I'm very scrupulous on women in orders, the eucharist, church history... Help me decide this

Adam, would you let Gnosticism, Arianism, or Nestorianism keep you out of a church that taught one or more of those heresies? That's how intense this issue is for people in our corner. It's a Church-wide disobedience of an Apostolic commandment and, I think, leads to the downgrading of masculinity. This is something deeply worrying for me not only because of its effect on the Church, but on human civilisation. If women start to be identified as the priestly class, religion will simply become even more of a laughing stock than it already is. Everything is downhill from here, if the C. of E. allows female bishops.

I am not at all saying that "sinning (by ordaining women) makes the ordaining party invalid" (that'd be Donatism). I am saying that I find it hard to believe in the ecclesiastical authority, dignity, and validity of a whole Church that can even conceive of the idea of so harshly despising the words of the Apostle.

Of course, there's really no where else to go. The errors in the Catechism of the Catholic Church alone are enough to send me running very quickly in the opposite direction (especially calling Mary the "All Holy-One", par. 2677), and the Orthodox are no better (same subject: the official Divine Liturgy asks Mary to "save us" by her prayers).

Ordinations are central to all our Sunday worship experience(s), my brother! Obviously anyone can lead Morning Prayer, but our life as Christians is simply not fulfilled without the LORD's Supper; and without a valid presbyter, there is no Eucharist. To believe laypeople can consecrate the elements is to deny the witness of all the Fathers and the entire history of the Church. This whole nonchalant acceptance of laywomen as clergy would be condemned as total error not sixty years past. The more we allow the '60s and feminism to influence the Church, the more like the empty, atheistic world we will become.

Do you understand my terror and horror about this?

 

Then there it is: God has abandoned Rome. God has abandoned the Orthodox. God has abandoned Anglicanism - His whole Church, left to her sins and wickedness. Jesus did say "this generation shall not pass away until the Son of Man returns". Clearly the generation, or genealogy, of Christian faith can never die. I am not so sure about the Church.

That is my ultimate conclusion, in great sorrow...

Wow! I'm psychic...

Indeed...

I believe Donatism is a heresy when it is a refusal to allow apostate laypeople back into the fold after they repent. To believe that ordination is some sort of undying gift, separate from apostolic doctrine and the piety of holding to the truth, however, is an error. The Church was wrong to uphold ordinations as 'valid' if the priest cut off his ministry by becoming a heretic. He denied the faith, goshdarnit. Do priests just have a magical chain attached to the leg of Jesus, whereby NOTHING severs it? That applies to baptism, but certainly not to Orders. It's ludicrous!

Millions of faithful Christians were abandoned during the Arian days, for example. It's possible. It may seem cruel, but it is possible. God does not make the Universe to revolve around our safety, but around His holiness!

Sorry, I'm getting very impassioned.

There's no need. I believe male bishops are validly ordained, and have been since Cranmer threw off certain superstitions and traditions that were not authentic or useful. My issue is that "The Church", as a sort of organic living Being, has thrown away all claims to apostolic authority by her love for political correctness. This whole idea of women priests can get stuffed; I will never, ever call female clergy anything other than "ma'am". Done deals can be undone; Christ has proved it. We just need to fight it, not run away!

 

Exactly, that's why the Communion needs people like you, Consular.

 

Well thank you for the support and confidence Sean.

A whole parish may not 'deserve' a bad, heretical, or apostate pastor, but cause & effect do exist. If a man denies his faith and goes so far even as to hate God, for example, I cannot believe that his Eucharist ("giving thanks") means anything. When that man is assigned to a parish, that parish cannot have the sacrament, if we're going to be strictly sacerdotal about it. Maybe you'll say that the people in the pews who are genuine supply the true thanksgiving and take part in the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise that way. But if that's so, there's no positive need for a specifically-ordained priest/bishop, except as "overseer".

So frigging confusing... I wish faith were simpler.

Edited. It's fine to disagree with other religions, but let's keep inflammatory comments to a minimum.
Admin

 

Adam, in classical evangelical high church practice, Orders were very important. Worship is primarily presbyteral and derives from the authority of the episcopal office. I cannot agree with the late Mr. Stott's argument that episcopacy was not considered absolutely necessary in the early Church.

At first it sounds heartless of you to say "get back to Rome if I were you", but I see the stern logic in it. One can't sit on the curb crying forever. I guess the Roman arguments 'got to me'; the argument that it is absolutely necessary to have valid priests in any worship of any kind. You wouldn't believe some of the assertions about priesthood I've heard in Rome.

