To the Orthodox who want to throw some anglicans off the board for female ministers

[Colabomb]

Why don't you want to throw of the Roman Catholics for their view on the pope. Surely you believe it is false Tradition, otherwise you would submit to Rome.

Why is our differing from your Tradition any different than theirs?

[Simon_Templar]

I've voiced my opposition to the idea of rejecting Anglican orders because of women's ordination in the thread pertaining to that.

However, since you are asking why one tradition seems to be regarded differently than another.. perhaps its because some are more supportable than others.

Even though I disagree with the Roman position on the papacy, I admit that they have some historical support (including both scripture and tradition) to argue from. They didn't just invent it out of thin air. Likewise, those of us who oppose the papacy base our case on historical support (includng both scripture and tradition).

The issue between the two sides here is a disagreement over the interpetation of tradition.

There is no historical support in either scripture or tradition for the ordination of women. Thus the issue is not a disagreement over interpetation of tradition, it is simply inventing new ideas in contradiction to tradition.

Now, I'm fully aware of the verse which mentions phoebe as a deacon and that deaconesses are mentioned in tradition. However it is demonstrable that these women did not receive holy orders but were appointed as servants to assist women in baptism where it was not appropriate for a man.
Arguing for women's ordination on this basis is much like the argument a decade or so ago that George washington was gay because in one of his letters to a german general he said he couldn't wait to have intercourse upon the general's arrival. At the time the word intercourse meant "conversation". Everyone knew this but people still tried to make a case that it meant he was gay.

Its just not a tenable position.

[Colabomb]

I've voiced my opposition to the idea of rejecting Anglican orders because of women's ordination in the thread pertaining to that.

However, since you are asking why one tradition seems to be regarded differently than another.. perhaps its because some are more supportable than others.

Even though I disagree with the Roman position on the papacy, I admit that they have some historical support (including both scripture and tradition) to argue from. They didn't just invent it out of thin air. Likewise, those of us who oppose the papacy base our case on historical support (includng both scripture and tradition).

The issue between the two sides here is a disagreement over the interpetation of tradition.

There is no historical support in either scripture or tradition for the ordination of women. Thus the issue is not a disagreement over interpetation of tradition, it is simply inventing new ideas in contradiction to tradition.

Now, I'm fully aware of the verse which mentions phoebe as a deacon and that deaconesses are mentioned in tradition. However it is demonstrable that these women did not receive holy orders but were appointed as servants to assist women in baptism where it was not appropriate for a man.
Arguing for women's ordination on this basis is much like the argument a decade or so ago that George washington was gay because in one of his letters to a german general he said he couldn't wait to have intercourse upon the general's arrival. At the time the word intercourse meant "conversation". Everyone knew this but people still tried to make a case that it meant he was gay.

Its just not a tenable position.

Obviously we believe there is Scriptural support for it, otherwise I would not believe it. You know how I stand up for Scripture on STR.

Secondly, it can be claimed just as obvious by the Orthodox that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. What's obvious to one man is not obvious to another.

[Simon_Templar]

Obviously we believe there is Scriptural support for it, otherwise I would not believe it. You know how I stand up for Scripture on STR.

Secondly, it can be claimed just as obvious by the Orthodox that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. What's obvious to one man is not obvious to another.
I know you stand by the bible, but the fact remains that all of christian teaching and understanding goes against you on this issue.

That is really the point. In the protestant churches the reason there are thousands of denominations is because every time someone gets some new idea from reading the bible, they run with it and there is nothing to hold them in check. That is where "sola scriptura" goes the most wrong.

We are responsible for what we beleive as individuals, but we can't make ourselves the arbiters of truth. If ALL of tradition, including Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, Calvinist, and Lutheran etc etc agrees that you are wrong, then you are almost certainly wrong.

Now, obviously some Anglicans and Lutherans ordain women, however, even in those traditions that is a recent and still very controversial topic, the preponderance even of their tradition goes against it.

The fact that you support an idea from the bible in no way makes the idea good, or defensible. I could make a very long list of horrible ideas that people have gotten from the bible and supported from the bible.

[Colabomb]

I understand your position.

