Productive conversation re. Women's Ordination

[No Swansong]

I was wondering if any here would be interested in a productive, respectful conversation concerning Women's ordination? I would like to see a few contributors from each side who can respond to each side in a loving and respectful manner addressing posts and not agenda's. (This is of course very hard for me)
Is there any interest? If there is perhaps we can have this conversation either here or on the denominational debate forum.

Let me know what you all think.

[Finella]

I don't know if I can partake in-depth, jtbdad, but I am glad you are suggesting this.

We never did really try the Listening Hearts thing in earnest after we discussed it ages back -- I think GC kinda wiped that off our awareness. Would that be helpful for this discussion?

[Colabomb]

I do not feel I am prepared for that kind of discussion, but I would certainly lurk.

[karen freeinchristman]

jtbdad, I don't really see the point of the conversation. How can it be productive? What new light can we shed on the subject that we haven't already all been through? Sorry for being negative, but we've done this so many times before.

[No Swansong]

jtbdad, I don't really see the point of the conversation. How can it be productive? What new light can we shed on the subject that we haven't already all been through? Sorry for being negative, but we've done this so many times before.

Karen; Well I ask because I have revisted the issue myself and was hoping that a respectful, dialogue would be accepted.

I agree Finella that that method might work. It wouldn't even have to be here I could set up a voy dialogue or something along those lines I just want to know if there is interest.

[karen freeinchristman]

Karen; Well I ask because I have revisted the issue myself and was hoping that a respectful, dialogue would be accepted.
.
You know me, jtbdad; always respectful (well, nearly).
:sorry:
When you say you've revisited the issue, does that mean you've received fresh enlightenment on it? That you've seen a new angle? It sounds as though you feel you have something new to add to what has already been said. I'm curious about that; I can't help but be.

[Colabomb]

You know me, jtbdad; always respectful (well, nearly).
:sorry:
When you say you've revisited the issue, does that mean you've received fresh enlightenment on it? That you've seen a new angle? It sounds as though you feel you have something new to add to what has already been said. I'm curious about that; I can't help but be.
Conservatives aren't so closeminded we won't look at an issue a second, third, or fiftieth time.

We think too you know ;)

Anyway, I believe the ethos of most conservatives is to stand for Truth, whatever that Truth may be.

If I found out tomorrow for instance, that my stance on Homosexuality was wrong, I'd join the ECUSA like that *snaps fingers*

[Finella]

I do kinda agree with Karen, jtbdad -- we have hashed this topic through several times here. But I am curious as to what would make this time different, other than your recent work on the subject (and you have me curious about that!).

[karen freeinchristman]

Conservatives aren't so closeminded we won't look at an issue a second, third, or fiftieth time.

We think too you know ;)

I am really glad to hear it! :)

Anyway, I believe the ethos of most conservatives is to stand for Truth, whatever that Truth may be.
And that should be everyone's ethos, IMHO! :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Want a book with essays on the issue?

Women and the Priesthood: Edited by Fr. Thomas Hopko


Want to confuse yourself?
Look at arguments on the subject by denominations which deny the Priesthood, like Baptists. Or try to find the answer in the Bible, etc...

[No Swansong]

Want a book with essays on the issue?

Women and the Priesthood: Edited by Fr. Thomas Hopko


Want to confuse yourself?
Look at arguments on the subject by denominations which deny the Priesthood, like Baptists. Or try to find the answer in the Bible, etc...


I'll add it to the list.

[No Swansong]

Well I didn't really want to start it here so if the interest isn't there (which I understand Karen and Finella) I'll just continue to hash it out on my own. (well not really on my own but without the assistance of CF)

[No Swansong]

You know me, jtbdad; always respectful (well, nearly).
:sorry:
When you say you've revisited the issue, does that mean you've received fresh enlightenment on it? That you've seen a new angle? It sounds as though you feel you have something new to add to what has already been said. I'm curious about that; I can't help but be.


I guess it would be characterized more as a gentle prodding, instead of an epiphany. In any case I have posted before that it is the doctrine that I had the least understanding of. I simply have never understood why God would deny otherwise qualified women the authority to lead the Church. I have been revisiting it trying to get fresh perspectives. (I shared more in a PM to you)

[gtsecc]

If we can change the sex of the person in the sacrament of Holy Orders (one man), why can't we change the sex of the person in the sacrament of marriage (two men or two women)?

It seems a much greater injustice to me to deny marriage to a person than the priesthood.

I think if you are against both, you are somewhat consistent in thought.
I think if you are for both, you are consistent in thought.
If you are for one and not the other, you are inconsistent in thought.

[Aymn27]

I guess it would be characterized more as a gentle prodding, instead of an epiphany. In any case I have posted before that it is the doctrine that I had the least understanding of. I simply have never understood why God would deny otherwise qualified women the authority to lead the Church. I have been revisiting it trying to get fresh perspectives. (I shared more in a PM to you)
Hey..don't give up so easily! I'll have a go at it..I recently read the best Scriptural argument IN FAVOR of femal ordination written by a Vineyard minister. I will try to find it and give you the link. I honestly feel that the AMiA paper on the subject is the most compreshensive coming from both sides - remember - they were (in the beginning) open to ordaining females to the priesthood since of their sponsoring provinces does and the other does not - however, after this paper and a year or so of prayer and discussion - they decided against it. SO I find it to be open to both sides of the debate and not an "agenda" sort of paper....

I'll find that article this PM and post the link so you can get reading and we can discuss...

[No Swansong]

Hey..don't give up so easily! I'll have a go at it..I recently read the best Scriptural argument IN FAVOR of femal ordination written by a Vineyard minister. I will try to find it and give you the link. I honestly feel that the AMiA paper on the subject is the most compreshensive coming from both sides - remember - they were (in the beginning) open to ordaining females to the priesthood since of their sponsoring provinces does and the other does not - however, after this paper and a year or so of prayer and discussion - they decided against it. SO I find it to be open to both sides of the debate and not an "agenda" sort of paper....

I'll find that article this PM and post the link so you can get reading and we can discuss...

Thanks Aymn I would really appreciate a link to the AMIA position paper. (of course I like some Vineyard stuff too)

[gtsecc]

The Vinyard doesn't have Priests, so wouldn't that be like asking the saducees about the afterlife?

Every sect with the priesthood, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans have women leaders.

The question has to be understood as changing the sex of the person in a sacrament.

[Aymn27]

The Vinyard doesn't have Priests, so wouldn't that be like asking the saducees about the afterlife?

Every sect with the priesthood, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans have women leaders.

The question has to be understood as changing the sex of the person in a sacrament.
No, there are various evangelical denominations who disagree with female ordination. There is both a Traditional argument against and a Scriptural argument against. Why do you insist on seperating the Scriptural and sacramental nature of things?

[gtsecc]

Why do you insist on seperating the Scriptural and sacramental nature of things?
I am not sure one can separate scripture and sacraments.


However, those faiths which reject the sacraments have such a completely different understanding of the priesthood, it changes nothing, because women in those churchs are simply female leaders. And, there is nothing wrong with female leaders - even in faiths which reject the female priesthood Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthdox... Both of them HAVE female leaders, just not female priests.

Can 2 people of the same sex be friends?
Sure
Can they marry?
No.
Can female lead a congregation?
Sure.
Can a female be a priest?
No.

[No Swansong]

If we can change the sex of the person in the sacrament of Holy Orders (one man), why can't we change the sex of the person in the sacrament of marriage (two men or two women)?

It seems a much greater injustice to me to deny marriage to a person than the priesthood.

I think if you are against both, you are somewhat consistent in thought.
I think if you are for both, you are consistent in thought.
If you are for one and not the other, you are inconsistent in thought.

Your premise of course is that the sacrament of Holy Orders calls for a man as marriage does one man and one woman. On what do you base this premise?

[gtsecc]

Your premise of course is that the sacrament of Holy Orders calls for a man as marriage does one man and one woman. On what do you base this premise?
The last 2,000 years of Christinity is unambiguous about this. am not sure I understand your question.

[No Swansong]

The last 2,000 years of Christinity is unambiguous about this. am not sure I understand your question.

So Holy Tradition then.

[gtsecc]

So Holy Tradition then.
Well, yeah, and tradition is clear on the issue.
Marriage is refered to in the bible, but Tradition is what we go by as far as what it is and how to do it, otherwise you could have multiple wives and concubines, and call it scriptural.

[No Swansong]

Well, yeah, and tradition is clear on the issue.
Marriage is refered to in the bible, but Tradition is what we go by as far as what it is and how to do it, otherwise you could have multiple wives and concubines, and call it scriptural.


Hmmm Concubines

[No Swansong]

Well, yeah, and tradition is clear on the issue.
Marriage is refered to in the bible, but Tradition is what we go by as far as what it is and how to do it, otherwise you could have multiple wives and concubines, and call it scriptural.

However your argument about consistency doesn't stand if either

#1 Holy Tradition does not define Holy Orders as only being open to men.

#2 Holy Tradition is not immutable, and necessary conditions that allow for that mutation exist.

Are there others?

btw not arguing just making sure that I understand everything that everyone posts.

Additionally concerning your argument about consistency, is it logical to equate the two sacraments?


Also concerning the same argument are you not equating a state of being (female) with behavior (homosexual sex)?

For the record I do not object to the ordination of homosexuals. I object to those who are ordained participating in homosexual sex. This is in my opinion an important distinction.

[gtsecc]

#1 ? I does.
#2 eccumenical council
Not sure what you are asking aobut others

those two sacraments are the gender specific ones, but to take it furthur, we don't have the authority to baptise with milk or wine or do intercessory confession

[gtsecc]

Also concerning the same argument are you not equating a state of being (female) with behavior (homosexual sex)?


