Anglicans vote on women bishops.

[LiberatedChick]

A little something I found when reading the news....

The Church of England's general synod is due to vote on whether to move towards ordaining women bishops. A motion to "remove legal obstacles" to a change in the Church's law will be debated at the meeting in York. But there remains strong opposition, with some traditionalists threatening to move to the Roman Catholic Church.

Fourteen of the world's 38 Anglican Churches have already decided to allow women bishops; the Church of England has had women priests since 1994. Women now make up half of those training as Anglican clergy. But the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, is among those opposed to the consecration of women as bishops. He told a Sunday newspaper he would consider becoming a Roman Catholic if the move was approved. "A woman bishop wouldn't be a bishop because a bishop is someone whose ministry is acceptable through the ages to all other bishops," he told the Sunday Times.




However, Bishop of Reading Stephen Cottrell said the change would prove very popular. "My sense is that the vast majority of people in the Church of England do support this," he said.

Around 400 Anglican clergy became Roman Catholics when women were first ordained as priests in 1994. For traditionalists, the decision by Jesus to choose only men to be his disciples, and the 2,000-year-old unbroken chain of male bishops dating from the early Church, rule women out of the role. The July Sessions of the synod, which sits twice a year, began in York on Friday. On Saturday, members voted 293 to one against a bill that would legalise euthanasia.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4670631.stm

[PaladinValer]

Fourteen? I thought it was only four! Or perhaps it is just four who actually have them?

[Fish and Bread]

For traditionalists, the decision by Jesus to choose only men to be his disciples

Jesus had plenty of women disciples. :) I think the author must have meant "Apostles". :) That's a pretty embarassing gaffe for a major news organization, given that the bible itself recounts numerous stories involving female disciples of Christ.

, and the 2,000-year-old unbroken chain of male bishops dating from the early Church

This is actually disputable based on a recent piece of early Christian artwork found where a female is distributing communion with the caption being a the Greek word for bishop in the feminine form. That said, obviously most of the evidence is on the side of female bishops being a recent thing. Recent doesn't necessarily mean bad, though. :) I'm sort of burnt out from making the case for female clergy over and over again, though I do favor women in the priesthood and the episcopate. Anyone else want to take the ball and run with it this time? ;)

John

[AveMaria]

Haven't got the time to run with the ball at the moment (perhaps later!), but I'm sitting here, wondering why a female priest would be acceptable but not a female bishop.

Clarification: Not wondering personally, I think everyone knows where I stand on the topic of women's ordination. :thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

This is actually disputable based on a recent piece of early Christian artwork found where a female is distributing communion with the caption being a the Greek word for bishop in the feminine form. That said, obviously most of the evidence is on the side of female bishops being a recent thing. Recent doesn't necessarily mean bad, though. :) I'm sort of burnt out from making the case for female clergy over and over again, though I do favor women in the priesthood and the episcopate. Anyone else want to take the ball and run with it this time? ;)

John

I could take the ball and run with it and say a lot about the piece of artwork in question and about the early church usage of the feminine form of episcopos for the wives of Bishops (still in use in some churches today!) and the universal church's response to said claims made by some who want a new ministry but that would get the thread shut down. Just let me say that there is a strong case against such an interpretation.

[Aymn27]

I could take the ball and run with it and say a lot about the piece of artwork in question and about the early church usage of the feminine form of episcopos for the wives of Bishops (still in use in some churches today!) and the universal church's response to said claims made by some who want a new ministry but that would get the thread shut down. Just let me say that there is a strong case against such an interpretation.
Not to mention that gnostics ordained women to the episcopal office...are we sure that painting is orthodox? Scripture is clear on what is required to be a bishop.

[ContraMundum]

Not to mention that gnostics ordained women to the episcopal office...are we sure that painting is orthodox? Scripture is clear on what is required to be a bishop.

The painting is orthodox, but it does not show her distributing communion. She was Theodora, the mother of a Pope Pascal I, hence she was given the title Theodora Episcopa. Becuase she is depicted wearing a coif some think she was a bishop. However, it was commonplace for women to wear coifs when in religious orders (like today) and also when they were widows under the protection and care of the church.

This is common practice in the early church and in the Greek church (In Greece) to this day. The titles of the husband are given to the women to honour them.

Also, keep in mind (as an aside) that the feminine form of presbyter literally means elder woman, just as presbyter means elder (male) . When the church changed (for theological clarity) the names for priests used in the writings from presbyters to sacerdos (Latin) and hiereous (Greek) their wives were still called presbytera. This shows the sociological nature of their titles, whereas the office of sacerdos and hiereous are only ever described in masculine throughout all ages of church history.

Anyway, I could go on in more detail, and correct what I have written here, but really, this should signal the close of the thread.

[PaladinValer]

Women were historically bishops in the days of the Early Church. They were therefore priests and deacons also by default.

I've got no problem with women clergy. Having two Mothers in my own parish, I know what kind of grace women can have and it is an equal match to the Father in my home parish and my Father in my old college parish.

[ContraMundum]

Women were historically bishops in the days of the Early Church. They were therefore priests and deacons also by default.

There is no evidence of women bishops, just a common held belief among certain circles that this was so, and this is easily decontructed. Please show me if I'm wrong.

There were women deacons, but they were not ordained. They were a lay order meant for assisting the male ordained clergy when handling women for matters of maintaining decency, such as examining the sick etc.

Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea (425 AD) says, “We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity.”

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in his Against Heresies in 377 AD, “It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess.”

The Apostolic Constitutions of 400 AD confirm, “A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by priests and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women.”


I've got no problem with women clergy. Having two Mothers in my own parish, I know what kind of grace women can have and it is an equal match to the Father in my home parish and my Father in my old college parish.

