Hi I'm seeking a Church and although I was originally ( and still am ) extremely attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy, the struggle to find one where I live in the UK proved to be impossible. Eventually, it seemed that my best option was Anglicanism and I have found a community near me which is Anglo-Catholic and where I have started progressing towards Confirmation. This Church is overseen by a flying Bishop as it rejects women's ordination and, so far, in my limited knowledge, I am happily in agreement with this. I have been advised by some Orthodox that it is going to become increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible to be served by a Priest of "male succession "( not the right term I'm sure, but you know what I mean ) in the Anglican communion in England and for this reason I would be leaving the Catholicity of the Church behind me if I became Anglican. I am obviously concerned about this. Are my Orthodox friends right? Please, I'm not asking if the ordination of women is right or wrong, just the likely feasibility of continuing with the belief in a line of male - only clergy within the Anglican community in the UK. I am also not asking whether or not Catholicity of the Anglican Communion is valid or invalid for any other reason. Thank you for any advice you might have.
Would you be leaving the 'catholicity' (i.e. universality) of 'the church' though if you joined even a community of Anglican followers of Jesus Christ who ordain women and worship together along with them, in the Eucharist? Where is ordination mentioned in the New Testament, applied only to men? The christian priesthood is a post Apostolic phenomenon and ordination, per se, did not exist in Apostolic times. There therefore were no gender specifying rules about ordination recorded in the holy scriptures. So what is your problem? Are you afraid that God will be displeased with you if you associate with a community which accepts women in the Anglican priesthood? Are you thinking your salvation may be at risk for breaking what you believe to be God's rules? Is it right and 'Christian', to be so discriminating about whom we have 'serving' us? I realise I haven't answered your question, but I think I have asked one or two, your answers to which might actually have some bearing upon the strength of your salvation. Where is your hope of salvation really founded? In whom is your confidence invested? Do you think your salvation would be detrimentally affected by receiving the sacraments from someone unlikely to be of guaranteed Apostolic Succession? By the way, to Anglican Forums. You'll soon feel at home here, I'm sure. .
I think a more fundamental question is what the motivation to be Anglican should be if the Orthodox (or Rome) have the last word on who is and isn’t “really” ordained.
Inquire as to whether the minister(s) of that parish is ordained lawfully, or instead ordained by a woman. Same goes for the bishop of that diocese, whether he was consecrated lawfully, or by a woman. According to classical standards, a woman cannot be lawfully ordained (and consequently, cannot be lawfully consecrated). Therefore, she cannot lawfully ordain another person, even if that person is a man. So your orthodox friends are correct on that point, yet this does not mean there are no lawfully ordained ministers in the CoE. If that's what they meant, they're wrong. You must investigate on a case-by-case basis, since only some ministers have been ordained by women, but not all. As far as your question concerning how you will fit into the wider community of the CoE in general, most will consider your stance to be repulsive and ridiculous, as well as on other matters of classical christian belief. A word of encouragement— there are a number of saints, from the beginning to now, who stood alone yet firm in the Faith against not only the assaults from outside, but also those from inside the walls of the church. Their resilience in this regard was also the church's restoration.
Sarcasm alert! - They obviously ARE in the minds of some, and we Christians in the church of Christ are of course ALL ruled over and controlled by THE LAW. Especially THESE Christians in the church of Christ. .
