Anglicans and Orthodox and the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see how a female “priestess” can consecrate the bread and wine into the Eucharist, no matter where she got her “orders”.
 
CAS64 said:
That was pretty rude and opinionated.
Click to expand...
I’m tending to agree with your assessment, CAS64.

Here’s a statement from another Anglican, which I’ve always found interesting, and which may be worth reflecting on at this juncture:
Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
Click to expand...
  • C.S. Lewis, Mere christianity
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Peter_J said:
I’m tending to agree with your assessment, CAS64.

Here’s a statement from another Anglican, which I’ve always found interesting, and which may be worth reflecting on at this juncture:

Amen.
Click to expand...
An excellent point. From p. viii of the Preface to that title (1st ed.).

I’ve collected him for around 45 years.

Yes, I’ve read that before.

GKC
 
Gottle of Geer
Click to expand...
Re: Anglicans and Orthodox and the Eucharist
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
The sacerdotal priest stands in persona cristi and therefore must be male as Christ is male. A mother cannot be a father. Secondly, scripture loudly shows us that the priesthood should only be male in that Israel had a male-only priesthood firstly and additionally Christ only ordained men as apostles.
Click to expand...

So what happens to the notion that Jesus had a mission to all men, & not only to Jews ?​

Click to expand...
Nothing really. It’s still in effect, still taught by the RCC. We simply have different roles to support. It has always been this way. PJM
Some say that Christ was only ordaining men because people in those days were intolerant of an empowered woman and no one would have stood for it.
Click to expand...

That is sometimes used to defend the ordination only of men…​

Click to expand...
Quote:
Boloney. Jesus has never been one to be afraid to buck the system. If He had wanted female bishops, He’d have ordained them.
Click to expand...
Pope JP II in hisBinding Letter of Instruction said the following. "The Church is NOT saying She “willnot” allow women priest. No, the Church is saying That she cannot allow women priest because She lacks the power to do so."

Why? Jesus said “do this in memory of Me.” (Lk.22:19-21, and 1 Cor. 11:23-26) All debate ends when we recogonize that Christ is male gender, thus so MUST HIS PRIEST BE! The second reason is the “Ordination” is one of the Seven sacraments instituted by Christ, and no authority on earth can alter it. PJM

If He had wanted Gentiles…, likewise. He ordained no Gentiles. Therefore, ordaining Gentiles is an abuse & a sin. It deforms the practice of Christ. The fact that it is an ancient abuse, does not make it not an abuse. As you say, “Jesus [w]as never…one to be afraid to buck the system”. So what is so toxic about sticking to his example ?​

Click to expand...
Nice try:D But look again at Mt.16: 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." COLOR]

Friend, “binding and losing” were common Rabbi terms, enforceable at Law, for unlimited, unrestricted, total and complete power of independent governance. Christ said to Peter, you Peter are to run my Church, I give my life as sureity of its truth, you will answer to no one except to Me (Father, Son and Holy Spirit.)

Acts 15: 12 "And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brethren, listen to me. *14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’ **19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled * and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.”

Gentiles were not only accepted into the Church, Paul became “Apostle to the Gentiles” precisely because so amny of the Jews refused to believe.

No doubt, Paul made Gentile Bishops and Priest in his travels.PJM

That is very dubious: it shows no more than that they, as them, had a different mission in the Church from the Apostles; not that no woman would ever or could ever be ordained. What you have to show, or someone has, is that the ordination only of men is constitutive of the Church for all time; that the action (& non-action) of Jesus is an exemplary action (& non-action). But if it is, then no Gentiles can ever be ordained. Yet it is notorious & undeniable that most priests have not been Jews at all, but Gentiles.​

Click to expand...
I believe that I have done exactly that:D PJM
Quote:
All are equal in Christ as the NT says but not all are to be “called” to the same roles. Men are not called to be mothers yet men are equal to women? We are all blessed in different ways.
Click to expand...

Granted - but how is that an evidence or a proof that no woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, can ever be ordained ? The argument & the conclusion don’t match; they seem to come from different argumements against ordaining women.​

Click to expand...
Friend it is because Christ is Male Gender, and because Christ institutated the sacrament.

This is “MY Body and this is My Blood” MY! male gender, cannot be accomplished by one who is not of the same gender.

It is God Himself who preforms not only the miracle of Trabsubstanuation, wherein in ordinary bread and wine are made into litterally the very BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus in His now Glorified Risen Body. But also the temporary transformation of the priest himself, for a brief instant into "the very person of Jesus Himself" as he becomes the conduit that God uses to make Himself Present.Thus phisology is critical for the miracle to take palce. PJM

Hope this clarifies your concerns, thanks for allowing me to insert this information.

