Do Anglicans have to accept female clergy?

[GloriousOrder]

Just two questions: Exactly what do you ‘understand’ the Vicar of Christ to be?

and, Just what do you understand Papal Infallibility to be?

(IOW, do you truly know exactly what it is that you’re objecting to and can you not only tell me accurately what those terms are but exactly why and on what grounds you reject them?)

1. I understand there to be no vicar of Christ. Our blessed Lord said that Peter’s faith shall be built upon in order to found the Church. A stone does not lead or advise, but is a good foundation. The architect is the builder and leader of the construction project. It seems very solid to say that Peter’s faith made him the foundation; when he lacked faith in our Lord due to His announcement of the passion only 2-3 verses later (Matthew 16), Jesus rebuked him and said “vade retro…”! When Peter had faith, he was the rock; when he showed a lack of faith for a moment, he was metaphorically ‘Satan’.

It seems quite clear that the Vicar of Christ isn’t needed, because Christ is the Vicar of the Father. Catholicism often seems to push the Father out of the picture in favour of making Jesus the sole goal. The Sacred Heart? The Five Wounds? All the billions of prayers to Jesus, instead of the Father (who is the real goal)? Jesus is the Road to the destination, not the City itself.

1. I understand Papal Infallibility to be the belief that the Holy Ghost preserves the Pope from doctrinal error when speaking from an official position on matters of dogma and morality: signed and sealed. It seems a pernicious doctrine to me, because no man, however surrounded by pious guarantees and fail-safes, can ever speak the whole truth without fail - because we are all sinners, and even the Son has information kept from Him (as Jesus said). Should we think the Pope able to carry forth all mystical doctrine when even the Word knows not the Time of the End?

Sin clouds us and makes us unable to see the glory of God 100%. I am sad for my sins. It’s no different for Popes, as you’ve said. Why should the Pope be infallible in this sense, if all men have access to the Truth through Scripture, logic, and childlike faith? Canterbury does not claim infallibility, but appears to claim workmanlike following of a vocation to help other men to God. There are no tricks of holiness or magic.

Now, you may think I am being hypocritical preferring Monarchy to Democracy while decrying Popery and preferring Anglicanism. The reality, though, is that I don’t believe monarchs divinely inspired, only practical; Catholicism seems to call Popes divinely inspired, and bishops and cardinals too. There’s too much talk of “Holy Father” this, “His Holiness” that; “Your Grace”; “Your Eminence”; “Your Excellency”. I don’t object to men being holy, graceful, eminent, and excellent… but the moment you call anyone that, it goes to their head. I know it would go to my head; even the smallest compliments often do! Should we give mere humans such credit: that their position automatically makes them holy? Even if it is only a title, it’s one presumptuous title.

This issue sorrows me, because I’d like to be Catholic… I believe in the Real Presence (now, thanks to certain Fathers) and everything else, except Popishness. Devotion to Mary, Saints, Tradition, Statues, Relics, etc. all seem pious and holy things, with a few reservations. It’s the way the Pope is talked about, more than anything, that makes me wary of it. Perhaps I might be able to tell wrong from right myself (with God’s grace), but not all people are so cautious… and I want the best for everyone, as much as possible.

I notice you mentioned the CoE. If you are in the UK, your options are more limited, it seems to me. Not much presence there of what are known as Continuing Anglicans, as in the US.

But you would not need to fear excommunication in Anglicanism, generally. But if you are looking at the CoE, you are looking in the wrong place, I fear.

GKC

I’m in eastern Canada. There are a few ‘traditional’ Anglican parishes here.

Since you are attending a Catholic church (you say that you say that you are a catechumen), why do not speak to someone (such as the pastor) who is likely to knowledgeable about Church doctrine, including papal infallibility? He may be able to give you a better explanation than we can on the internet. However, I will say that I think that you misunderstand this dogma. For one thing, the Pope cannot in his official capacity say anything to contradict the faith or morals of the Church (i.e. scripture or tradition). You should not give up upon Rome and go to a breakaway camp, especially not one in such a state of spiritual and moral chaos as Canterbury is.

