Anglican/Episcopal Ordinations

[MarcoPolo]

That’s an interesting point. Gregory is certainly one of the best candidates, in my opinion, for a relatively egalitarian view of gender. I have not read this particular work of his, alas, but in scanning it briefly I was startled by the absence of the Eve=flesh identification that is prominent in Origen and Augustine.

St. Gregory is certainly not typical, but I said to find me one Father. . . . .

Perhaps Gregory of Nyssa is a good starting point for modern Catholics in this as in so many other ways. (At least, many of the Catholic theologians I know seem to find him very exciting–many of the Protestants too.)

I will look into his view of gender further. Thanks for the good, solid discussion!

God bless,

Edwin

You’re welcome I’ll leave it at that then. You have an awful lot of text there and I’m just going to leave what I said as-is for anyone interested to compare–plus back & forth dialogue is very time consuming and you may notice I rarely engage in that anymore.

Like I said, I prefer at this point to move beyond the issue of bias and if I get the ambition and time, I want to put forth a couple things that are affirmative to the theology of a male-priesthood. I took a class on Wisdom Literature recently and we delved into Song of Songs which is very much an antetype of bride and bridegroom to come in the type of Christ and the Church. The issue of a male-priesthood didn’t come up, but much of what I learned can shed light, I think, on the matter. If I am able to do so, it would demonstrate that any antiquated ideas of an inferior female rational nature may be historical but not foundational to the theology or what is revealed in revelation.

Without getting into detail, in short, the Crucifixion was Christ’s “wedding,” and the priest’s pinnacle function is to re-present, as priest and victim, that sacrifice. So it is essentially “impossible” for a female to fulfill that action. That’s the cliff’s notes version.

 

[Bluegoat]

On what basis? And what do you mean by “essential”? As you rightly say, we are not just souls–bodies are part of who we are. So I’m not saying that sexual differentiation is peripheral to our identity as individuals–quite the contrary. I’m saying that it pertains purely *to *our identity as bodily individuals.

What do you mean by “Heaven”? In the resurrection we will have bodies. That’s a basic Christian teaching. If you mean the “intermediate state”–well, I believe there is such a state, but it’s hard to speak definitely about it on the basis of revelation. Aquinas’s idea that the soul remains individualized by the body from which it has been detached seems a bit awkward to me, but maybe it’s the best approach. I’m not sure I have a better idea.

The soul is created together with the body. It’s not pre-existent.

Again, I don’t know that I agree with Aquinas on the soul being individualized by the body. I think that there’s room for a lot more thought on this subject in light of modern neuroscience, etc. I don’t claim to have a good answer to these questions. But if we’re speaking on a Thomistic basis, then there’s certainly no ground for saying that the soul, regarded in abstraction from the body, has sexual differentiation.

Edwin

I still don’t see how your understanding is coherent. By essential, I mean part of our essence. If we are taking the model that differentiation comes from matter alone, then anything that is of that kind is not part of our essence, it’s an accident. What you seem to be suggesting is that maleness and femaleness are accidental, which is not a Christian position.

And yes, by Heaven I mean after we die, before the Resurrection. I think there is more information here than you seem to suggest myself.

 

[MarcoPolo]

we get statements like “Jesus only chose men to be members of the Twelve,” with no serious attempt made to answer the obvious question, “So what?”

p.s. I did want to comment on this one. I don’t think it is a weak argument to point out that Christ chose males as apostles by a ratio of 12-0, and when we see successors ordained in Acts or Paul to Timothy, etc… it is a male every time. So while I might agree with you that it’s not a scientific proof-positive, it is certainly consistent with, and in my lowly opinion, strongly indicative that Holy Orders can only be conferred on men. Christ was free and sovereign when he selected them, after all.

And I would agree that the all-male Apostle argument is stronger when supplemented with the theology of males as “heads” and Christ as bridegroom, etc…

 

[Bluegoat]

Agreed. In this case we have an individual who makes no apology regarding his support for female pastors in the Episcopalian assembly. He then proceeds to question the Apostolic Holy Tradition of the ordination of the all male priesthood by employing his own reason and logic. He then dismisses the 2000 year witness of the Church Fathers on the basis of cultural assumptions and/or metaphysical gaps (with the exception of St Gregory of Nyssa)—in essence denying that those very same Church Fathers are part of the Holy Tradition of the Church.