Women can be absolutely fantastic ministers. If the Reformation hadn't have stolen their ministry from them (by removing monasteries and religious orders and burying the lay order of deaconess) then perhaps they would be happier now in the way they can excercise their God-given talents. Mother Theresa is an example of a ministry that far outweighs any priestly ministry.

Remember Korah.

(Will this cause the closing of the thread?)

Reasonable reference for those interested: http://www.thechristianactivist.com/vol3/WomenPriests1.html

[alban]

The vote has been made, and went with the legal obstacles being removed.

In my opinion this is a sad day for the Anglican Church and is a sign of it moving yet further from its roots.

[Aymn27]

The vote has been made, and went with the legal obstacles being removed.

In my opinion this is a sad day for the Anglican Church and is a sign of it moving yet further from its roots.
This is one more nail in the coffin. For those who think that no realignment will happen I believe you will soon see a drastic shift in what world-wide Anglicanism looks like...

[SeenAndUnseen]

I believe it is a great and affirming day for the Anglican Communion -- a day in which more light has entered our world.

[alban]

I believe it is a great and affirming day for the Anglican Communion -- a day in which more light has entered our world.

9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

Jesus is more than enough light for me, and i prefer to follow the traditional teachings of the church which was founded after his ascension.

[PaladinValer]

There is no evidence of women bishops, just a common held belief among certain circles that this was so, and this is easily decontructed. Please show me if I'm wrong.

Those pictures themselves are proof. What is said in the Bible is proof as well, unless of course bishops aren't the apostles of their time...

There were women deacons, but they were not ordained. They were a lay order meant for assisting the male ordained clergy when handling women for matters of maintaining decency, such as examining the sick etc.

As a historian, I know otherwise.

Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea (425 AD) says, “We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity.”

Those are deaconesses, not deacons.

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in his Against Heresies in 377 AD, “It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess.”

Again, deaconesses, not deacons.

The Apostolic Constitutions of 400 AD confirm, “A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by priests and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women.”

Ditto.

You are equivocating deacons and deaconesses. Fallacy of Equivocation.

We're talking about actual deacons, actual priests, and actual bishops.

And according to the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, it states, quite clearly, that women could be deacons. Not deaconesses, deacons. Deacons are clergy, fully ordained.

The only reasons why women slowly lost their role as ordained clergy were because:

1. Women were a subjugated class.
2. Many heretical sects also allowed for women's ordination, especially the Montanists.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post

... but that would get the thread shut down ...

Threads are closed or deleted only when they violate rules of Christian Forums, or the forum-specific rules of STR. The rules prohibit flaming, trolling, spamming, and promoting non-Christian religion; and limit specific "controversial topics" to certain debate boards.

Differing opinions may be discussed without resulting in thread closures, provided that they are discussed with mutual respect and tact -- that is, within the constraints of the rules -- remembering that we are Witnesses here to the world of lurkers, who are influenced among other things by seeing how well we treat one another.

All members agreed to abide by the rules at the time they joined Christian Forums. If anyone now feels that they would like to advocate a change to the rules that they agreed to, they may advocate changes and make site suggestions or give feedback at http://www.christianforums.com/f30-cf-support.html. Please offer such feedback there, where it can go through proper channels and be acted on as appropriate, and refrain from advocating rule changes or complaining about rule enforcement in other places, where it may tend to disrupt the harmony of the forum.

Regards,
Pamela

[julian the apostate]

shoot pmcleanj, i looked in on this only because i was hoping to hear what you had to say on this subject

[higgs2]

I'm sort of burnt out from making the case for female clergy over and over again, though I do favor women in the priesthood and the episcopate. Anyone else want to take the ball and run with it this time? ;)

John

Nope, I'm not up for it right now. You know, I don't think I know one single person in real life who really feels that women should not be priests or bishops. Well, except for Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists. Or LCMS Lutherans I suppose. But no Episcopalians.

[alban]

I would happily introduce you to dozens. (and bear in mind that the church isn't exactly a democracy. 99% of the Christian population could believe that the ordination of women Priests and Bishops was right, but that wouldn't make them any more valid. All children believe in Father Christmas but that doesn't mean he exists.)

[ej]

You guys are fast on the ball!

This story was only on the BBC news a few hours ago, I came over to check you had a BBC link. :)

[ej]

On Saturday members voted 293 to one against a bill that would legalise euthanasia.



Did you see this part of the article?

[Rev. Smith]

Nope, I'm not up for it right now. You know, I don't think I know one single person in real life who really feels that women should not be priests or bishops. Well, except for Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists. Or LCMS Lutherans I suppose. But no Episcopalians.

Amongst the Old Catholic jusrisdictions it breaks both ways. The interesting thing is that the division runs all down the line. Our jurisdiction is governed by the Synod of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the Association of Parishs, the first being all of the Bishops, the second being made up of Monastics, Deacons and Priests (Prelates - Monsigneiors to you Roman types, sit in both houses but vote with the Bishops) and the Association is made up of the lay leadership of the congregations. To change the Canons (as in allowing women to be priests or bishops) requires the assent of all three bodies (the Synod may declare doctrine alone, and may veto the other two houses, but can't change the canons without our consent).

About half of the OC jurisdictions allow women in all Orders (including our parent - the Utrecht Union of Churches), but many do not. The CCCI is going to vote on women Deacons this year (so you folks are way ahead of us). The Church of Antioch will be installing two or three women as Bishops later this year.

Theologically I can see both sides, and there is scripture to support either argument, so for me it comes down to; do we want to hear all of the voices in our church, or only some?

[romaneagle13]

I am glad they went this way. I just don't see how they can allow women to be priests but not bishops. If you don't want women in various levels of the clergy then don't allow them at all or let them rise to the highest level if it is so merited. It just seems kinda hypocritical to say you can be a priest but not a bishop, just because you are female.