I’ve been going to meetings with the rector of the Cathedral. Catechism videos are well and good, but they don’t beat a real priest. Monsignor has been very helpful these past months, but today is the breaking point. I have a meeting with him, and intend to ask about just these issues. He’s told me before that “Infallibility is simply the doctrine that the Pope is free to tell the Truth, thanks to God”. We’ll see…

 

[GloriousOrder]

Can I please ask GloriousOrder what the problem with democracy is? Thank you.

Maybe he means “Democrats”? I mean, the USA itself is not a democracy (it’s a republic).

Begs questions about how self determination, freedom, etc can be considered non-traditional or otherwise liberal in light of the other ills mentioned such as cursing and conservative dress.

Off topic I suppose but maybe the GloriousOrder can clarify. No bother if not.

This is indeed not material to the conversation, but clarity is always good.

I don’t mean ‘Democrats’, as in the American political party. The Republican Party is just as much opposed to my opinions. I simply meant that I don’t believe in Democracy as a political system, because it enshrines legalism and popular opinion as law. Opinion polls and votes and ballots are rubbish. Most people are peasant-like in their lack of concern for higher things; experience says it. The poor people I meet at the Church (God bless them) are kind… but they are simple, and like astrology and such. Most people seem to be like that. We cannot allow such proles to control the world, but better men - cf. the opinions of Sir Robert Cecil, British P.M. 1886-1892, and again 1895-1902.

Now, all this is really off the original topic: do Anglicans have to accept female bishops and priests? The idea of deaconesses to minister specifically to laywomen, in private, seems acceptable and historical. My problem is less with the C.o.E. accepting female clergy, but more to the point: can I be censured and called a heretic for disagreeing? If Rome made female priests, I believe anyone who cried out would be silenced as ‘uncharitable’ to the ‘Holy’ Church and its decisions. There were no altar girls or female readers in the 1950’s, and in the 1990’s there were. Small changes all over beget big changes in the center, over time… Mere human nature.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I’ve been going to meetings with the rector of the Cathedral. Catechism videos are well and good, but they don’t beat a real priest. Monsignor has been very helpful these past months, but today is the breaking point. I have a meeting with him, and intend to ask about just these issues. He’s told me before that “Infallibility is simply the doctrine that the Pope is free to tell the Truth, thanks to God”. We’ll see…

Good luck to you (and to the monsignor)!

 

[Contarini]

Now, all this is really off the original topic: do Anglicans have to accept female bishops and priests?

First of all, I’m going to assume that by “Anglican” you mean “in communion with Canterbury,” since you are apparently already aware that there are “traditional” parishes that do not accept female priests. Of course, what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion is presently in flux–it’s highly likely that within a few years the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will both have rejected the “Anglican Covenant,” and that may have consequences for their membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, representatives of these churches have already been asked not to participate in certain “instruments of communion,” although many conservatives are upset about how timid these measures have been and how poorly they have been enforced. But for now let’s say we’re talking about the Anglican Church of Canada, and let’s assume (since I know relatively little about the ACoC) that the situation in the two North American churches is pretty similar. (In other words, I’ll answer your question based on the Episcopal Church, about which I know something.)

When women were first ordained in the Episcopal Church, there was a promise that clergy who oppose women’s ordination would not be forced to go along with the innovation. However, in the past 10 years or so the argument has been made that this was supposed to be a temporary agreement covering clergy who were ministering in 1979, and shouldn’t be extended to cover new clergy who oppose women’s ordination. The fact is that liberals appear to have assumed that opposition to women’s ordination would simply die out. This is no longer so much of an issue as it was just a few years ago, because the dioceses that held out against women’s ordination have now left/been expelled in the way of the homosexuality crisis. I’m sure there are a few clergy here and there who oppose women’s ordination, but for the most part (at least in the U.S.) the homosexuality crisis has “finished the job”–a lot of clergy who hung on out of love for unity in spite of having objections to women’s ordination have now left, and the new “right wing” of the Episcopal Church (on whose edge I find myself precariously perched) is made up of people who believe in women’s ordination but cannot accept the presently dominant views on homosexuality.

