Question about Anglican Clergy Controversies

[Matthew_Holford]

Here in England it depends on which one of the two conservative wings of the CofE you are in. Evangelicals tend to be for the ordination of women and against the ordination of homosexuals while the Anglo/Catholics tend to be for the ordination of homosexuals but against the ordination of women.

I was surprised by your comments. I don’t disbelieve you but I thought that the ordination of women was an area where the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics were in agreement; they’re both against it. I am quite sure the Evangelicals are against the ordination of homosexuals. I’m surprised the Anglo-Catholics aren’t against it as well. Mind you I find Anglo-Catholics, IMHO, giving out what seems to me a mixed message. I know that they do not agree with the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate but they have no issue with them being ordained as deacons. Then again it seems to me the whole Church of England is confused. They have allowed the ordination of women as “priest” but not yet as bishop. Either you believe women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders or you don’t. I don’t get well we’'ll let you be deacons but nothing else (Anglo-Catholic viewpoint) or we’ll let you be deacons and priests but not bishops (current CofE situation). What will happen to their female deacons when/if Anglo-Catholics are joined in communion with Rome in an Ordinariate?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points about their inconsistencies with women. But have no fear, ladies are now bishops in England as well. They are here in the States. And it’s no coincidence that the insanity of TEC is exploding even more since they came along?

Careful though. Not all anglo-catholics are opposed to women’s ordination. I wish it were so! There are plenty of anglo-catholics, sadly, who buy into this innovation. And evangelicals tend to often be fine with WO as well justifying it with the “there is no Jew, no Gentile, Scythian, no Greek, nor male nor female” scripture (even though that Scriptural reference has NOTHING to do with ordination but rather salvation) to justify the silly idea.

I was surprised by your comments. I don’t disbelieve you but I thought that the ordination of women was an area where the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics were in agreement; they’re both against it. I am quite sure the Evangelicals are against the ordination of homosexuals. I’m surprised the Anglo-Catholics aren’t against it as well. Mind you I find Anglo-Catholics, IMHO, giving out what seems to me a mixed message. I know that they do not agree with the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate but they have no issue with them being ordained as deacons. Then again it seems to me the whole Church of England is confused. They have allowed the ordination of women as “priest” but not yet as bishop. Either you believe women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders or you don’t. I don’t get well we’'ll let you be deacons but nothing else (Anglo-Catholic viewpoint) or we’ll let you be deacons and priests but not bishops (current CofE situation). What will happen to their female deacons when/if Anglo-Catholics are joined in communion with Rome in an Ordinariate?

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is an unfair oversimplification of Catholicism really. Not all Catholic priests are lunatic pedophiles out to molest little Billy in the sacristy. So saying you’d prefer a woman “priest” to a molester is setting up a pretty bad strawman either-or I’d say!

True, but its a stumbling block to many. We have a family in our parish that were Irish Catholic going all the way back to their ancestors in Ireland, and they left the Catholic Church because they were angry about how the RCC handled the issues around the sex scandle…not necessarily that it happened, but rather the cover ups involved and the lack of accountability.

Bottom line is neither one should be in the Church clergy so setting up such a comparison is moot. Women aren’t “qualified” to be priestesses just because they don’t tend to molest as much?

We agree to disagree on the ordination of women.

Also, you say “monogomous gay” priest. So now you’re condoning sodomy by a member of Christ’s clergy? A man having anal sex and confecting the Eucharist at Mass the next day? I say PASS.

None of the above.

I am not sure he is. Unlike other Anglicans/Episcopalians, I support women in the clergy but not homosexuals.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with the concern. I think Benedict and John paul II both have blown it royally in this department.

I know but I figured the pope by now would have taken out the cardinals who support pedophilia. He lets them keep their positions though. So I guess you have a church with women and gays and a church with cardinals and popes who support pedophilia. Lutherans maybe?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No one should leave the Church over the sex scandal. Those are the actions of individuals, not the entirety of Catholicism nor is it a part of the theology or morality of Catholicism. Every denomination has its rogues and losers.

You can also disagree with me about WO, but you have the Bible (OT and NT) going against you as well as 2,000 years of tradition and precedent as well as ecumenism collapsing as a result.