His veiled attack is slick…but not convincing.

You do realize that the Catholic Church teaches that reason and revelation are not separate modes of knowing, and often engages in just this kind of explanation of theological points.

If you are going to be rude and condescending then, you might as well be to MarcoPolo as well, since his Church teaches that thinking philosophically about the teaching of the Church is a good thing. Even teachings that have been consistently affirmed for 2000 years.

For that matter, the second, third, and fourth century Church was willing to explain its received teachings as well, even to heretics. As far as I’m aware, the modern OC also does not step into the error of gnosticism by suggesting that truth revealed by reason is fundamentally separate from truth revealed by revelation.

And for that matter, everyone here comes in with a POV they have worked out about what is right, including the Orthodox Christians. Your tone is no different than someone who says “he makes no apology for being a misogynist” or some such thing. Why would one apologize for his considered religious view - you don’t. There is absolutely no way you can suggest that Edwin hasn’t given a lot of thought into his views, and he has given every indication he’d reconsider if given a reason to, and even with a person where that wasn’t clear charity suggests we assume they have thought their position out. We are doing well if we all can say we have considered our views that carefully.

Your tone is way out of line, rude and personal and totally uncalled for - I hate to think you speak that way to members of other religious groups in person, and I would be horrified if I thought that the OC would approve of it.

If you don’t want to talk about theology, maybe coming to a website for that purpose is a bit counter-productive.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You’re welcome I’ll leave it at that then. You have an awful lot of text there and I’m just going to leave what I said as-is for anyone interested to compare–plus back & forth dialogue is very time consuming and you may notice I rarely engage in that anymore.

p.s.s. If there is something a lurker or someone does want me to address, please ask, lest I should be thought unable or afraid.

 

[MarcoPolo]

his Church teaches that thinking philosophically about the teaching of the Church is a good thing.

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[tomarin]

You do realize that the Catholic Church teaches that reason and revelation are not separate modes of knowing, and often engages in just this kind of explanation of theological points.

If you are going to be rude and condescending then, you might as well be to MarcoPolo as well, since his Church teaches that thinking philosophically about the teaching of the Church is a good thing. Even teachings that have been consistently affirmed for 2000 years.

For that matter, the second, third, and fourth century Church was willing to explain its received teachings as well, even to heretics. As far as I’m aware, the modern OC also does not step into the error of gnosticism by suggesting that truth revealed by reason is fundamentally separate from truth revealed by revelation.

And for that matter, everyone here comes in with a POV they have worked out about what is right, including the Orthodox Christians. Your tone is no different than someone who says “he makes no apology for being a misogynist” or some such thing. Why would one apologize for his considered religious view - you don’t. There is absolutely no way you can suggest that Edwin hasn’t given a lot of thought into his views, and he has given every indication he’d reconsider if given a reason to, and even with a person where that wasn’t clear charity suggests we assume they have thought their position out. We are doing well if we all can say we have considered our views that carefully.

Your tone is way out of line, rude and personal and totally uncalled for - I hate to think you speak that way to members of other religious groups in person, and I would be horrified if I thought that the OC would approve of it.

If you don’t want to talk about theology, maybe coming to a website for that purpose is a bit counter-productive.

Well said, BG.

 

[Bluegoat]

What exactly do you mean by this?

I mean that the Catholic Church has no issue with in depth theological analysis of her teachings. To say that such analysis is somehow not allowed or itself sinful or disrespectful or whatever is not something that makes any sense from a Catholic POV. She figures her teachings are quite robust enough to handle such discussions.

 

[Mickey]

You do realize that the Catholic Church teaches that reason and revelation are not separate modes of knowing, and often engages in just this kind of explanation of theological points.

Fallen human reason often leads to grave errors.

If you are going to be rude and condescending then, you might as well be to MarcoPolo as well, since his Church teaches that thinking philosophically about the teaching of the Church is a good thing.

I am sorry you think that I am being rude and condescending. I feel that that someone who attacks Holy Orders and the all male priesthood on the basis of something like “cultural assumptions” or “metaphysical gaps” while dismissing Holy Tradition…is the one who is being condescending. Marco and I have had our disagreements…both both our churches teach pretty much the same thing on this issue. Granted, catholicism tries to engage such issues with philosophy, reason, and logic (Thomism, Scholasticism, etc) but such arguments are not necessary.