However this thread is not about debating the validity of our beliefs, but rather whether or not they should preclude us from posting.

[nestoj]

Why don't you want to throw of the Roman Catholics for their view on the pope. Surely you believe it is false Tradition, otherwise you would submit to Rome.

Why is our differing from your Tradition any different than theirs?
What is going on??? Give us some links to a threads where Orthodox are trying to throw out Anglicans (I don't have time to see all threads on CF). Personally, I find it hard to believe.

nestoj
God helps

[nestoj]

If you mean - about women ordination. Cause it will make this section a battlefield - something like GT. Noone is throwing you out, I guess people just want to find things that bind us, and if we want to argue - we have plenty of places to do so. So, now we make a choice what kind of subforum this will be.

nestoj
God helps

[Colabomb]

If you mean - about women ordination. Cause it will make this section a battlefield - something like GT. Noone is throwing you out, I guess people just want to find things that bind us, and if we want to argue - we have plenty of places to do so. So, now we make a choice what kind of subforum this will be.

nestoj
God helps

I disagree. WE have a few supporter's of women's ordination, and the only ones to bring it up have been those who don't support it. People are making it a bigger issue than it actually is.

Anyway, initially the binder was supposed to be Episcopal Government. If we we narrow it down too far it will be a clone of Obob.

[nestoj]

I disagree. WE have a few supporter's of women's ordination, and the only ones to bring it up have been those who don't support it. People are making it a bigger issue than it actually is.

Anyway, initially the binder was supposed to be Episcopal Government. If we we narrow it down too far it will be a clone of Obob.
Why of OBOB? Suppressing one topic that could mess things up is not censorship, it's avoiding a mine. Are there any other things, important to you, that are being pushed away? Give some threads, let's see what other of my brethren are saying. You made accusation that we are throwing you off the board, and that is not a same as wish of the majority (including some of the Anglicans) to avoid touchy subject.

nestoj
God helps

[Colabomb]

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36808673&postcount=27

[Colabomb]

wait a minute I swear someone asked me if any orthodox made that claim and that they doubted it.

Did somone edit their post?

[Colabomb]

BTW for the Record, I don't plan on ever bringing up the topic

[nestoj]

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36808673&postcount=27
Yes, but I agree with eoe. I would not agree with baning you for trying, but if most of us wants to avoid this subject - that would not be expelling you, that's establishing common ground.

nestoj
God helps

[nestoj]

wait a minute I swear someone asked me if any orthodox made that claim and that they doubted it.

Did somone edit their post?
You ware wrong. I've said that I doubt Orthodox are trying to push Anglicans out - that's not the same.

nestoj
God helps

[Mary of Bethany]

Cola,

I definitely don't want you or any other Anglicans turned away from this forum.

I disagree with women's ordination to the priesthood/episcopate, and I don't want this forum to turn into a place for argument over the things that are argued about all the time in STR. But we have plenty of other things to talk about in here!

Mary

[Colabomb]

Honestly, I've never brought up the subject, and I never plan to.

But for some reason some want to throw me off just for believing it in the first time.

I'd be happy to agree not to bring it up. I want peace.

But I don't think I should be thrown off the board for it.

[WarriorAngel]

:sigh:
No one ever suggested that ANYONE be thrown off the forum.

It was a discussion if it should even be discussed.

I wanted a concensus and made a poll. But I closed the poll because ppl were deferring opinions onto me based on the poll and rules suggestions.

I do not think equating topics to ppl are the same.
DO you? Honestly?

[eoe]

To the OP:
The issue is very simple. This forum is not for "people with valid traditions" but for "people with succession".

That is an easy one.

[Colabomb]

To the OP:
The issue is very simple. This forum is not for "people with valid traditions" but for "people with succession".

That is an easy one.

We have succession, you just fail to honor it.

[Colabomb]

:sigh:
No one ever suggested that ANYONE be thrown off the forum.

It was a discussion if it should even be discussed.

I wanted a concensus and made a poll. But I closed the poll because ppl were deferring opinions onto me based on the poll and rules suggestions.

I do not think equating topics to ppl are the same.
DO you? Honestly?


Again sister, I'm not talking about your post. I'm talking about another. I've already said that.

