have come from the Freemasons or someone like that, I suppose? .
The Collect for Feast of St’s. Mary and Martha: O GOD, who bestowest divers gifts and graces upon thy saints: We give thee humble thanks for the examples of thy servants Mary and Martha, the friends of our Saviour Jesus Christ; and we pray thee to give us grace to love and serve thee and others for his sake, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever, one God, world without end. Amen.
That is a more Roman Catholic view of the actions of the priest. Another way they have looked at it is in persona Christi. Aren’t we all supposed to be a living icon of Christ? I also found the following quote on https://virtueonline.org/anglicans-and-historic-priesthood “A woman standing in persona Christi at the altar sends a distorted and confusing message. Likewise, a man standing in a Nativity scene as the Virgin Mary sends a distorted and confusing message.” I don’t agree with them, but the concept is Anglican.
Those who claim it 'heretical' are false accusers then. There is no acceptably theological reason for peddling such superstitious unbiblical nonsense. Quite apart from that point though, Jesus the Christ (annointed one) was male when he walked among us on earth. But after the resurrection we cannot be certain WHAT gender Christ is. 1 John 3:2. "Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure." Beloved, we are God’s children now; (clearly both men and women, boys and girls, are God's children, once baptised and regenerate) it does not yet appear what we shall be, (clearly John is unsure whether our resurrection bodies will continue to have male and female gender in heaven) - (Christ was once a man on earth but, "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer".) 2 Cor.5:16. (Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor.15:45 ) To think that a man or a woman can emulate or even symbolically represent The risen Christ, Christ having now become a life giving spirit, would be utter idolatrous foolishness, and would heretically and hoplessly contradict all the Holy scripture I have quoted here. but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, (Christ is the first fruits of them that slept. 1 Cor.15:20) Not flesh, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, but Spirit just as Christ has become a life giving spirit, and WE shall be like HIM. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. ( Therefore it is necessary that a Priest in the Church of Christ thus "HOPES IN HIM AND PURIFIES THEMSELVES AS HE IS PURE". That does not mean they have to become MALE or can only BE male. It means they have to be purified by HIM, through the Holy Spirit, and THAT pertains to both men AND women, through baptism and ordination. .
But it is the 'Standing in persona Christi' which is the distortion of the truth. Christ is now a "Life giving Spirit" not a flesh and blood mortal man. He is in heaven, and flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God, where Christ is. Where he is, we cannot come, as we now still are; in the flesh. This 'Standing in persona Christi', is yet another un-Apostolic, idolatrous, Roman Catholic, fiendishly stupid, superstition. That's what has to go, not female priests. I'll have none of that nonsense in the Anglican Eucharistic feast. .
Sort of! “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Be-el′zebul, how much more will they malign those of his household". Matt. 10:24-25.
Doctrine is all made up by human-beings, almost exclusively men. The Bible is composed of writings, mostly by men, and collected together by men. I am an Anglo-Catholic and was not in favour of women in the Priesthood and was deeply troubled when the Church of England admitted them. At the time, I talked deeply with a priest-friend of mine, a good priest who was something of a liberal. His response was: 'Michael, it is not for us to question who the Holy Spirit calls to the priesthood.' It was simplistic but caused me to set aside my prejudices. I have met and served many men and women who are priests; most are good but a few are not. Their sex (and orientation, in fact) is irrelevant. I happen to think that unless the anti-women factions in the Church change their minds, they will cease to exist Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Michael, I am trying not to be ugly but please hear what you are professing: We, in this temporal world, know more than the Son of God? In other words, what else should we do that Jesus missed? That in essence is what so many Anglicans confess when they take that position. Out of touch? Old fashion? Not ‘with it’? If holding fast to the Faith once delivered to the Saints by our Lord are those things, then yes I am he. Each day (often twice) I pray for “….thy holy Church universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth…”. Women cannot be priest and anything to the contrary bumps up against heresy, therefore, I will avow this Anglo-Catholic truth until I am no longer on this Earth. Now please, Michael, pray for me, a sinner.
5 years ago I would have gotten rather excited about this issue and I would have had much to say. Now? Eh. I can't seem to get stirred up.
Rex, it is from which all schisms and heresies germinate. Is this issue necessary for salvation? I think not. But what sacrament is next? What dogma do we “rationalize” into non-existence? It took me 59 years as a cradle Episcopalian for me to finally say, “That’s a lie” and experience my personal ‘road to Damascus’ moment. I tell you from that moment I have firmly grabbed my plow and have never looked back. And for all the others on this forum, this is not an argument, which has the unstated premise that each side starts with a legitimate truth. This is the belief of the One, Holy, Catholic, Church which was delivered to the Saints by our Lord Jesus Christ and has been practiced for almost 2000 years “… in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life.“ As orthodox, Anglo-Catholic Christians it is our obligation — no, our privilege- to spread the word of God in our Faith in the patrimony of the beautiful, rich, English tradition without compromise.
