Women ordained as priests in the Anglican church?

[Busy_bee]

In my country, there are Anglican churches and they all have male vicars. I was reading the answer to someone’s question on this site and I read that women were to be ordained. Is that ordination to the priesthood? If so when, and how did that happen? What’s the reason behind it?

Also I heard of Gay priests allowed in the Anglican church. Please is this true, and if it is what is the Church’s view on the Anglican church now?

 

[LittleHannah]

I believe they allow male and female Priests in the Angelican Church which of course only male Priests are allowed to be ordained in the Catholic Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Also I heard of Gay priests allowed in the Anglican church. Please is this true, and if it is what is the Church’s view on the Anglican church now?

It’s the same as it was before women and (open) homosexuals were ordained in the Anglican church: the priesthood of the Anglican church is not recognized as valid holy orders by the Catholic Church.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The Anglicans do not have Holy Orders.

Pope Leo the XIIIth did a masterful job providing the reasons for the invalidity of their so-called ordinations (see his encyclical on the subject here). The Pope declared Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and void” (Ibid.). Regardless, women cannot become priests and this divine regulation has been true since at least the Mosaic covenant. There exists no reason to believe this has, will or even could ever be changed; furthermore, it is common knowledge and long recognized fact that, for example, only (Catholic) men are elligible for the Papacy.

 

[Busy_bee]

But how did they justify this? It is clearly wrong and is condemned in the bible. What have they used in explaining this away? (Homosexual priests)

 

[GKC]

The Anglicans do not have Holy Orders.

Pope Leo the XIIIth did a masterful job providing the reasons for the invalidity of their so-called ordinations (see his encyclical on the subject here). The Pope declared Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and void” (Ibid.). Regardless, women cannot become priests and this divine regulation has been true since at least the Mosaic covenant. There exists no reason to believe this has, will or even could ever be changed; furthermore, it is common knowledge and long recognized fact that, for example, only (Catholic) men are elligible for the Papacy.

On the subject of female ordinations, or that of non-celibate homosexuals (as on many other subjects), Anglicanism is split. The ordination issue is a primary reason that Anglicanism has fractured since around 1978, many leaving to form orthodox Anglican jurisdictions outside the official Anglican Communion.

On Apostolicae Curae, Anglicanism retains a more unified position. RCs should and must affirm the logic expressed in it; Anglicans have a different opinion.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Busy_bee]

On the subject of female ordinations, or that of non-celibate homosexuals (as on many other subjects), Anglicanism is split. The ordination issue is a primary reason that Anglicanism has fractured since around 1978, many leaving to form orthodox Anglican jurisdictions outside the official Anglican Communion.

On Apostolicae Curae, Anglicanism retains a more unified position. RCs should and must affirm the logic expressed in it; Anglicans have a different opinion.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

I think that’s the case in my country. Thank you. What is Apostolicae Curae?Is it something I should know?

 

[1AugustSon7]

What is Apostolicae Curae?Is it something I should know?

On the issue of ordinations it is the Authority. It explains the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[GKC]

On the issue of ordinations it is the Authority. It explains the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

More precisely, it explains the logic expressed in 1896, as to why the conclusion was reached that Anglican Orders were, in Rome’s eyes, null and void.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think that’s the case in my country. Thank you. What is Apostolicae Curae?Is it something I should know?

You are very welcome.

I suspect you are from an English-speaking country.

As to* Apostolicae Curae*, see my previous post.

GKC

 

[GWright]

In my country, there are Anglican churches and they all have male vicars. I was reading the answer to someone’s question on this site and I read that women were to be ordained. Is that ordination to the priesthood? If so when, and how did that happen? What’s the reason behind it?

Hi busy bee

The Church of England (CoE) first ordained women priests back in 1994. It was never universally popular though and caused deep divisions. It has caused some Anglican priests and laity to defect to the Catholic Church - both at the time, and via a trickle flow ever since.

Most recently, a (small) group of about 60 priests (including 3 CoE Bishops) and ~1,000 lay people defected, as part of the UK Ordinariate created for them by Pope Benedict, a year ago. (Similar to the Ordinariate recently set up in the USA for defecting Episcopal Christians). They are now in full communion with Rome, but get to keep part of their former Anglican identity.

The current hoo-ha in the CoE is now about women becoming Bishops. Those who did not agree with female clergy - but who did not choose to leave - are now speaking out over this. For me, the minute the CoE appointed women priests, then women bishops were inevitable.

Like most protestant denominations, the CoE is united only in appearance. It is really a disagreeable mess of various different factions, who do not have much time for one another. The main factions within the CoE are:

• Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans who like to play at being Catholics. The defectors have all come from this faction).
• Evangelicals (A “very protestant” faction, similar to evangelical protestant groups elsewhere)
• Liberals (those who treat the CoE as a social club, think homosexuality should be fully accepted, give communion to dogs etc)

What a mess, eh? Sorry if that is uncharitable, but I am afraid its an accurate description. When I was a kid, we would visit relations in England. We would go to CoE services while down there, and you would almost not have known the different between them and a Catholic service.

But that is years ago now, and - like many protestant denominations - much of the CoE’s decision making is now driven by conforming to secular society.

Also I heard of Gay priests allowed in the Anglican church. Please is this true, and if it is what is the Church’s view on the Anglican church now?

Yes this is also true. There are many openly gay CoE clergy, who openly criticise and undermine their own church regarding homosexuality. Some of them are even in civil partnerships (a civil form of “gay marriage”) with other gay CoE clergy. Yikes!