So in short, I suspect that you will have trouble finding an ACoC parish that in principle rejects women’s ordination, and that means that you will have to deal with the possibility that the parish will have a female priest at some point. But as a layperson you will certainly not be forced to say that you believe in women’s ordination. In a more liberal parish, you may experience some degree of “discrimination” if you want to teach Sunday School or serve on the vestry or whatever (assuming that the ACoC has vestries!)–I don’t know this to be true for sure, but wouldn’t find it surprising. However, some liberal clergy really do take that whole “tolerance” thing pretty seriously and consistently–the rector of the parish I attended in New Jersey, who was quite liberal by my standards, treated me with great kindness and respect, even though I frequently disagreed with her theology and told her so. So on the whole I don’t think you should worry about being “forced” to believe something, if you’re willing to attend a church where the dominant assumptions are ones with which you disagree.

The homosexuality issue is, at present, much less settled than the women’s ordination issue. There are still dioceses in the Episcopal Church (including my own) where noncelibate gays cannot be ordained–I don’t know if that’s true in Canada. The whole “blessing of gay unions” thing is still in its fairly tentative stages. But honestly, the trend seems to be moving in the direction of this being more common and more universal. And while at present there’s a lot of talk about respecting those who disagree, I’m told that there was the same kind of talk thirty years ago about people opposed to women’s ordination, and the historical precedent there is not promising.

Now one point where Canada may well differ from the U.S. is the U.S. church’s increasingly authoritarian, centralized, and intolerant tone. Ephraim Radner, the North American Anglican theologian whom I respect most highly (and whose work I would strongly recommend to you), found himself generally unwelcome in the U.S. Episcopal Church and took a teaching post in Toronto, where he has reported being treated very well by the local Anglican leadership in spite of the fact that he disagrees with their policies. So I think it’s possible that the ACoC will follow a different route than the U.S. in terms of respecting conservative dissenters. (And it’s possible that the present U.S. policy will change in the future with a new Presiding Bishop–I don’t mean the position on gays but the rather aggressive treatment of dissenters and the emphasis on the authority of the national church.)

The big question is: why do you want to join the ACoC? Do you really think that your objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and possibly your objections to traditionalist Anglicanism, though you haven’t said what those are) are more important than your objections to the ACoC?

When I joined the Episcopal Church in 1998, there was a lot more room for conservatives (the rector of the parish I joined later left the Episcopal Church), and even then I wasn’t quite as conservative as you are on some of the relevant issues (I’ve never been decidedly opposed to women’s ordination, for instance, and that was one of the reasons I didn’t join the “Continuing Anglicans”). And even though I’m now somewhat more liberal than I was then–still, if I had it to do over again, I would not become Episcopalian.

So take that under consideration.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

1. I understand there to be no vicar of Christ. Our blessed Lord said that Peter’s faith shall be built upon in order to found the Church. A stone does not lead or advise, but is a good foundation. The architect is the builder and leader of the construction project. It seems very solid to say that Peter’s faith made him the foundation; when he lacked faith in our Lord due to His announcement of the passion only 2-3 verses later (Matthew 16), Jesus rebuked him and said “vade retro…”! When Peter had faith, he was the rock; when he showed a lack of faith for a moment, he was metaphorically ‘Satan’.

It seems quite clear that the Vicar of Christ isn’t needed, because Christ is the Vicar of the Father. Catholicism often seems to push the Father out of the picture in favour of making Jesus the sole goal. The Sacred Heart? The Five Wounds? All the billions of prayers to Jesus, instead of the Father (who is the real goal)? Jesus is the Road to the destination, not the City itself.

