How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[gurneyhalleck1]

What theological argument is compelling in its favor? I see nothing at all theologically speaking that can defend WO. Now if we apply secular thinking to it and disregard the spiritual, then sure we can make compelling arguments.

Sorry I think you missed my meaning. I’m not saying its a right, or a priviledge. I was arguing that saying that WO is ahistorical, is not a good argument. Something being ahistorical does not mean its wrong, immoral, or in any other way negative. I don’t happen to think its a right or a privelidge, I honestly believe that the theological arguments against WO aren’t very convincing.

 

[JohnnyReb]

After having thought long and hard on it, I’m sorry to say that I have come to the opposite conclusion (and that’s as someone who wants emotionally to be on the traditional side). I haven’t seen a good reason for saying that women lack the ability to be priests. The only reasons given have been:

• it’s traditional
• Jesus and the apostles were men
• the Pope said so

two of which are non-sequiturs and one a fallacy (of appeal to authority), in my judgement. I still support keeping the priesthood male but I’m still looking for a solid reason.

That is basically what it comes down to. For me to be consistant-to go to the scriptures first and then appeal to tradition to clarify points of dispute-I have to come down on the side that WO is ahistorical. None the less, Christ did say he would pour his spirit out upon all flesh. All, including both male and female.

 

[Contarini]

What theological argument is compelling in its favor? I see nothing at all theologically speaking that can defend WO. Now if we apply secular thinking to it and disregard the spiritual, then sure we can make compelling arguments.

Gurney,

There’s really no reason for this statement. I have given a theological argument repeatedly. The fact that you choose to ignore this argument and state falsely that my reasons are “secular” is your problem.

The theological argument, to recap one more time, is this:

1. Men and women are both created in God’s image.
2. Men and women share a common human nature, as the Fathers taught.
3. Jesus took on this common nature for our salvation, becoming the savior of the entire human race. As the Fathers taught, what is not assumed is not saved.

All those who share in the nature Christ assumed are capable of being validly ordained. To say otherwise is to suggest that some people share that nature more fully than others. This is not a secular, civil-rights objection. It is a theological objection tied to classical, orthodox Christian soteriology.

The only point at which a consideration of historic Christian sexism and misogyny becomes relevant is to answer the objection: why didn’t the Fathers draw the same conclusions from their theological premises that I do?

My position is thus identical to that of the Fathers in theological principle, but rejects the false biological theories which influenced their view of gender (that women instantiate human nature less perfectly than men). The anti-WO position as generally maintained by Catholics, on the other hand, rejects these biological theories and then invents brand new theological principles in order to avoid the conclusion that women should be ordained.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s not all that has been said. It has also been said that the priesthood is a fatherly role. A priest stands in persona christi, a father for his flock. Jesus was male as well and in His place the priest stands. Jesus never ordained women, true. But ultimately it boils down to what the priesthood is. Precedents do matter, yes. For example, there were no priestesses in the Levitical priesthood of Ancient Israel that prefigured the Christian priesthood either. But that isn’t ultimately why men are priests. Christ is the bride groom, the Church is the bride. The priest stands as this groom, not a bride.

Priests are CALLED, not given the right to be a priest. It is up to the Church to declare who is called and who is not. The Church ultimately decides who becomes a priest and who doesn’t. That includes some men for that matter! Some people think they’re being called and the Church decides not to ordain them. The Church is the final authority to decide such a calling. The Holy Spirit is the spark here, not men and their secular wisdom. So we must look at the Church’s view of who is called and who is not. Women, the Church has declared, are not being called. You may think it’s just copping out a “because we said so” but that is essentially it—the Church did say so! The CC has always looked at the Church and Christ through the Song of Songs angle—a groom to a bride. We don’t call the Church “father Church” but Mother Church. And Christ is the groom.

Fulton Sheen once said the priesthood itself in each priest is the prolongation of the Incarnation itself sacramentally. The Incarnation was and is male.

And Catholics, rightly I think, frequently mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their arguments against WO. If Jesus didn’t see the BVM fit to be a priest, how could any woman serve!? And obviously Mary Magdalene had a stronger faith than several of the apostles! So did Mother Mary. Elizabeth and her sister Martha had a strong faith. Jesus had a tremendous amount of love and respect for women. They were a key piece of his ministry. Their absence as those “called” to be priests is telling IMHO.

