episcopal priest

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This all seems rather legalistic.

Indeed.

I would love for someone to explain to me how a biological fact is an impediment to sacramental grace. I honestly cannot figure out how one can claim that a woman is improper matter for the sacrament of holy orders without holding particular notions regarding women that are at best quaint and at worst demeaning. The suggestion ultimately seems to be that women are broken or incomplete men that are incapable of receiving the sacramental graces men can receive–all 7 sacraments are available to men, but only 6 are available to women.

The idea that being a woman is on par with being mere grape juice or a rice cracker (all improper matter for a sacrament) seems particularly ludicrous to me and an affront to human dignity. This sort of Aristotelian scholasticism appears useless if not completely catastrophic in this context.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[LDSGuy]

are men broken or incomplete women since they cannot bear children? Why did God make men broken then?

 

[GKC]

grandfather,

You are correct in the short version that Rome does not recognize Anglican apostolic succession. But the REASON Rome has given in A.C. (I won’t torture you with my latin non-spelling) is that the Anglicans gave up for a century or so the valid ordination procedure. The logic goes that it went on so long that all legitimate holders of holy orders died out before the ordination procedure was corrected. At that point, it was a moot point since they had nobody left to DO the ordinations.

The trouble with AC is that it is SILENT about the “Dutch Touch” and PNCC cross-pollination ordinations.

Rome has simply not addressed the issue directly.

What they have done is said that:

1. Only a validly (not necessarily licitly) ordained bishop can ordain a new bishop.
2. Women cannot be either priests or bishops.

Applying the two principles above through the lineage of any priest ought to give you a clue about the legitimacy of his ordination. But from the catholic layman’s point of view, why bother? Knowingly receiving the sacraments from an illicit source when not in a life/death situation is not allowed anyways.

The Dutch touch issue is not pertinent to* Apostolicae Curae*, due to timing: AC=1896, intercommunion with the Anglicans and OCs=1932. OTOH, you are correct, in that as of now, Rome has never directly addressed the issue. I doubt that they will.

And the reasoning in AC is a little more complicated than merely the form in the Edwardine Ordinal. To the form (held to be invalid for technical reasons, as stated in AC) must be added invalid intent. The technical reason that the form and the intent were faulted, I’ll pass over now. But they have to be considered as sort of intertwined, as they are, in AC, in that there are a number of rites which Rome recognizes as conveying valid orders that have the same “defective” form.

It is not simple. And neither was the politics and the personalities involved.

I agree with the last two points.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Of course the RCC’s opinion would’t mean anything to Anglicans and Episcopalians. And we do not have priestesses, we have priests, male and female.

I’m an Anglican. The RCC’s opinion means a great deal to me, whether I accept it or not.

As I have said often before, there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans. SpiritMeadow is one of the former.

GKC

 

[manualman]

I’m an Anglican. The RCC’s opinion means a great deal to me, whether I accept it or not.

As I have said often before, there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans. SpiritMeadow is one of the former.

GKC

Oh, you mean she’s Anglican. Thanks for the clarification!

(just teasing ya!)

To Mark,

Does the fact that the catholic church asserts that there are more than just “plumbing differences” between men and women automatically mean that we assign a lesser value and dignity to women? Or is it possible that there is a deeper meaning? Does equal quality and dignity always require same functions? Questions to ponder.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I’m an Anglican. The RCC’s opinion means a great deal to me, whether I accept it or not.

As I have said often before, there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans. SpiritMeadow is one of the former.

GKC

GKC,

Are you part of the Anglican Communion or not?

God Bless!

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Are you part of the Anglican Communion or not?

God Bless!

I am astonished that the issue is in doubt. Astonished, that is.

The Anglican Communion being that group in communion with Cantaur,, hence, no.

I’m a Continuing Anglican, a member of the Continuum. You know, like the Traditional Anglican Communion. Only different.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Anglicans and Episcopalians claim or assert their orders are valid. Rome says they are not. But it is interesting that your friend says he was ordained by bishops of more than one tradition. Were they or was he covering his bases, just in case one might be not really a bishop?