[trooper]

Bad, bad, bad decision. Is that Father Ratzinger calling me? Though, frankly, this is not a surprise. As a member of ECUSA, and a frequent church shopper, I already had the sad duty to make my first question of my priest, "Who ordained you?"

Depressed,

Trooper

[higgs2]

I would happily introduce you to dozens. (and bear in mind that the church isn't exactly a democracy. 99% of the Christian population could believe that the ordination of women Priests and Bishops was right, but that wouldn't make them any more valid. All children believe in Father Christmas but that doesn't mean he exists.)

Yes, I am quite aware of the structure of the ECUSA and know the difference between Episcopal and Congregational. I was merely commenting that my reality is quite different from that on this board; that I don't find the mix of opinions to be representative of what I find in my parish; and, for that matter, my diocese.

Should I wish to debate this topic, which at this point in time I don't, please be assured that "more people believe women's ordinations are valid than believe in Santa" will not be a strategy that I would employ.

[ContraMundum]

You are equivocating deacons and deaconesses. Fallacy of Equivocation.

No, I'm NOT. Please read again. It is impossible for a female to be referred to as a deacon. See below.

(Can men be deaconesses too then?) *laughs*

We're talking about actual deacons, actual priests, and actual bishops.

Yes, and as the evidence of the documents of the church are clear about, the "deaconess" was not an ordained ministry, and clearly is the only office open to women in the early church. Unless of course you believe that no one regarded the canons of the church valid, which you would have to prove. For example, it is impossible for Theodora to have been a bishop, because only a short time before her son, the Pope, presided over a council that ruled against that again. It is only an idea that springs to mind in the modern brain.

The problem you have here you fail to remember that "deaconess" is merely the feminine grammatical form of "deacon", and thus it is impossible, in any ancient language especially, for a female ever to be called "deacon". You can't call a man she, or a woman he, or just like it is impossible for a male to be a princess.

It's fairly normal for English speakers to forget that just about every language on the face of the earth since Babel has masculine and feminine forms. Thus, as most scholars recognise, this kind of confusion over titles and offices easily happens amongst English speakers.

And according to the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, it states, quite clearly, that women could be deacons. Not deaconesses, deacons. Deacons are clergy, fully ordained.

Read again.

The only reasons why women slowly lost their role as ordained clergy were because:

1. Women were a subjugated class.

That has to proven, not just said. Did you read the whole link I posted? What are your comments about that?

2. Many heretical sects also allowed for women's ordination, especially the Montanists.

Yep...that pretty much it on its own would be enough for me to be against it!

[ContraMundum]

Bad, bad, bad decision. Is that Father Ratzinger calling me? Though, frankly, this is not a surprise. As a member of ECUSA, and a frequent church shopper, I already had the sad duty to make my first question of my priest, "Who ordained you?"

Depressed,

Trooper

Yes, the current Anglican formula of doctrine by popular vote at a dioscesan level is pretty poor form. No wonder you have to ask this question.

Anyway, the thread will be closed soon.

[alban]

:)

[SeenAndUnseen]

Bad, bad, bad decision. Is that Father Ratzinger calling me? Though, frankly, this is not a surprise. As a member of ECUSA, and a frequent church shopper, I already had the sad duty to make my first question of my priest, "Who ordained you?"


If your view of what Apostolic Succession means in the Anglican sense is that structured (for lack of a better word) then perhaps you are already of Fr. Ratzinger's fold. The Anglican Communion allows for a much broader understanding than this, since there is no absolutely definitive historic proof that the physical line of laying on of hands from the original 12 apostles to present day clergy exists. This is true for Roman Catholics as well, though they deny it profusely and make frequent use of clergy pedigree charts. The truth is, only God and each bishop knows for certain who touched whom and with what authority.

"The apostolic succession is said to be a 'sign, though not a guarantee' of the church's basic continuity with the apostles and their time." (from the glossary of church terms: ECUSA (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_13758_ENG_HTM.htm) .)

The real proof of one's apostolic succession is more likely to be found in whether that person (yes, male or female) is carrying out and continuing the work of the twelve as was given them to do by Our Lord when he sent them out. If anyone's succession is invalid in your opinion, based on a lack of historic evidence, then everyone's validity is suspect.

[higgs2]

And equally if i were to further debate this topic then directly misquoting me to the extent that it distorts what my post actually said would also be a tactic i would never employ.

I apologize. I put a happy face at the beginning of this post to make the "Santa" statement more tongue in cheek but I can see that it did not turn out that way at all. I should not have misquoted you.

[ContraMundum]

The Anglican Communion allows for a much broader understanding than this,

Is that right, do you think?

since there is no absolutely definitive historic proof that the physical line of laying on of hands from the original 12 apostles to present day clergy exists.

Who told you that?

This is true for Roman Catholics as well, though they deny it profusely and make frequent use of clergy pedigree charts. The truth is, only God and each bishop knows for certain who touched whom and with what authority.

It's not hard to trace the lineage of many seats in the church. Peter's, Mark's and James' are all the easiest. Not hard to trace Dr. William's either, for that matter.

Not sure I can agree with that.

"The apostolic succession is said to be a 'sign, though not a guarantee' of the church's basic continuity with the apostles and their time." (from the glossary of church terms: ECUSA (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_13758_ENG_HTM.htm) .)

Would you agree that this particular assesment of the historic ministry is a relatively new development in doctrine, penned some time during or shortly after the Reformation, under duress of Calvinist elements involved?

The real proof of one's apostolic succession is more likely to be found in whether that person (yes, male or female) is carrying out and continuing the work of the twelve as was given them to do by Our Lord when he sent them out. If anyone's succession is invalid in your opinion, based on a lack of historic evidence, then everyone's validity is suspect.

Why not both the recoginition of the ministry and continuity of authority?

[SeenAndUnseen]

Is that right, do you think?



Who told you that?