Well, okay; I'll share my thoughts. If we are to believe that God intended our religious services to be presided over by a person who has special authority to conduct the liturgies of the Sacraments (i.e., to conduct baptisms, to consecrate the Eucharist) and to pronounce words of general absolution which the laity are to believe to be efficacious, then it seems inappropriate to have females performing these actions because it doesn't fit the pattern of historical church beliefs and practices. The beliefs and practices of the Apostles and the early church, in particular, reflect their understanding of God's will in such matters, and the early churchmen did stress the importance of the "first in time" guideline; as Tertullian wrote (Against Praxeas 210 A.D.) “This rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics...apparent from (their) lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle we find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever- that whatsoever is first is true, whereas that which is spurious is later in date...we keep this rule of faith inviolate." On the other hand, if we are to dispense with belief in priests, Sacraments, and pronouncements of absolution (as many low-church protestant denominations have done), then I see no reason why the remaining matters (leading people in worship, reading the Bible, preaching the Gospel, reciting creeds, praying) cannot be handled by a female. These duties don't really fit the historical pattern of duties which only a priest would be allowed to perform. And frankly, after spending a good deal of time lately in wrangling with Roman Catholics over their peculiar and particular Sacramentalism, in which the efficacy of baptism and Eucharist are believed so deeply as to be regarded _indispensibly necessary to salvation,_ I tend to lean toward the attitude that maybe the low-church folks have had very excellent reasons for their "low-churchiness." Joh 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Huge numbers of RCs read John 6:53-58 so literally that they believe (as their church used to teach in the middle ages) we Anglicans are going to perdition for lack of a valid Eucharist. (Augustine certainly disagreed with the literal interpretation, though.) Huge number of RCs believe, as their church still teaches, that they are justified through the physical act of baptism (thus distorting the truth of Romans 3:10-5:19 which clearly teaches justification through faith). It seems clear to me that this belief in efficacious Sacraments, for the impartation of actual grace, developed as a self-serving doctrinal error in the RCC. When the Anglicans (and Luther, too) separated and reformed, the influence of RC errors still weighed heavily, and I tend to think that neither of those reforming parties reformed quite far enough. Sacramentalism is a 'slippery slope' hill at the bottom of which lies the ravine that is Rome. As an actual member of the Anglican Church (not that I count it anywhere near as significant as my being a member of God's household through faith in Christ), I can view Baptism as a welcoming of the child into the local church community, and as an impartation of grace to the infant only by the imputation of the parents' faith to their child, pending the child's need to adopt faith personally when he is old enough. And I can view the reception of the Eucharist as effectively strengthening the faith of one who already is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But it bothers me to realize that a good many Anglicans hold views on these two Sacraments which are much closer to, or even identical with, the erroneous Roman teachings. And those Roman teachings are essentially a works-based salvific methodology: do this and eat that, or you cannot be saved! I have had plenty of Roman Catholics tell me that I am not saved because I don't have the true Sacraments, and that I need to "come home" to Rome or I'll go to hell. Sacramentalism in the RCC has long been a tool to keep the laity in line and to retain the membership (insofar as they could), which in turn maintained the flow of offerings. So I have considerable appreciation for the reasoning behind the dumping of Sacraments by much of the Protestant world. Honestly, I don't see any Scriptures which support the concept of efficacious impartation of grace through Sacraments. But plenty of Scriptures teach that God gives grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Consequently, I don't feel much enthusiasm for defending male-only priesthood, because I'm not feeling much enthusiasm for spiritually efficacious Sacraments or for efficacious absolutions. And without Sacraments and absolutions, the remainder is stuff anyone can do... male or female... because it no longer fits the historical pattern, rather it is a new pattern for the new covenant of grace. I guess you might have to break out the tar and the feathers, eh?
No tar and feathers coming from me Rexlion. You get a Like from me and Christine has asked me to give a like from her also. That one has a high value, as you might imagine. We are actually on a vacation in the Lake District on a second honeymoon so she has heard the content of both your and Pub Banker’s recent posts. .
A considerable overstatement and exaggeration, effectively rendering itself untruthful. Quite rightly. There are a great many Roman Catholic dogmas that greatly deserve to be rationalised into non-existence, the sooner the better, for the sake of The Truth, And you know who that is. A bit pointless me trying to point out all the errors in your theological logic on the subject then. I shall therefore restrict myself to just one statement in your recent post which fails the test of truth. While we are discussing TRUTH I would point out the following statement contains an untruth. (1) If by the “Saints” you are meaning the Apostles, I would alert you to the fact that The Roman Catholic Church and its dogmas did not exist with a priesthood until at least 200AD. (2) The idea of a hierarchical male priesthood was not ever recorded anywhere in the New Testament scriptures, as having been passed from Christ to any of the Apostles. It was an invention of the 2nd century church. The Apostolic view was that ALL believers in the atonement of Jesus Christ are a Holy Priesthood, whether they be either male OR female. (3) There are only two instances of Our Lord Jesus Christ mentioning priests at all. (a) Luke 5:14 He told a healed leper to do what was required by Law to be allowed to re-enter Jewish society, by presenting himself to a Levitical priest for examination. (b) Luke 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down the road. When he saw him (the injured man), he passed by on the other side. Using a priest as an example of UN-neighbourliness in a story intended to illustrate how the second summation of our entire obligation to God and our neighbour, stands upon OUR conduct, hardly indicates any possible future intention Jesus Christ might have had, of ever setting up a priestly, exclusively, MALE hierarchy in His future Church. This particular man set a notoriously BAD example of Christian conduct. On the contrary The priesthood of Melchizedek, (New Testament Order), is composed, according to Apostolic authority, of BOTH men AND women. In fact ALL believers are potentially qualified. We are not called to follow the traditions of men, even if they are the traditions of a second century church. We are called upon, at baptism, to follow the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. The Anglican Church is at last, with women AND men in the priesthood, following the teaching of the Apostles. i.e. WE are a Holy Priesthood. Any New Testament priest can ONLY be selected and ordained FROM a community of male AND female, spirit filled believers, in Jesus Christ’s atonement. Anyone else is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. .