Pope John Paul II taught that the Church has no power to ordain women as priests. It is impossible for a woman to be a priest, much less a bishop. The head of the Episcopal Church or the head bishop in America is a woman. They might have more women than men masquerading around as priests. They can not possible be validly ordained if you accept Catholic teaching. It does not matter who ordains them, or what group, they are not priests, or priestesses. All of their orders are as fake as their claims to be Catholic.

what an excellent monopoly system. If only Bill Gates could have come up with such a great scam, I wouldn’t be using Mozilla right now

 

[emeraldcoast]

I am astonished that the issue is in doubt. Astonished, that is.

The Anglican Communion being that group in communion with Cantaur,, hence, no.

I’m a Continuing Anglican, a member of the Continuum. You know, like the Traditional Anglican Communion. Only different.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

I think that it is important to point out on this forum, that there are those of us Anglicans that are part of the Anglican Communion and those like you, that are not. As you know, it is confusing especially to know which Anglicans play well with others and which Anglicans take their ball and go home. I had no doubt that you were not in the Anglican Communion–just wanted to make sure that it was clear on the forum.

God Bless!

 

[GKC]

I think that it is important to point out on this forum, that there are those of us Anglicans that are part of the Anglican Communion and those like you, that are not. As you know, it is confusing especially to know which Anglicans play well with others and which Anglicans take their ball and go home. I had no doubt that you were not in the Anglican Communion–just wanted to make sure that it was clear on the forum.

God Bless!

Well, that’s a relief.

Still, I do my bit to make the distinction plain, regularly. I consider it essential for there not to be any confusion.

GKC

 

[emeraldcoast]

Well, that’s a relief.

Still, I do my bit to make the distinction plain, regularly. I consider it essential for there not to be any confusion.

GKC

By the way, I love reading your post about the history of the Anglican Church! Thank you!

God Bless!

 

[GKC]

By the way, I love reading your post about the history of the Anglican Church! Thank you!

God Bless!

You are very welcome, and thank you. I actually had done the same thing better, a few years back, in response to a question from a very nice RC lady, on precisely the same topic:Anglican/CoE. And somewhere I have it in the files, but couldn’t dig it up, sad to say. It was a masterpiece.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are very welcome, and thank you. I actually had done the same thing better, a few years back, in response to a question from a very nice RC lady, on precisely the same topic:Anglican/CoE. And somewhere I have it in the files, but couldn’t dig it up, sad to say. It was a masterpiece.

GKC

Hey GKC,

Just a hypothetical question…if, for some reason, your church folded up in your town, where would you go…? Catholic, other Anglican, Episcopal, what? You seem as cynical as many conservatives are about the state of much of Anglicanism, you have a high regard for Catholicism, but that papal infallibility keeps you at arms length. If you didn’t have your Anglican Continuum available in your town, would do you think you would do? Just curious…

Scott

 

[GKC]

Hey GKC,

Just a hypothetical question…if, for some reason, your church folded up in your town, where would you go…? Catholic, other Anglican, Episcopal, what? You seem as cynical as many conservatives are about the state of much of Anglicanism, you have a high regard for Catholicism, but that papal infallibility keeps you at arms length. If you didn’t have your Anglican Continuum available in your town, would do you think you would do? Just curious…

Scott

It’s a fair question and I’ve wondered that, myself. I don’t know.

There is another such Continuum church about 45 miles away, and another still, around 100 miles. I might make a regular pilgramage. I know folks who drove 60 miles to attend my parish, before they moved closer, and some who regularly drive 40-100, now.

OTOH, I was unchurched, for around 25 years, from the time the Episcopal Church began to fall over and sink into the swamp, until I found the Continuum. Actually, my daughter found it.

It’s a good question.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s a fair question and I’ve wondered that, myself. I don’t know.

There is another such Continuum church about 45 miles away, and another still, around 100 miles. I might make a regular pilgramage. I know folks who drove 60 miles to attend my parish, before they moved closer, and some who regularly drive 40-100, now.

OTOH, I was unchurched, for around 25 years, from the time the Episcopal Church began to fall over and sink into the swamp, until I found the Continuum. Actually, my daughter found it.