It's not hard to trace the lineage of many seats in the church. Peter's, Mark's and James' are all the easiest. Not hard to trace Dr. William's either, for that matter.

Not sure I can agree with that.



Would you agree that this particular assesment of the historic ministry is a relatively new development in doctrine, penned some time during or shortly after the Reformation, under duress of Calvinist elements involved?



Why not both the recoginition of the ministry and continuity of authority?


I'm not trying to set out any new ideas here, and none of what I've noted is new. Much of what we accept is on a basis of faith. We were not present when many alleged events took place, and since that is the case, then we cannot dismiss the possibility that through the muddled mess history is, things might not be as accurate as some of us insist. I certainly do not deny that the recognition of the apostolic line is helpful and affirming, along with the continuity of the great commission and work of the apostles -- but alone, it is an optimistic paper trail at best, and a great heaving bucket-load of divisive spew at worst. The Church of Rome doesn't even recognize Anglican succession, and whoever it does not recognize does not have it -- according to her. We still believe we have it, and it is here according to us. Someone must be wrong. Or it doesn't matter in the end.
This is only my opinion, and I respect yours as well. We are both free within this Communion to hold to either view.

[Aymn27]

Reasonable reference for those interested: http://www.thechristianactivist.com/vol3/WomenPriests1.html

What a fantastic article....let them who have ears listen, and they who have eyes see!!

Change the icon, change the God you are worshipping...

[Rev. Smith]

What a fantastic article....let them who have ears listen, and they who have eyes see!!

Change the icon, change the God you are worshipping...

That it is an excellent article, well reasoned without the usual "sky is falling" hyperbole these things often bring out.

And yet I can still support the call for ordination of women, for times and things do change. Paul wrote of the world that was. Husband was the head of the wife. If this is no longer true in a given society, then must the conclusion that he reached remain true?

Is it possable to say that in those societies where equality has been obtained between men and women that women can now cross the threshold and be an "icon" of Christ, because the observer no longer requires direct correlary to underestand the indirect reflection that the priest represents. (I can promise you that NOBODY in my congregation confuses me with Christ, even when I stand as an icon of Christ in breaking bread and blessing wine)

The truth may be that the ordaining of women will be specific to each culture, church and community.

Is a male priesthood one of those essentials upon which unity is required, or a matter of ecclesiology in which diversity may be accepted?

[UberLutheran]

...we ran into the very same thing regarding the consecration of women as bishops.

Understand: we have been ordaining women as pastors since the 1970s, and there are STILL ELCA Lutheran congregations who have not, and will not accept a woman as a candidate for the pastorship of their churches. (A lot of these same churches are still up in arms about the adoption of the Green Hymnal a quarter century ago, and have vowed to remain true to the Red Hymnal -- but I know these kinds of issues occur ONLY in Lutheran-Land and never, ever in any other denominations... :P).

Understand, also, that I have approximately the same level of tact as an F4 tornado; and you can look at and watch all the pairs of eyes rolling heavenward when I walk up to the microphone to speak at our assemblies. (I know deep down in their hearts, those folks really love me -- even if they DO wish the ground would open up and swallow me whole!)

When we were discussing a proposal to allow women to be bishops, several of the more conservative members (and pastors) said that if such a thing were allowed, that would be The End Of The Church As We Know It and they would leave and join the Missouri Synod!

I walked up to the microphone. Eyes rolled heavenward. And then I said:

"Go ahead. If you think we're too "liberal", and you think you'll be happier in the LC-MS and that's where the Holy Spirit is leading you, by all means you must not deny the Holy Spirit."

Everybody looked at me like I had just flown in on the first flight from Mars. It must have been dead quiet on the floor for three minutes after I said that -- and if you know anything about Lutheran assemblies, you know dead quiet on the floor doesn't happen very often!

I think ecumenism is great. I'm all for the different denominations and branches of the Church working together to achieve common goals. I also realize there are points of doctrine where different people are not going to budge -- and if there are people (or churches) who believe that because of those differences in points of doctrine they can no longer work within a specific denomination, then they have an obligation to leave that denomination and find another one where they can work, or form their own denomination.

I believe in the Real Presence. Presbyterians and Baptists don't. I believe that Presbyterians and Baptists are every bit as much Christian as I am, but I cannot in good conscience join a church which does not believe in the Real Presence -- because the Real Presence is something which Lutherans (and Episcopalians) very sincerely and very deeply believe!

Episcopalians have the issue of ordination of female bishops. ELCA Lutherans have "the big elephant in the living room" issue at our synod assembly this August. If people can agree to disagree and work within the same denomination -- that's great. If the obstacle presented is just too huge, and people can't work with it -- then people have the right to consider other options, including leaving and joining another denomination which supports their theological beliefs, or forming a new denomination. Leaving a denomination or forming a new denomination does not make anyone any less "Christian".

Oh, I forgot: the end of the assembly story. Everyone opted to stay. Though, throughout the rest of the assembly, I got the distinct feeling from some people that they were afraid a lightning bolt might shoot off from me and strike them if they got too close to me!

(You should have been at the assembly when I filibustered by reading the first four chapters of 1 Chronicles. You'd be amazed what one can accomplish at 10:15 pm while reading four chapters of 1 Chronicles, especially when the next day's session begins at 7 am! ;))

[PaladinValer]

I believe that the idea of a male-only clergy is a tradition of Christianity. Note that I said tradition, not Tradition. I do not believe it has anything to do with dogma or doctrine, as they deal with salvation-critical issues.

The heart of the question is this: is a women cleric detremental to salvation? Is there anything in the Bible that would suggest that? How about in Holy Tradition? Holy Reason? I do not believe so.