True, but its a stumbling block to many. We have a family in our parish that were Irish Catholic going all the way back to their ancestors in Ireland, and they left the Catholic Church because they were angry about how the RCC handled the issues around the sex scandle…not necessarily that it happened, but rather the cover ups involved and the lack of accountability.

We agree to disagree on the ordination of women.

I am not sure he is. Unlike other Anglicans/Episcopalians, I support women in the clergy but not homosexuals.

 

[runningdude]

Sadly, such a community would not be eligible for an ordinate. The Catholic Church offered this as a half way measure to those communities totally obedient to Catholic teaching and tradition, but separated by accident of history. It will not yield on any issue of doctrine, but will wave some issues of discipline to accommodate them.

I’d imagine individual members may be convert to Catholicism and chose to join an Anglican-use ordinate. Even some clergy may convert individually as well and be accepted for a candidates in such an ordinate as well. But no parish that has accepted woman as practicing ordained ministry will be allowed to convert corporately.

I was surprised by your comments. I don’t disbelieve you but I thought that the ordination of women was an area where the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics were in agreement; they’re both against it. I am quite sure the Evangelicals are against the ordination of homosexuals. I’m surprised the Anglo-Catholics aren’t against it as well. Mind you I find Anglo-Catholics, IMHO, giving out what seems to me a mixed message. I know that they do not agree with the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate but they have no issue with them being ordained as deacons. Then again it seems to me the whole Church of England is confused. They have allowed the ordination of women as “priest” but not yet as bishop. Either you believe women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders or you don’t. I don’t get well we’'ll let you be deacons but nothing else (Anglo-Catholic viewpoint) or we’ll let you be deacons and priests but not bishops (current CofE situation). What will happen to their female deacons when/if Anglo-Catholics are joined in communion with Rome in an Ordinariate?

 

[JohnnyReb]

No one should leave the Church over the sex scandal. Those are the actions of individuals, not the entirety of Catholicism nor is it a part of the theology or morality of Catholicism. Every denomination has its rogues and losers.

This is true, every denomination has people who fall short, but don’t we judge a tree buy its fruit? I mean isn’t this allegedly why so many have issues with some of the innovations in TEC? It has alot to do with the morality of Catholicism. It says alot about the RCC as an institution. Catholics across the board are rightly sickened by what happened.

You can also disagree with me about WO, but you have the Bible (OT and NT) going against you as well as 2,000 years of tradition and precedent as well as ecumenism collapsing as a result.

The tradition is the only thing that really I think is troubling for proponents of WO. There are verses in the Bible that seem to go against it, but others that seem to support it. It boils down to hermeneutics and approach. For instance, such groups as Christians for Biblical Equality, are committed to both biblical infallibility and egalitarian treatment for women in the ecclesiastical life of the church.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is true, every denomination has people who fall short, but don’t we judge a tree buy its fruit? I mean isn’t this allegedly why so many have issues with some of the innovations in TEC? It has alot to do with the morality of Catholicism. It says alot about the RCC as an institution. Catholics across the board are rightly sickened by what happened.

The tradition is the only thing that really I think is troubling for proponents of WO. There are verses in the Bible that seem to go against it, but others that seem to support it. It boils down to hermeneutics and approach. For instance, such groups as Christians for Biblical Equality, are committed to both biblical infallibility and egalitarian treatment for women in the ecclesiastical life of the church.

I myself am saddened and sickened at the cover-up that happened, but I would not leave the Church because of it.

Ultimately a lot of the people that kleft because of the priest scandals had problems with the Church even before the scandals broke in 2002. They simply used the scandals as confirmation of their preset preconception of the Church as “corrupt”, and used that as an excuse/justification to leave.

Holy Mother Church has survived worse problems than this. After 3000 years, it is par for the course.
She will survive this. Make no mistake.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would also point out the AMIA Anglican study of women’s ordination? It was an intense study undertaken by these Anglicans. Here’s the link:
dl.dropbox.com/u/223873/WOMEN%27SORDINATIONSTUDY.pdf

It recommends against it after AMIA had already, for quite a while, ordained women. When AMIA joined ACNA they kept the policy then groups like Christ Church Plano under David Roseberry started wanting to ordain women they did a “study of their own” which really wasn’t a study as much as a survey in their own “diocese” and found a lot of people were for it. So AMIA is ok with it now but suspending it for now to ease tensions in ACNA.