No.
For this argument I am talking a bout 2 different sacraments:
1. Marriage
2. Holy Orders

[karen freeinchristman]

those two sacraments are the gender specific ones, but to take it furthur, we don't have the authority to baptise with milk or wine or do intercessory confession
Well, I just found out in another thread that we can baptise with desire alone! OK, only on our death beds, but I never knew that before.

[karen freeinchristman]

For this argument I am talking a bout 2 different sacraments:
1. Marriage
2. Holy Orders

The Sacrament of marriage is conferred by God via the husband and the wife. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by God upon the priest via the Church.

Would I be correct in thinking this is true?

[gtsecc]

Well, I just found out in another thread that we can baptise with desire alone! OK, only on our death beds, but I never knew that before.
That is not a universal teaching in the church as far as i know, just the Roman Catholics, and they take things too far some time. there is no reason to think you a recertain to go to hell, nor to know for certain someone isn't, and therefore got a baptism of desire - best thing to say is we don't know.

[No Swansong]

#1 ? I does.
#2 eccumenical council
Not sure what you are asking aobut others

those two sacraments are the gender specific ones, but to take it furthur, we don't have the authority to baptise with milk or wine or do intercessory confession

Glenn I am not arguing with your post I am simply examining each argument and since yours is the first offered I am examining the premises upon which it is built. I am also asking if there is a difference between behavior and being as far as the sacraments are concerned.

[No Swansong]

No.
For this argument I am talking a bout 2 different sacraments:
1. Marriage
2. Holy Orders

Yes but you are applying the same principle (The sacrament changing or not changing sex) to both of them. So in that respect are you not equating the two?

[gtsecc]

The Sacrament of marriage is conferred by God via the husband and the wife. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by God upon the priest via the Church.

Would I be correct in thinking this is true?

oooh, basically....
You could get slightly differnt answers from the east and the west.

Analyze it and you will see a marriage has maybe 3 part of the service:
Betrothal
Marriage
Blessing of the union

And, this varies with service, and prayer book, and west, and east, but it may be helpful to look at it:

Part 1:
The Declaration of Consent

The Celebrant says to the woman

N., will you have this man to be your husband; to live
together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him,
comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health;
and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you
both shall live?

The Woman answers

I will.
Etc…
Part2:
The Marriage

The Man, facing the woman and taking her right hand in his, says

In the Name of God, I, N., take you, N., to be my wife, to
have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse,
for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.


Part 3:
The Blessing of the Marriage

The people remain standing. The husband and wife kneel, and the Priest says one
of the following prayers

Most gracious God, we give you thanks for your tender love
in sending Jesus Christ to come among us, to be born of a
human mother, and to make the way of the cross to be the
way of life. We thank you, also, for consecrating the union of
man and woman in his Name. By the power of your Holy
Spirit, pour out the abundance of your blessing upon this
man and this woman.

[karen freeinchristman]

The Sacrament of marriage is conferred by God via the husband and the wife. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by God upon the priest via the Church.

Would I be correct in thinking this is true?

I almost wonder why I posted that, but in looking at it , one can see that a person could come to the conclusion that as the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ, so the priest should be male. But this makes no sense when one remembers that the Church doesnt' only consist of females.

I'm rambling; I'll be back tommorrow!

[karen freeinchristman]

Ooh, just had another thought. After this I'm really logging off for the night!


We thank you, also, for consecrating the union of
man and woman in his Name. .
So: God consecrates the union of man and woman via the priest, and God consecrates the Eucharist (union of the Church with Christ) via the priest.

It still makes no sense to compare the two Sacraments nor use gender as your specific differentiator, IMO.

[gtsecc]

Yes but you are applying the same principle (The sacrament changing or not changing sex) to both of them. So in that respect are you not equating the two?

I have specifically avoided referring to behavior in my argument.

I have also specifically referred to marriage, which is a sacrament, and doesn't require a priest.

Contrast this with a blessing, which is not a sacrament, and generally requires a priest.

As far as we know, we can't marry 2 guys, weather or not they are both gay, straight, intend, or never intend to act on their orientation, etc...

[gtsecc]

It still makes no sense to compare the two Sacraments nor use gender as your specific differentiator, IMO.
Eucharist: Bread and Wine and water (conveyed by God, via priest)
Marriage: one man and one woman (Conveyed by God via the man and woman)
Priest: one man (conveyed by God via Bishop)

I think you are confussing the substance of the sacrament with the agent God uses to convey the sacrament

[gtsecc]

You can't make a Eucharist with doritoes, a priest out of a woman, or marry 2 guys. Is that clearer? ;)

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,

forgive me if this issue appears to be an attempt at a hijack.

you cite 2000 years of holy tradition as the guiding principal for a male clergy, and also thaty marriage should be between one man and one woman. our friends from the church of rome cite this same body of holy tradition to justify their clergy as not only male, but celibate. the anglican church disagrees with this interpetation of holy tradition.

this leads me to ask who defines what is, and is not, consistent with 2000 years of holy tradition?

[Colabomb]

friend gtsecc,

forgive me if this issue appears to be an attempt at a hijack.

you cite 2000 years of holy tradition as the guiding principal for a male clergy, and also thaty marriage should be between one man and one woman. our friends from the church of rome cite this same body of holy tradition to justify their clergy as not only male, but celibate. the anglican church disagrees with this interpetation of holy tradition.

this leads me to ask who defines what is, and is not, consistent with 2000 years of holy tradition?
The Roman Catholic Church admits that it is not sinful to have married priests, they have simply decided not to.

[gtsecc]

friend gtsecc,

forgive me if this issue appears to be an attempt at a hijack.

you cite 2000 years of holy tradition as the guiding principal for a male clergy, and also thaty marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Yes.


Our friends from the church of rome cite this same body of holy tradition to justify their clergy as not only male, but celibate.
No. Celbacy is merely a disapline, and they have married anglican and eastern rite priests.

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,No. Celbacy is merely a disapline, and they have married anglican and eastern rite priests. ah! i understand. now for the final question of my post: who is to define what is, and is not, consistent with holy tradition?

[No Swansong]

I have specifically avoided referring to behavior in my argument.


True but is behavior not the reason that the Church objects to ordaining homosexuals? Is not the sin the actual behavior and not the orientation?

I have also specifically referred to marriage, which is a sacrament, and doesn't require a priest.

Doesn't hurt that it is the only other Sacrament in which sexuality plays a role.

Contrast this with a blessing, which is not a sacrament, and generally requires a priest.

Except that we muxt discuss sacraments specifically

As far as we know, we can't marry 2 guys, weather or not they are both gay, straight, intend, or never intend to act on their orientation, etc...

True but I don't see how this makes any difference.

[No Swansong]

You can't make a Eucharist with doritoes, a priest out of a woman, or marry 2 guys. Is that clearer? ;)


Then when will you be leaving ECUSA? Eventually every thread of Apostolic Succession within ECUSA will include a woman.

[dap]

Want a book with essays on the issue?

Women and the Priesthood: Edited by Fr. Thomas Hopko


Want to confuse yourself?
Look at arguments on the subject by denominations which deny the Priesthood, like Baptists. Or try to find the answer in the Bible, etc...
read Daniel ch7 vs25 and Mark ch7 vs 13 along with many other scriptures. We are supposed to be Christians - followers of Christ not followers of man. Jesus the Living Word is the truth. We as His followers are to follow Him. His Word is God's revealed Will. Let us be mindful of these things especially in the days in which we live in where many will come - false prophets, false pastors, false teachers, false doctrine - beware of the leaven of the pharisees and saducees(who knew the old testament backward and forward but knew not Jesus) for just a little bit of leaven, leaven's the whole.
in HIS LOVE

[No Swansong]

friend gtsecc, ah! i understand. now for the final question of my post: who is to define what is, and is not, consistent with holy tradition?


I have asked this question several times and have yet to receive consistent answers from the three major branches of the Church. (RCC, Orthodox, Anglican)

[gtsecc]

[quote=jtbdad]True but is behavior not the reason that the Church objects to ordaining homosexuals? Is not the sin the actual behavior and not the orientation?
[/color]
I did not comement on ordaining homosexuals.

[gtsecc]

read Daniel ch7 vs25 and Mark ch7 vs 13 along with many other scriptures. We are supposed to be Christians - followers of Christ not followers of man. Jesus the Living Word is the truth. We as His followers are to follow Him. His Word is God's revealed Will. Let us be mindful of these things especially in the days in which we live in where many will come - false prophets, false pastors, false teachers, false doctrine - beware of the leaven of the pharisees and saducees(who knew the old testament backward and forward but knew not Jesus) for just a little bit of leaven, leaven's the whole.
in HIS LOVE
Read Ignasius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, PolyCarp, and Gregory of Nissa, and get back to me.

[gtsecc]

I have asked this question several times and have yet to receive consistent answers from the three major branches of the Church. (RCC, Orthodox, Anglican)
For changing to sexes involved in marraige, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, EO, OO, agree.

For Female Ordination to be ok, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, Eo, OO, agree.

Well, if all agree, you can be clear that the Holy Ghost has spoken.

If the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Rome agree well maybe.
If all but Anglicans agree, hmmm.
etc.. so, it is not perfectly clear. We do need to reconcil the church back into one body.

[longhair75]

For changing to sexes involved in marraige, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, EO, OO, agree.

For Female Ordination to be ok, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, Eo, OO, agree.

Well, if all agree, you can be clear that the Holy Ghost has spoken. as i understand it, there are a few issues on which these four institutions disagree

If the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Rome agree well maybe.
If all but Anglicans agree, hmmm.
etc.. so, it is not perfectly clear. We do need to reconcil the church back into one body.

it is unlikely that the church will reconcile back into one body, but if were to happen, would we be subject to rome once again?