Even teachings that have been consistently affirmed for 2000 years.

That is the entire argument. It is called Sacred Tradition.

For that matter, the second, third, and fourth century Church was willing to explain its received teachings as well, even to heretics.

Indeed…the early Church through Great Councils under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had many heresies to confront.

And the Church Fathers also speak about the all male priesthood throughout Church history…but on this thread, their words are often dismissed as some sort of bias against females.

As far as I’m aware, the modern OC also does not step into the error of gnosticism by suggesting that truth revealed by reason is fundamentally separate from truth revealed by revelation.

You’ll have to explain this further with examples and quotes. I have read many Church Fathers who speak of fallen human reason as mere dross.

Your tone is no different than someone who says “he makes no apology for being a misogynist” or some such thing.

Now who is being condescending and rude?

Why would one apologize for his considered religious view - you don’t.

I am not trying to discredit the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

There is absolutely no way you can suggest that Edwin hasn’t given a lot of thought into his views

I am sure he has given it much thought.

Your tone is way out of line, rude and personal and totally uncalled for

I think this scathing post you have submitted is the one which is of dark tone, rude, and uncalled for. I am defending Holy Tradition. If you are offended…you do not have to respond to me.

I hate to think you speak that way to members of other religious groups in person, and I would be horrified if I thought that the OC would approve of it.

If Sacred Tradition is attacked…I will defend it…as would any Orthodox Christian who is familiar with said Tradition.

If you don’t want to talk about theology, maybe coming to a website for that purpose is a bit counter-productive.

True theology is experience of God and his uncreated energies. There are very few true theologians. Philosophy, reason and logic does not make a theologian. No one here is a theologian. On this issue, I do not stand on my own opinion…I stand on the teachings of the Holy Church Fathers and the Sacred Tradition of the Church. If you do not like it…or are somehow offended…I am very sorry for causing you disturbance. But I will not compromise the proclamation of truth as taught by the Apostolic Church.

Good day. :tiphat:

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m curious Mickey, you must have been born Orthodox, or had a mystical experience of some kind. Because you obviously didn’t hold the OC to any kind of scrutiny before concluding that it was teaching truth. Do you really not understand that when you talk to someone outside of your tradition is is strange and also useless to imagine they will accept the authority and teaching of your tradition. Do you berate Hindus for not accepting Orthodox belief without giving any reason that they ought to do so?

Did you bother to read the title of this thread, or the OP? Answering a question asked in the OP about the Episcopal Church is hardly some kind of wild attack on the Orthodox Church. On the face of it, it has nothing to do with them.

Why would you even read such a thread if you only want to talk to people who believe what you do?

You also never answered Edwin’s question on how you decide whether a given teaching is Tradition or tradition only without scrutinizing what the various Fathers actually said, and why. Nor have you given any actual examples to back up your claim that the teaching on the nature of women and men is Tradition. Both of which were to the point.

I find myself wondering if you are actually a schismatic or a convert from a fundamentalist background. Do you realize how very nasty you are making Orthodoxy look? As someone who has encouraged a number of friends to look into the OC, I would be totally embarrassed to have them read your posts here.

I was, undoubtedly, frank in saying you were rude. Your posts however, were among the worst I have seen on CAF - if you are doubtful, perhaps you should ask for a second opinion, or try imagining yourself saying them out loud in a conversation. If you really don’t realize how they come off, you are a mature enough Christian you ought to be told.

 

[Mickey]

you must have been born Orthodox,

That is none of your business.

or had a mystical experience of some kind.

No.

Because you obviously didn’t hold the OC to any kind of scrutiny before concluding that it was teaching truth.

Please try to control your anger. You do not know me and have no right for such judgements.

Do you really not understand that when you talk to someone outside of your tradition is is strange and also useless to imagine they will accept the authority and teaching of your tradition.

Edwin is well aware of the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Church.

Do you berate Hindus for not accepting Orthodox belief without giving any reason that they ought to do so?

If you would like my opinion on hindus, you may pm me.

Did you bother to read the title of this thread, or the OP? Answering a question asked in the OP about the Episcopal Church is hardly some kind of wild attack on the Orthodox Church.

It morphed into a discussion questioning the all male priesthood.

Why would you even read such a thread if you only want to talk to people who believe what you do?

Again…I am defending Sacred Tradition.

