Show me how the Episcopal Church teaches Heresy (officially)

I didn't say that at all.

 

We are talking about the early church, not modern orthodox deaconesses.

Which is just a rule of church discipline. An unordained person handling the chalice would only concern the question of reverence for the sacrament. It would not invalidate that sacrament.

 

The ordination service is from Byzantine times... hardly "modern."

A completely arbitrary distinction which has no basis in how the church has historically viewed ordained clergy and their relation to the Mysteries.

 

Sure it is.

Incredulity doesn't serve in place of an argument. You are free to disagree with the Anglian and Patristic model of the sacraments if you wish.

 

When you say it is "the Anglican and Patristic model" I assume you have some documentation to support it.

 

Just read any Anglican or generally western treatise on the sacraments. Anyone can take part in most of the liturgical service, such as in the Procession, holding the Scripture during the Reading, lighting or extinguishing the candles upon the altar. They can even hold the chalice and distribute the host. None of these invalidates the liturgy or the sacrament. If you argue they do, provide the positive evidence where such a thing happened, and was deemed invalid.

 

As a member of the Church of England I'm beginning to get confused. At our church the bread is usually administered by the Vicar, who is female. The chalice can be administered by a lay person, as long as s/he has been approved by the Bishop.

 

Where, ever, have I said or suggested that a layman handling the sacrament renders it invalid? My point is, according to the discipline of the ancient church, at least in the East, only ordained clergy in major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) may administer the sacrament to the faithful. The fact that the deaconess was allowed to do so shows that she was regarded as part of the clergy. I am also doubtful as to whether, historically, laymen were allowed to minister the chalice in the Western church prior to the 20th century.

 

The discussion here is more generally historical, going back to the assertion that, for 2000 years, the Christian Church had no females serving in clerical roles (before the modern era). This assertion, I think, has been sufficiently proved false.

 

See no, that's not what the discussion is. The discussion is whether assisting in the liturgy such as, holding the Scriptures during the reading, lighting or extinguishing the Candles, holding the chalice, qualify as clerical roles. And this was never demonstrated.

 

You have not followed the thread. I initially responded to highchurchman's assertion that "for two thousand years there has [sic] been no women in liturgical positions." The deaconess was a liturgical position.

It has also been clearly demonstrated that holding the chalice was a clerical role since only ordained clergy were allowed to do it. The deaconess had to be ordained like other clergy before she could perform these functions.

The modern practice of Anglicans has no relevance to the historical question of whether deaconesses were clergy.

 

I won't presume to speak for him but based on what he has said, by liturgical positions seems to have been meant sacramental and clerical positions. Not holding the scripture during reading, or helping carry the chalice.

Lol this has been demonstrated nowhere. If you can provide the example where women could consecrate the Sacrament, or Ordain priests, or Preach the Word of God, the roles that are clerical, then you would've made your case. Your best futile attempt is that someone helped carry the chalice. Lol.

 

Deacons cannot consecrate the sacrament or ordain priests either. Does that mean deacons are not clergy?

 

What do you mean by clergy? In my definition deacons are liturgical and parochial assistants, not clergy per se. Their job is to minister to the bodily needs of the parish. They never take the role of spiritual leadership, except as vicars of the clergy proper, viz. priests and bishops.

They cannot consecrate the Host, or Ordain. In their own right they have no right to lead the Liturgy, or minister the word of God, except, as I say, by the say-so of clergy proper, i.e. priests and bishops.

They are manual laborers, shepherds of no one. The issue with women clergy is becoming spiritual shepherds of the human race, which is ontologically impossible. Since no spiritual shepherdship resides in the Deaconry, there is no intrinsic problem with women becoming deacons, either today or in the Early Church.

 

In the definition of the Church, East or West, clergy exist in three major orders- deacon, priest, bishop, and then several minor orders (readers, subdeacons, etc.) Deacons are definitely clergy.