After having thought long and hard on it, I’m sorry to say that I have come to the opposite conclusion (and that’s as someone who wants emotionally to be on the traditional side). I haven’t seen a good reason for saying that women lack the ability to be priests. The only reasons given have been:

• it’s traditional
• Jesus and the apostles were men
• the Pope said so

two of which are non-sequiturs and one a fallacy (of appeal to authority), in my judgement. I still support keeping the priesthood male but I’m still looking for a solid reason.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

So then one looks at Orthodoxy. When I read their views on the Atonement, I am NOT a happy camper! I read their views on Original Sin or their insistence on leavened bread and ripping Catholics for unleavened, their passionate anger at the filioque, their organizational structure, views on icons, etc. my red flags go up on them. .

I don’t get this.

I wonder if your rejection of Orthodox atonement theology is due to your seeing the atonement through a Western, judicial prism. The Orthodox don’t frame the soteriology debate this way.

Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an interesting article on the Orthodox view of atonement which explains it well and how it accords better with the Fathers. frederica.com/writings/what-mel-missed.html

Anyway, since it is not dogma, Orthodox can embrace Anslems´ view or penal substitution or any other view. The ancient hymnology of the Church does support the Christus Victor view of atonement, but this is also a problem for Roman Catholics, since they share that patristic inheritance.

Incidentally, on “organisational structure”, do you reject conciliarity? If so, you are correct that you would be uncomfortable in the Orthodox Church.

 

[Contarini]

Gurney,

I understand that you’re probably ignoring me, but in all fairness I wanted to acknowledge that I responded too hastily in my earlier post. You did say that you didn’t find the theological reasons *compelling, *not that there were no theological reasons at all.

I stand by the rest of my post–that is, it was appropriate for me to repeat the theological reasons so that others can judge whether they are compelling or not. But I apologize for interpreting you as saying that there were no such reasons at all, when that is not in fact what you said.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

That’s not all that has been said. It has also been said that the priesthood is a fatherly role. A priest stands in persona christi, a father for his flock. Jesus was male as well and in His place the priest stands. Jesus never ordained women, true. But ultimately it boils down to what the priesthood is. Precedents do matter, yes. For example, there were no priestesses in the Levitical priesthood of Ancient Israel that prefigured the Christian priesthood either. But that isn’t ultimately why men are priests. Christ is the bride groom, the Church is the bride. The priest stands as this groom, not a bride.

Remember my second point? That’s what you’re restating here. Jesus was a male so priests should be male. The usual response to this is that Jesus and the twelve were also Jewish, yet we don’t demand that the priesthood consist only of Jews. Why does gender matter but not anything else?

Priests are CALLED, not given the right to be a priest.

True but irrelevant. This doesn’t answer the question, why can’t a woman be called to serve as a priest? They’re called to serve as female religious, aren’t they?

It is up to the Church to declare who is called and who is not. The Church ultimately decides who becomes a priest and who doesn’t. That includes some men for that matter! Some people think they’re being called and the Church decides not to ordain them. The Church is the final authority to decide such a calling.

This is a restatement of my point number 3. I agree that it’s up to the Church but again saying so doesn’t give a reason why – just that the Church says so. That’s an appeal to authority. I’m not arguing that the Church doesn’t have that authority but just that it would be nice to know, given that our faith is supposed to be based on reason, that there’s a solid rationale for it.

Fulton Sheen once said the priesthood itself in each priest is the prolongation of the Incarnation itself sacramentally. The Incarnation was and is male.

This is a restatment of reason # 2.

And Catholics, rightly I think, frequently mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their arguments against WO. If Jesus didn’t see the BVM fit to be a priest, how could any woman serve!? And obviously Mary Magdalene had a stronger faith than several of the apostles! So did Mother Mary. Elizabeth and her sister Martha had a strong faith. Jesus had a tremendous amount of love and respect for women. They were a key piece of his ministry. Their absence as those “called” to be priests is telling IMHO.

Not to mention Mother Teresa and many other holy women. I guess this is a restatement of my reason # 1. It doesn’t answer what it is about being a woman that disqualifies one from being a priest, other than that it’s part of (sacred?) tradition. That’s the best answer we can hope for, and that’s what I’m going to settle for for now.

 

[tomarin]

That is basically what it comes down to. For me to be consistant-to go to the scriptures first and then appeal to tradition to clarify points of dispute-I have to come down on the side that WO is ahistorical.

Of course. But how is that a valid reason for saying that women by their nature are not fit to be priests?

None the less, Christ did say he would pour his spirit out upon all flesh. All, including both male and female.

