Only promotion is prohibited. Questioning and unbiased discussions are fully open. Members are asked to avoid off-topic discussions.
Can't answer my question with the same question I'm asking you, and call it a "proposal!" How was the question of the trinity ultimately settled, you ask? Not by an emperor, not by a coup, but by a council in which all major Christian sees were present! The council's deliberations represented the unanimity of Christendom! You seem to be confused about what orthodoxy is. You say it is "just what the scriptures teach as truth." This begs the question. It is part of catholic tradition that the scriptures are primary, and this is why all matters of doctrine are settled with reference to scripture. But the fact remains that scripture needs interpretation! The councils bear witness to the fact that they aren't so plain and simple as we've been led to believe. Questions of scriptural truth are settled by council, not by private interpretation! So what is catholicity and orthodoxy? In another thread (search "ecumenical councils"), we said that catholicity (universality) in the strictest sense is established when the five historic seas of Christianity come to agreement in council. That is catholicity in the strictest sense--unanimous, universal agreement about certain interpretations of scripture. Now what is catholic orthodoxy? Well, generally, orthodox just means a group's inheritance of traditions (traditions that the group identifies as essential to their identity). So when we talk about catholic orthodoxy, we are talking about what 5-see-Christendom has traditionally accepted as Christian. Clearly, the major sees of Christendom have for hundreds and thousands of years not ordained women. It is simply a lie that ordaining women is orthodoxy.
Even though you dodged my question, permit me to move on now and show you where I'm going. These are the questions I would have about our hypothetical "Afgan Church." 1. Is it a major see of Chriatianity? Answer: clearly not by influence or any other rational measure of importance. 2. How does it stack up against the standards of catholicity and orthodoxy above? Answer: not well at all. It has come to a foul interpretation of scripture. As I mentioned in my previous post, you beg the question when it comes to scripture interpretation by saying "orthodoxy = scriptural truth." The Afgan Church can't simply say "we just see it in the scriptures!" The scriptures are the final authority, but the universal church in unanimity has the most interprotive authority! Any single layman, deacon, bishop, archbishop, or single see can proclaim anything they want, but that doesn't make what they proclaim catholic, much less orthodox! 3. On what authority should Christendom overthrow their traditions in light of the Afgan Church's traditions? Answer: there is no authority that would require this. The Afgan Church does not carry with it any special authority outside, and against, the unanimous agreement of the rest of Christendom. So in conclusion, substitute Afgan with Celtic and all the same applies. You neither have historical proof that these isolated peoples ordained women, nor any rational justification for usurping what we have for ages understood as catholic and orthodox. So, what do you got for us?
why should the Anglican church be bound to adhere to the idiosyncratic practices of the celtic church when no orher church does? The two are not the same, correct?
It seems you want to be contentious, for example by using the word "lie", but I shall not take the bait. You seem to be confused about the Anglican position. I'll refer you again to the Article: "VIII. Of the Creeds. The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." Further, in case you have forgotten what Anglicanism believes and teaches, which indeed seems to be the case in the authority you give to councils, permit me to quote two other articles: XX. Of the Authority of the Church. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore,, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture. Now I know that some of a more Anglo-Catholic persuasion wish that the 39 articles were not a part of Anglicanism, but I thank God they are. We have a clear instance of a woman as a deacon in the New Testament and a very probable instance of a woman apostle. Based on that, some other Scriptures, and the ancient Celtic church, I believe that women were given equality in the earliest churches.
Let me sincerely ask: Do you consider that I have been promoting? If so, I will immediately cease, and, if needed, I will stop this discussion.
You haven't answered any of my questions or points. Inserting massive quotes of the articles won't get you there. Here it is: 1. Orthodoxy isn't "what the bible teaches." What say you to my response, in your own words? 2. What proof do you have that this isolated church ordained women? 3. On what grounds is anyone compelled to accept the claims of an isolated church? These are simple questions. Don't sidetrack about women deacons or allusions to women apostles or to the 39 articles or to Anglo-Catholicism.
Beg pardon, it is you who sidetracked, and backtracked, first arguing for orthodoxy and then saying this: "Well, generally, orthodox just means a group's inheritance of traditions (traditions that the group identifies as essential to their identity)." Do you or do you not believe and affirm what those Articles say? If not, how can you call yourself an Anglican? The Articles affirm Scripture, not a Council's interpretation of scripture, or tradition, or anything else.
I have no burden to prove what I am to you, nor am I interested in following you into a debate about me. You came to this forum and made certain specific claims about women's ordination. I have challenged you on these claims on many levels. You have refused to answer these challenges. Answer these challenges, if you don't mind, or at least be honest and admit that you cannot. This is not, after all, about oneupmanship--it is about the pure and Holy truth of God.
