Okay. I really did not know this about the Anglican/Episcopal faith. The churches around my area are all part of the Anglican Communion which all I believe accept women and openly homosexual ordinations. I have never visited an Episcopal church and would not want to if these practices were being taught as from God, so actually I have absolutely no idea which Episcopal church accepts active homosexual priests and which ones do not…
The whole situation is very confused right now. At present, the only churches (I think) who have ordained openly non-celibate homosexual bishops are the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada. However, even in these churches, there is resistance (though it seems that the national levels of these churches tend to favor “full inclusion” of homosexuals). In the Episcopal Church, many congregations and even whole dioceses have left the church over it. Two of the most prominent break away groups are the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Mission in the Americas. Both groups are seeking to remain in the Anglican Communion, but refuse to surrender to the revisionist forces within the Episcopal Church.
I tend to agree. If you accept the Traditional theological explanation of the priesthood, you can argue it theologically, but you can’t arrive at that definition without looking to Tradition.
First of all, you can’t summarize another person’s position well if you insist on sticking straw-man loaded terms into it. Obviously the issue isn’t whether we recognize that Christ was male, but what significance we give that fact with regards to ordination.
I wouldn’t say that there are no good theological objections, but that the ones I have seen appear to me to be either very bad or needing a lot of development.
And not all Anglican churches are Episcopal churches.
Ok, let’s proceed with this thought exercise and assume ECFs didn’t know about women. If there is one human nature, then what of divine revelation’s teaching of Christ as an incarnate male and the Son? And of his selection of an all-male New Testament ministerial priesthood? And of Christ as bridgegroom?
I’m still not entirely clear on your position, but if I understand it right — I don’t see how jettisoning the idea that women are imperfect men changes anything. In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, women are considered equal in dignity and both fully human. Yet because the priest acts in persona Christi, and because Christ selected an all-male ministerial priesthood, and because the priest serves in the person of the bridegroom, etc…, it is a metaphysical impossibility for a woman to be a priest. This is just as much the case as it is impossible for a man to give birth or lactate milk or something, regardless of whether or not a man is as dignified as a woman. To have the fullness of humanity, as does a woman, does not mean that she is capable of ministering in the person of the bridegroom who gives himself to the bride who receives him. It is impossible.
To answer the first question I would have to ask: do you believe there is one human nature or two? If you believe there are two do you believe that Jesus’ “male-ness” is the saving aspect of his incarnation? If you believe in one human nature then your question doesn’t matter. The fact that Jesus was incarnate Male has no bearing on who he saved right?
Why is it necessary to assume any such thing? It’s safe to assume that their knowledge of embryology was limited, but other than that “not knowing” is really not the point.
The Fathers would say that Christ assumed human nature, period. Not some specifically male human nature.
I think it’s a bit anachronistic to speak of Jesus selecting a “ministerial priesthood.” Jesus selected apostles–chief among those were a group of Twelve whom we know to be all men from their names.
There I think we get onto really significant ground. But the problem with the “Christ as bridegroom” argument is that the counterpart is “Church as bride.” Clearly we believe males can be part of the Bride; it therefore does not automatically follow that a female may not liturgically represent the Bridegroom.
In short, you simply ignore the argument.
But none of these things necessarily follow. None of these are actually metaphysical arguments at all. They are historical/symbolic arguments, which depend on metaphysical assumptions for their significance. I’m trying to address the actual metaphysical issue, which has to do with human nature.
Indeed. Because of biological differences. What is the biological difference that makes women incapable of being priests? As I said, ancient/medieval cultural assumptions explained this. In the absence of those assumptions, a new explanation is necessary, and it is important to make sure that this new explanation is itself faithful to the Tradition–otherwise you have a cure worse than the disease.
And yet you have no problem at all saying that men are part of the bride.
And as GKC said, not all Anglicans are Episcopalians.
Peace,
We agree there is one human nature. That’s not the issue as far as I can tell. But I’m not so sure about the rest of your assertion because the revelation of bride and bridegroom is destroyed if Jesus’ incarnate gender is inconsequential. And whether it was an OT priest or NT priest, the ministerial sacrifice is consistently accomplished by males in revelation.
This has nothing to do with tending to the sick. This is about being able to receive Holy Orders. And I can just as well ask you why my maleness should have any affect on me giving birth or menstruating. Just because I am fully human it is not a valid conclusion to say I have all the gifts and capabilities of the other gender.
Perhaps you can try to articulate it differently, Edwin, instead of accusing me of ignoring what you are trying to say.
Remember, women also participate in the royal priesthood in the same way, and we do not deny their ability to participate in Christ’s priesthood to that extent. So there is overlap in members of the Church in this way.
I have pointed out repeatedly that this was the belief. Aquinas says that women lack the “hegemonic faculty.”
But the people to whom you appeal as witnesses of Tradition did argue X. It’s not some random argument I made up. It’s well documented.
No, it’s not. Because I’m not talking about “everything.” I’m talking about a particular sacramental practice with a particular history and cultural context.
Precisely. they participate in the royal priesthood of Christ through baptism. An argument is needed to show why ordination is different from baptism in this respect.
So is baptism.
This is an assertion, not an argument. In baptism we are all made part of the Bride of Christ, are we not? You continue to be unable to explain why the one form of cross-gender sacramental signification (women as sacramental representatives of Christ the Bridegroom through ordination) is a problem while the other (men as sacramental members of the Church the Bride through baptism) is not. What you cannot explain i can, by pointing to the traditional belief that the female is imperfect.
I get that this is the position. But stating the position is not the same as giving a reason for it.
Since the idea of a male priesthood is not founded on the idea that women are inferior humans, it is irrelevant to the discussion. That is not foundational to the teaching of a male priesthood and you don’t see it appear in any document addressing the issue. I can just as well accuse you of being a modernist liberal who wants theology to accommodate social norms, but I prefer to stick to the argument you actually present. If the Holy Spirit can’t overcome supposed biases in those first Christians, who were also quite fond of Mary, we’re all in a lot of trouble.
As to your last question, I think I already answered it when I quoted Inter Insigniores. The whole doc offers a lengthy treatment. If you don’t accept that as confronting the issue, then I guess you can continue about your way saying that no one has addressed your concerns!