[No Swansong]

For changing to sexes involved in marraige, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, EO, OO, agree.

For Female Ordination to be ok, we woudl have to have Anglicans, Romans, Eo, OO, agree.

Well, if all agree, you can be clear that the Holy Ghost has spoken.

If the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Rome agree well maybe.
If all but Anglicans agree, hmmm.
etc.. so, it is not perfectly clear. We do need to reconcil the church back into one body.

But since that won't happen GT his quesiton is who determines what is consistent with Holy Tradition? It is a perfectly reasonable question. And if you ask the Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Anglicans you get different answers. They may be similar but will also differ to some degree. There doesn't appear to be a clear consensus concerning who determines what is consistent with Holy Tradition.

[No Swansong]

I have specifically avoided referring to behavior in my argument.

I have also specifically referred to marriage, which is a sacrament, and doesn't require a priest.

Contrast this with a blessing, which is not a sacrament, and generally requires a priest.

As far as we know, we can't marry 2 guys, weather or not they are both gay, straight, intend, or never intend to act on their orientation, etc...


Sorry about that it took me a minute to figure out where this got off track. Indeed you have not mentioned either homosexual ordination or behavior.


It seems to me that the thrust of your argument relies upon Holy Tradition which is a considerable argument I agree.


Who has a response to the argument that Holy Tradition is authoritative and clear enough to prevent the Ordination of females?

[No Swansong]

If all but Anglicans agree, hmmm.
etc.. so, it is not perfectly clear. We do need to reconcil the church back into one body.

You would have to add the Old Catholics to this group and the Lutheran bodies that have retained Apostolic Succession.

You may possibly be adding to that the EO bodies who are considering reinstating the sacramental order of Deaconess. (don't get mad at me that is the term they use)

Just out of curiosity what would it take? Would a simply majority be sufficient? If that is true then there is no reason to look past Roman Catholicism. What if everybody agreed except the Roman Catholics would that be enough to override their majority?

[longhair75]

Who has a response to the argument that Holy Tradition is authoritative and clear enough to prevent the Ordination of females?


my question continues unanswered:

whose interpetation of holy tradition stands as authorative?

[No Swansong]

my question continues unanswered:

whose interpetation of holy tradition stands as authorative?

I'm sorry Longhair I was not trying to look past your question. I am a guy who compartmentalizes things and I was compartmentalizing Glenn's answer.

Indeed I would like to know the answer to that. If Anglican, why would we not look to Anglicanism for the answer? If Anglicanism can not sufficiently answer the question, then are they truly The Church? Certainly questions to ponder.

[longhair75]

I'm sorry Longhair I was not trying to look past your question. I am a guy who compartmentalizes things and I was compartmentalizing Glenn's answer.

Indeed I would like to know the answer to that. If Anglican, why would we not look to Anglicanism for the answer? If Anglicanism can not sufficiently answer the question, then are they truly The Church? Certainly questions to ponder.


no apology needed, my friend. i also compartmentalize, and try to prioritize. if we are to be guided by holy tradition, we first must agree upon holy tradition, and which church defines it, and by what authority.

as anglicans, are we to be defined by rome? or our orthodox brothers and sisters?

[john23237]

If Anglican, why would we not look to Anglicanism for the answer? If Anglicanism can not sufficiently answer the question, then are they truly The Church?

Thank you. More to the point, if the Anglican communion and it's member churches lack the authority to define Holy Tradition, doctrine, etc. without the consent of others, why should we even exist as a seperate body? If the branch theory is correct, we do have such authority, with or without Rome or the East. If not, we and our sacraments are a five hundred year old hoax, a sad and dishonest little blight upon Christendom.

[No Swansong]

Thank you. More to the point, if the Anglican communion and it's member churches lack the authority to define Holy Tradition, doctrine, etc. without the consent of others, why should we even exist as a seperate body? If the branch theory is correct, we do have such authority, with or without Rome or the East. If not, we and our sacraments are a five hundred year old hoax, a sad and dishonest little blight upon Christendom.


Seems logical to me John

Hey how've you been? Haven't seen you around much lately. You can PM me so that we don't derail the thread.

[DeoJuvante]

Who has a response to the argument that Holy Tradition is authoritative and clear enough to prevent the Ordination of females?

I'm pretty sure that no catholic church has ever ordained children. Yet, no one seems to be claiming that it would be sinful to do so (it would be a bad idea, but that's not the point). I think that ordaining women is similar, in that it is not something that the church can't do but something that it hasn't done for other reasons, specifically because of the opressed status of women in society until recently, i.e. who would take a female leader of any type (monarchs excluded) seriously in the 13th century, for instance? What I'm trying to say is that just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean that it is sinful to do it another way. And there are many examples of changes in the church, like West-facing masses. What makes ordination of women an example of Holy Tradition and not simply the influence of society? It is my opinion that the long failure of the church to ordain women is due to wordly influences, not God.

[SirTimothy]

I'm pretty sure that no catholic church has ever ordained children.

Ummm... I do seem to recall seeing about Cardinals who were young. The RCC ordained Pope Leo X as cardinal when he was 16, so he must've been priest/deacon younger than that?

"On March 26, 1492, the 16-year-old Giovanni became a cardinal and moved to Rome,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

Timothy

[karen freeinchristman]

Ummm... I do seem to recall seeing about Cardinals who were young. The RCC ordained Pope Leo X as cardinal when he was 16, so he must've been priest/deacon younger than that?

"On March 26, 1492, the 16-year-old Giovanni became a cardinal and moved to Rome,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

Timothy

That is amazing! :o


I'm listening to all of this conversation very attentively. I can't add anything now; have to go to work.

[SirTimothy]

Two big questions:

A) Do we consider Holy Tradition to be infallible and unchangeable?

B) Do we consider all of Scripture to be relevant to all times and in all places?

The answer to A is... 'Well, kinda, sometimes, maybe'. The strict Orthodox used to have all kinds of rules about how women couldn't enter a church during her period, etc. Indeed, I believe some of them still do. Yet they've changed that rule. 100 years ago, they'd've probably thrown up their hands in horror at any change and said 'IS OUTRAGE!' I don't think we can take Holy Tradition, if we can even agree on what that /is/ as being infallible and unchangeable. We can take what is good from it, and discard what is not.

And B, well, we ignore a lot of the laws of leviticus about mixed fiber clothing to take one extreme and oft-abused example. That's one thing we can say that not all scripture is relevant to all people in all places. So when Paul is speaking to a specific church, do we need to take everything that he says to that specific church with their own specific problems as being true for all time? I would say not. Paul himself sometimes says: "This is the Lord, not I" and again "This is I, not the Lord" or words to that effect.

This leads us onto my third point:

We need the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth.

This is true of how we interpret scripture and tradition. We all need the Holy Spirit to guide us into understanding of both these things.

So question C:

C) Does the Holy Spirit say and do different things at different times?

I would say yes, but the one key issue at key is he wants the people of God to be fed spiritually, and to grow closer to him. The Holy Spirit is interested in true holiness of way of life. Does women's ordination detract from that in any way? I can't see that it does. Indeed, I know of many churches where there are firm women of God who preach and teach the true Gospel, where there are no men willing to take up positions of leadership. Where without those women in question, there could and would be no teaching, and they could not share communion with one another.

Now on to Glen's point about marriage/priesthood.

Firstly, marriage is not something that only one Apostle teaches about to one specific church. Marriage is something God himself created in Genesis 1, and Jesus himself continues on the teachings of. An only-male priesthood Jesus doesn't teach on in any shape or form, unless you take it by example of the 12 disciples. But then again, there were plenty of women around--indeed, you could say the first 'apostle' was a woman, because she was 'sent out' by Jesus to tell the Disciples that he was risen from the dead. That's all that the word Apostle means--sent out.

So I don't think we can argue that marriage and the priesthood are gender specific issues, the priesthood is only taught about to two churches, by one apostle, to churches with specific problems. Marriage is part of the created order created and blessed by God. Two totally different things, just both sacramentally blessed.

[erin74]

Not sure what has gone before this, but I am currently listening to some talks in our bible study on the passages in the bible about the role of women. So far we have done the Timothy passage, and 1 Cor 11.

The talks have been done over 6 years at a women's conference in Sydney. The woman who has been giving them has done her masters on this issue. She is quite involved in the Equal but Different movement over here.

Her first talk in particular she addressed the passage, and then spoke about the usual criticisms of the passage that proponents use to condone women teaching/having authority.

I think it also has an article on the first disc, but I have loaned it out to a bible study member who missed that week. I would be interested in having a civil discussion about it, provided it was civil. I am keen to listen to the talks again though - particulalry the first one.

Tomorrow I think we have another Corinthians passage - not sure which one.. maybe ch 6.

[No Swansong]

So far this discussion is going well. I appreciate the civility.

Timothy's second point is the one that hits home most to me. In reading the passage from Paul concerning women having authority in the Church I had to ask myself why I was willing to believe that it is now OK (at least in my opinion and as far as I know in Theological circles) for women to braid their hair, and wear pearls and gold (my wife has a wedding band for instance and a nice set of Pearl earrings I bought for her one Christmas) but that the very next verse which continues the same thought of Paul has not and cannot change?

Why is it Ok to wear a gold wedding band and not ok for women to be priests? Why was I willing to accept that some portions of scripture apply in some cases but not others? I would have to say that for me the drawing line would be something that discusses immutable truths such as the nature of God or our relationship with Him. I do not see Women's ordination as falling into this category.

[erin74]

I think, from memory, the distinction is the reason Paul gives. In the case of women teaching he is referring us back to Genesis, to the creation of mankind, and to the roles established by God at that time. This is not the case with the jewellry and hair. (That being said the talk on Cor 11 did direct us to consider if we need to follow our conscience on that one, and whether we need to dress in a way that defines us as feminine). I think in the case of the Timothy passage the issue is modesty. The reasoning for women wearing no jewellry and braiding their hair is one of being modest.