Aye, there’s the rub.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

And Catholics, rightly I think, frequently mention the Blessed Virgin Mary in their arguments against WO. If Jesus didn’t see the BVM fit to be a priest, how could any woman serve!? And obviously Mary Magdalene had a stronger faith than several of the apostles! So did Mother Mary. Elizabeth and her sister Martha had a strong faith. Jesus had a tremendous amount of love and respect for women. They were a key piece of his ministry. Their absence as those “called” to be priests is telling IMHO.

Moreover, during the 2000 years of the Church’s history, she (the historic, apostolic Church, that is) has sought fit to beatify many wonderful Christian women. Yet she has ordained to the priesthood none of them.

Really, the WO issue raises a broader question about epistemology. How do we determine Christian truth? What is authentic Christianity?

Insofar as we accept the Church, in the consensus of the Fathers and in her practices “everywhere, always and by everybody” as per St. Vincent of Lerins, as the source of truth, than we haven’t the liberty to accept WO. The Church from Iberia to India during 2000 years has rejected WO as inconsistent with the Deposit of Christian faith. So to introduce WO now is to introduce something that contravenes the mind of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Insofar as we reject the ontological nature of the Church as the “pillar of Truth”, then we may be freed up to accept WO. But then why not homosexual blessings and premarital sex? And for that matter, why not question the Trinity and the closed New Testament Canon?

As the Anglican Church knows, once you jettison the consensus of the Fathers and the undivided witness of the Church, everything else is up for discussion. Christianity is thus effectively replaced by something else.

 

[Contarini]

Moreover, during the 2000 years of the Church’s history, she (the historic, apostolic Church, that is) has sought fit to beatify many wonderful Christian women. Yet she has ordained to the priesthood none of them.

Really, the WO issue raises a broader question about epistemology. How do we determine Christian truth? What is authentic Christianity?

Insofar as we accept the Church, in the consensus of the Fathers and in her practices “everywhere, always and by everybody” as per St. Vincent of Lerins, as the source of truth, than we haven’t the liberty to accept WO.

The problem with this is that opponents of WO have come up with a brand new theological anthropology to support the traditional practice. Traditional theological anthropology, once you take away the belief that women are biologically inferior, leaves no place that I can see for the view that women cannot be validly ordained.

Complementary two-nature anthropology is utterly unprecedented in Christian theological history, as far as I can see. This is the elephant in the room that conservatives wish to ignore.

Insofar as we reject the ontological nature of the Church as the “pillar of Truth”, then we may be freed up to accept WO. But then why not homosexual blessings and premarital sex?

The Church is the pillar of truth, but not in an arbitrary fashion. The theological principles of the Fathers are to be accepted. But when everyone rejects certain cultural/scientific assumptions made by the Fathers, it is reasonable to ask how the theological principles of the Fathers function in the new cultural context.

It is entirely reasonable to ask the same question with regard to homosexuality too. But I think the answers are different. I am open to refutation on either point, of course, and I’ll give a lot more weight to arguments against WO than arguments for homosexuality. But what I mostly hear in both sides is the bare assertion that the two issues must go together, without a serious engagement of the theological questions.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve given my feelings about the matter, tomarin. Sorry you don’t find my reasoning compelling. I don’t want to keep rehashing it. I’m burned out on the topic frankly. Go to catholic answers and just do some reading on the matter. I don’t know what to tell you.

Remember my second point? That’s what you’re restating here. Jesus was a male so priests should be male. The usual response to this is that Jesus and the twelve were also Jewish, yet we don’t demand that the priesthood consist only of Jews. Why does gender matter but not anything else?

True but irrelevant. This doesn’t answer the question, why can’t a woman be called to serve as a priest? They’re called to serve as female religious, aren’t they?

This is a restatement of my point number 3. I agree that it’s up to the Church but again saying so doesn’t give a reason why – just that the Church says so. That’s an appeal to authority. I’m not arguing that the Church doesn’t have that authority but just that it would be nice to know, given that our faith is supposed to be based on reason, that there’s a solid rationale for it.

This is a restatment of reason # 2.

Not to mention Mother Teresa and many other holy women. I guess this is a restatement of my reason # 1. It doesn’t answer what it is about being a woman that disqualifies one from being a priest, other than that it’s part of (sacred?) tradition. That’s the best answer we can hope for, and that’s what I’m going to settle for for now.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I accept Anselmian thinking on the matter. I’ve said as much in many posts. I frankly, with all due respect, don’t care how the Orthodox frame the discussion. I disagree with them about their approach to soteriology. I can read Isaiah 53 and it’s plain as day IMO that the Catholic Church has gotten this right. Orthodox probably “can” adopt Western views of soteriology, but then again what would be the point? In my opinion it’s fruitless to be in an ecclesiastial body and be divergent from their predominant historical views.