[Macarius]

We have succession, you just fail to honor it.
Perhaps the statement could be qualified to say, "This board is for those who claim unbroken institutional continuity with the Apostles as a doctrine of their faith." namely Anglicans, Orthodox, Oriental, Catholic, and Methodist churches.

EoE's statement could be used the same way as the OP was concerned: the Orthodox not recognizing anyone else's succession would make this TAW.

Instead of baseing inclusion one how we view others, base it on the group's own claim, then specifically name the groups that are allowed. That should suffice to limit it without rejecting certain tough issues like woman's ordination.

For the record, the Anglicans belong on this board. I think everyone here agrees about that. If I wanted only EO, I go post on TAW (and I do!).

[eoe]

Methodists have succession?

[kiwimac]

Some do, yes. As do some Lutherans and all Old Catholics.

[WarriorAngel]

Not actually.

[kiwimac]

To whom are you responding?

[Sothron]

Methodists have succession?

Apparently if you claim you have it then you get to say you do? :confused:

The only ones I consider valid are EO, OO and RCC personally. If any church makes a claim to it then do they get to post in this forum just out of curiousity?

[Colabomb]

The idea was for all Christians who have claim apostolic succession and an episcopal government.

[Mary of Bethany]

Apparently if you claim you have it then you get to say you do? :confused:

The only ones I consider valid are EO, OO and RCC personally. If any church makes a claim to it then do they get to post in this forum just out of curiousity?

Like Cola said, if a church has always had episcopal governance and claims that it is apostolic, then their claim should be accepted for purposes of this forum. so that includes Anglicans and Old Catholic groups, too. I can't think of anyone else who could convincingly claim it.

Mary

[Sothron]

Like Cola said, if a church has always had episcopal governance and claims that it is apostolic, then their claim should be accepted for purposes of this forum. so that includes Anglicans and Old Catholic groups, too. I can't think of anyone else who could convincingly claim it.

Mary

Apparently Methodists do as well...?

[WarriorAngel]

The OO, CC, EO, AC and OC [Utrecht] are members here.

[kiwimac]

Except that some methodist dioceses have bishops ordained in apostolic succession. This is primarily a European thing but nonetheless....

[NewToLife]

Apparently if you claim you have it then you get to say you do? :confused:

The only ones I consider valid are EO, OO and RCC personally. If any church makes a claim to it then do they get to post in this forum just out of curiousity?

That's one more than me, I reject the RCC succession on the basis of failure to maintain the faith in it's original state.

I dont see any real reason to remove Anglican or RCC on that basis though, clearly both believe in good faith that their succession is intact.

[Albion]

Except that some methodist dioceses have bishops ordained in apostolic succession. This is primarily a European thing but nonetheless....

Then IF that is so AND their churches "claim" that they are in Apostolic Succession, those posters should be allowed membership here. I doubt very much if there are such churches, even if some bishops claim Apostolic Succession themselves. Our rules refer to the status of churches and the claims they make on this matter, not to the opinions or claims of individual clergy or of dioceses within a larger church jurisdiction.

[WarriorAngel]

That's one more than me, I reject the RCC succession on the basis of failure to maintain the faith in it's original state.


:holy:
I sit here with an ice pack wrapped over my head...
Medicine wont work...

AND all I can think is......be charitable because no matter what you say, the Catholics get smacked. ;)

So....I leave you to whatever you like.
God Bless.

[No Swansong]

:holy:
I sit here with an ice pack wrapped over my head...
Medicine wont work...

AND all I can think is......be charitable because no matter what you say, the Catholics get smacked. ;)

So....I leave you to whatever you like.
God Bless.
Happens on this side too my sister.

Here have a fresh ice pack.

[Sothron]

That's one more than me, I reject the RCC succession on the basis of failure to maintain the faith in it's original state.

I dont see any real reason to remove Anglican or RCC on that basis though, clearly both believe in good faith that their succession is intact.

I am torn over the RCC. Can it really be just called a schism after all this time? Aren't they in fact just poisonous fruit from a poisonous bishop? (No offense to any RCC members, just EO talking to EO here)

I do not know. I also agree that our personal feelings on who "has it" or does not should be the rule to apply to this forum or else the only people posting would be EO or RCC if that lol.