1. I understand Papal Infallibility to be the belief that the Holy Ghost preserves the Pope from doctrinal error when speaking from an official position on matters of dogma and morality: signed and sealed. It seems a pernicious doctrine to me, because no man, however surrounded by pious guarantees and fail-safes, can ever speak the whole truth without fail - because we are all sinners, and even the Son has information kept from Him (as Jesus said). Should we think the Pope able to carry forth all mystical doctrine when even the Word knows not the Time of the End?

Sin clouds us and makes us unable to see the glory of God 100%. I am sad for my sins. It’s no different for Popes, as you’ve said. Why should the Pope be infallible in this sense, if all men have access to the Truth through Scripture, logic, and childlike faith? Canterbury does not claim infallibility, but appears to claim workmanlike following of a vocation to help other men to God. There are no tricks of holiness or magic.

Now, you may think I am being hypocritical preferring Monarchy to Democracy while decrying Popery and preferring Anglicanism. The reality, though, is that I don’t believe monarchs divinely inspired, only practical; Catholicism seems to call Popes divinely inspired, and bishops and cardinals too. There’s too much talk of “Holy Father” this, “His Holiness” that; “Your Grace”; “Your Eminence”; “Your Excellency”. I don’t object to men being holy, graceful, eminent, and excellent… but the moment you call anyone that, it goes to their head. I know it would go to my head; even the smallest compliments often do! Should we give mere humans such credit: that their position automatically makes them holy? Even if it is only a title, it’s one presumptuous title.

This issue sorrows me, because I’d like to be Catholic… I believe in the Real Presence (now, thanks to certain Fathers) and everything else, except Popishness. Devotion to Mary, Saints, Tradition, Statues, Relics, etc. all seem pious and holy things, with a few reservations. It’s the way the Pope is talked about, more than anything, that makes me wary of it. Perhaps I might be able to tell wrong from right myself (with God’s grace), but not all people are so cautious… and I want the best for everyone, as much as possible.

I’m in eastern Canada. There are a few ‘traditional’ Anglican parishes here.

I’ve been going to meetings with the rector of the Cathedral. Catechism videos are well and good, but they don’t beat a real priest. Monsignor has been very helpful these past months, but today is the breaking point. I have a meeting with him, and intend to ask about just these issues. He’s told me before that “Infallibility is simply the doctrine that the Pope is free to tell the Truth, thanks to God”. We’ll see…

AFAIK, the major part of the Canadian traditionalist Anglican movement lies in the Anglican Catholic Church in Canada, a part of the Traditional Anglican Communion. To what extent the ACCC is going to be joining the RCC via the Ordinariate, I do not know, but likely some remnant of it, or other traditional Anglican jurisdictions, will remain.

AFAIK, no Anglican jurisdiction will technically excommunicate you for making dismissive noises about female clergy. OTOH, any jurisdiction which thinks it is ordaining female clergy will ignore any principled objections you might have, and you will have no provision to protect your principles. That is, in the long run, you will not be able to avoid the consequences of an increasingly invalid clergy, and invalid sacraments, generally.

I’d think carefully about joining an Anglican jurisdiction that thought women’s ordination a valid concept.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[benidict]

Friends,

I am a traditionalist conservative to an almost exaggerated and comical degree. Homosexual acts, female clergy, women in the workplace, men not wearing suit-and-tie out, cursing, public affection between lovers, Democracy, etc. all make me cringe in the depths of my soul. This may be somewhat out of the ordinary in its intensity, but there it is.

My question is: do people such as myself have to accept gay clergy and female clergy, joining Anglicanism? I am recently disturbed by the moral issue of authority and ‘holiness’ attributed to the Pope, and may have to go Anglican. Everything about my belief is Catholic except the Pope… I just can’t accept Papal Infallibility or the “Vicar of Christ” status, so Anglicanism seems the next on the ‘list’ of truth. It has a very venerable structure, and does not force its members to believe every last petty triviality.