This is not so for the reason for women not preaching. Paul seems quite clear that the reason women should not teach or have authority over men is because of the roles he established at creation. So this dismisses the cultural argument.

That is a very very very rough version of what I understand the passage to be saying in regard to that - without the passage in front of me, which is not good practice, but it is late, and I really really need to head to bed. I will get my CD back tomorrow and will try to listen again, and read through the passage again.

[gtsecc]

But since that won't happen GT his quesiton is who determines what is consistent with Holy Tradition? It is a perfectly reasonable question. And if you ask the Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Anglicans you get different answers. They may be similar but will also differ to some degree. There doesn't appear to be a clear consensus concerning who determines what is consistent with Holy Tradition.
Then you have to go with what the Holy Spirit has already revealed:
No same sex marriages
No female ordination

[gtsecc]

Even if we take the voice of Anglicanism as sufficient for the Holy Spirit, we still have to wait for all Bishops to agree to Same Sex marriage and female ordination.

[No Swansong]

Then you have to go with what the Holy Spirit has already revealed:
No same sex marriages
No female ordination


Does not your contention however mean that we have limited the Spirit and that He cannot speak to the Church until the Church is one again? (which is probably pretty unlikely.)

Does this not mean then that the Spirit cannot speak any longer?

[No Swansong]

Even if we take the voice of Anglicanism as sufficient for the Holy Spirit, we still have to wait for all Bishops to agree to Same Sex marriage and female ordination.


All the Bishops?

Have all the Bishops ever agreed on anything since the Jerusalem council?

[gtsecc]

All the Bishops?

Have all the Bishops ever agreed on anything since the Jerusalem council?
Absolutely!
All the councils.

[No Swansong]

Absolutely!
All the councils.


The councils as I understand them were not ever unanimous.

[gtsecc]

ah, yes, but the Bishops acted unanimously - so, even though all don't agree on female ordination or same sex unions, all Bishops should not act on those, untill all Anglican Bishops meet, and agree which way to act - ECUSA is disobedient acting prematurely.

[gtsecc]

The point here anyway, that I made, is that if you think the church can or already has made it ok for women to be priests, you will, if you are consistant, find that the church can or already has done the same for same sex marriage.

[No Swansong]

ah, yes, but the Bishops acted unanimously - so, even though all don't agree on female ordination or same sex unions, all Bishops should not act on those, untill all Anglican Bishops meet, and agree which way to act - ECUSA is disobedient acting prematurely.


Just so I understand you are admitting that the Bishops of the councils were not unanimous?

Now then we need to ask if ECUSA is answerable to the Anglican Communion or are they autonomous? ECUSA has decided within council that it is acceptable to ordain women. Is it necessary that the rest of the autonomous bodies within the Anglican Communion agree?

Anyone?

[No Swansong]

The point here anyway, that I made, is that if you think the church can or already has made it ok for women to be priests, you will, if you are consistant, find that the church can or already has done the same for same sex marriage.


I still disagree that the acceptance of the former implies a necessary acceptance of the later.

[SirTimothy]

Gtsecc, I'm positive that you're equation of same sex marriage and women ordination is a straw man, but I'm not wide awake enough to work out how or why. Can we leave that issue to one side, as it has no bearing on our current discussion and focus on women's ordination please?

Paul seems quite clear that the reason women should not teach or have authority over men is because of the roles he established at creation.

Okay, so let's ignore them having teaching authority over men for a minute... would you accept an ordained woman priest as vicar of a church that didn't contain any men?

Timothy

[Colabomb]

I'm a conservative against both, and I can't honestly say that Female Priests lead to Homosexuality.

[gtsecc]

Can we celebrate the Eucharist with doritoes, and coke?
No.
Can we ordain women?
No.
Can we marry 2 men?
No.

I don't see how we can decide to change the substance of a sacrament without at least an eccumenical council.

[No Swansong]

Can we celebrate the Eucharist with doritoes, and coke?
No.
Can we ordain women?
No.
Can we marry 2 men?
No.

I don't see how we can decide to change the substance of a sacrament without at least an eccumenical council.


GT do you have an answer for my questions in post 74? I am not attempting to be confrontational I am truly interested in your answers.

[gtsecc]

Just so I understand you are admitting that the Bishops of the councils were not unanimous?

Now then we need to ask if ECUSA is answerable to the Anglican Communion or are they autonomous? ECUSA has decided within council that it is acceptable to ordain women. Is it necessary that the rest of the autonomous bodies within the Anglican Communion agree?

Anyone?
For something like same sex marriages, wouldn't you say that would require the whole Church - OO, RC,EO, and Anglican?

I think the same would be required for female ordination.

As is, we don't even have all the AC on board.

As far as the historic church is concerned a practicing gay male priest is a minor issue compared to a female priest. No one would question the Eucharist as valid.

I want peopel to take their own desires, and prejudices out of the equation, and think theologically. What is a change in teaching? What is a change in a sacrament? Which takes more clarity from the church to change? Which keeps us form reunion with the EO? female priests
Which keeps us from reunion with RCC? female priests
Do the EO have gay priests?
yes.
Do the RCC?
Yes.

What is the clearest and best theological way to talk about homosexuality? Say it isn't Biblical ( what ever that means) or to say the church teaches that sex is appropriate only inside marraige? If gay people could marry, would sex be ok? Most would agree to that, once same sex marriage is oked. So, we are back to our original quandry - can the church change the sex of the person involved in the sacrament of marriage or holy orders?
maybe - but, it would probably take the ENTIRE church

[karen freeinchristman]

I want peopel to take their own desires, and prejudices out of the equation, and think theologically. Please try not to insult, Glen. I think we are all making a great effort to think theologically here.

Which keeps us form reunion with the EO? female priests
Which keeps us from reunion with RCC? female priests
So why didn't we all reunite when we didn't have female priests? Why don't the RCC and the EO reunite now, since neither have female priests?
Please don't patronise us with simplistic answers like these, it's unbearable.


Do the EO have gay priests?
yes.
Do the RCC?
Yes. openly practicising in homosexual behaviour?

Again, I do not think the two issues are related, anyway.

[longhair75]

Absolutely!
All the councils.

friend gtsecc,

resolutions 34-38 from the lambeth conference of 1968 dealt with the odrination of women.
Resolutions from 1968

Resolution 34

The Ministry - Ordination of Women to the Priesthood

The Conference affirms its opinion that the theological arguments as at present presented for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood are inconclusive. cite (http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-34.cfm)

resolutions 20-22 of the lambeth council of 1978 also dealt with women in the priesthood
resolution 21 (http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1978/1978-21.cfm)
the final part of resolution #21 reads as follows:
7. We recognise that our accepting this variety of doctrine and practice in the Anglican Communion may disappoint the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Old Catholic Churches, but we wish to make it clear (a) that the holding together of diversity within a unity of faith and worship is part of the Anglican heritage; (b) that those who have taken part in ordinations of women to the priesthood believe that these ordinations have been into [sic.] the historic ministry of the Church as the Anglican Communion has received it; and (c) that we hope the dialogue between these other Churches and the member Churches of our Communion will continue because we believe that we still have understanding of the truth of God and his will to learn from them as together we all move towards a fuller catholicity and a deeper fellowship in the Holy Spirit.

note the vote tally for resolution 21: Voting: For 316; Against 37; Abstentions 17.



resolution #1 of the lambeth council of 1988 states:1 That each province respect the decision and attitudes of other provinces in the ordination or consecration of women to the episcopate, without such respect necessarily indicating acceptance of the principles involved, maintaining the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.
full reolution (http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-1.cfm)
note the vote tally:Voting: For 423; Against 28; Abstentions 19.

[No Swansong]

For something like same sex marriages, wouldn't you say that would require the whole Church - OO, RC,EO, and Anglican?

I think the same would be required for female ordination.

As is, we don't even have all the AC on board.

As far as the historic church is concerned a practicing gay male priest is a minor issue compared to a female priest. No one would question the Eucharist as valid.

I want peopel to take their own desires, and prejudices out of the equation, and think theologically. What is a change in teaching? What is a change in a sacrament? Which takes more clarity from the church to change? Which keeps us form reunion with the EO? female priests
Which keeps us from reunion with RCC? female priests
Do the EO have gay priests?
yes.
Do the RCC?
Yes.

What is the clearest and best theological way to talk about homosexuality? Say it isn't Biblical ( what ever that means) or to say the church teaches that sex is appropriate only inside marraige? If gay people could marry, would sex be ok? Most would agree to that, once same sex marriage is oked. So, we are back to our original quandry - can the church change the sex of the person involved in the sacrament of marriage or holy orders?
maybe - but, it would probably take the ENTIRE church


Thanks for the exposition Glenn.
I understand your point better now. I think you make suppositions here that are not accurate such as the determination that the prohibition of sex outside of marriage being the only impediment to homosexual sex. I think most would point to Scriptural passages found in Romans and Leviticus and consider your point as secondary support. I also do not agree that one necessarily follows the other but again I do understand your point better.

Let me ask a question however that you haven't yet answered.

Would it be your argument that the Holy Spirit cannot speak now that the Church is not one and will probably not be?