Personally, I don't believe there was ever a ,'Celtic,' Church any where .Spain was thought to be a Celtic / Iberian country. I have never read however from ancient (translated ) sources of a Celtic Church! Both S. Athanasius and the Emperor Constantine mention the Church in Britain and the British Church is often referd to has often been of Celt, but there was no separate Church. I was in Cornwall some years ago and on the beach about a mile away was an old pile of wood which when used as a landmark was known as S.Constantine's Church. This Island , along with Ireland have ever, been Catholic.
You have a wrong assessment of what a Church is! There's only one Church and that is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic one, the Body of Christ! It has certain beliefs which we hold in succession from the Apostles and which they received from Christ. The Christian Faith was receive into Scripture and questions on the outcome were settled by the Bishops in the Seven Councils , at many of these were present Bishops from the British Church. If you don't hold to this faith you are not accepted by the Catholic Church and are in a sect, having become a sectarian.
Rebel, you have only confirmed my worry that you are not here to discuss. Do you know what an "internet troll" is?? You must respond in one of two ways: provide evidence for women's ordination in the ancient (and apparently Celtic) church OR admit that there is no such evidence and so make progress. ANYTHING else is avoiding the topic. Anything else is dishonesty. Anything else is showing us that you are not here to discuss. Blessings to you.
The Articles Affirm the Councils, and were written in 1536, by the same Convocation that affirmed our Anglican belief in the Church. The Articles were written against the threat of Trent on the one hand and the threat of the Calvinist wing of the other. They were as someone wrote ,a line in the sand between the wildmen of both heresies, Certainly, they do not concur with modern thought, such as women priests or gay Rights and they were written and accepted by two provinces of the church only dealing with a local situation.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Ordained_Women_in_the_Early_Church.html?id=7XRvIiltytUC http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/FalloftheDruidesses.html http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/Bridget.html http://www.arcwp.org/art_always.html A quote from this article: "In "Meehan, Praying with Celtic Holy Women," I wrote that The Irish Life of Brigit describes the episcopal ordination of St. Brigit of Kildare by Bishop Mel of Ardagh in fifth century Ireland. The evidence in the Celtic Church indicates that women and men were equals in preaching the Gospel, presiding at Mass and at the other sacraments. Historian Peter Ellis wrote that in the sixth century, three Roman bishops at Tours wrote a letter to two Breton priests Lovocat and Cathern, expressing their outrage that women were allowed to preside at Eucharist. "You celebrate the divine sacrifice of the Mass with the assistance of women to whom you give the name conhospitae (monasteries where men and women lived together and raised their children in the service of Chris) ...While you distribute the eucharist, they take the chalice and administer the blood of Christ to the people... Renounce these abuses...!" In mixed-gender monasteries, men and women worked as equals. However, the overall authority within a double monastery often resided with an abbess. St. Brigit selected Conleth to help her administer Kildare, and they governed "their church by a mutual, happy alliance." The tradition of a Christian seeking a spiritual guide, mentor or "soul friend" was a prevalent Celtic custom. Women as well as men served as spiritual friends. This custom eventually influenced the entire Church and led to the institutionalizing of private confession. There are stories of spiritual seekers coming to Saint Ita and Saint Samthann to reveal their sins and to receive forgiveness and guidance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare
Quite interesting! So there seem to be documented interactions betwix western clergy and "British-Islandic-Celtic" clergy validating the notion that ordained women existed. Like I said, supposing WO in the isolated Celtic British Isles to be the case, what compels the rest of Christendom (the sees of Rome, Constantinople, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Alexandria) to bend the knee to the practice and interpretation of the "Celts of the British Isles?" On what authority and on what standard to we choose one view over the other? (Hint: the answer isn't just "whatever the bible says") PS Let's put away the boogie-man of Anglo-Catholicism and Rome. The practice of ordaining only men to the preisthood is not limited to that one see.
You might as well have posted the example of Arius and said, see, it is a legitimate tradition of the Early Church to deny the divinity of Christ! You erase all distinction between heresy and orthodoxy in the early church. A random abbey with heretical cohabitation (which violates all rules of modesty, let alone canon law!), a heretical woman priest, these are your arguments. By your method of logic arianism is fine, heresy is fine, pelagianism, donatism are legitimate. Instead of this, seek what the Church Universal condemned or validated about a certain opinion. Furthermore, you should seek what constituted a large tradition in the Church.
Aren't we forgetting scriptural exegesis? It is the pattern of the Old Testament that the men were priests, and of the New Testament that the men were bishops. That seems like a very clear testimony to me.