So what does this tell us? The study, prayerfully, historically, theologically sound, shows us WO is a bad, bad, bad idea. When we “vote” on it at a local level, where most parishoners are so-so in their history and knowledge of theology, it looks popular.

Always go with the theologians, the precedents, the Bible, and walk cautiously. I take the same approach with abortion. I tell people who are pro-choice, even if, I mean even if there’s a 1% chance they’re wrong and life DOES begin at conception, you’re participating in a holocaust. Why not rule out all doubt anyway if you’re a thoughtful, intelligent person? Same applies with WO.

It’s devastating the prospects for ecumenism with Catholics, Orthodox, and other groups like LCMS Lutherans who are anti-WO.

Just my thoughts.

This is true, every denomination has people who fall short, but don’t we judge a tree buy its fruit? I mean isn’t this allegedly why so many have issues with some of the innovations in TEC? It has alot to do with the morality of Catholicism. It says alot about the RCC as an institution. Catholics across the board are rightly sickened by what happened.

The tradition is the only thing that really I think is troubling for proponents of WO. There are verses in the Bible that seem to go against it, but others that seem to support it. It boils down to hermeneutics and approach. For instance, such groups as Christians for Biblical Equality, are committed to both biblical infallibility and egalitarian treatment for women in the ecclesiastical life of the church.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

But have no fear, ladies are now bishops in England as well.

Not yet. The C of E has discussed it but the formal vote hasn’t been taken yet. I believe that’s going to happen in 2012. According to the more reputable newspapers had the C of E’s General Synod voted on the issue this summer it would have been a close run thing and the pro-female bishop lobby may have lost the vote. It would seem they have some more arm twisting to do, sorry I meant persuading, before the ordination of women as bishops in the C of E is a done deal

 

[JohnnyReb]

I myself am saddened and sickened at the cover-up that happened, but I would not leave the Church because of it.

Ultimately a lot of the people that kleft because of the priest scandals had problems with the Church even before the scandals broke in 2002. They simply used the scandals as confirmation of their preset preconception of the Church as “corrupt”, and used that as an excuse/justification to leave.

Holy Mother Church has survived worse problems than this. After 3000 years, it is par for the course.
She will survive this. Make no mistake.

I am sure in some cases, that is true. I don’t know all the people who left, so I cannot make sweeping judgements about all of them. I do think the church will be fine, it seems the dust is settling from the scandle. The Church has survived the sex scandle, and inquisition, and crusades and it will continue to move on and do just fine.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

… a half way measure …

This phrase you used intrigued me. Why do you describe it as a ‘half way measure’?

My understanding is they will be fully incorporated into the Latin Catholic Church. I know the Church will not yield any ground on doctrine.

As for the discipline issues you mentioned, I assume you’re referring mainly to former Anglican clergy being ordained as priests. Former Anglican clergy who enter the Catholic Church may be accepted for ordination as a Catholic priest even if married. If subsequently widowed they cannot remarry. If married they can never me raised to the episcopate. In a way this is no change. It’s what happens if a former Anglican clergy man becomes a Catholic now. They will of course have their own ordinary, either a married priest or unmarried bishop. They will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the local Latin Catholic bishop.

They will be allowed to retain the Anglican liturgy. This may be altered to ensure that it conforms to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. This will not be unusual, I don’t think, as there are already other rites in use in the Latin Catholic Church. Some may even propose that it will not even rank as a full rite but be more correctly classed as a Use of the Roman Rite. In fact isn’t there already an Anglican Use in the USA?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

After 3000 years …

The Church has a long history but I think you’ve added an extra millenium

 

[runningdude]

anti-WO.

Pro-true sacramental preisthood

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Amen. Preach it brutha!

Pro-true sacramental preisthood

 

[Bran_Stark]

An accurate analysis IMO. The ACNA had the opportunity to squash and stomp the many errors TEC had accumulated over the years: women’s ordination, gay theology, liberal attitudes about divorce, minimizing Christ’s salvific role and looking at other religions as equals, pro-choice views, liberation theology, happy-clappy Calvary chapel type garbage, etc. Problem is they let the women’s ordination continue, the Calvary chapel nonsense, weak Church polity continue, etc.