[dap]

Read Ignasius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, PolyCarp, and Gregory of Nissa, and get back to me.
i apologize for returning this message so late.
The reason why i answer each question with scriptures and not outside sources regardless if they were or are active members in the church is because there is no debating God's Word - man's different interpretations of God's Word will always be debatable. i have to stand on ephesians ch 2 vs 20 rather than those names mentioned above. i do not know all of scripture but what has been revealed to me (1John ch 2 vs 27) in accordance with the scriptures old and new testament -i have to stand upon that. i encourage you to read Galations ch 1.
You are bold and zealous to follow Christ and for the unity of His Body, but it cannot happen as many think unless the church conforms. Remember there must be a falling away and a time when (many) will not endure sound doctrine. Only a remnant who endures to the end on His Word not conforming will be one as He Desired.
i agree on your stand on homosexuality/in the church and women ordination according to the scriptures.
Remember you are a modern day Deborah if you keep to the truth and not be tossed around - please read Ephesians ch4 vs 7-17!
in HIS LOVE

[Aymn27]

Sorry for the delay jtbdad - I'm sure you know how crazy family life and work and church get...

AMiA report on women's ordination (http://www.virtueonline.org/stories/AMiA_WO_Study.pdf) (the link on their site appears to be dead so I linked to the VOL archives)

[SirTimothy]

For something like same sex marriages, wouldn't you say that would require the whole Church - OO, RC,EO, and Anglican?

No, because frankly I don't give a darn for the whole church. I think the OO, the RC AND the EO have all changed the faith in one way or another, thus I believe (and I have to believe this to stay in the AC) that the AC is the truest continuation of the fullness of the church. Thus we have the right to unilaterally make such decisions AS a church, in council (see Lambeth Councils concerning women's ordination)

However as far as changing the gender of a sacrament is concerned, I believe that we need to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit first and foremost, then secondly look at the scriptures, and then thirdly, we must look to the history of the church. Anything else is backwards to my view. Martin Luther said words to the effect of 'Popes and Councils have erred and will err' and I'm 100% in agreement with that.

If we continuously look to those outside our church then we will get no-where. It is only when we, as a church, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we will get anywhere.

Looking outside the church is counterproductive to my view. We can learn more about it, but UNLESS we wish to convert, we cannot let it change the way the Anglican faith has been practiced for 400-2000 years.

Timothy

[DeoJuvante]

i apologize for returning this message so late.
The reason why i answer each question with scriptures and not outside sources regardless if they were or are active members in the church is because there is no debating God's Word - man's different interpretations of God's Word will always be debatable. i have to stand on ephesians ch 2 vs 20 rather than those names mentioned above. i do not know all of scripture but what has been revealed to me (1John ch 2 vs 27) in accordance with the scriptures old and new testament -i have to stand upon that. i encourage you to read Galations ch 1.
You are bold and zealous to follow Christ and for the unity of His Body, but it cannot happen as many think unless the church conforms. Remember there must be a falling away and a time when (many) will not endure sound doctrine. Only a remnant who endures to the end on His Word not conforming will be one as He Desired.
i agree on your stand on homosexuality/in the church and women ordination according to the scriptures.
Remember you are a modern day Deborah if you keep to the truth and not be tossed around - please read Ephesians ch4 vs 7-17!
in HIS LOVE
Please don't take offense at this, but are you Anglican? We are debating this issue within an Anglican context and this means that for many (some? most?) of us are views regarding the disclosure of God's will to us are different from that of the Reformed churches. In particular, for us this is a debate about not just Holy Scripture but also Holy Tradition, the Sacraments, the Holy Spirit and perhaps other things that need to be taken into consideration.

The other thing I want to point out is that the Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible.

[Aymn27]

No, because frankly I don't give a darn for the whole church. I think the OO, the RC AND the EO have all changed the faith in one way or another, thus I believe (and I have to believe this to stay in the AC) that the AC is the truest continuation of the fullness of the church. Thus we have the right to unilaterally make such decisions AS a church, in council (see Lambeth Councils concerning women's ordination)

However as far as changing the gender of a sacrament is concerned, I believe that we need to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit first and foremost, then secondly look at the scriptures, and then thirdly, we must look to the history of the church. Anything else is backwards to my view. Martin Luther said words to the effect of 'Popes and Councils have erred and will err' and I'm 100% in agreement with that.

If we continuously look to those outside our church then we will get no-where. It is only when we, as a church, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we will get anywhere.

Looking outside the church is counterproductive to my view. We can learn more about it, but UNLESS we wish to convert, we cannot let it change the way the Anglican faith has been practiced for 400-2000 years.

Timothy
Timothy,
I think that would be a huge mistake - and honestly - that flies in the face of being "one, holy, catholic and apostolic". Of course the word here does not mean "Roman" but what exactly does it mean, to you? What is the universal teaching of the Church?

This may have been mentioned already but St Vincent of Lerin gave us the "Vincentian Canon":
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

So when people refer to looking to Rome, EO, etc - they don't (well at least I don't) mean as they are practicing now. I mean we have to look at the "stream" of teaching that comes to us from Scripture and the Apostles and see those things that have been taught "universally". When a church departs from that historic faith, it departs from Catholicity.

[SirTimothy]

Okay, but what is the historic faith... and does who is ordained have anything to do with that? Surely the historic faith is christ and god-centered, not us centered? You see, I can't find anything in my faith in God which cares at all about who is ordained, it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The importance of regularly sharing communion together transcends who is actually celebrating IMV.

[longhair75]

Sorry for the delay jtbdad - I'm sure you know how crazy family life and work and church get...

AMiA report on women's ordination (http://www.virtueonline.org/stories/AMiA_WO_Study.pdf) (the link on their site appears to be dead so I linked to the VOL archives)


friend aymn27,

thank you for the link to this study. i was particularly pleased by its inclusion of both sides of the discussion represented in the analysis of each segment. clearly, the work was done to examine the question from a neutral, unbiased position. this is rare in message board citations.

in the conclusions reached, i note:


8. the anglican mission in america should maintain its present moratorium on the ordination of women, at least to the priesthood and episcopate, until a consensus emerges within the anglican communion that can be declared to be such by a lambeth conference.

may i direct your kind attention to the links provided to the resolutions from the 1968, 1978 1nd 1988 lambeth conferences cited in my post #82?

thanks once again for you contribution to this discussion,

lh75

[gtsecc]

Please try not to insult, Glen. I think we are all making a great effort to think theologically here.
I did not mean to insult anyone. Often arguments here, and even at Gen Con., are not theological.

So why didn't we all reunite when we didn't have female priests?
We were moving in that direction, and were having dialogues to move towards that goal, which both sides figured would happen between the EO and Anglicans before 1980. After the ordination of women, all dialog towards reunion ceased. Talks continue, but are merely academic, and not for the purpose of reunion.

Why don't the RCC and the EO reunite now, since neither have female priests?
I posted a great article on that with an interview with Metropolitan Zizulous.

Please don't patronise us with simplistic answers like these, it's unbearable.
openly practicising in homosexual behaviour?
I am completely at a loss as what your complaint is. I did not mean to patronize anyone, and I don’t know what I said that you find that way. In discussing this issue with a number of Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, they have all said different things, and approached things slightly differently, but all say that female ordination is a much, much greater issue. (Oh, and I distinguish between openly homosexual and closeted, because the church has always had closeted homosexual priests Once in the open, it is a change in the teaching – maybe good one, maybe not, non the less, a change and that is why the difference)

Again, I do not think the two issues are related, anyway.
I think they are completely related. If we can change the sex of the person receiving the sacrament of holy orders, we HAVE to change it in marriage, because that effects a far far larger group of people, and is a much much greater injustice in the world. “You can’t be a priest” is not as great as you can’t “marry the person you love.”

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,I think they are completely related. If we can change the sex of the person receiving the sacrament of holy orders, we HAVE to change it in marriage, because that effects a far far larger group of people, and is a much much greater injustice in the world. “You can’t be a priest” is not as great as you can’t “marry the person you love.”

i also disagree that these issues are closely related. from my readings of the documents posted from both subjects, i find the major connection to be that many, not all, people who favor female ordination also favor blessing of same sex marriage.

[gtsecc]

Would it be your argument that the Holy Spirit cannot speak now that the Church is not one and will probably not be?
When the whole church speaks, it is the Holy Spirit, and it is clear to everyone that it is the Holy SPirit speaking.

The last time the whole church spoke, the Holy Spirit said no to female ordination.

With the Church split, it is not clear to me - I am not saying the Holy Spirit can't speak, but it isn't heard by all, and no one can know for certain that something is of the Holy Spirit. All these different Churches saying the Holy Spirit has said conflicting things leaves most or all of us in the dark.

Let me use this as an example:
Rome says the HS has said no to female ordination.
EO say the HS has said no to female ordination.
AC has no unanimous voice on the issue.

So, if you ask what did the HS say on female ordination – you have to say either no, or I don’t know. In any case, I am not sure an “I don’t know” over turns the clear no which was spoken with one voice in years past – pre schism.

And, please, I don’t want people to think I “want” a certain outcome. I am very liberal. If I want any outcome, it is for the church to accept gay marriage and female priests. But, what I want is not how the church does theology. We listen to the HS, and are obedient to it, even if it hurts us and we don’t understand it. So, I have no say in the matter, but I can say that I don’t hear the HS changing a teaching on this issue.

[Colabomb]

When the whole church speaks, it is the Holy Spirit, and it is clear to everyone that it is the Holy SPirit speaking.

The last time the whole church spoke, the Holy Spirit said no to female ordination.

With the Church split, it is not clear to me - I am not saying the Holy Spirit can't speak, but it isn't heard by all, and no one can know for certain that something is of the Holy Spirit. All these different Churches saying the Holy Spirit has said conflicting things leaves most or all of us in the dark.

Let me use this as an example:
Rome says the HS has said no to female ordination.
EO say the HS has said no to female ordination.
AC has no unanimous voice on the issue.

So, if you ask what did the HS say on female ordination – you have to say either no, or I don’t know. In any case, I am not sure an “I don’t know” over turns the clear no which was spoken with one voice in years past – pre schism.