Now, is Anglicanism really this way? Can I, an Anglican, tell a female “bishop” to her face that I believe her ordination totally invalid and blasphemous, and not be ex-communicated myself? Would the Communion allow me to remain an Anglican, or would I be booted? I absolutely refuse to accept the C.o.E.'s wrong-headed proclamations, yet I can’t be Catholic… and I want to be in a traditional faith, with altar, incense, organ, and extreme devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hello GloriousOrder. Have you checked out the Orthodox Communion yet? I do sympathize with you, on your feelings about the Papacy. And your honesty is greatfully appreciated. I dont think this is easy for you at all. If it helps, I had a Grandfather, who was Christian Reformed. He was born into this denomination, and at the age of 93, he had to leave it, due to his principles reguarding womens ordination. It was not easy for him to leave also. I personally believe all the the Church teaches. There are a couple things I question, Such as our relationship with Muslims, and the Death penalty. But I have to trust that Rome has it right. I will pray that you will have the Clarity of the Holy Spirit in this matter. Peace to you.

 

[Timothy17]

Friends, Everything about my belief is Catholic except the Pope… I just can’t accept Papal Infallibility or the “Vicar of Christ” status…

While I think recently you have got over this issue, I think some notes could be made regardless.

I. Papal Infallibity
[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Read carefully here. Simon confessed the Truth. Jesus saw this as a direct revelation from His Father (God the Father). Immediately Jesus changes Simon’s name (to Peter, indicating a change in condition and status), and further granted Him with both keys and authority.

What Simon pronounced was an infallable statement, as Jesus Himself confirmed. The Son heard the voice of His beloved Father, speaking through Simon, and responded with joy and blessings.

II. The Vicar of Christ
[49] But one of them, named Caiphas, **being the high priest that year, said **to them: You know nothing. [50] Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[51] And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
Again, read carefully. The Jewish High Priest made a prophecy and did not even realize it. And what was the source of this prophecy ? “but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied.” God was working through or using his instrument on earth ; namely, the office of the high priest, even though Caiphas was not what we would call a good man (he treated Jesus badly, for example).

The office of the Papacy and Papal Infallibility have legitimate source in the Bible. Even in the Old Covenant, which was inferior to the New and Eternal Covenant, the high offices instituted by God were instruments for His Will.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Contarini]

1. I understand there to be no vicar of Christ.

I don’t like that phrase either, but I think you have to look at what is meant by it–the phrase itself seems rather vague to me.

It seems quite clear that the Vicar of Christ isn’t needed, because Christ is the Vicar of the Father. Catholicism often seems to push the Father out of the picture in favour of making Jesus the sole goal. The Sacred Heart? The Five Wounds? All the billions of prayers to Jesus, instead of the Father (who is the real goal)? Jesus is the Road to the destination, not the City itself.

I think that in this you are at odds with orthodox Christianity generally. Perhaps the Orthodox, with their relatively more subordinationist Trinitarian theology in which the Father is the arche of the Godhead, would be friendlier to this position (by the way, no criticism of the Orthodox is intended here–I think their Trinitarian theology may be superior to ours, and if they say that your statement is orthodox I will gladly retract the first sentence of this paragraph). I really wish you would reconsider your objections to Orthodoxy, which frankly seem rather trivial to me and based on a rather superficial understanding of Orthodoxy, which is not as irrational as you suppose it.

1. I understand Papal Infallibility to be the belief that the Holy Ghost preserves the Pope from doctrinal error when speaking from an official position on matters of dogma and morality: signed and sealed. It seems a pernicious doctrine to me, because no man, however surrounded by pious guarantees and fail-safes, can ever speak the whole truth without fail

But the doctrine does not say anything of the kind. Being protected from error does not mean that you are “speaking the whole truth.” It means that the partial truth you are speaking does not diametrically and irreconcilably conflict with the whole truth you are not speaking. You’re rejecting a version of infallibility that RCs don’t hold.

because we are all sinners, and even the Son has information kept from Him (as Jesus said). Should we think the Pope able to carry forth all mystical doctrine when even the Word knows not the Time of the End?