Thanks for the link.

I don’t get this.

I wonder if your rejection of Orthodox atonement theology is due to your seeing the atonement through a Western, judicial prism. The Orthodox don’t frame the soteriology debate this way.

Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an interesting article on the Orthodox view of atonement which explains it well and how it accords better with the Fathers. frederica.com/writings/what-mel-missed.html

Anyway, since it is not dogma, Orthodox can embrace Anslems´ view or penal substitution or any other view. The ancient hymnology of the Church does support the Christus Victor view of atonement, but this is also a problem for Roman Catholics, since they share that patristic inheritance.

Incidentally, on “organisational structure”, do you reject conciliarity? If so, you are correct that you would be uncomfortable in the Orthodox Church.

 

[tomarin]

I’ve given my feelings about the matter, tomarin. Sorry you don’t find my reasoning compelling. I don’t want to keep rehashing it. I’m burned out on the topic frankly.

I understand.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. But how is that a valid reason for saying that women by their nature are not fit to be priests?

No Catholic ought to claim that women are not “fit” to be priests.

It is no more correct to say that women are not fit to be priests than it is to say women are not fit to be fathers.

It’s just not an ontological possibility. It’s not the proper “matter.”

Just like cake–no matter how sublime–is not the proper matter for the Eucharist. One could just as well say, “The Catholic Church feels that cake is inferior to bread since cake cannot become transubstantiated into the Eucharist.” :whacky::whacky:

 

[1234]

Johnny,
You and I are at about the same place. Have you read N.T. Wrights defense of WO? Its pretty good, worth a google search at least. I recently got married and flat out told my wife that divorce isn’t an option, we work through our problems. I can understand how people feel they have to break a covenant like that but that’s not for us. I have many gay friends, they are great people, I just haven’t been able to sort out how I feel about openly gay clergy. I suppose its just like any other sin so perhaps that’s the way to look at it.

As an aside, I would have never married a man for whom divorce was not an option.

 

[1234]

It’s one of your hobbies? Since when?
I can sense a “history is complicated” or “motley crew” or “depends on which Anglicans you ask” comin’ round the bend!

I have never known two Catholics who had the same beliefs.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Really? I have met a lot of Catholics who believe in

Transubstantiation
Seven sacraments
Papal infallibility
The Church is the OHCAC
Marian dogmas
opposed to women’s ordination
pro-life
encourage eucharistic adoration
accept magisterial teachings
pro-NFP

etc. etc. I have met tons of those folks. Many of them are right here at CAF. We must be meeting different circles of Catholics, you and I.

And I think you know full well what I was referring to in my post. Anglicans, by and large, don’t agree even on the fundamentals or basics. Take the Eucharist—what is it? In my Anglican parish some saw it as transubstantiation, some as consub., some as a spiritual presence, some a symbol, some nothing, some more than one, you name it. Anglicans come from polarizingly different approaches to basic liturgical sensibilities—low evangelical to high anglo-catholic. Some reject the 39 Articles, many do not. Some believe in apostolic succession, many could care less (Sydney Australia believes in lay presidency!), some accept women’s ordination, some do not, on and on and on…they disagree about anything and everything. Now, in all seriousness, do you really think most Catholics of an orthodox nature are this contradictory and chaotic in their theology much less polity? I’m not saying all Catholics are well-catechized. For goodness sakes, that’s absurd. Do a lot of Catholics not have a clue about their religion? Yeppers. But, by and large, do most orthodox, practicing, informed Catholics have divergent views anywhere near, remotely near, what Anglicans have as far as divergence? I don’t think so…

And I say this from just analysis. I don’t say it out of anger. I love Anglicans. I honestly would love to be back in my Anglican parish right now. I loved my rector, enjoyed the fellowship, really liked the liturgy, and miss the parking!

I have never known two Catholics who had the same beliefs.

 

[1234]

NO, I have never known two Catholics who had the same *religious *beliefs.

 

[1234]

Really? I have met a lot of Catholics who believe in

Transubstantiation
Seven sacraments
Papal infallibility
The Church is the OHCAC
Marian dogmas
opposed to women’s ordination
pro-life
encourage eucharistic adoration
accept magisterial teachings
pro-NFP

etc. etc. I have met tons of those folks. Many of them are right here at CAF. We must be meeting different circles of Catholics, you and I.