Which leads us to devotion and discipline. It isn't a devotion, but it is a discipline. Yet it is entirely possible that disciplines (and devotions) can be errent. They are, after all, optional. Fish fries on Fridays are a discipline, although the doctrine is that every Friday, you are to do some sort of penance. A fish fry is a longstanding tradition to perform that penance; to willingly deny yourself meat, something that the human psyche is drawn to for sustinence, so it makes it a good tradition.

A male-only priesthood is also well into the human psyche of most civilizations and cultures. Yet we as a human race, as pointed out by Rev Smith, have changed our attitudes. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but I will admit that, as a man, my gender has indeed made the female gender to suffer throughout human history, and I am ashamed of it. Woman can do more than cook, clean, and raise children. They are more than able nurses, teachers, secretaries, and softball players. They are able docters, great business women, politians, and not just baseball players, but football players and, quite frankly, I'm sure they'd make great sumos too. All joking aside, they are our equals.

They are my spiritual equals as well. The fact that women such as St. Helena, St. Mother Teresa, St. Mary the Theotokos, St. Mary of Maghdala, and other such women exist proves this.

Holy Tradition shows that women have been clerics before. So does Scripture. And the above is Reason why women can and should be clerics. Most of the Anglican Communion already permits in their provincial canons that women can be deacons. Just over half I believe allow them to be priests, and out of this thread, I've learned that I was off by 10 that woman can be bishops in that many provinces.

It seems the Spirit has already said to the Church that women can be clerics. Historically, women could still be clerics in Britain as last as the 6th century ce. The SIXTH CENTURY! That is 600+ glorious years of Anglican history with women in clerical roles.

And no, not deaconesses. The language says deacons. The language says priests. The language says bishops. That's enough for me.

[luthercath]

a quote from william sloan coffin="I HAVE NEVER BEEN PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST WOMEN.TRADITIONALISTS INSIST THERE WERE NO WOMEN AMONG THE ORIGINAL DISCIPLES.WELL,THERE WERE ALSO NO GENTILES.AND A CATHOLIC ONCE ASKED,"IF MARY COULD CARY OUR LORD AND SAVIOR IN HER BODY,WHY CAN,T A WOMEN CARRY HIS MESSAGE ON HER LIPS?"

[ContraMundum]

And yet I can still support the call for ordination of women, for times and things do change. Paul wrote of the world that was. Husband was the head of the wife. If this is no longer true in a given society, then must the conclusion that he reached remain true?

Does society now have a place of authority in the Church? Is the Church bound by the trends of society or is the church called to set the trends of society?

Is a male priesthood one of those essentials upon which unity is required, or a matter of ecclesiology in which diversity may be accepted?

The theology of the male priesthood is pretty well thought out, even in the early church. I'd say it's an essential and even go so far as to say that creating a new order of priestesses may well invalidate sacraments.

Have a listen to this. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

[ContraMundum]

When we were discussing a proposal to allow women to be bishops, several of the more conservative members (and pastors) said that if such a thing were allowed, that would be The End Of The Church As We Know It and they would leave and join the Missouri Synod!

I walked up to the microphone. Eyes rolled heavenward. And then I said:

"Go ahead. If you think we're too "liberal", and you think you'll be happier in the LC-MS and that's where the Holy Spirit is leading you, by all means you must not deny the Holy Spirit."


Why is it that the liberals always expect the conservatives to leave and the conservatives so often let the libs push them?

[ContraMundum]

They are my spiritual equals as well. The fact that women such as St. Helena, St. Mother Teresa, St. Mary the Theotokos, St. Mary of Maghdala, and other such women exist proves this.

These holy women proved to us all that you don't need tobe ordained to do great things. None of these women wished for ordination.

If the reformation hadn't have gotten rid of religious orders for women I believe Protestants wouldn't be under pressure to force women to become ordained ministers in order for them to have a recognised ministry.

As for the modern feminists (both genders) who are pushing for female ordinations against orthodox churches they refuse to comply to (as the illegal ordinations that occured before synods voted for it, as in Australia) - As one theologian put it, we'll listen to feminists when they become saints.

Holy Tradition shows that women have been clerics before. So does Scripture. And the above is Reason why women can and should be clerics. Most of the Anglican Communion already permits in their provincial canons that women can be deacons. Just over half I believe allow them to be priests, and out of this thread, I've learned that I was off by 10 that woman can be bishops in that many provinces.

It seems the Spirit has already said to the Church that women can be clerics. Historically, women could still be clerics in Britain as last as the 6th century ce. The SIXTH CENTURY! That is 600+ glorious years of Anglican history with women in clerical roles.

You've missed the artcle we've posted up. There's never been women in orders, ever.

Pretty much torpedoes the whole ship. Check it out. Scroll up a bit.

And no, not deaconesses. The language says deacons. The language says priests. The language says bishops. That's enough for me.

It's impossible to have a female deacon, linguistically. It's a male noun. You have to use a different word for a female deacon. LIkewise Bishop and Priest. Therefore, when the scriptures say deacon, priest or bishop, it's male. It's just the rules of grammar, which our theology must conform to. Just like you can't have male princesses, you can't have female deacons. You can have male princes, and female princesses, but not female princes and male princesses. See where we are coming from?

[alban]

The heart of the question is this: is a women cleric detremental to salvation? Is there anything in the Bible that would suggest that? How about in Holy Tradition? Holy Reason? I do not believe so.

Which leads us to devotion and discipline. It isn't a devotion, but it is a discipline. Yet it is entirely possible that disciplines (and devotions) can be errent. They are, after all, optional. Fish fries on Fridays are a discipline, although the doctrine is that every Friday, you are to do some sort of penance. A fish fry is a longstanding tradition to perform that penance; to willingly deny yourself meat, something that the human psyche is drawn to for sustinence, so it makes it a good tradition.