By this reasoning, priests are not clergy either, since they cannot lead liturgy or perform any church ministry without the bishop's approval. The office of priest evolved as essentially a representative of the bishop in local congregations. In the New Testament, there are only two orders of clergy: deacons and bishops/presbyters.

Women are bishops and priests in the Church already, so clearly it is not an ontological impossibility. Unless you want to suggest that Anglican female bishops and priests are "invalid."

 

That you'd include readers and subdeacons in the holy orders renders your understanding of this question to be faulty.

You have an anachronistic, and clericalist understanding. Clergy is just someone whose job is to serve the church. It's nothing more than that. It does not confer sacramental status, it (in itself) doesn't entail an ontological change in the ordinand, or anything else. If the deacons are clergy, they're clergy of a different kind than priests and bishops. You consider them clergy, you find a notice of some women deacon holding a chalice during an ancient liturgy, and proceed to conclude that women can be priests, and can be bishops. Talk about slippery slopes. A deacon is not just a smaller priest, just as a priest is not a smaller bishop. These three orders are irrevocably separated by their natures, and their occupants are not convertible from one to the others.

Are you saying that without the bishop's approval, the Eucharist doesn't take place? Baptism doesn't occur?

No.

Why yes I've come to that conclusion in recent months. It simply does not make sense, theologically, or historically. But it's not something I am willing to spend a lot of time debating about.

 

Then why does it require a special ordination? Why does the bishop need to lay hands on the ordinand? You sound like some sort of Puritan.

Ahem, women specifically ordained to be able to do so. If, as you claim, any layman can do it, it would not require ordination.

Please point to a single place in this discussion where I asserted that the existence of deaconesses proves that women can be priests and bishops.

I am saying what Richard Hooker says here: "There are which hold, that between a Bishop and a Presbyter, touching Power of Order, there is no difference. The reason of which conceit is, for that they see Presbyters, no less than Bishops, authorized to offer up the Prayers of the Church, to preach the Gospel, to baptize, to administer the holy Eucharist; but they considered not withal, as they should, that the Presbyter’s authority to do these things is derived from the Bishop which doth ordain him thereunto, so that even in those things which are common unto both, yet the power of the one is as it were a certain light borrowed from the other’s lamp."

I'm pretty sure denying the validity of Anglican bishops is contrary to the forum rules.

 

No, saying that without extraneous approval the sacraments are void is puritan. I say the sacraments have intrinsic reality between the priest and the parishioner no matter what any other cod films obtain. It may be illicit but it may not be invalid.[/quote]

I see the point of contention here: it is about the word Require. To me the requirement of being a deacon was just a matter of church discipline, to wit, we don't want the distribution of the Host or the handling of the chalice done badly, with dirty hands or worse; in order to control it we limit it to the clergy and spend a lot of effort in order to educate them. It is just a pragmatic decision. However Rome today allows laymen to touch and distribute the host, which underlies my point that its just a matter of church discipline.

what I detect in your view is that if the handling of the Host or the Chalice were limited to the clergy, this must mean the clergy were extra special or extra worthy thereby. This, I say is a clericalist and an anachronistic attitude that springs out of a Medieval mindset. We (Anglicans) and the Church fathers were not principally opposed to Communion in the Hand, and the assistance of non-sacramental Ministers (deacons, laity), in sacramental duties.

I thought you did somewhere. my apologies. If you don't then we are so far agreement that nothing else need be debated here. W.O. is the connection between PECUSA and Heresy. W.O. is their heresy.

I totally accept Dr. Hooker's quote. Like I said I think we're much more in agreement than it seemed. I don't think there's anything for us to debate here.

Denying jurisdiction is what underlies the Anglicans splintering from the Episcopalian Church. The "purple haze" of 5-6 overlapping episcopal jurisdictions here in Carolina is the reason our bishop had not joined the ACNA. Denying Roman bishops underlied much of the original Reformation. I'm not sure you have a very good argument here. Bishops aren't gods and if the criteria aren't met they aren't bishops.

 

Sorry that should say no matter what other "conditions" obtain. This is what typing on the phone will get ya.