I believe the catchphrase you're searching for is "apostolic succession." The idea is that the line of ordination for any given priest should stretch all the way back, unbroken, to one of the Apostles. Personally, I don't get too hung up about whether my priest is in the line of apostolic succession. Who can know what might have occurred a thousand or fifteen hundred years ago which might have broken the chain, and how much should it matter, so long as the people who serve today are sincere Christians, upright in their moral examples, called by God, and in submission to Him and their bishop(s) in humble service to the people of God? As for female priests, I see (what I consider to be) ample support for the practice of male-only priesthood in the Bible and I believe such to be God's intent for our church. I personally would not care to be served by a female priest; it would make me feel uncomfortable. Yet I can understand the viewpoint of those who feel it is more a matter of church governance (and therefore changeable) than of scriptural command, because God never made totally clear (maybe by saying something like, "Thou shalt not ordain women to priesthood within the church," or anything similar). I would have little problem sitting under a male priest whose ordination bishops (3) included a woman. (I would have much more problem with clergy who were openly living in a sinful relationship of some sort, as they would be a bad moral example and, due to unrepentance, unfit for leadership). Now to your issue: I really doubt that it will ever be "impossible" for you to find an Anglican priest whose ordination succession is, so far as can be ascertained, within your comfort zone of propriety. That strikes me as a scare tactic on their part, and since they are interested in 'poaching' you as a Christian into their own community you should take their statement with a shaker of salt. Might it become "more difficult" within the CofE to find such a one? Yes, quite possibly someday you might have to search around a little harder than you'd like to. Cross that bridge if and when you come to it, though; it might be decades away (if the Lord tarries). The use of the phrase, 'Priest of male succession,' gave me a bit of a chuckle. It made me think of the nearby Russian Orthodox parish, where the priest's son became a deacon and, upon the dad's death the son took over duties at the church while he completed his studies and became the successor priest. Whenever anyone makes fun of non-denoms that look like a "family business" because the pastor's kid becomes associate pastor and eventually takes over for his dad, I think of this RO church. In my mind, that's 'male succession'! The word 'catholic' means universal. What the word is meant to imply is that Jesus Christ's Church is one. There is only one Church, and it is a spiritual Church comprised of all genuine disciples (followers) of our Lord (who are scattered among many earthly denominations). As long as you are trusting in Christ's redemption for your salvation and are repentant of your sins (resolved to follow Him in humble submission), you are in the true and catholic Church no matter what physical building you happen to be in or what priest you are served by (and serving in return). So if the Holy Spirit should someday arouse you to "get thee hence" from some person or place and to settle into a different house of worship and fellowship, know that He plants you (or transplants you) for His good reasons; it is more important to be led by Him concerning where to 'plug in' and be a participating member than it is to feel angst over the possibility of a future transplant.
Peter had a very similar discomfort zone. Article XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Are we to assume that a woman being the representative of Christ in celebrating the sacrament of Holy Communion is even WORSE than an evil man, so much so that article 26 no longer stands true? By refusing communion we refuse Christ himself, not just the person who has said the words of consecration. If we believe in the real presence of Christ it is him we refuse not the person from the body of us believers who stands before us as our servant and a servant of God. .
I guess the point I would come back to is that the ministry exists for the Church, not the Church for the ministry. The office of the ministry belongs to us, and we modify it as needed to ensure that it continues to fulfill the purpose for which it was intended (cf. Art. 20 & 34). The Church of England retained episcopal polity to maintain good order, not because the English Reformers thought the institution was necessary for salvation. All alike by adoption receive the Holy Spirit - the source of all the gifts necessary to exercise ministerial office - at baptism (cf. Art. 27). What the Orthodox have to say about the way Anglicans maintain the Church's ministry should be considered ultimately irrelevant (cf. Art. 19), unless of course one is Orthodox.
No more so than we should assume that women are inherently more evil then men. (They aren't.) I think that might be "a bridge too far." A born-again Christian might decline communion, but that cannot equate to refusing Christ when Christ already lives in that Christian. We are not going to create a legalistic rubric that one must receive communion every time it is served, are we? In our parish, people understand that they may decline communion but instead receive a blessing, and they indicate this choice by crossing their arms over their chest instead of holding them out to receive communion; do you folks across the pond have a similar thing?
The evil ministers of Article 26 are defined in part by being those who "minister by [Christ's] commission and authority," and the sacraments ministered by them are said to be effectual "because of Christ's institution and promise." The article concerns those with such commission and authority from Christ (lawful orders) who yet believe or promote heresy, or live immoral lives. The article does not concern those who minister by a commission and authority other than that from Christ, nor does it suppose that a sacrament can be effectual or even exist, unless it is ministered according to Christ's institution. Appealing to this article as an argument for women's ordination requires assuming what needs to be proved. The very point of disagreement is whether women may receive Christ's commission and authority to be ministers, and a possible second is whether Christ's institution of the sacraments includes that they be ministered by those who have received the above. If I'm misunderstanding the appeal, I apologize.