It’s a good question.

GKC

Wow! 25 years. I would’ve never guessed it. You have a nice situation I must say. If such an Anglican parish would’ve existed here, my wife and I might likely have gone to it. The Anglican church here in town did break off from TEC thank goodness, but when my wife and I returned back in November or so, we were surprised and disappointed to hear how many “conservatives” were “ok with women priestesses” and had a laid-back theology about them. They broke off from TEC because of homosexuality mostly and the neo-pagan influences they didn’t like. But they seem liberal as heck to me. The priest even told me, “with your conservative theology, you might not be happy here.” He was right. It took us a few weeks and we couldn’t take it, went back to the Catholic Church. I continue to just adore John David Schofield. The guy’s a visionary and a staunch orthodox Christian. Great guy. Too many of his flock, though, are cynical about him, sadly. I think he’s a visionary.

 

[GKC]

Wow! 25 years. I would’ve never guessed it. You have a nice situation I must say. If such an Anglican parish would’ve existed here, my wife and I might likely have gone to it. The Anglican church here in town did break off from TEC thank goodness, but when my wife and I returned back in November or so, we were surprised and disappointed to hear how many “conservatives” were “ok with women priestesses” and had a laid-back theology about them. They broke off from TEC because of homosexuality mostly and the neo-pagan influences they didn’t like. But they seem liberal as heck to me. The priest even told me, “with your conservative theology, you might not be happy here.” He was right. It took us a few weeks and we couldn’t take it, went back to the Catholic Church. I continue to just adore John David Schofield. The guy’s a visionary and a staunch orthodox Christian. Great guy. Too many of his flock, though, are cynical about him, sadly. I think he’s a visionary.

I’m not surprised as to what you found true of the “conservatives” that had lasted as long as recently in TEC. The first exodus, which formed what we know as the Continuum, after the St. Louis meeting of 1978, were mainly the Anglo-Catholic side of TEC, at that time, and overwhelmingly orthodox. Those who were able to remain in TEC for another 25+ years, while they might have good qualities of their own, were not of the same substance as the first departees. Bad liturgy those who stayed could handle, females in collars passed their muster, and their eucharistic antenna. Miters on hairspray appalled them not, sufficiently. But Viki Gene and the sexual agenda finally caught their attention. And slowly, in moderation, without haste, they began to think of beginning to consider the preliminaries of the outlines of possibilities of an approach to a tentative decision of what they eventually might do, under a variety of contingencies yet to be defined. Maybe. Some still haven’t done it.

I like Schofield. I like Iker. I wish they had led the way.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not surprised as to what you found true of the “conservatives” that had lasted as long as recently in TEC. The first exodus, which formed what we know as the Continuum, after the St. Louis meeting of 1978, were mainly the Anglo-Catholic side of TEC, at that time, and overwhelmingly orthodox. Those who were able to remain in TEC for another 25+ years, while they might have good qualities of their own, were not of the same substance as the first departees. Bad liturgy those who stayed could handle, females in collars passed their muster, and their eucharistic antenna. Miters on hairspray appalled them not, sufficiently. But Viki Gene and the sexual agenda finally caught their attention. And slowly, in moderation, without haste, they began to think of beginning to consider the preliminaries of the outlines of possibilities of an approach to a tentative decision of what they eventually might do, under a variety of contingencies yet to be defined. Maybe. Some still haven’t done it.

I like Schofield. I like Iker. I wish they had led the way.

GKC

I’m sad to see that the North American Anglican Province that Iker, Schofield, Ackerman, and Bob Duncan have worked so hard to create will be a hodge-podge of conservative values mixed with women’s ordination mumbo jumbo? I heard in our Diocese of San Joaquin that the next bishop ‘might’ be ok with women’s ordination. What I couldn’t believe is how, up to the VERY last second, the Diocese of SJ churches like our local parish, prayed and prayed, discussed and pondered, had meeting after meeting, discerned and discerned before they made the decision to break off from TEC? To me it was a no-brainer?? I talked to a lady at the grocery store the other day who still goes to St. Paul’s and she told me that she wishes they hadn’t broken off? HUH?