Certainly i don't believe that a women cleric could be detrimental to salvation, but i believe certainly should could be detrimental to the sacremental life of the church. In a previous post you stated

Receiving the Body and Blood is an act of immense Grace...arguably the most potent form aside from Baptism

I have a number of concerns regarding the ordination of women, principally whether a theological argument can be made to state the prayer of consecration when said by a women is equally valid to that of male Priest.

The concern is not one of salvation- i would not fear for my salvation if i were ever to attend a parish with a female celebrant. However we are a sacramental church as a Christ commanded us to be, and i until a decent argument can be presented, (and no, i don't consider highly ambigious images of supposed 'women bishops' to be a decent argument) surely we should err on the side of caution in order to ensure that Christ himself may be worshipped through the eucharist.

[alban]

You've missed the artcle we've posted up. There's never been women in orders, ever.

ContraMundum, i meant to thank you for that article. It is superb (as it that whole site)

:wave:

[ContraMundum]

ContraMundum, i meant to thank you for that article. It is superb (as it that whole site)

:wave:

Hey, we're here to help. Glad to be of service. Thank you.

[Aymn27]

a quote from william sloan coffin="I HAVE NEVER BEEN PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST WOMEN.TRADITIONALISTS INSIST THERE WERE NO WOMEN AMONG THE ORIGINAL DISCIPLES.WELL,THERE WERE ALSO NO GENTILES.AND A CATHOLIC ONCE ASKED,"IF MARY COULD CARY OUR LORD AND SAVIOR IN HER BODY,WHY CAN,T A WOMEN CARRY HIS MESSAGE ON HER LIPS?"
There were no women amongst the "twelve"..of course there weren't...Jesus was to become what Israel had failed to become. Jesus emobodied Israel's role in the salvation of humanity. Therefore, he gathered twelve males...creating the new Israel - the twelve "tribes" would now be able to function under the twelve apostles. That too, is why there were no Gentiles, because Israel is God's chosen people. We Gentiles have been "grafted in" , "adopted".....

One does not have to become ordained to "carry Christ on their lips". Certainly if any woman would have been qualified to become ordained it would have been Mary, or Mary Magdelene...but neither were included in "the twelve"...to say that was b/c of cultural limitations is a poor argument b/c Jesus certainly spoke with the woman at the well, he certainly ate with the unclean, He broke all kinds of cultural barriers, yet never included a woman in "the twelve"....

[dragon79]

Really delighted by that decision, and again, as many other posters have already said, if you can accept women as priest why not allow them the same "career"?
:clap:

[Rev. Smith]

Does society now have a place of authority in the Church? Is the Church bound by the trends of society or is the church called to set the trends of society?

Society need not have a "place of authority" in the Church for the Church to change, grow and learn. No responsable person I have ever heard has suggested that the Church should embrace every fad, passing fancy and trend in the world. Guitar Masses and mega churches are the result of that kind of thinking. But does remaining apart from the whims of the world mean that we must not learn? That no idea that was not fully formed by, say 220 a.d. must be given any credance or merit.

If male and female are both the image of God, and we have learned that women are capable of doing everything men are capable of doing then why can't we say - "On this the early fathers were wrong, it is time to bring our sisters into full membership in the body of christ.

The reality is that the Church has changed over the centuries. We don't use the same liturgy, vestments, bible or governance as the primitive, or even early church. Like all other human instiutions the Church has been adapted and changed - as we learned more. After over 1000 years of latin liturgy the Roman Catholioc Church switched to the venacular; because it learned (from the Anglican and Old Catholics who got there about 150 years sooner) that the sacrament was more meaningful to most people if they could understand the words and participate in the service.

Not all change is bad, not all inovations are sinful and our ancestors that though that women were less then men, and could not do the work of men, both sacred and profane - were wrong.


The theology of the male priesthood is pretty well thought out, even in the early church. I'd say it's an essential and even go so far as to say that creating a new order of priestesses may well invalidate sacraments.


Well thought out, yes indeed - better thought out than the counter argument (you guys have had a roughly 1800 year headstart). But good arguments do not alone make truth. We see this all the time in civic and religious debate, the concept of a consular church thrives on it - each side raises a thesis and then presents well reasoned argument to support it. Bth sides may have well reasoned arguments, only one side is correct.

Take the excellent article you posted. It was well reasoned and well supported, but words on a page reresent truth - they are not truth. Other scholors have written well reasoned articles that conclude the opposite, that there were female clergy in the past. Certainly there appear to have been women deacons in the early church, at least according to the epistles.

Further I might ask, so what? There either were or weren't female clergy (there almost certainly were if you accept deacon and prophet as "clergy"). Are we bound to do everything exactly the way our ancestors did? Is man forbidden to learn, grow and get better over time?

Is there some biblical or ecclesiological doctrine that proscribes progress?

[PaladinValer]

Does society now have a place of authority in the Church? Is the Church bound by the trends of society or is the church called to set the trends of society?

Very well. Shall we return to a celibate-only clergy? That's a part of Holy Tradition as well. Discipline and devotion are parts of it just as much as dogma and doctrine, whether you like that fact or not.

In addition, luthercath's post is quite logical. I suggest you contemplate it.

The theology of the male priesthood is pretty well thought out, even in the early church. I'd say it's an essential and even go so far as to say that creating a new order of priestesses may well invalidate sacraments.

Fallacy of Equivocation. Not "priestesses," priests. Like it or not, that is what they were, and that is what we believe. I really find your false implications about what we believe to be quite disconcerting and rather rude.

These holy women proved to us all that you don't need tobe ordained to do great things. None of these women wished for ordination.

Are you a mind reader as well?

If the reformation hadn't have gotten rid of religious orders for women I believe Protestants wouldn't be under pressure to force women to become ordained ministers in order for them to have a recognised ministry.

Women had a recognized ordained ministry in the Anglican Church for 600 years until Rome nosed itself in British matters. What do you say to that?