We most certainly do, and I agree, far be it for the church or anyone else to make the receiving of communion mandatory. My own wife had refrained from communion on Good Friday for many years rather than receive reserved sacrament, reasoning that it would be more appropriate to refrain until Easter Morning. But that is not quite the same as doing what the invited guests to the King's Feast did. i.e. excused themselves for one reason or another rather than attend and receive, thus rejecting both his status and his hospitality. .
No need to apologise for peaceably expressing your opinion in here ByOldEyes. All that is needed is scriptural evidence that Christ would not and does not commission women, or for that matter Gentiles of either gender or none to say the words of consecration over the bread and wine of Holy Communion. We all know he originally commissioned only men but also only Jews. I assume that, believing as you do, you can provide irrefutable evidence from scripture that Christ still forbids women or gentiles to preside at the Eucharist. I've not found it though, not specifically. .
It is simpler than that. It is demonstrable by Reason that women are capable of performing the same ministerial functions as men, emotionally, intellectually, and physically. Therefore, if Scripture is true, it cannot teach otherwise as an eternal, universal truth. (Just like Scripture can’t really teach a flat earth as eternal truth if we know from Reason that it is spherical.) Making a positive case for WO from Scripture isn’t necessary.
I would like to consider if succession is simply to be understood in a mechanical way, or if it is to be understood in a broader and more comprehensive sense. Endless lists of succession and credentials seem to be very legalistic, and whilst I know the Latin church may tend that way, it just doesn't seem to be the way of Jesus. And I am not saying that we should ignore it, nor that we shouldn't make due accord to honour those principles, I don't think we help by getting too bogged down in this stuff. There are a number of Churches that are generally regarded as Auto-Cephalus. The Church of England is one such Church, and her claim as such is as good as the Russian Orthodox. Autocephality should also not be taken too lightly, but it does assume that the Church has to power and authority to order its own ecclesial life.
While 1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman should not teach or to assume authority over a man, which would apply to female priests, it is a single verse and I would be cautious about taking it as a universal rule. For those who hold to the "three legged stool" of scripture, reason, and tradition, the tradition for 2000 years has been in favour of male only clergy. Frankly I would rather a female priest with good theology than a male priest with bad theology. You might have the option of moving to a different church where there is a male priest, but that can be difficult if you have to leave friends and family. Tt is harder to avoid a female bishop but also you generally have less direct contact with them. As far as your conscience will allow you should accept the appointments made by your church, respecting the position even if you disagree with the person appointed. I have had to do that with more than one priest in my local church.
While 1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman should not teach or to assume authority over a man, which would apply to female priests, it is a single verse and I would be cautious about taking it as a universal rule. For those who hold to the "three legged stool" of scripture, reason, and tradition, the tradition for 2000 years has been in favour of male only clergy. Frankly I would rather a female priest with good theology than a male priest with bad theology. You might have the option of moving to a different church where there is a male priest, but that can be difficult if you have to leave friends and family. Tt is harder to avoid a female bishop but also you generally have less direct contact with them. As far as your conscience will allow you should accept the appointments made by your church, respecting the position even if you disagree with the person appointed. I have had to do that with more than one priest in my local church.
When this was written, ordination to an Anglican Priesthood did not yet exist because the Apostolic church had only one Priest, namely the risen and ascended Christ himself. A priesthood was a much later development within the New Testament church. In what way anyway, might anyone imagine that celebrating the Eucharist, consecrating bread and wine and feeding Christ's sheep as a servant to the servants of Christ, could even be, "assuming authority over a man"? If we are thinking the role of an Anglican Priest is one of AUTHORITY in some kind of higherarchy over the congregation it is the conception of what the priesthood IS that is wrong here. Clearly those who think this way about the Eucharistic Celebrant do not understand Kingdom style leadership any better than Peter did when HE refused the ministry of our Master by refusing to let him wash his feet. .
Not advisable to mention women's ordination as you will have seen from your responses thus far. I wouldn't look at the UK picture. As far as I am aware the Anglican churches in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales made no provision for those Catholics and Evangelicals who do not accept the ordination of women or even the Church's authority to ordain women. In England, the Church of England did make provision but is not very good at honouring the arrangements made. Those in the Church of England who accept women's ordination are doing their best to hound out those of us who do not accept it. Therefore, I think as time goes by then there will be fewer places in the Anglican Church in these islands where you can be sure there is a male priest.