It’s completely incompatible with orthodox Trinitarian theology to say that the eternal Logos is ignorant of some things that the Father knows. Again, you appear to have a subordinationist theology–and this time I am certain that the Orthodox would not agree with you and that you really are outside of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Unfortunately there is no “Semi-Arian” church for you to join. . . . Oh wait–maybe you should join us after all. We’re officially Trinitarian, but plenty of people, including some bishops, have denied orthodoxy more blatantly than you are doing. . . . .

Why should the Pope be infallible in this sense, if all men have access to the Truth through Scripture, logic, and childlike faith?

Because the Spirit gives the Church different charisms.

Now, you may think I am being hypocritical preferring Monarchy to Democracy while decrying Popery and preferring Anglicanism.

I don’t think you’re being inconsistent in the slightest simply for inclining toward Anglicanism as a monarchist. Traditional Anglicanism had a very high view of monarchy.

The reality, though, is that I don’t believe monarchs divinely inspired, only practical; Catholicism seems to call Popes divinely inspired, and bishops and cardinals too.

This is a plain misperception on your part.

There’s too much talk of “Holy Father” this, “His Holiness” that; “Your Grace”; “Your Eminence”; “Your Excellency”. I don’t object to men being holy, graceful, eminent, and excellent… but the moment you call anyone that, it goes to their head. I know it would go to my head; even the smallest compliments often do! Should we give mere humans such credit: that their position automatically makes them holy? Even if it is only a title, it’s one presumptuous title.

Yes, but monarchs got some pretty pompous titles too. This doesn’t seem like a substantive issue to me. I suspect that if you walked up to the Pope and called him “Brother Benedict” or even “Brother Joseph,” you might be considered rude and disrespectful, but you wouldn’t be accused of heresy on that fact alone!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I want to be Anglican (now) because it seems that the system allows one conservative to be a conservative when everyone else is wrong. In Catholicism, if your Ordinary is a heretic and shows it, undermining everything about the Church and the faith and applauding abortion

Are you saying that there is a Catholic bishop who “applauds abortion,” or are you simply saying that this is a possibility?

Heretical bishops who publicly teach heresy create a great deal of confusion in the Church, for sure. In the early Church it often took a long time to sort these things out. Today much less so. If a Catholic bishop “applauded abortion,” I’m pretty confident that he would be excommunicated faster than you can say “Arius” (well, that’s a slight exaggeration). If that didn’t happen (which I think is highly unlikely, at least on the issue you have chosen to highlight), you could still believe that Rome was not doing its job and be a faithful Catholic. I think you have some mistaken ideas about what’s required of Catholics. However, one virtue that I do see in the RCC is precisely what you see as a vice–that individual conservatives have a check on their propensity to run around accusing people of heresy. Modern American conservative Catholics manage to overcome these checks to some degree, but the check is still there. If you want to be a one-man Magisterium, then sure, Catholicism isn’t for you, and there’s a long (and in my opinion unfortunate) tradition of Anglicans doing just that. I just don’t see why anyone would want to be a one-man Magisterium.

1. It seems Catholic laws and rules and ideals have actually changed over time. Priestly celibacy is constantly called a mere ‘discipline’, but its rigor is applied 100% of the time in the West, since 1215, with a fierce and fiery conviction

That is simply false. There are married priests in the Western Church under the “Pastoral Provision.” Granted that’s recent.

And no amount of “fierce and fiery conviction” turns a discipline into a doctrine. You can argue that RCs ought not to treat disciplines with such “fierce and fiery conviction,” but that’s not the same as saying that they must “really” think it’s a doctrine in spite of claiming not to. That makes no sense.