What you're saying, though, is that 'valid worship' can be and is offered by all. Why priests, then? Why bishops? I appreciate your input very much.

It's hard to say "I'm not ready to be an Anglican". You do what you're told by God, because He knows all things... I don't think any of us are truly ready for anything, just yet... our readiness and courage will only be perfected in Heaven. Faith, it seems, is taking a leap where you are unready - not believing that which is impossible. :think:

 

Adam & all, thank you for the help... so timely and fanatical for what's good and right!

I think I can make a decision now; this video helped me understand what's going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlWF9d8_J3Q

The illustration of the fleet of ships chained together is really a very good one. I now believe the Anglican crisis isn't some characteristic or typical protestant schism (something Catholics and the Orthodox loudly complain about), but that it is restricted mostly to Canada and America (just as the intense Catholic liberalism of Vatican II was restricted mostly to Canada and America). Things look bad for me and for members of TEC because we're in the very center of the maelstrom.

Now I can be clear that it is the national hierarchies of TEC and the Church of Canada who are denying the faith, not the entire Communion. This gives me such gladness of heart and hope of mind that it's really inexpressibly joyful. ACNA, in communion with Anglicans of Africa and South America, looks to be a Godsend and an infusion of blood. We shall see.

 

Currently, married Anglican Priests who are entering the Ordinariate are allowed to become Catholic Priests.

 

Anna, yes that's correct. They do not accept married Anglican Priests/Bishops to become Bishops in the RC Church. Married Anglican Bishops entering the Ordinariate seeking ordination will become RC Priests. Generally they are first ordained Deacon and then later Priested. Graham Leonard may have been an exception as he claimed he had Papal dispensation and was directly Priested.

The Ordinary of the UK Ordinariate was a married Anglican Bishop. He is now a married RC Priest, not a Bishop, but as the Ordinary he is allowed to wear Pontificals.

 

Glad you managed to make a decision

 

Symphorian,
Yes, I knew they didn't allow a married Priest to become Bishop. Thanks for adding that information to the conversation. There have been discussions on CAF about the married Priests and of course the Ordinariates.
Anna

 

Consular,
I think you are entering some dangerous territory when making statements like this. Whether you realize it or not, you just passed judgement on both Rome and God. If God has not abandoned Rome (and I don't see evidence that He has); then you have basically called God a liar for not being true to His promises.

Saying God abandoned the Jews is against Holy Scripture.

Please be careful about these kinds of statements for your own sake; and I say this with the utmost charity.

Anna

 

Anna, the Church Fathers (Chrysostom particularly) are adamant in saying that God has abandoned the Jews because of their faithlessness. He did it several times because they abandoned Him first. Christ was their last chance, as it were. We are not free from this duty and censure; He abandons us if we are not faithful to Him. This is Scriptural, isn't it?

I know you speak with charity. I felt a pang in my heart after I had posted the words which you quoted. It makes me sorrowful to think I have insulted God, but in this subject it's hard to think my view is the wrong one. In Isaiah God promises to be with the Jewish people so long as they are with Him. Killing Him on the Cross can be considered an abandonment, no? I don't believe every Jew is responsible for the Crucifixion; that'd be silly, but the Jewish people (as in their Religion), have been abandoned by God. They are not 'the' holy nation or people, for we Christians are Israel renewed. Isn't that standard Christian theology?

One can speak authoritatively when the Bible is in hand. I am open to being proved gravely wrong, but when a church starts to call anyone other than God "the All Holy One", "our life", & "our hope", attributing omniscience to passed-away Christians, acting as if one bishop is the vicar of Christ rather than the Holy Spirit, which trample God's prerogatives, it is not uncharitable or erroneous to think that God will have nothing to do with such blasphemy. He watches over all humanity and every church, subtly guiding us both when we err (if we despair) and when we triumph (if we think ourselves invincible), but there is a sense in which He won't have anything to do with proud assertions.

God can do what He wants after all... He isn't bound by our formularies, isn't He...? If the manifold errors and wickedness of a church community don't repel God, why does He call Himself just, holy, and one who does not deal with the wicked? We have the mercy of Jesus, but it doesn't stretch over people who refuse to repent.

If what I say is wrong, I will repent immediately.

 

Respectfully snipped...

Hmmm interesting because a good of friend of mine who belongs to the Roman Church goes to a Church where the young priest who converted to the Roman Church and is still married with children...

 

Anna there have been some very very extreme views held by people across all faiths and I am sure we are not going to see an end to it in our life time, but I pray that we do. I hear what you are saying and I agree with you 100%...