Love and prayers,
 
CAS64 said:
She is an insult to most Anglicans. Remember, she only represents 1/40th of all Anglicans worldwide and even some of those within the 1/40th don’t like her and are on the verge of jumping ship. When you say Episcopalian you aren’t even whispering into the Anglican canyon to be heard by the smallest of creatures.****
Click to expand...
True, that.

GKC
 
CAS64 said:
She is an insult to most Anglicans. Remember, she only represents 1/40th of all Anglicans worldwide and even some of those within the 1/40th don’t like her and are on the verge of jumping ship. When you say Episcopalian you aren’t even whispering into the Anglican canyon to be heard by the smallest of creatures.****
Click to expand...
http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Australia+First+Female+Bishop+Ordained+Perth+fS8__WmkI9kl.jpg

Can she change bread and wine into the Eucharist?
 
GKC said:
Rude, opinionated and accurate are not mutually exclusive categories. Among other things.

GKC
Click to expand...
I love it! He studies Belloc and Chesterton, cites Ott, speaks bluntly and has wit.

Dude, you have GOT to get poped. Put that talent to use for the good guys! 😉
 
manualman said:
I love it! He studies Belloc and Chesterton, cites Ott, speaks bluntly and has wit.

Dude, you have GOT to get poped. Put that talent to use for the good guys! 😉
Click to expand...
This is one of the nicest posts I have ever inspired. Thank you.

Me, Chesterton and Belloc have been best buds for about 45 years. Sometimes my model is Gilbert, sometimes Hilary. You can guess which is which, above.

GKC
 
CAS64 said:
She is an insult to most Anglicans. Remember, she only represents 1/40th of all Anglicans worldwide and even some of those within the 1/40th don’t like her and are on the verge of jumping ship. When you say Episcopalian you aren’t even whispering into the Anglican canyon to be heard by the smallest of creatures.****
Click to expand...
The Anglican Church of North American has formed in response to her and her brand of churchmanship.

June of this year the ACNA meets in Dallas/Fort Worth joining those who have recently left the TEC with groups that left earlier. ONe jurisdiction, The Reformed Episcopal Church, left the TEC in 1873. Many of the “African” and “Southern” Primates who have provided oversight to Anglicans seeking a more orthodox Church are releasing them to the new Primate. Probably Bishop Duncan of Pittsburg.

There are still groups like the Continuing Anglican Movement which have not joined the ACNA that continue to pick up Episcopalians who are unable to remain with the TEC.

We shall see how well the ACNA does to see if such a broad churchmanship approach will work. I pray it does.
 
MarkBrown said:
The Anglican Church of North American has formed in response to her and her brand of churchmanship.

June of this year the ACNA meets in Dallas/Fort Worth joining those who have recently left the TEC with groups that left earlier. ONe jurisdiction, The Reformed Episcopal Church, left the TEC in 1873. Many of the “African” and “Southern” Primates who have provided oversight to Anglicans seeking a more orthodox Church are releasing them to the new Primate. Probably Bishop Duncan of Pittsburg.

There are still groups like the Continuing Anglican Movement which have not joined the ACNA that continue to pick up Episcopalians who are unable to remain with the TEC.

We shall see how well the ACNA does to see if such a broad churchmanship approach will work. I pray it does.
Click to expand...
I’m confident in prayer that it will. The church where I and my family are parishioners will remain under Bishop Guernsey until such a time when we possibly form a diocese here in Michigan. Our priest sits on the newly formed executive board of the Diocese of The Holy Spirit, which will be overseen by Bishop Guernsey and will house parishes until such a time when they move into their perspective geographically formed diocese.
 
CAS64 said:
I’m confident in prayer that it will. The church where I and my family are parishioners will remain under Bishop Guernsey until such a time when we possibly form a diocese here in Michigan. Our priest sits on the newly formed executive board of the Diocese of The Holy Spirit, which will be overseen by Bishop Guernsey and will house parishes until such a time when they move into their perspective geographically formed diocese.
Click to expand...
What bums me is to see that this new North American province will tolerate women’s ordination/priestesses from Pittsburgh. These conservative, orthodox Anglicans finally have the momentum, determination, and opportunity to form a traditional, serious coalition that will cancel out all the deterioration and degradation that the TEC has dragged Anglicanism through and what do they do? Let the “hairspray consecrations” as GKC would put it, go on? I know that CANA, AMIA, San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth don’t permit women’s ordination so why don’t they put their dang feet down and just have the courage to say, “no!” This is the inherent weakness in Anglicanism that I observed when I was one. They’re too accomodating and open and too quick to welcome differences. Homosexual marriages and ordinations of active gay clergy are not the only heresies out there. Women’s ordination is just as serious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top