You also never answered Edwin’s question on how you decide whether a given teaching is Tradition or tradition only without scrutinizing what the various Fathers actually said, and why.

Many quotes have been given…from different fathers. The all male priesthood is an unbroken Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Church as witnessed by the holy Fathers of the Church.

Nor have you given any actual examples to back up your claim that the teaching on the nature of women and men is Tradition.

The Tradition holds unbroken through the teaching of the Church Fathers (St John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nyssa, etc) that the all male priesthood is a Sacred Tradition of the Church…that evidence has been aptly presented here.

I find myself wondering if you are actually a schismatic or a convert from a fundamentalist background.

Your tone is gertting progressively more uncharitable.

Do you realize how very nasty you are making Orthodoxy look?

If you call defense of the Sacred Tradition, “nasty”, then I am not sure how to respond to you.

As someone who has encouraged a number of friends to look into the OC, I would be totally embarrassed to have them read your posts here.

Defending the Sacred Tradition of the Church against those who attempt to sow seeds of uncertainty, is something that I will always endeavor to continue…regardless of your personal insults.

Your posts however, were among the worst I have seen on CAF -

Again…I am sorry you feel that way. I will always defend the Sacred Tradition of the Church…and your scathing uncharitable attacks against me will not change that.

If you really don’t realize how they come off, you are a mature enough Christian you ought to be told.

I am well aware that I am a terrible sinner…I also know that my posts sometimes come off more confrontational than they are meant to be.

But I am mature enough to know that you have launched a personal tirade against me on a public forum…littered with uncharitable comments. If you would like to continue your offensive, it would be better if you did so through private messages to me.

I have thick skin…I can take it.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

With respect to WO, you can make good cases both pro and con using scripture, tradition, and reason. N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington–certainly non squishy liberals–both favor WO and see nothing that contradicts it in scripture.

Example here: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

However, my biggest problem with WO is that, at least in my personal experience, female clergy are almost always very theologically liberal and heterodox. They’re more likely to do stuff like use the New Zealand “Prayer Book” during the Eucharist in place of the BCP, use ridiculous formulations like “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifer” etc. Not that male clergy don’t do this, too, but among women clergy this is the norm.

With respect to practicing homosexual clergy and bishops, this is clearly in the wrong and the vast majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion agrees. Sadly the “leadership” of my province (along with the moribund Anglican Church of Canada) decided to spit in their faces and do it anyway so they could get invited to more cocktail parties in New York.

 

[nhylan]

With respect to WO, you can make good cases both pro and con using scripture, tradition, and reason. N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington–certainly non squishy liberals–both favor WO and see nothing that contradicts it in scripture.

Example here: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

However, my biggest problem with WO is that, at least in my personal experience, female clergy are almost always very theologically liberal and heterodox. They’re more likely to do stuff like use the New Zealand “Prayer Book” during the Eucharist in place of the BCP, use ridiculous formulations like “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifer” etc. Not that male clergy don’t do this, too, but among women clergy this is the norm.

With respect to practicing homosexual clergy and bishops, this is clearly in the wrong and the vast majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion agrees. Sadly the “leadership” of my province (along with the moribund Anglican Church of Canada) decided to spit in their faces and do it anyway so they could get invited to more cocktail parties in New York.

Is it against the rules to use the NZ prayer book? It is the recognized Prayer Book of Anglican’s in New Zealand. Do you personally dislike this book? I find its language quite refreshing.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I don’t know about specific rules, but I don’t see a compelling reason to use the NZ Book during the service when we already have the Book of Common Prayer which works just fine. We have a wonderful liturgy in the BCP which is widely respected and envied, why spit on our luck?

 

[Mickey]

I don’t think it is a weak argument to point out that Christ chose males as apostles

It is a very strong argument. Here are more details from a Latin Catholic perspective.

The Male Priesthood: The Argument From Sacred Tradition
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MALEPRIE.TXT

 

[MarcoPolo]

With respect to WO, you can make good cases both pro and con using scripture, tradition, and reason. N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington–certainly non squishy liberals–both favor WO and see nothing that contradicts it in scripture.

I read over the NT Wright article you posted and do not agree with you that it is a “good case” for women’s ordination. He seems to confound the idea that women can be called to service as justification to have women perform the sacrifice of the bridegroom at the altar. Unless I missed it, that oversight is fatally absent to his proposition.