I’ve read some of the books you’ve mentioned in the past already like the Vernon Staley “The Catholic Religion” book as well as JND Kelly, etc. I was wondering, have you read any of John Meyendorff’s stuff? I think the guy is my favorite Orthodox author and theologian. Have you read him?

 

[GKC]

I’m sad to see that the North American Anglican Province that Iker, Schofield, Ackerman, and Bob Duncan have worked so hard to create will be a hodge-podge of conservative values mixed with women’s ordination mumbo jumbo? I heard in our Diocese of San Joaquin that the next bishop ‘might’ be ok with women’s ordination. What I couldn’t believe is how, up to the VERY last second, the Diocese of SJ churches like our local parish, prayed and prayed, discussed and pondered, had meeting after meeting, discerned and discerned before they made the decision to break off from TEC? To me it was a no-brainer?? I talked to a lady at the grocery store the other day who still goes to St. Paul’s and she told me that she wishes they hadn’t broken off? HUH?

I’ve read some of the books you’ve mentioned in the past already like the Vernon Staley “The Catholic Religion” book as well as JND Kelly, etc. I was wondering, have you read any of John Meyendorff’s stuff? I think the guy is my favorite Orthodox author and theologian. Have you read him?

I have the same concern over that issue. It bodes ill for the future.

No, I’ve read nothing of Meyendorff. There is a small Orthodox shop in town, with a selection of Orthodox titles. I’ll look, next time.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To Mark,

Does the fact that the catholic church asserts that there are more than just “plumbing differences” between men and women automatically mean that we assign a lesser value and dignity to women? Or is it possible that there is a deeper meaning? Does equal quality and dignity always require same functions? Questions to ponder.

Hi, manualman. I absolutely agree that the difference between men and women is not simply a matter of biology. But I cannot agree that one of those differences is that men are more capable of receiving sacramental grace than women, particularly in light of Paul’s statement that in Christ there is no slave or free, Jew or gentile, male or female.

I fully believe in the symbolic value of maleness and femaleness, what they mean in a religio-mythic context, how they relate to the very concepts of relatability and the sacred. These values are incredibly useful. But insofar as I do not ultimately refer them to a value that transcends them, then I am bound by them and conditioned by them in some very unhelpful ways. I may begin to demand that all women assume a passivity with respect to all men which best befits the symbolic value of the female. I may begin to over-value the classical “active-ness” of the male in such a way that I begin to see cultural stereotypes regarding masculine and feminine as laws of nature rather than conditioned social responses. I may ultimately wind up denying the humanity of women by seeing them as somewhere between men and animals in their capacity to receive grace.

It seems clear to me that in relation to the body, the soul is masculine, but in relation to God, it is feminine. The Bible ends with the wedding feast of the Lamb and the Church. This is OUR wedding feast. Men and women both. Our high calling is not to be guests at the supper, but to be married to the God who made us. This is why the Virgin Mary provides such a vivid instance of the process of sanctification–we must first be Mary (child of God, spouse of God, bearer of God) in order to be Christ (by the mystical marriage which the grace of the Spirit accomplishes). Women do not have an inate advantage here because they lack male genitalia and should therefore inately know how to be submissive. Men and women must both make the same journey to the wedding feast.

Humanity, mankind, in relation to creation, however, assumes the role of high priest–offering creation back to God. Is this a role to which women are not called? If humanity is called, but women are not, what does that say about women’s humanity?

So regarding equal quality and dignity and it’s relationship to function, I think we make a mistake when we reduce being to function–when we make of function an end of being rather than a means to expressing or fulfilling being. For me, the question of women in the priesthood is not a question of the function of the sexes in a social or religious context, but a question of the mission of humanity, an expression of what it means to be human–the priesthood is a specific instance of a universal human calling–and that calling includes, for everyone being both priest and bride. It seems to me, then, that to say that a woman cannot be a priest is like saying that a man cannot actually be united to Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m an Anglican. The RCC’s opinion means a great deal to me, whether I accept it or not.

As I have said often before, there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans. SpiritMeadow is one of the former.

GKC

Charity prevents me from responding. I shall review the sins of pride and arrogance again.