Rules on the reception of Communion, the species the laity can consume, liturgical practice, indulgences, fasting, and praying have all changed over the centuries. The institution of the Church itself and its government shifts as society permits. How is this solid? How is this unchanging and unbroken?

If you’re looking for something that doesn’t change at all, you will never find it. Perhaps ultra-traditionalist Orthodoxy comes closest.

Edwin

 

[vsedriver]

If bad Catholic bishops take the crowd away from Christ, they can simply invoke their magisterial ‘holiness’ (received at ordination), and ex-communicate the “offenders” for following the Truth.

Bishops are not infallible, with the exception of the Bishop of Rome when he speaks/teaches to the whole Church on Faith and Morals.

If bad Anglican bishops take the crowd away from Christ, they cannot invoke some sort of innate holiness (received at ordination), to ex-communicate “offenders”, because the Anglican system is acknowledged as man-made for practical purposes. The Archbishop of Canterbury can be dead wrong; what’s more, we can say it to his face and not be judged heretical for disobeying his heresy.

If the Anglican system is man-made than it lacks the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit and therefore can err in matters of Faith and Morals. That would leave you without any assurances as to what is true and what is not true.

Popes are mere men, so the same logic should apply… but apparently it doesn’t, because they’re in some “holy” seat. The greatest saints (Aquinas, Dominic, et. al.) always refused dignities such as these.

Even Peter was a sinner. Popes are sinners. The Apostles were sinners. The Pope doesn’t have to be perfect to be Pope. He can be vain, foolish, warlike, just like any other sinner. But Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so even an evil Pope can’t teach in error when it comes to Faith and Morals.

I want to be Anglican (now) because it seems that the system allows one conservative to be a conservative when everyone else is wrong. In Catholicism, if your Ordinary is a heretic and shows it, undermining everything about the Church and the faith and applauding abortion, you have no recourse in disagreement. You must sit and take it (he’s a holy bishop, after all).

Of course you have recourse! If your priest is teaching heresy you can appeal to your Bishop, likewise if the Bishop is a heretic you can appeal to the Pope.

I want to be an Anglican exactly because I believe in absolute truth, which cannot be taken away or reinforced just because some bishop takes it away or affirms it. Many bishops and popes have taught heresy, though later discontinued their heresies when lay theologians reproved them, for example (re. John XXII).

Where will you find this absolute truth? And how will you know it is the absolute truth when you find it?

Can you name one heresy taught by a Pope and pronounced infallible that was later discontinued?

1. It seems Catholic laws and rules and ideals have actually changed over time. Priestly celibacy is constantly called a mere ‘discipline’, but its rigor is applied 100% of the time in the West, since 1215, with a fierce and fiery conviction, as if it had always been the same since Day 1. Rules on the reception of Communion, the species the laity can consume, liturgical practice, indulgences, fasting, and praying have all changed over the centuries. The institution of the Church itself and its government shifts as society permits. How is this solid? How is this unchanging and unbroken?

The Catholic Church dogma is solid and unchanging. But disciplines do change because when the reason behind the discipline disappears then the discipline no longer serves its original purpose. It sounds like you are describing the Anglican Church here, not the Catholic Church.

 

[vsedriver]

Friends,

I am a traditionalist conservative to an almost exaggerated and comical degree.

women in the workplace,

but there it is.

yes, I did find this comical!

 

[catharina]

First of all, I’m going to assume that by “Anglican” you mean “in communion with Canterbury,” since you are apparently already aware that there are “traditional” parishes that do not accept female priests. Of course, what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion is presently in flux–it’s highly likely that within a few years the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will both have rejected the “Anglican Covenant,” and that may have consequences for their membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, representatives of these churches have already been asked not to participate in certain “instruments of communion,” although many conservatives are upset about how timid these measures have been and how poorly they have been enforced. But for now let’s say we’re talking about the Anglican Church of Canada, and let’s assume (since I know relatively little about the ACoC) that the situation in the two North American churches is pretty similar. (In other words, I’ll answer your question based on the Episcopal Church, about which I know something.)