You’re right. They’re just TEC with some anti-gay sentiment. They had their chance. And they had the chance to align with OCA but they won’t drop the filioque, calvinism, and women’s ordin. It’ll be to their detriment, sadly.

I don’t know how fair that is to say - as far as I know while some jurisdictions in the ACNA ordain females the episcopate is agreed by all to be only filled by men. And I don’t think Calvinism is very widespread at all there.

 

[runningdude]

This phrase you used intrigued me. Why do you describe it as a ‘half way measure’?

We’re simple meeting them “half-way”, extending an olive branch, by acknowledging their fidelity to the true faith, and allowing them a measure of corporate identity if they choose total obedience to the Catholic magisterium.

As for the discipline issues you mentioned, I assume you’re referring mainly to former Anglican clergy being ordained as priests.

“Discipline” might have not been strictly correct. I was basically referring to the whole kit and kabootal, dispensation to allow ordination of married priests, modified liturgy, parallel ordinate structure.

They will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the local Latin Catholic bishop… In fact isn’t there already an Anglican Use in the USA?

Yup, right now it exists only in the USA, and Anglican-use parishes are islands within “regular-use? ” parishes within dioceses. The new ordinates will allow expansion of the Anglican inspired liturgy and customs throughout world. It will link these parishes formally, and give them representation in the national bishop’s conference.

 

[BernadetteM]

This phrase you used intrigued me. Why do you describe it as a ‘half way measure’?

My understanding is they will be fully incorporated into the Latin Catholic Church. I know the Church will not yield any ground on doctrine.

As for the discipline issues you mentioned, I assume you’re referring mainly to former Anglican clergy being ordained as priests. Former Anglican clergy who enter the Catholic Church may be accepted for ordination as a Catholic priest even if married. If subsequently widowed they cannot remarry. If married they can never me raised to the episcopate. In a way this is no change. It’s what happens if a former Anglican clergy man becomes a Catholic now. They will of course have their own ordinary, either a married priest or unmarried bishop. They will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the local Latin Catholic bishop.

They will be allowed to retain the Anglican liturgy. This may be altered to ensure that it conforms to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. This will not be unusual, I don’t think, as there are already other rites in use in the Latin Catholic Church. Some may even propose that it will not even rank as a full rite but be more correctly classed as a Use of the Roman Rite. In fact isn’t there already an Anglican Use in the USA?

Actually the Ordinaries will be subject to the CDF, not the local Bishops. They of course will confer with the local Bishops, but the final decisions on issues i.e. ordinations etc. will be between the Ordinariate and the CDF. Otherwise what has been done to stop parishes from celebrating the EF would also happen to the Anglican Use parishes. The ones now established, some for the past 28 years or so, have had a difficult time erecting new parishes because of many of the local Bishops. Pope Benedict is very wise and has made this impossible in the case of the Ordinariates.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Bran,
But that’s just it isn’t it? Women can be priests but not bishops? Crazy? If we follow the WO crowd’s argument to its logical conclusion, naturally women should be able to be deacons, priests, and bishops? Why stop short? It’s a ludicrous compromise and this in itself is one of the problems I have had with Anglicanism. It’s fickle on this issue and inconsistent. What is even more bizarre that in some parts of ACNA women are ordained, others they are not. Who ever heard of such schizophrenic polity? Can you imagine such a setup in Catholicism or Orthodoxy or even a Lutheran body like LCMS? There are Lutherans who ordain women—ELCA but those that do not, LCMS, are a totally different communion altogether. That makes sense. But to agree to disagree within the same communion just for unity’s sake shows more of a coalition AGAINST the Episcopal Church than it does a body that actually stands for something. That’s what bugs me. The ACNA is more of a reaction against gays and liberals than it is a solid, firm, coherent body. I think it’s just TEC lite. If these guys were serious about integrity within the theological framework of Anglicanism, they would’ve bailed 30 years prior like the continuers did. I respect their game more.

I don’t know how fair that is to say - as far as I know while some jurisdictions in the ACNA ordain females the episcopate is agreed by all to be only filled by men. And I don’t think Calvinism is very widespread at all there.

 

[Cranmer2010]

I happen to think both are absurd and I find the ACNA’s willingness to let ++Duncan and his cronies ordain women to be just plain stupid and disappointing as heck!

I don’t believe that the AMiA is in agreement with women’s ordination.