And, please, I don’t want people to think I “want” a certain outcome. I am very liberal. If I want any outcome, it is for the church to accept gay marriage and female priests. But, what I want is not how the church does theology. We listen to the HS, and are obedient to it, even if it hurts us and we don’t understand it. So, I have no say in the matter, but I can say that I don’t hear the HS changing a teaching on this issue.


That's honest.

I myself have a similar conundrum. I have no Personal issue with Female ordination. I don't like the teaching. To me it is a "hard teaching". But I feel compelled to obey it anyway.

That is why I often get frustrated when names are slung. They do not fit me as well as people would think.

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc
Let me use this as an example:
Rome says the HS has said no to female ordination.
EO say the HS has said no to female ordination.
AC has no unanimous voice on the issue.


if i were concerned with the conclusion of the church of rome, i would not have left.

as i am not a member of the eastern orthodox church, i am not concerned with their conclusions

as an anglican, i am guided by the decisions of my church. if unanimous decision is what you are seeking, i fear that you will not find it. the resolutions of the 1968, 1978 and 1988 lambeth conferences of the anglican church regarding the ordination of women have passed with large majorities at each level.

(i ask your kind attention to the citations in my post #82 of this thread)

[gtsecc]

friend gtsecc

if i were concerned with the conclusion of the church of rome, i would not have left.

as i am not a member of the eastern orthodox church, i am not concerned with their conclusions

as an anglican, i am guided by the decisions of my church.
It isn't what I am seeking, or much to do with me personally. I am not sure I have a choice to ignor them. My understaning fo Christinity is that we have to look for the voice of the Holy Spirit in the church speaking as one. If I were Hindu, I woudl still be convinced that teh Christian teaching on the matter has to do with the one voice, and I can't see anyway arround it.

[Colabomb]

It isn't what I am seeking, or much to do with me personally. I am not sure I have a choice to ignor them. My understaning fo Christinity is that we have to look for the voice of the Holy Spirit in the church speaking as one. If I were Hindu, I woudl still be convinced that teh Christian teaching on the matter has to do with the one voice, and I can't see anyway arround it.
I understand, but even at Nicea, Arius had followers in the Bishopric.

[gtsecc]

(i ask your kind attention to the citations in my post #82 of this thread)
If an alien lands on earth, and you explain the theology to him, and ask him which group is speaking with the HS, he sure isn't going to go with the the Anglicans, is he?

Even if you assume clarity from Anglicans, you get a no from Rome and the EO, and OO. We are in dire straits - 2 men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong.

[gtsecc]

The issue of women's ordination is such a change, that even if the Church had the authority to change it, it would take the whole undivided church.

[longhair75]

If an alien lands on earth, and you explain the theology to him, and ask him which group is speaking with the HS, he sure isn't going to go with the the Anglicans, is he?

Even if you assume clarity from Anglicans, you get a no from Rome and the EO, and OO. We are in dire straits - 2 men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong.


friend gtsecc,

this leads me to think that you find the authority of the rcc and the eo churches to supercede that of the anglican church. are we then to submit to rome?

[gtsecc]

we then to submit to rome?
Not unless we live there. Likewise, Rome has no jurisdiction outside it’s See. In the end, in the reunited Church, there is some case for a single leader, particularly in the 4th ecumenical council. Now, please no one accuse me of lobbying for the infallibility of the Pope - all I said was "there is some case for a single leader, particularly in the 4th ecumenical council. "

[longhair75]

friends,

i am off to the gym. i will be happy to continue this discussion this evening.

god bless,

lh75

[gtsecc]

It is not so much that the Authority of Rome and the EO supercede ours, but when the church was one, it said no, and that was the voice of the HS, and all of Anglicanism doesn't seem to me overturning the previous teaching. SO, it seems to me that we need at least the EO, Rome, and Anglicans to have equal assurance this is a new teaching of the HS.

[karen freeinchristman]

I did not mean to insult anyone. Often arguments here, and even at Gen Con., are not theological.


We were moving in that direction, and were having dialogues to move towards that goal, which both sides figured would happen between the EO and Anglicans before 1980. After the ordination of women, all dialog towards reunion ceased. Talks continue, but are merely academic, and not for the purpose of reunion.


I posted a great article on that with an interview with Metropolitan Zizulous.


I am completely at a loss as what your complaint is. I did not mean to patronize anyone, and I don’t know what I said that you find that way. In discussing this issue with a number of Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians, they have all said different things, and approached things slightly differently, but all say that female ordination is a much, much greater issue. (Oh, and I distinguish between openly homosexual and closeted, because the church has always had closeted homosexual priests Once in the open, it is a change in the teaching – maybe good one, maybe not, non the less, a change and that is why the difference)

I felt you were being overly simplistic and implying that female ordination is the ONLY barrier to re-unification with RCC and EO. That was what it seemed like you were saying.


I think they are completely related. If we can change the sex of the person receiving the sacrament of holy orders, we HAVE to change it in marriage, because that effects a far far larger group of people, and is a much much greater injustice in the world. “You can’t be a priest” is not as great as you can’t “marry the person you love.”

In a way, you could look at it as being whether or not the church is saying "You can't follow your calling". Marriage and priesthood are both callings, are they not? So one wouldn't be able to say that "not allowing homosexual marriage is a greater injustice than not allowing women priests", if it is true that both are callings.

[Finella]

It is not so much that the Authority of Rome and the EO supercede ours, but when the church was one, it said no, and that was the voice of the HS, and all of Anglicanism doesn't seem to me overturning the previous teaching. SO, it seems to me that we need at least the EO, Rome, and Anglicans to have equal assurance this is a new teaching of the HS.


I've just been lurking on this, and enjoying the conversation. Interesting arguments being made.

gtsecc, would it be safe to say that based upon this statement that:

1) The church, when working as one, was wholly adhering to the guidance of the holy spirit, and as such is a model for us today?

2) If so, was the holy spirit involved in the breakup of the one church, or was that a purely human act?

3) Is it possible for the holy spirit to guide one group of people in one direction, and another group of people in another?

I'll take my answer off the air....

[No Swansong]

I've just been lurking on this, and enjoying the conversation. Interesting arguments being made.

gtsecc, would it be safe to say that based upon this statement that:

1) The church, when working as one, was wholly adhering to the guidance of the holy spirit, and as such is a model for us today?

2) If so, was the holy spirit involved in the breakup of the one church, or was that a purely human act?

3) Is it possible for the holy spirit to guide one group of people in one direction, and another group of people in another?

I'll take my answer off the air....


#1 But Finella if that were true then there would have been no Schism to begin with.

#2 Since Christ prayed that the Church would be one I doubt that the HS would guide a breakup.

#3 Now that is an interesting question, My initial response would be no, but since I do not believe the RCC or the EO to be following the leading of the Holy Spirit I do not consider a lack of agreement between the three (and we really should include the Old Catholics here) as an indication that the Holy Spirit is not speaking to the AC about this issue.


Oh wait you were asking GT. I'm sorry I misunderstood please consider my above comments then just my thoughts.

(Wow I am really slow today)

[gtsecc]

I've just been lurking on this, and enjoying the conversation. Interesting arguments being made.

Thank you.

1) Yes
2) No
3) We can't know if either is or isn't an act of the HS

[DeoJuvante]

Gtsecc, it seems to me that before one can hope to hear what the Holy Spirit says on an issue one must first ask the Holy Spirit about that issue. Regarding ordination of women, the RCC have made it very clear that that is not an issue that they are prepared to consider and, from what I gather, nothing short of an ecumenical council would get the EOC seriously talking about this issue. So, if it is only the Anglican Church that has asked the Holy Spirit for insight, only the Anglican Church is likely to hear it.

[longhair75]

It is not so much that the Authority of Rome and the EO supercede ours, but when the church was one, it said no, and that was the voice of the HS, and all of Anglicanism doesn't seem to me overturning the previous teaching. SO, it seems to me that we need at least the EO, Rome, and Anglicans to have equal assurance this is a new teaching of the HS.


the rcc and the eo may speak with one voice on this issue, but the rcc and the eo have other differences where the voices separate. if not, the great schism would not have happened. the anglican church also split from rome differences.

are we to define anglicanism by accepting those issues that rome and the eo agree? which should we give more credence to?

personally, i need no clarification from rome. i have much to learn, and this issue is one i am studying, but i gladly left rome behind.

[karen freeinchristman]

Gtsecc, it seems to me that before one can hope to hear what the Holy Spirit says on an issue one must first ask the Holy Spirit about that issue. Regarding ordination of women, the RCC have made it very clear that that is not an issue that they are prepared to consider and, from what I gather, nothing short of an ecumenical council would get the EOC seriously talking about this issue. So, if it is only the Anglican Church that has asked the Holy Spirit for insight, only the Anglican Church is likely to hear it.Very interesting point made, Saepius!

[PearlOfGreatPrice]

"We find not in the Gospel that Christ hath anywhere provided for the uniformity of churches, but only for their unity" - Roger Williams.

love and light

xxx

[Aymn27]

I've just been lurking on this, and enjoying the conversation. Interesting arguments being made.

gtsecc, would it be safe to say that based upon this statement that:

1) The church, when working as one, was wholly adhering to the guidance of the holy spirit, and as such is a model for us today?

2) If so, was the holy spirit involved in the breakup of the one church, or was that a purely human act?

3) Is it possible for the holy spirit to guide one group of people in one direction, and another group of people in another?