As for the modern feminists (both genders) who are pushing for female ordinations against orthodox churches they refuse to comply to (as the illegal ordinations that occured before synods voted for it, as in Australia) - As one theologian put it, we'll listen to feminists when they become saints.

All Christians are saints, even the feminists, even the conservatives, even the non-heterosexuals, even the Republicans, etc. Who the heck are you to say who is a Christian and who isn't?

You've missed the artcle we've posted up. There's never been women in orders, ever.

That article is full of fallacies as I've shown above, so it is devoid.

Like it or not, history proves there were. There would have not been a need for the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon to limit women deacons (the language says deacons) if what you say were true. The facts prove otherwise.

Pretty much torpedoes the whole ship. Check it out. Scroll up a bit.

I prefer scholarly sources that do not make false implications about what I believe.

Alban, like it or not, 600+ years of women clergy in our Anglican Church, right up to St. Augustine of Canterbury, here to enforce "Roman purity." There's a great reason to deny it...

Folks, apostle implies bishop. Always has and always will. Women were called apostles, women were bishops. That is what it means in Holy Tradition, and for a man to be able to be an apostle when a woman cannot is pure Gnostic nonsense. Or does not the heretical Gospel according to St. Thomas state that Christ will make Mary a man?

[SeenAndUnseen]

I have a number of concerns regarding the ordination of women, principally whether a theological argument can be made to state the prayer of consecration when said by a women is equally valid to that of male Priest.


I have heard a few people make reference to this same concern, but I have never had it explained to me why. What conflict could there be in the prayer of consecration if said by a woman priest?

[alban]

EDIT: oops

[Aymn27]

Very well. Shall we return to a celibate-only clergy? That's a part of Holy Tradition as well. Discipline and devotion are parts of it just as much as dogma and doctrine, whether you like that fact or not.
No, that's incorrect, the EO still do not practice a celibate clergy - but yes, a male-only priesthood (as well as Oriental Orthodox).




Fallacy of Equivocation. Not "priestesses," priests. Like it or not, that is what they were, and that is what we believe. I really find your false implications about what we believe to be quite disconcerting and rather rude.
Do you have any experience in foreign languages? It is impossible to make a feminine a masculine - impossible, so the terminology he is using is correct, not the one you insist upon. Please provide evidence otherwise.



Women had a recognized ordained ministry in the Anglican Church for 600 years until Rome nosed itself in British matters. What do you say to that?
I've heard that claim before - do you have any documentation on that? Any references? And also, is it possible that it is being mistaken (much like those paintings) for what it is, in fact, not? I'd be interested in this actually - I don't much about this...



All Christians are saints, even the feminists, even the conservatives, even the non-heterosexuals, even the Republicans, etc. Who the heck are you to say who is a Christian and who isn't?
He's referring to the saints as we use it today. Those who have departed from the earth. And I believe that 2000 yrs of Orthodoxy (eastern and western) provides a framework for "who is a christian"...



That article is full of fallacies as I've shown above, so it is devoid.
Fallacies according to whom?? Pleae provide references to the points that are incorrect.

Like it or not, history proves there were. There would have not been a need for the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon to limit women deacons (the language says deacons) if what you say were true. The facts prove otherwise.
Possibly deacons? Funny how they stopped it right? Perhaps a "perversion" that was allowed in the church b/c of all the pagan religions that allowed priestesses (possibly even Druidic influence in England)..all in all..it was forbidden early on..



I prefer scholarly sources that do not make false implications about what I believe.
So do we..care to quote some for your position other than radical feminists and ultr-liberal theologians?? I think Rome has produced a document, I know the AMiA has (which notably allows female deacons) and I'm sure the Eastern Churches have much to read up on it - Therefore if the Anglican communion wants to claim a place within the historic church, then she seriously needs to provide some evidence that contridicts those beliefs held by her sister churches, and not one painting on a wall and one word in some document - it must be solid, undisputable evidence...

Alban, like it or not, 600+ years of women clergy in our Anglican Church, right up to St. Augustine of Canterbury, here to enforce "Roman purity." Again please provide solid proof...

Folks, apostle implies bishop
Even liberal scholars would not agree with this - priest, bishop, and apostle were used interchangeably - also, apostle was referred to as simply "believer". Again, please provide some references for this argument - to date, I haven't seen any.

Always has and always will. Women were called apostles, women were bishops. That is what it means in Holy Tradition, and for a man to be able to be an apostle when a woman cannot is pure Gnostic nonsense Actually, the female priesthood was a mark of Gnosticism and of pagan cultism...if the priesthood of the New Testament is rooted in that of the Old, provide me with some argumentation as to how a woman fits into that role? Were there females as Levitical priests? Aaronic? Never never never was a female associated with the priesthood in Judaism. The "problem" here could be the denial of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist - no sacrifice, no priest - therefore it becomes acceptable to be performed by a women (since it is only a meal) - but alas, to the orthodox mind - it is a sacrificial meal...huge difference..and probably explains the disagreement

[pmcleanj]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31242&stc=1&thumb=1 This is an official moderator post,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Obviously, this is an issue on which we have some deeply felt differences of opinion. Differences of opinion are fine. Ad hominem attacks and pejorative language are not.

Take a deep breath, review your posts, and edit anything that you feel may not measure up to the high standard of civil discourse you would like to hold yourselves to. I would particularly commend to your review any sentences addressed to "You", particularly if accompanied by other terms of address that may be somewhat contemptuous; any sentences containing pejorative words or terms such as "nonsense"; and anything that refers to the ordained clergy of those brethren with whom you disagree, by pejorative terms such as "priestess".

Then, please maintain that high standard of collegial discourse and mutual respect going forward from this point.

Thank-you,
Pamela

[pmcleanj]

Closed for staff review

[pmcleanj]

Please re-read and consider the moderator hat post; then feel free to continue the discussion in respectful terms.