One example of what I would consider profound eisegesis is when he wrote: *Among the many things that need to be said about the gospels is that we gain nothing by ignoring the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were no doubt all kinds of reasons for this within both the symbolic world in which he was operating and the practical and cultural world within which they would have to live and work. But every time this point is made – and in my experience it is made quite frequently – we have to comment on how interesting it is that there comes a time in the story when the disciples all forsake Jesus and run away [sic, except for John]; and at that point, long before the rehabilitation of Peter and the others, it is the women who come first to the tomb, who are the first to see the risen Jesus, and are the first to be entrusted with the news that he has been raised from the dead. This is of incalculable significance.*In other words, he dismisses who Christ appointed in favor of the faithful example of non-ordained female characters. He does not see the text as Christ appointing cowardly men EVEN THOUGH the women were more faithful to come to his foot. Essentially, he is saying that the sampling Jesus chose failed to consider this. After all, is Wright not suggesting that Christ chose inferior candidates who “forsook” him instead of the much better example of the women who arrived first at the tomb. In an essay arguing for who should be appointed to ordained ministry, Wright here distinguishes the bad apostles to the good women. Jesus messed up. We can dismiss the twelve men he picked as any sort of example.

Ironically, I would agree with Wright that this is of incalculable significance. It means despite the great examples of these women and their loyalty, they were not chosen by Christ himself to the ordained ministry. If the Apostolic Churches are correct in teaching that it is impossible for a woman to receive ordination, then Christ’s action makes consistent sense. If Wright is correct, then Christ (and subsequently the Apostles who followed by ordaining only men) left the Church with a lopsided example that apparently begot confusion for some 1900 years.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

It means despite the great examples of these women and their loyalty, they were not chosen by Christ himself to the ordained ministry

It makes perfect sense that Jesus never personally chose women to do a dangerous job where they would get whipped, stoned, thrown in prison, etc. That’s what being an Apostle entailed in the 1st Century. Being a parish priest today (with the exception of countries where Christians are actively persecuted, eg. Egypt) doesn’t entail any of those things.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It makes perfect sense that Jesus never personally chose women to do a dangerous job where they would get whipped, stoned, thrown in prison, etc. That’s what being an Apostle entailed in the 1st Century. Being a parish priest today (with the exception of countries where Christians are actively persecuted, eg. Egypt) doesn’t entail any of those things.

I would ask to that: Where in divine revelation is it taught that Jesus and the Apostles chose only men because it is theologically ok for a man who is ordained to be whipped and stoned but not a woman?

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

Where in divine revelation is it taught that Jesus and the Apostles chose only men because it is theologically ok for a man who is ordained to be whipped and stoned but not a woman?

It doesn’t, and I never claimed it did. I’m speaking of the cultural context of the 1st Century here.

In any event if you really want to make the argument that women can’t be ordained because the Twelve were all men, then you better have a rule saying all who are ordained must also be Jewish! After all, Christ never appointed a gentile as one of the Twelve.

Your point about the Eucharist is better but it only works if you believe in the RC doctrines about transubstantiation, with it being an actual sacrifice and how the NT Priesthood is of the same nature as the OT Levitical Priesthood etc. Protestants don’t.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Without getting into detail, in short, the Crucifixion was Christ’s “wedding,” and the priest’s pinnacle function is to re-present, as priest and victim, that sacrifice. So it is essentially “impossible” for a female to fulfill that action. That’s the cliff’s notes version.

My research was long enough to put in my blog. But as promised, here is more on the affirmative theology of a male-only priesthood. Excerpt:*Consider the nuptial imagery in Christ’s life leading up to his sacrifice.

He performs his first public miracle at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11). Notice the inclusion of “wine” in the episode. In addition to holding up wine at the Last Supper and equating it with his blood, wine is a consistent theme in nuptial episodes in Scripture. The Song of Songs, a tale about a bride-to-be longing for her bridegroom, is fraught with references to wine or vineyards (e.g. Sg. 1:2,6,14; 2:13,15; 4:10; 5:1; 6:11; 7:2,8-9,12; 8:2,11,12). Remember the Hosea passage we referenced earlier when God promises a “vineyard” to his betrothed Israel. From such passages, we can view and understand the Eucharist in a new light, and how the people of God are wedded, so to speak, to Christ through the sacrifice.*Read full blog article here.