I'll take my answer off the air....Even though you didn't ask me - I'm going to give my input on this (I'll just read it myself and think about how intelligent I am - that is, if my answer is of no use to you ;) )

#1 while I agree in principle with what gtsecc is saying on this - I think the opposte would be true. The Church, operating unseparated, was able to (more properly) discern what WAS the work of the Spirit and what WAS NOT. The undivided Church was able to speak with authority on matters through Councils. This is not an available gift any longer b/c no "branch", whether it be Rome, EO or Anglican/OC, can meet in Council (ie Lambeth, Vatican, etc) and pronounce/discern for the entire church catholic. It's just one of effects of the sin of schism..
So when deciding (or re-interpreting its orginal intent) something as crucial as changing the nature of a sacrament (both same-sex marriage and a female priesthood would do that) the Anglican Church cannot go its on way because it said it could in its own Council.
We could take it a step down and say that each diocese has its own ability to decide such matters in diocesan council - and then you would have a plethora of diverse practice and belief that would look like a collage of muddled Christianity (which to be true, is somewhat what modern Protestantism looks like).
Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with local expression of Christianity - I love the idea of high church and low church being able to co-exist within an ecclesial body. BUT there must be some agreement on the basics (ie - the Tradition of the Church) - otherwise we have lost our "one"-ness and our catholicity.

#2 The breakup of the church is a human action and caused by pride, greed and useless judgment of another man. It is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.

#3 The Holy Spirit can guide people in different direction in non-essentials of the faith, but would not do so in essentials of the faith - sacraments being an essential...to me at least.

[Finella]

Thank you.

1) Yes
2) No
3) We can't know if either is or isn't an act of the HS
1. So in order to be more in tune with the holy spirit, we should be making our churches more like the early church in all respects, with not a single modern adaptation, including use of vernacular language, mass-produced communion wafers, and vinyl kneelers.

2) And the HS had absolutely nothing to do with, say, the formation of the Church of England. Nada. Zip.

3) If we cannot know what is the action of the holy spirit, by what grounds do you say that the early church was the only church community guided by the HS?

[gtsecc]

1. So in order to be more in tune with the holy spirit, we should be making our churches more like the early church in all respects, with not a single modern adaptation, including use of vernacular language, mass-produced communion wafers, and vinyl kneelers.

2) And the HS had absolutely nothing to do with, say, the formation of the Church of England. Nada. Zip.

3) If we cannot know what is the action of the holy spirit, by what grounds do you say that the early church was the only church community guided by the HS?

1) No I am not sure what your point is. Certain things are of the essence of the Church – Bishops, councils, Eucharist, Bible. Others are for the good of the church - kneelers.

2) Not sure what you mean here. We were excommunicated. Nonetheless, the goal is to be as one, and both sides ought to work vigorously to rejoin. I don’t see the excommunication as the creation of the Church of England, which had been around for centuries before. I do see it as something to be healed for the essence of the church is to be in communion, and we clearly are not – all of US, Rome, EO, Baptists, etc...

3) Before 1054, and certainly before Calcedon(451), the church was one body.

[Finella]

1) No I am not sure what your point is. Certain things are of the essence of the Church – Bishops, councils, Eucharist, Bible. Others are for the good of the church - kneelers.
So you are able to discern the most important elements of the early church to keep and what to lose. How do you determine what those "essences" are?

2) Not sure what you mean here. We were excommunicated. Nonetheless, the goal is to be as one, and both sides ought to work vigorously to rejoin. I don’t see the excommunication as the creation of the Church of England, which had been around for centuries before. I do see it as something to be healed for the essence of the church is to be in communion, and we clearly are not – all of US, Rome, EO, Baptists, etc...
If we are truly excommunicated, then you are saying we do not have the authority to be our own church. Why are you not with Rome, then, if this is what you believe?


3) Before 1054, and certainly before Calcedon(451), the church was one body.
And the church was infallible, and acting wholly in accordance with the holy spirit simply because it was one church? Is that your only criterion for determining if the church was acting with guidance of the holy spirit, that it was acting as one body?

[SirTimothy]

I think one of the bits of liturgy that I've collected over the years pretty near sums up my view on valid eucharists and authority and how we should do things... I /believe/ it's in CW, but I'm not positive:

"This is the table, not of the church, but of Jesus Christ.

It is made ready for those who love him

and who want to love him more.

So come, you who have much faith

and you who have little,

you who have been here often

and you who have not been for a long time, or ever before,

you who have tried to follow and you who have failed.

Come, not because it is I who invite you:

it is Christ, and he invites you to meet him here."

[gtsecc]

So you are able to discern the most important elements of the early church to keep and what to lose. How do you determine what those "essences" are?
I don't think it is a mytery.
Do you?
Is it that hard?
Like I said, Bible, Bishops, Eucharist, Liturgy, etc...


If we are truly excommunicated, then you are saying we do not have the authority to be our own church. Why are you not with Rome, then, if this is what you believe?

It is a historical fact we were excommunicated.
I beleive the authority is in the Bishops - so, communion with Canturbury is more important than Rome. Not sure what is confusing to you, or how you understand ecclesiology. So, osrry if my answer is nto helpful.

And the church was infallible, and acting wholly in accordance with the holy spirit simply because it was one church?
This is a central dogma of Christinity. It is an assumption all Christians accept conciously or unconciously if they accept the Bible. We beleive the Bible was guided by the HS - why, because the whole church agreed it was.

That the Bible is true, is put forth by the undivided churchIs that your only criterion for determining if the church was acting with guidance of the holy spirit, that it was acting as one body?
No, this is what all Christians believe, or so i thought. I didn't know anyone questioned this. I will have to think about it for a while. I am not sure, but I think if we don't accept this, we will find that there is no corporate revelation of truth, and we are left with only personal revelation, and no way to demonstrate it to others.

[Finella]

I don't think it is a mytery.
Do you?
Is it that hard?
Like I said, Bible, Bishops, Eucharist, Liturgy, etc... The reason I ask is because, if I read your argument right, the essences are what make our church consistent with the unified early church, and therefore we cannot ordain women because they didn't ordain women back in the early church. But what makes this an "essence" that must be preserved rather than a particular that we can change? We have made many changes to the liturgy and other "essences" you name, and we have no problems with these.


It is a historical fact we were excommunicated.
I beleive the authority is in the Bishops - so, communion with Canturbury is more important than Rome. Not sure what is confusing to you, or how you understand ecclesiology. So, osrry if my answer is nto helpful. Yeah, my ecclesiology isn't so sharp, so it's not very helpful. So what is the rationale for being focused on communion with Canterbury than to Rome, then? Does the Holy Spirit have any guidance on this issue?


This is a central dogma of Christinity. It is an assumption all Christians accept conciously or unconciously if they accept the Bible. We beleive the Bible was guided by the HS - why, because the whole church agreed it was.


No, this is what all Christians believe, or so i thought. I didn't know anyone questioned this. I will have to think about it for a while. I am not sure, but I think if we don't accept this, we will find that there is no corporate revelation of truth, and we are left with only personal revelation, and no way to demonstrate it to others. I guess I'm coming at it from the perspective that we continue to receive revelation from the holy spirit, so that regressing to our understanding of God during the time of the early church would not be beneficial, as we would lose knowledge we'd gained (individually and corporately) since the initial schism. But I don't think this contradicts the desire to ultimately unifty again as Christians; to the contrary, the holy spirit would guide us to that point in the end as we grow in our knowledge of Christ.

It is an interesting question, and it almost sounds like we are empirically testing God; the only way we know that the holy spirit is truly being revealed is if we have a large enough sample of Christians attesting to the same concept of Truth. I'm not sure there is a Biblical stance on this, is there? And thus, is corporate authority the only way to discern the revelation of the holy spirit?

[karen freeinchristman]

There is Matt. 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

[Colabomb]

My problem with new revelations, is where do we draw the line?

What is unchangable? What if "Christians" start teaching that the Divinity or Resurrection of Christ was simply misguided mysticism. (Actually, counting Spong, that's happening)

[No Swansong]

My problem with new revelations, is where do we draw the line?

What is unchangable? What if "Christians" start teaching that the Divinity or Resurrection of Christ was simply misguided mysticism. (Actually, counting Spong, that's happening)

Are you truly asking where the line should be or could be drawn son or are you arguing slippery slope?

[Colabomb]

Are you truly asking where the line should be or could be drawn son or are you arguing slippery slope?
Initially I was going for slippery slope (which while a logical fallacy, as it does not apply universally, does happen), I'm not sure at this point.

Obviously God Speaks, and He does not contradict Himself. I admit it is a difficult question.

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,It is a historical fact we were excommunicated.
I beleive the authority is in the Bishops - so, communion with Canturbury is more important than Rome. Not sure what is confusing to you, or how you understand ecclesiology. So, osrry if my answer is nto helpful.

canterbury approves the ordination of women as evidenced by the lambeth conferences from 1968,78 and 88 as cited in my post #82.

[gtsecc]

Canturbury has authority to consecrate new male Bishops. Not sure they have the authority to make a change in a sacrament. Better off waiting for the single voice of the Church, which is the Holy Spirit, to overturn 2,000 years.

[longhair75]

Canturbury has authority to consecrate new male Bishops. Not sure they have the authority to make a change in a sacrament. Better off waiting for the single voice of the Church, which is the Holy Spirit, to overturn 2,000 years.


so, this returns us to your statements contending that the anglican communion lacks authority and must submit to the authority of rome and/or the e.o.

[gtsecc]

No.
We have the authority to do a lot of stuff, but not change sacraments.
To do that we would not need an OK from the Pope.
We would need the reuninted Church to have a council with all Bishops.

[Aymn27]

so, this returns us to your statements contending that the anglican communion lacks authority and must submit to the authority of rome and/or the e.o.
No, you miss the point....none have the authority to do such a thing - the decision would have to be made by a Council of the undivided catholic church - and there is no such church to do that..the female priesthood has no grounding or approval within the realm of catholicity or antiquity within the church....neither does the infallibility of the Pope - so just b/c Rome took it upon itself to pronounce such a change to the faith does not make truth - approval for such a doctrine would have to occur within the confines of a Council of the undivided church...