When women were first ordained in the Episcopal Church, there was a promise that clergy who oppose women’s ordination would not be forced to go along with the innovation. However, in the past 10 years or so the argument has been made that this was supposed to be a temporary agreement covering clergy who were ministering in 1979, and shouldn’t be extended to cover new clergy who oppose women’s ordination. The fact is that liberals appear to have assumed that opposition to women’s ordination would simply die out. This is no longer so much of an issue as it was just a few years ago, because the dioceses that held out against women’s ordination have now left/been expelled in the way of the homosexuality crisis. I’m sure there are a few clergy here and there who oppose women’s ordination, but for the most part (at least in the U.S.) the homosexuality crisis has “finished the job”–a lot of clergy who hung on out of love for unity in spite of having objections to women’s ordination have now left, and the new “right wing” of the Episcopal Church (on whose edge I find myself precariously perched) is made up of people who believe in women’s ordination but cannot accept the presently dominant views on homosexuality.

So in short, I suspect that you will have trouble finding an ACoC parish that in principle rejects women’s ordination, and that means that you will have to deal with the possibility that the parish will have a female priest at some point. But as a layperson you will certainly not be forced to say that you believe in women’s ordination. In a more liberal parish, you may experience some degree of “discrimination” if you want to teach Sunday School or serve on the vestry or whatever (assuming that the ACoC has vestries!)–I don’t know this to be true for sure, but wouldn’t find it surprising. However, some liberal clergy really do take that whole “tolerance” thing pretty seriously and consistently–the rector of the parish I attended in New Jersey, who was quite liberal by my standards, treated me with great kindness and respect, even though I frequently disagreed with her theology and told her so. So on the whole I don’t think you should worry about being “forced” to believe something, if you’re willing to attend a church where the dominant assumptions are ones with which you disagree.

The homosexuality issue is, at present, much less settled than the women’s ordination issue. There are still dioceses in the Episcopal Church (including my own) where noncelibate gays cannot be ordained–I don’t know if that’s true in Canada. The whole “blessing of gay unions” thing is still in its fairly tentative stages. But honestly, the trend seems to be moving in the direction of this being more common and more universal. And while at present there’s a lot of talk about respecting those who disagree, I’m told that there was the same kind of talk thirty years ago about people opposed to women’s ordination, and the historical precedent there is not promising.

Now one point where Canada may well differ from the U.S. is the U.S. church’s increasingly authoritarian, centralized, and intolerant tone. Ephraim Radner, the North American Anglican theologian whom I respect most highly (and whose work I would strongly recommend to you), found himself generally unwelcome in the U.S. Episcopal Church and took a teaching post in Toronto, where he has reported being treated very well by the local Anglican leadership in spite of the fact that he disagrees with their policies. So I think it’s possible that the ACoC will follow a different route than the U.S. in terms of respecting conservative dissenters. (And it’s possible that the present U.S. policy will change in the future with a new Presiding Bishop–I don’t mean the position on gays but the rather aggressive treatment of dissenters and the emphasis on the authority of the national church.)

The big question is: why do you want to join the ACoC? Do you really think that your objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and possibly your objections to traditionalist Anglicanism, though you haven’t said what those are) are more important than your objections to the ACoC?

When I joined the Episcopal Church in 1998, there was a lot more room for conservatives (the rector of the parish I joined later left the Episcopal Church), and even then I wasn’t quite as conservative as you are on some of the relevant issues (I’ve never been decidedly opposed to women’s ordination, for instance, and that was one of the reasons I didn’t join the “Continuing Anglicans”). And even though I’m now somewhat more liberal than I was then–still, if I had it to do over again, I would not become Episcopalian.

So take that under consideration.

In Christ,

Edwin

Thanks so much for providing this look at recent history.
God bless you.

 

[GKC]

Thanks so much for providing this look at recent history.
God bless you.

Observation: I enjoy reading Edwin, too.

Mostly.

GKC