And I think you know full well what I was referring to in my post. Anglicans, by and large, don’t agree even on the fundamentals or basics. Take the Eucharist—what is it? In my Anglican parish some saw it as transubstantiation, some as consub., some as a spiritual presence, some a symbol, some nothing, some more than one, you name it. Anglicans come from polarizingly different approaches to basic liturgical sensibilities—low evangelical to high anglo-catholic. Some reject the 39 Articles, many do not. Some believe in apostolic succession, many could care less (Sydney Australia believes in lay presidency!), some accept women’s ordination, some do not, on and on and on…they disagree about anything and everything. Now, in all seriousness, do you really think most Catholics of an orthodox nature are this contradictory and chaotic in their theology much less polity? I’m not saying all Catholics are well-catechized. For goodness sakes, that’s absurd. Do a lot of Catholics not have a clue about their religion? Yeppers. But, by and large, do most orthodox, practicing, informed Catholics have divergent views anywhere near, remotely near, what Anglicans have as far as divergence? I don’t think so…

And I say this from just analysis. I don’t say it out of anger. I love Anglicans. I honestly would love to be back in my Anglican parish right now. I loved my rector, enjoyed the fellowship, really liked the liturgy, and miss the parking!

It’s the phrase, “Catholics of an orthodox nature”–I know very few ‘orthodox’ Catholics. And most Catholics don’t know *what *they believe about the Eucharist–they’ll say, “Christ is really there”–and can’t define or really discuss “really”. Anglicans just discuss their differences–noisily. (Many Anglicans and Lutherans also believe that Christ is ‘really’ there, but can discuss it a lot better).

The orthodox RCs I know are all here on CAF. It’s an artificial environment. I know that there *are * out there, maybe located at ‘orthodox’ churches, but I suspect many, if not most, are in artificial ‘communities’ like this one.

If I were orthodox, I would feel comfortable in an Anglican environment, which includes all that I find orthodox. I would feel comfortable in a home that embraces what I believe even if many of my fellow-worshipers don’t . I tolerate diversity. As a Catholic, you in your pew, believe me, are surrounded by many who don’t subscribe to what you believe, or even know what those phrases mean–they are just keeping quiet about it. You want everyone to believe the same as you do in your church. It’s not gonna happen.

"…do most orthodox, practicing, informed Catholics have divergent views anywhere near, remotely near, what Anglicans have as far as divergence? I don’t think so…."

Once again, you are saying ‘orthodox’ , pinning in your definition to strengthen your case. There are* an awful lot* of Catholics in prominent places, both sexes, who have very strongly divergent beliefs from Rome. So much so, I wonder what they stay, except that they have been prominent Catholics for years. Many are religious and are priests. (Rome seems to be backing off an outright attack, but we’ll see…)

And, GH, most ‘orthodox’ Catholics would not regard you as orthodox. Sorry.

 

[1234]

Goodness, how vehement you are. Almost unpleasant. Online forums, especially CAF which is moderated and to some degree, censored, attract ‘orthodox’ RC members. The ‘community’ is very artificial, like Facebook with its “Facebook friends”, but a lot more artificial, since we are anonymous on CAF, whereas Facebook is not. The self-described orthodox on CAF flock here. For the most part, the non-orthodox do not subscribe to this forum.

Anglicans tend to be verbal and well-educated, therefore they talk and disagree noisily, often online. There has been a prominent Anglican presence online since the web was created, especially considering Anglican numbers. Noisy Anglican non-believers, lay and clergy alike, know that they won’t be kicked out of their dioceses or hauled up before Rome. Catholic laymen and clergy alike know that disagreement is not tolerated, and therefore they are much quieter. They disagree by not showing up—only 22% on American Catholics go to mass each week–by not providing financial support–donations have plummeted in recent years— and by using contraception. American Catholic birth rates do not significantly differ from Protestant ones–if they are higher in certain areas populated by Hispanic immigrants, they approach the norm in one generation. As Nixon said, there is a ‘silent majority’ out there and it is non-orthodox Catholics. The expression “cafeteria Catholic” was invented to describe them. No one has surveyed what Catholics believe--versus what they observe–along the lines of GH’s list. Ask the Catholic-in-the-street what transubstantiation means and doesn’t mean, what the virgin birth (v. the Immaculate Conception) refers to, what the Resurrection and the Assumption are, and whether they believe it. Ask them to name the seven sacraments. Go ahead.