[Finella]

No, you miss the point....none have the authority to do such a thing - the decision would have to be made by a Council of the undivided catholic church - and there is no such church to do that..the female priesthood has no grounding or approval within the realm of catholicity or antiquity within the church....neither does the infallibility of the Pope - so just b/c Rome took it upon itself to pronounce such a change to the faith does not make truth - approval for such a doctrine would have to occur within the confines of a Council of the undivided church...


So, if I understand correctly, the church cannot say that it is at all inspired by the holy spirit to engage in anything that was not previously done by the early unified church -- until and unless the church as a whole reunites.

So we're paralyzed and deaf. The holy spirit is not talking to us anymore because we're a schismatic church?

[longhair75]

friend aymn,

i get your point, i just disagree. in order for the anglican communion to reunite with rome, we would have to accept papal authority. while i do not pretend to speak for the whole anglican communion, i will never submit to rome.

i, for one, accept that the bishops of the anglican communion do have the authority to make these determinations. regardless of the rcc and/or the e.o.

[No Swansong]

friend aymn,

i get your point, i just disagree. in order for the anglican communion to reunite with rome, we would have to accept papal authority. while i do not pretend to speak for the whole anglican communion, i will never submit to rome.

i, for one, accept that the bishops of the anglican communion do have the authority to make these determinations. regardless of the rcc and/or the e.o.

Longhair I certainly agree with the first point, on the second point I do not consider that either of those bodies are being led by the HS thus I do not require their consent. So I guess since I consider myself Anglican I must agree. Hmmm that was actually a moment of clarity for me in this issue. Maybe I am more liberal than I thought.

[gtsecc]

So, if I understand correctly, the church cannot say that it is at all inspired by the holy spirit to engage in anything that was not previously done by the early unified church -- until and unless the church as a whole reunites.

So we're paralyzed and deaf. The holy spirit is not talking to us anymore because we're a schismatic church?

Paralyzed - largely yes. Reunion should be our main goal.

Deaf, not exactly.
But, We can't know something is of the Holy Spirit unless we all hear it.

[gtsecc]

friend aymn,

i get your point, i just disagree. in order for the anglican communion to reunite with rome, we would have to accept papal authority. while i do not pretend to speak for the whole anglican communion, i will never submit to rome.

i, for one, accept that the bishops of the anglican communion do have the authority to make these determinations. regardless of the rcc and/or the e.o.
Carefully read the 4th eccumenical council - seems liek there is precedent for a single leader. Liekly a leader who is first amoung equals, and with ratehr less power than the Pope currently claims, but don't rule out subission completely.

[longhair75]

Longhair I certainly agree with the first point, on the second point I do not consider that either of those bodies are being led by the HS thus I do not require their consent. So I guess since I consider myself Anglican I must agree. Hmmm that was actually a moment of clarity for me in this issue. Maybe I am more liberal than I thought.


friend jtbdad,

i really do not see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. wiser men than i studied the issue very carefully for many years before deciding that the anglican church was ready for women to be ordained. the discussion stretched over three lambeth conferences, and was then passed by an overwhelming majority.

[longhair75]

friend gtsecc,

from the web site of the greek orthodox diocese of america:

the fourth ecumenical council (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8067.asp)
was Held in Chalcedon, near Constantinople, 451. Under Emperor Marcian. 630 Bishops were present.

The Council was concerned, once again, with the nature of Jesus Christ. The teaching arose that Christ's human nature (less perfect) dissolved itself in His divine nature (more perfect): like a cube of sugar in a post of water. Thus, in reality, Christ had only one nature, the Divine. Hence, the term: Monophysites ("mono", one and "physis", "nature".) Monophysitism overemphasized the divine nature of Christ, at the expense of the human.


i am somewhat puzzled as to how this would relate to the discussion at hand......

[longhair75]

this site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm)from the church of rome gives better details as to the issues decided at this council.

the acceptance of the epistle of pope leo may be that you are talking about, but careful reading of these two documents does not change my mind as to the nature of the authority of the rcc or the eo over decisions made by the anglican church.

[Finella]

Paralyzed - largely yes. Reunion should be our main goal. Is this likely in the existence of humankind? As I keep hearing, we are fallen creatures and thus we are doomed to be separated from God. Are we ever going to unify before the end of everything? If not, is this what God wills, that we remain paralyzed?

Deaf, not exactly.
But, We can't know something is of the Holy Spirit unless we all hear it. Again, putting God to the empirical test, and assuming that what is true for many is true for all. I'm still not certain about that.

[No Swansong]

friend jtbdad,

i really do not see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. wiser men than i studied the issue very carefully for many years before deciding that the anglican church was ready for women to be ordained. the discussion stretched over three lambeth conferences, and was then passed by an overwhelming majority.

Longhair I am certainly aware that more gifted individuals than I (and as you stated you) have studied this issue for years. But you must admit that it is a liberal stance to hold that almost 2 millennia of Church Tradition is changeable? I accept that it is thus my comment about being more liberal than I thought.
But hey opinions vary. We all have a different definition of what is and is not liberal.

[longhair75]

friend jtbdad,

i see what you mean.

one would suppose that rome found the publication of the first book of common prayer in 1549 to be a liberal act. since that time, the anglican church has made many changes. all of these changes could have been labeled liberal by some folks.

[Aymn27]

friend aymn,

i get your point, i just disagree. in order for the anglican communion to reunite with rome, we would have to accept papal authority. while i do not pretend to speak for the whole anglican communion, i will never submit to rome.

i, for one, accept that the bishops of the anglican communion do have the authority to make these determinations. regardless of the rcc and/or the e.o.Under Rome's current theology and structure I would not disagree with you on that..submission to the Pontiff as it is currently required. I agree with gtsecc, though, in saying that through history and in scripture - there is a place for a "primary" function of the Roman Pontiff - and I would submit to that should it be under biblical and historic functions - of course, the Holy Spirit will have to do amighty work to get us to that point.

As far as if bishops in the AC have such authority I believe we first have to determine if it is a matter of doctrine or a matter of practice. If it is of doctrine - then no, they do not have the authority to go against Scripture and Tradition based on their own judgment. If is a matter of practice, then yes, they can do what they like within their own diocesan borders.

However, as gtsecc, as been trying to point out - female ordination is NOT a matter of practice. Why not you ask - well because of the constant witness of the EO, RC and AC (up until a few decades back). The witness of the catholic church - back to antiquity - is that the proper minister for eucharist is male. This has become a matter of Tradition. Changing the proper minister of the sacrament changes the nature of the sacrament (by a catholic argument) and thus is a matter that would have to be debated by the entire church. The role of the bishop is to preserve the "faith once delivered" - the catholic faith, not to create new doctrine....

[Aymn27]

So, if I understand correctly, the church cannot say that it is at all inspired by the holy spirit to engage in anything that was not previously done by the early unified church -- until and unless the church as a whole reunites.

So we're paralyzed and deaf. The holy spirit is not talking to us anymore because we're a schismatic church?I may be misunderstanding your point here so correct me if I'm wrong....there is nothing "new" that is to be done within revelation. The faith is "once delievered unto the saints" so through Scripture - and Tradition and Reason in submission to Scripture - we have all we need so that we can determine if "something" is of God or not.

[Aymn27]

The link to the Vineyard Article in FAVOR of female pastors is here (http://www.vineyardcolumbus.org/about/what_we_believe/files/position_paper_Women-In-Ministry-Rich_Nathan.pdf). Sorry for the delay.

[longhair75]

Under Rome's current theology and structure I would not disagree with you on that..submission to the Pontiff as it is currently required. I agree with gtsecc, though, in saying that through history and in scripture - there is a place for a "primary" function of the Roman Pontiff - and I would submit to that should it be under biblical and historic functions - of course, the Holy Spirit will have to do amighty work to get us to that point.

As far as if bishops in the AC have such authority I believe we first have to determine if it is a matter of doctrine or a matter of practice. If it is of doctrine - then no, they do not have the authority to go against Scripture and Tradition based on their own judgment. If is a matter of practice, then yes, they can do what they like within their own diocesan borders.

However, as gtsecc, as been trying to point out - female ordination is NOT a matter of practice. Why not you ask - well because of the constant witness of the EO, RC and AC (up until a few decades back). The witness of the catholic church - back to antiquity - is that the proper minister for eucharist is male. This has become a matter of Tradition. Changing the proper minister of the sacrament changes the nature of the sacrament (by a catholic argument) and thus is a matter that would have to be debated by the entire church. The role of the bishop is to preserve the "faith once delivered" - the catholic faith, not to create new doctrine....

friend aymn,

thanks for this clear explanation. as i said, it is not that i do not understand your position, it is that we disagree. i have read the links you have posted, and researched the ecumenical council suggested by friend gtsecc.

i remain unconvinced that, as anglicans, we are to submit to the teachings either the church of rome or the eastern orthodox church.

[Aymn27]

friend aymn,

thanks for this clear explanation. as i said, it is not that i do not understand your position, it is that we disagree. i have read the links you have posted, and researched the ecumenical council suggested by friend gtsecc.

i remain unconvinced that, as anglicans, we are to submit to the teachings either the church of rome or the eastern orthodox church.
brother longhair (lol - that sounds funny),
I in no way mean to convey that we are to submit to the EO or RCC...by no means. However, if we are to profess ourselves as a "catholic" faith - even a reformed one- then it is incumbent upon leaders to preserve the catholic faith and order which has been handed on down to us. Otherwise, you will have "mini-pontiffs" in each diocese re-interpreting and inventing doctrine contrary to what the Lord laid out to his apostles. I b