[Albion]

I am torn over the RCC. Can it really be just called a schism after all this time? Aren't they in fact just poisonous fruit from a poisonous bishop? (No offense to any RCC members, just EO talking to EO here)

Take this as a friend offering friendly advice. When you post here, you post to all members AND anyone else looking in, not only to the person you most want to speak to. So use a PM the next time you want to say something about "poisonous fruit from a poisonous bishop." Or else find more respectful words that hint at your thoughts. I'm not RC and I still DID take offense at such unnecessary language.

[Rowan]

Take this as a friend offering friendly advice. When you post here, you post to all members AND anyone else looking in, not only to the person you most want to speak to. So use a PM the next time you want to say something about "poisonous fruit from a poisonous bishop." Or else find more respectful words that hint at your thoughts. I'm not RC and I still DID take offense at such unnecessary language.

I don't know. I honestly thought that all the cards were on the table and we would know how one church regarded the authenticity of the other.

As for the OP, I hope it's not an issue anymore and you all are just on the thread to be chatty :) For the sake of the forum, of course I think Anglicans should participate...

[Albion]

I don't know. I honestly thought that all the cards were on the table and we would know how one church regarded the authenticity of the other.

I'm pretty sure that we all know how each regards the others. My post was about using respectful language, being aware that we all agreed to be here together.

That doesn't mean that no one should express an opinion, just that we could and ought to do it in a way that isn't pointedly insulting to other and equal members of the forum. And BTW, the post in question had nothing to do with Anglicanism (despite the title of the thread), so hopefully you can see that I was speaking of a general principle, not that my ox was being gored and I didn't like it.

[Rowan]

I'm pretty sure that we all know how each regards the others. My post was about using respectful language, being aware that we all agreed to be here together.

That doesn't mean that no one should express an opinion, just that we could and ought to do it in a way that isn't pointedly insulting to other and equal members of the forum. And BTW, the post in question had nothing to do with Anglicanism (despite the title of the thread), so hopefully you can see that I was speaking of a general principle, not that my ox was being gored and I didn't like it.

The underlined clarified it for me. Thank ya.

[stray bullet]

Why don't you want to throw of the Roman Catholics for their view on the pope. Surely you believe it is false Tradition, otherwise you would submit to Rome.

Why is our differing from your Tradition any different than theirs?

Our Tradition/Doctrine about the Pope has a lot of support from the Church fathers and many eastern saints and patriarches.

The idea of a priestess does not.You couldn't find anyone to support it.

[stray bullet]

We have succession, you just fail to honor it.

You had succession, you just failed to continue it.

I think to call a Church apostolic, all its bishops need to have apostolic succession. Even if you argue some of the bishops have succession, not all of the Anglicans and Methodists do.

[Secundulus]

I thought this issue was already settled and dead.

[Colabomb]

You had succession, you just failed to continue it.

I think to call a Church apostolic, all its bishops need to have apostolic succession. Even if you argue some of the bishops have succession, not all of the Anglicans and Methodists do.

By rome's standard, which is not the standard of this board. On Obob, I will not dare argue with you about it. But here on a forum where I am an equal participant. I can claim my priet's sucession all day long if I wish.

[stray bullet]

By rome's standard, which is not the standard of this board. On Obob, I will not dare argue with you about it. But here on a forum where I am an equal participant. I can claim my priet's sucession all day long if I wish.




Your perceptions and wishes don't change reality, which is more important than the functions of a board.

[kiwimac]

Equally friend, your's and those of your tradition may well be wrong.

[stray bullet]

Equally friend, your's and those of your tradition may well be wrong.

Christianity would need to be wrong as would Jesus Christ and all His apostles.

[kiwimac]

It is only your opinion that Jesus did not have female apostles.

[stray bullet]

It is only your opinion that Jesus did not have female apostles.

Bi kiwkimac, it is a fact. Christ appointed only twelves apostles, all men. After the Resurrection, the apostles began appointing others and also bishops.

