Anglicans and Orthodox and the Eucharist

[GKC]

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.

I agree and it worries me. I think all orthodox and semi-orthodox Anglicans see this as the last great hope for a unified jurisdiction, what has been hoped for, since back in 1978, with the original Anglican Church of North America, with the strength, this time, of the four separated dioceses, and bishops. But it looks a little like reinventing the Episcopal Church, in the spirit of a new Elizabethan Compromise.

I’m dubious.

GKC

 

[Joseph651]

Transmittal of Authority; Jesus gave authority to baptize, celebrate the Eucharist, to forgive sin, to teach His words to all people to his apostles. The Apostolic Succession shows a chain. Jesus gave the Apostles the rules to follow, if the rules were broken then I believe that the apostolic succession was broken, I may be wrong. Many bishops join in the consecrating of a new bishop, who in turn joins in future consecrations. Today, it is required that at least three bishops in the apostolic succession take a part in the consecration of new bishops so that the safety of the succession is preserved. A question may be asked if those bishops who consecrated a woman as a bishop broke the apostolic succession. I believe they did. The fact of the matter is that there is not only one chain; the apostolic succession is more like a chain-link fence then a single strand. The authority that Jesus gave to his apostles as to how to spread his words, are spelled out in the Bible and whoever has turned their ways away from his words will be judged by God. Anglicans believe that we are a part of the Apostolic Succession as we are able to trace our history which ties into the history of the RCC all the way back to the Apostles.

God’s Love

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Transmittal of Authority; Jesus gave authority to baptize, celebrate the Eucharist, to forgive sin, to teach His words to all people to his apostles. The Apostolic Succession shows a chain. Jesus gave the Apostles the rules to follow, if the rules were broken then I believe that the apostolic succession was broken, I may be wrong. Many bishops join in the consecrating of a new bishop, who in turn joins in future consecrations. Today, it is required that at least three bishops in the apostolic succession take a part in the consecration of new bishops so that the safety of the succession is preserved. A question may be asked if those bishops who consecrated a woman as a bishop broke the apostolic succession. I believe they did. The fact of the matter is that there is not only one chain; the apostolic succession is more like a chain-link fence then a single strand. The authority that Jesus gave to his apostles as to how to spread his words, are spelled out in the Bible and whoever has turned their ways away from his words will be judged by God. Anglicans believe that we are a part of the Apostolic Succession as we are able to trace our history which ties into the history of the RCC all the way back to the Apostles.

God’s Love

Couldn’t agree more. These bishops that ‘consecrated’ these ladies took an active role in heresy and scandal. It’s a disgrace and a black eye to Anglicans. There are many good Anglicans that don’t believe in this social justice tinkering and blatant disregard for 2,000 years of tradition, the Scriptures, and common sense.

I really hope this new Anglican North American province will be a holy one and something fruitful for Anglicans. My hope is that the AMiA report/study on female ordination (in which they blatantly and very carefully blasted it as un-doable), CANA, San Joaquin, and Fort Worth will put the heat on these dipsticks ordaining women and crush it altogether.

 

[MarkBrown]

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.

CANA, AMiA +Iker allow WO. Check out CANA website, they just do not force
parishes opposed to WO to Accept a female priest or deacon. +Iker has female
deacons working for him. Go to his website and look at the parish listings on clergy.
AMiA, even though they had a theological study that disproved WO based upon
scripture and tradition they ignore it. I know some AMiA clergy who are PO that
there will be no female Bishops. AMiA, according to my AMiA friends, will walk if
WO is not allowed, at least to the office of deacon. So it isnot just Bishop Duncan
that allow it.

Read the Canons of the ACNA. All references in Title III, Canons 1, 2, section 2 and 3
regarding ordination are gender neutral. The scripture in Timothy and Titus are cited,
but paraphrased and male only is left out of thelimitations to ordinations.
Though for the dicaonate they leave off 1 Tim 3:11-13.

I have sw Bishops in my church and they urge patience. They are trying to maintain
catholic teaching on this issue. I plan to give them time to see if it can be done.
If this turns into a fool errand, I will sadly break out the water wings as I prayfully decide
which river to swim. I will just hate to leave the beautiful Anglcian liturgy.

Dcn Mark

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

CANA, AMiA +Iker allow WO. Check out CANA website, they just do not force
parishes opposed to WO to Accept a female priest or deacon. +Iker has female
deacons working for him. Go to his website and look at the parish listings on clergy.
AMiA, even though they had a theological study that disproved WO based upon
scripture and tradition they ignore it. I know some AMiA clergy who are PO that
there will be no female Bishops. AMiA, according to my AMiA friends, will walk if
WO is not allowed, at least to the office of deacon. So it isnot just Bishop Duncan
that allow it.

Read the Canons of the ACNA. All references in Title III, Canons 1, 2, section 2 and 3
regarding ordination are gender neutral. The scripture in Timothy and Titus are cited,
but paraphrased and male only is left out of thelimitations to ordinations.
Though for the dicaonate they leave off 1 Tim 3:11-13.

I have sw Bishops in my church and they urge patience. They are trying to maintain
catholic teaching on this issue. I plan to give them time to see if it can be done.
If this turns into a fool errand, I will sadly break out the water wings as I prayfully decide
which river to swim. I will just hate to leave the beautiful Anglcian liturgy.

Dcn Mark

Hi Mark,

Well, you are correct that Iker does allow female deacons but so does Bishop Schofield here in San Joaquin. But they don’t allow female priests, a whole different matter. AMIA has “grandmothered” the female clergy and doesn’t have more ordinations going on according to several sources I’ve read.

I agree with your cynicism about the issue. I think eventually Anglicanism will follow the culture/society in which we live which is a social justice pie-in-the-sky notion that men and women are equal and practially the same sex. In my old parish here in San Joaquin, those folks are passionately anti-gay marriage but when asked about lady priestesses, 7 out of 10 of them will say, “I’m ok with that” or “well, ahhh, I guess it’s ok, doesn’t really bug me that much.”

The Anglicans are like cats chasing their tails with this issue. To me it’s pointless to be concerned about gay marriage and revamping the BOCP or the pagan influences of the Episcopal Church if you’re going to allow female ordination. FO is a total sign of heresy and corruption, a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacerdos and the sacraments themselves. It’s a total abomination and, if allowed, what good is the rest of the reforms of these “conservative” partners in the new North American Province vision, if they’re going to allow this heresy to continue with it? They’ll remain tainted.

I think at this point that I agree with GKC about the new N.A. Province that Duncan and company are trying to put together. Too little, too late. Even ‘conservative’ Anglicans are usually ‘liberal’ in a Catholic Church. Conservative is a word not understood the same way in the Roman Catholic realm as the Anglican one I think.