[Aymn27]

I have heard a few people make reference to this same concern, but I have never had it explained to me why. What conflict could there be in the prayer of consecration if said by a woman priest?
Because for a Sacrament to be valid from a catholic viewpoint it must have been performed in accordance with the following all being adhered to : matter, form, and intent. The correct "matter" for a valid priesthood is an adult male, thus if this is not correct the other two are unnecessary to even discuss. Why is it a male-only? Because the priest operates in persona Christi in RC terms or is "an icon of Christ" in EO terms. A woman cannot be either because by nature she is not male, and cannot act in the person of, or be an icon of Christ. Therefore, lacking proper matter , all Eucharists performed by her are nothing more than symbolic actions, there is no sacrament. Likewise, with a bishop, who is the ordinary minister of diocese - if it is a female, it is quite possible that no Eucharist within that entire diocese is valid, since a female has invalid orders, she cannot grant authority to priests, wether male or female, to consecrate what she in theory cannot consecrate herself.

Here are some more "evangelical" views on the matter:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qr59qVV3xMwJ:www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_115_4_Atkinson.pdf+female+priesthood+%2B+Trinity+Evangelical+School+for+Ministry&hl=en

http://www.tesm.edu/faculty/pubs/writings/wrap6b19

Blessings and peace.
Aaron

[ContraMundum]

Those interested in listening to a decent lecture on the iconography, natural symbolism, authority issues and common good arguments against the "ordination of women" would do well to listen to Peter Kreeft's lecture on this.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

I'm sorry if I've posted this before. If I haven't I should have.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Because for a Sacrament to be valid from a catholic viewpoint it must have been performed in accordance with the following all being adhered to : matter, form, and intent. The correct "matter" for a valid priesthood is an adult male, thus if this is not correct the other two are unnecessary to even discuss. Why is it a male-only? Because the priest operates in persona Christi in RC terms or is "an icon of Christ" in EO terms. A woman cannot be either because by nature she is not male, and cannot act in the person of, or be an icon of Christ. Therefore, lacking proper matter , all Eucharists performed by her are nothing more than symbolic actions, there is no sacrament. Likewise, with a bishop, who is the ordinary minister of diocese - if it is a female, it is quite possible that no Eucharist within that entire diocese is valid, since a female has invalid orders, she cannot grant authority to priests, wether male or female, to consecrate what she in theory cannot consecrate herself.

Here are some more "evangelical" views on the matter:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qr59qVV3xMwJ:www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_115_4_Atkinson.pdf+female+priesthood+%2B+Trinity+Evangelical+School+for+Ministry&hl=en

http://www.tesm.edu/faculty/pubs/writings/wrap6b19

Blessings and peace.
Aaron

Thank you for this information, Aaron. But by this same logic, can a man validly receive? For isn't the role of the communicant to act as "the Bride of Christ," taking Him into herself in a way that is time and again likened to a romantic action? Even if we say that the Bride of Christ is the Church and not the individual, that would seem to exclude males from valid membership.

[alban]

It was men who received the body and blood at the Last Supper.

[ContraMundum]

Thank you for this information, Aaron. But by this same logic, can a man validly receive? For isn't the role of the communicant to act as "the Bride of Christ," taking Him into herself in a way that is time and again likened to a romantic action? Even if we say that the Bride of Christ is the Church and not the individual, that would seem to exclude males from valid membership.

Excellent point. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, then how can someone be persona Christi and be female? A female bride and a female Groom too?

[ContraMundum]

It was men who received the body and blood at the Last Supper.

...the point being that these men were told "this do in remembrance of me".

[SeenAndUnseen]

Excellent point. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, then how can someone be persona Christi and be female? A female bride and a female Groom too?

But my point is, how can a man be part of the Bride of Christ without homosexualizing Christ? We are saying that the bride can be male are we not?

[ContraMundum]

But my point is, how can a man be part of the Bride of Christ without homosexualizing Christ? We are saying that the bride can be male are we not?

Because the Church is ONE. WE communally are the Bride of Christ. It's natural symbolism. That's why God is a He in scripture, not because he is a human male, but because it tells us something about our relationship with Him- how that relationship works. The church's worship is to be in step with that symbolism. Change the symbol, change the doctrine of God.

It's all well explained in that lecture I linked above. Check it out.

[Aymn27]

Thank you for this information, Aaron. But by this same logic, can a man validly receive? For isn't the role of the communicant to act as "the Bride of Christ," taking Him into herself in a way that is time and again likened to a romantic action? Even if we say that the Bride of Christ is the Church and not the individual, that would seem to exclude males from valid membership.
Actually, it is rather interesting that you bring that up - the bride of Christ is a metaphorical expression of the church - it is not/nor has ever been meant to be used in terms of individual members. Dr. Leon Podles, in his book The Church Impotent discusses this at length and theorizes that the reason there is so little male participation in Western churches (both catholic and protestant) is distorted view of this metaphor. The problem with it, in essence, is that a male member cannot be a bride - therefore subconsciously attributing "love" for Jesus with homoeroticism. It is interesting to note also, that amongst the male clergy(in the RCC), many are homosexual (even if not practicing) or extremely effimenint. Likewise, Dr. Podles states from psychological studies done on clergy that many also have an oedipal complex. Also interesting is that the EO have the hightest male participation amongst all christian denominations - higher than that of women. His conclusion is the major focus they give to the "fatherhood" of the priest as it relates to being an icon of Christ - and also the emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist attracts males and does not repel them as the "bride of Christ" model does.

I offered you those articles hoping you would really read them - LOL...especially the second one which is more Scriptural/theological in nature. I know it seems sexist and bigoted to disagree with the ordination of women, but actually - it is merely trying to maintain the order which God has established in creation as well as in his Church.