Why do you believe something that I can only hope you know in your heart is wrong? Why believe in something so wrong and disordered? Why have such a view in opposition to the dignity of women?

[EmperorConstantine]

I thought this issue was already settled and dead.
Same here...:scratch:

What happened? :confused:

[No Swansong]

This needs to stop. We can all argue about each others "succession" The Orthodox claim that Rome no longer has succession ( lost due to teaching error) Rome claims that the AC has no valid succession (due to a presumption that many argue was incorrect) This is ridiculous. This is not TAW, OBOB or STR we all are a part of the board and we have the opportunity to get to know each other better. This pettiness needs to stop. If you don't believe that the AC has valid succession then fine but it is ridiculous to keep harping on an issue to which there is no solution.

[eoe]

Then drop it - just do not expect us to accept that some atheist or mulsim lesbian bishop is any more valid than an ordained groundhog.

The issue is dead - no one is getting banned from the area and no one's mind is going to change about the issue.

[Sothron]

I agree, there is no issue here. We agreed early on what we considered to be the correct way to acknowledge one another on this forum and I see nothing in this thread that threatens that.

[No Swansong]

Then drop it - just do not expect us to accept that some atheist or mulsim lesbian bishop is any more valid than an ordained groundhog.

The issue is dead - no one is getting banned from the area and no one's mind is going to change about the issue.
You are assuming that the Anglicans on the board have asked you to accept anything about Ms. Redding. To be honest I don't know any of the Anglicans that have frequented this board who also don't oppose Ms. Redding.

[eoe]

Redding, Spong - the dog spike down the road... whatever.

Again - it is a dead horse. You want the last word, go ahead. Nothing is going to change. The Anglicans will still be here and I will still believe that once you remove yourself from the Church you are no longer a bishop.

[SaintPhotios]

Then drop it - just do not expect us to accept that some atheist or mulsim lesbian bishop is any more valid than an ordained groundhog.

The issue is dead - no one is getting banned from the area and no one's mind is going to change about the issue.
Haha... I'm sorry. I haven't been in this thread, so I apologize for not being as emotional as I'm sure some in here. But this post had me hunched over with laughter. Thanks man...

[Colabomb]

Then drop it - just do not expect us to accept that some atheist or mulsim lesbian bishop is any more valid than an ordained groundhog.

The issue is dead - no one is getting banned from the area and no one's mind is going to change about the issue.

Do you realize how many of us, are outraged and at the issues in our church? Do you also realize that the muslim woman has been censured by her bishop and is not permitted to act in a priestly function?

Many us have already stated our belief that Redding is in error (I cannot use any stronger language per the rules of this forum).

Many of us are protesting the ordination of robinson to this day.

And if you think ordaining a woman is the same as ordaining a dog, then I am sorry you feel that way.

[Albion]

Redding, Spong - the dog spike down the road... whatever.

Again - it is a dead horse. You want the last word, go ahead. Nothing is going to change. The Anglicans will still be here and I will still believe that once you remove yourself from the Church you are no longer a bishop.


Well, here's the whatever.

You don't know enough about Anglicanism to even know what church(es) you are talking about. I know some pretty sordid details about some Orthodox churches, but I don't immediately rush to say that "Orthodoxy" is defined by these events or persons. That's the difference.

[Mary of Bethany]

Redding, Spong - the dog spike down the road... whatever.

Again - it is a dead horse. You want the last word, go ahead. Nothing is going to change. The Anglicans will still be here and I will still believe that once you remove yourself from the Church you are no longer a bishop.


eoe -

we've established the fact that the AC disagrees with the OC and RC, and the OC disagrees with the RC and the AC, and the RC disagrees with the AC and the OC on the issue of who has kept true Apostolic Succession.

I think it is also quite clear what you, me, and most of the other posters in here, Anglicans included, think about Spong and Redding, etc. But since that isn't going to change the fact that all of the above groups are considered Apostolic for purposes of this forum, can we move past that, please?

Mary

[Jim47]

Closing this thread because of heat building up. Lets keep it civil folks and quit slamming each other. If this is going to be a breeding ground for contempt then I will look into having it closed.

Would another mod kindly re-open this thread on Saturday evening or PM me and I will.