Women ministers, an exploration

Then that begs the question, why would a biblical catholic church, which says it requires nothing as necessary which cannot be drawn from or read in the scriptures, make the episcopate an essential part of church governance?

 

I would like to read that, where may I find it?

 

It would make the episcopate an essential part of church governance because the Scriptures only speak of the episkopos when a large area of government is required. Presbyteroi were appointed in each church, but episkopoi "over the churches" of a given area - which is exactly what priests & bishops are today. Development occurred, but all within the established framework shown in Paul's letters.

Those who want to know a classical Anglican's reasons for maintaining the Episcopate as an Apostolic command essential for all churches, should read Jeremy Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted HERE, or Synge's book on the Divine origin of the episcopacy, HERE.

At any rate, I find it interesting that those who are most interested in allowing women to be bishops are those who don't actually believe the episcopate is a Divine~Apostolic requirement. That is very telling.

 

I would like to read that, where may I find it?​

Liturgy, episcopacy and Church Ritual. It came from either Stalwart or Consular! maybe they can add something to it!​

William Laud. Google Books.​

 

Dear English Cousin highchurchman,

Many Anglicans - at least on our forum - seem to be unaware of the number of volumes written in defense of the absolute divine institution of the Episcopacy. Loyalists, Non-Jurors, and many across the spectrum never let up on this crucial doctrine. Denial of the threefold order is nothing new.

Zachary Grey: Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England (against the Puritans): HERE
Thomas Brett (Non-Juror): On the Divine Right of Episcopacy ... proved from the Holy Scriptures: HERE

I will find more for those who want to read. This is clearly much more about the nature of the Church Herself, than about the ordination of women.

 

Thank you. My hopes for ordination are fading away but I still want to learn a bit.

 

Dear Cousin,

I'm grateful for the information especially about Bishop Brett the Non Juror! I'm intrigued and excited when you mention Loyalist???
Could you help with more information, please?

 

Highchurchman, I'm afraid that by "Loyalist" I was just using my own personal idiom to refer to non-schismatic, non-dissenting conformists to the Church of England.

 

Honestly, episcopacy IS the biblical doctrine. I mean just look at the singular rule of the Apostles, and how little it resembles all other forms of government, especially a presbyterian classis. Single episcopal monarchy is simply biblical.

 

Where do you get the idea that Paul never baptised anyone? Paul did baptise and as a matter of fact in 1 Cor 1:10-17 he names some that he did Baptise. He then went onto to say main role was to teach the Gospel.

I have seen in the past that some people will cherry pick 1 Cor 1:17 totally out of context to try and say Paul did not baptise, and it simply isn't true.

 

Everything you have written is totally false and not only unsubstantiated in scripture but refuted by scripture. It is an irrefutable fact that there were only two orders of ministry in the NT -- that of pastor and deacon. It is a fact that "presbyter", "bishop", "pastor", and "elder" were synonymous for one and the same office. That completely destroys your argument, which, btw, is not the Anglican position. Perhaps you should go join the papists.

 

Thank you for the historical accuracy.

 

Maybe for "traditional" (read Catholic) Anglicans, but not for Anglicans as a whole.

 

Because Anglo-Catholics don't hold to that, instead making "tradition" equal to or above scripture.

 

According to Stalwart, I am an atheist because I believe in women's ordination. I take strong exception to that.

 

My comment was not aimed solely at you brother.

 

I know. I didn't think it was.

 

Anglican, is a synonym for Catholic, that faith having been in this country for some 2ooo yrs. To be an Anglican one has to believe, it isn't a mantle one assumes, we are Members of Christ, He isn't a member of , or with, us! We are in Him.


For a more complete ,though brief, statement I would ask interested folk to read the article on Virtue Online using , hopefully the url below.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17102

 

The problem with your definition is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and others would claim that, as well. So, which of these is the "most Catholic"?

 

Given they all relate to the ancient universal Church of Christ that does make them all catholic including Anglicans. Each one will tell you they are "most Catholic", but that highlights a level arrogance and is not worth worrying about.