When reading some of this stuff I keep going back to the two great commandments, smile to myself and wonder why we at times still don't get it...

Blessings sister and please continue be a caring and loving person.

 

Gordon, that's correct with regard to married Anglican Priests who are accepted for the RC Priesthood. They are still 'married with children' as RC Priests. Rome permits this.

It does not apply in quite the same way to married Anglican Bishops. Married Anglican Bishops who cross over are ordained to Priesthood only. Rome does not permit married Bishops in the same way as married Priests. Perhaps I didn't explain too well in my previous posts.

Graham Leonard was a married Anglican Bishop who was conditionally ordained as a RC Priest. (He wanted his Episcopal orders to be recognized but as Rome doesn't permit married Bishops he was Priested only). There have only been 2 cases of sub conditione (conditional) ordination to date, the other being J J Hughes. As you know, Pope Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896 declared Anglican Orders 'null and void'. Anglican clergy who are accepted for the RC Priesthood are normally ordained outright. In the case of Hughes and Leonard there was 'prudent doubt' about the status of their Anglican orders so they were conditionally ordained.

 

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

 

Consular,
Since this is your thread, I'll continue.

The Jewish people are not collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

Israel is saved with an everlasting salvation. The Jews will not be put to shame or confounded for all eternity.


Genesis 12 English Standard Version:
17 But Israel is saved by the Lord
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.

To say that God has abandoned the Jews is to deny Holy Scripture. A partial hardening has come over Israel. Through their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles---salvation has come to us.

Romans 11 English Standard Version:
11 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”
9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

I don't believe the Jews have abandoned God. Actually, they believe they have remained true to God by rejecting Jesus---as is demonstrated by the words of this Jewish CAF forum member on a thread entitled, How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the Messiah?: See Post #15 by chosen people.

We are blessed in our faith. I believe the Jews will recognize Jesus as Savior and Messiah at a time appointed by the Holy Trinity.

Peace,
Anna

 

Anna, I deny that the Jewish people are collectively responsible for the Crucifixion. I said that they have abandoned the faith given by God, because they denied and continue to deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. They expected Him for centuries, and for centuries after His coming still do not recognise Him.

Scripture also says, in Romans 1:8: "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

My complaint of abandonment was not to the Jews alone, but to all who shirk God. Hell exists for some reason, at least, and Jesus revealed to us that people go there who reject the faith (Him) everlastingly. Since the entire Jewish people, the old Israel, do this very thing, what can we say? Are we forced to believe that God will save people who reject Him, despite what Jesus Himself said?

Just because they believe they've remained true to YHWH doesn't mean they have. If you consistently & unrepentantly reject His revelation and the prophets (even the Son of Man Himself), you are abandoned by Him to your sin. The psalms and prophets are full of this sort of language: God won't even listen to the wicked man, but turns His face away. What is more wicked than rejecting your own Messiah that you've waited centuries for? This was what stuck out to me, when I made the statements you have found grievance with. Hosea does not say "because you are Israel I will save you and make sure you never err", but "you are my holy nation, and therefore I will punish you for not keeping to righteousness", etc. He leaves us if we leave Him.

Israel has an everlasting salvation in Genesis 12 because Israel is extended beyond those who refuse to recognise her own Messiah. I think it's Romans, again, where Paul says Christians have Abraham as our father - we are the fulfillment of God's very promise to Abraham, to multiply His seed across the world. If God had to transfer Israel from Hebraic Jews to Christians, renewing Israel so it is composed of orthodox Christian believers and not anti-Trinitarian Jews, then anyone not Christian cannot be part of the renewed Covenant with Israel. That's my logic, anyway...

Just to clarify what I meant, precisely: Judges 10:13-14 "You have forsaken me and served other gods, therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry out to the gods which you have chosen, let them deliver you in the time of your distress." Only a few verses later, Israel repents and then goes home to their Saviour. I believe this applies to denying Jesus, once He is manifest (and He certainly is!).

I am very worried about the state of the Church, and tend to be Chicken Little. The sky really is falling all the time, because I see Rome blaspheming God by "sacrificing" Christ again, the Orthodox blaspheme His uniqueness by asking Mary to save us, and all sorts of other Christians love worldly-acceptance by giving into homosexual-lobby demands, and the cries of heretics to be more 'tolerant' of heresy. I don't know if I can believe that God will bind Himself to people who hate His zeal for truth, goodness, and holiness. He isn't masochistic...

 

Consular,
Did you read my post? Did you read Romans Chapter 11?

 

My whole post is a reply to that post, or at least an explanation of myself.