Note that many Catholic clergy will be gay too, but that is irrelevant for us, as we have a celibate priesthood - whereas the CoE does not and so they are forced to grapple with this issue. It is a very good example of how abandoning principles of orthodox Christianity naturally means one error will inevitably lead to another, and cause all manner of problems.

Currently, there is a gay CoE priest - John Jefferey - who is causing runctions. He is “married” (civil partnership) to another gay CoE priest. Jeffrey is said to sometimes use the nickname “Jennifer”. However, the couple claim they are celibate and their “love” is purely spiritual, not physical. Jeffery is claimed to be a respected theologian and has been nominated to be a CoE Bishop at least twice in recent years. His appointment has been consistently blocked by the CoE hierarchy though, due to his personal circumstances.

The latest twist in this sorry drama is that Jeffery is now considering suing his own church, on grounds of “discrimination due to sexual orientation”, because they will not make him a Bishop. Gay clergy in the CoE have been emboldened, due to the US Episcopal Church - also part of the Anglican communion - appointing gay and lesbian bishops in recent times.

The whole thing is out of control in my opinion. The CoE’s Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is the “leader” of the Anglican communion, but he is only a figurehead - he does not have any actual authority, in the way our Pope does. So he can do little except watch the CoE destroy itself around him.

Hell, if you didn’t laugh, you would cry.

See these links for more information on the current CoE dramas:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089702/Dr-Jeffrey-John-Will-gay-Dean-Jennifer-chaplain-boyfriend-tear-Church-apart.html

telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9014121/Archbishops-reassure-traditionalists-ahead-of-women-bishops-debates.html

Note that the current shambles the CoE is in presents a great opportunity for Catholicism to attract CoE members back to the truth. This is why Pope Benedict created the Ordinariate, to make it easy for them to defect. But it is said the English Catholic Bishops lack the will to do this effectively - it is said they are afraid of causing a fuss and attracting criticism

 

[GKC]

Hi busy bee

The Church of England (CoE) first ordained women priests back in 1994. It was never universally popular though and caused deep divisions. It has caused some Anglican priests and laity to defect to the Catholic Church - both at the time, and via a trickle flow ever since.

Most recently, a (small) group of about 60 priests (including 3 CoE Bishops) and ~1,000 lay people defected, as part of the UK Ordinariate created for them by Pope Benedict, a year ago. (Similar to the Ordinariate recently set up in the USA for defecting Episcopal Christians). They are now in full communion with Rome, but get to keep part of their former Anglican identity.

The current hoo-ha in the CoE is now about women becoming Bishops. Those who did not agree with female clergy - but who did not choose to leave - are now speaking out over this. For me, the minute the CoE appointed women priests, then women bishops were inevitable.

Like most protestant denominations, the CoE is united only in appearance. It is really a disagreeable mess of various different factions, who do not have much time for one another. The main factions within the CoE are:

• Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans who like to play at being Catholics. The defectors have all come from this faction).
• Evangelicals (A “very protestant” faction, similar to evangelical protestant groups elsewhere)
• Liberals (those who treat the CoE as a social club, think homosexuality should be fully accepted, give communion to dogs etc)

What a mess, eh? Sorry if that is uncharitable, but I am afraid its an accurate description. When I was a kid, we would visit relations in England. We would go to CoE services while down there, and you would almost not have known the different between them and a Catholic service.

But that is years ago now, and - like many protestant denominations - much of the CoE’s decision making is now driven by conforming to secular society.

Yes this is also true. There are many openly gay CoE clergy, who openly criticise and undermine their own church regarding homosexuality. Some of them are even in civil partnerships (a civil form of “gay marriage”) with other gay CoE clergy. Yikes!

Note that many Catholic clergy will be gay too, but that is irrelevant for us, as we have a celibate priesthood - whereas the CoE does not and so they are forced to grapple with this issue. It is a very good example of how abandoning principles of orthodox Christianity naturally means one error will inevitably lead to another, and cause all manner of problems.

Currently, there is a gay CoE priest - John Jefferey - who is causing runctions. He is “married” (civil partnership) to another gay CoE priest. Jeffrey is said to sometimes use the nickname “Jennifer”. However, the couple claim they are celibate and their “love” is purely spiritual, not physical. Jeffery is claimed to be a respected theologian and has been nominated to be a CoE Bishop at least twice in recent years. His appointment has been consistently blocked by the CoE hierarchy though, due to his personal circumstances.

The latest twist in this sorry drama is that Jeffery is now considering suing his own church, on grounds of “discrimination due to sexual orientation”, because they will not make him a Bishop. Gay clergy in the CoE have been emboldened, due to the US Episcopal Church - also part of the Anglican communion - appointing gay and lesbian bishops in recent times.

The whole thing is out of control in my opinion. The CoE’s Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is the “leader” of the Anglican communion, but he is only a figurehead - he does not have any actual authority, in the way our Pope does. So he can do little except watch the CoE destroy itself around him.

Hell, if you didn’t laugh, you would cry.

See these links for more information on the current CoE dramas:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089702/Dr-Jeffrey-John-Will-gay-Dean-Jennifer-chaplain-boyfriend-tear-Church-apart.html

telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9014121/Archbishops-reassure-traditionalists-ahead-of-women-bishops-debates.html

Note that the current shambles the CoE is in presents a great opportunity for Catholicism to attract CoE members back to the truth. This is why Pope Benedict created the Ordinariate, to make it easy for them to defect. But it is said the English Catholic Bishops lack the will to do this effectively - it is said they are afraid of causing a fuss and attracting criticism

Most of this I agree with.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus.

 

[1AugustSon7]

On Apostolicae Curae, Anglicanism retains a more unified position. …Anglicans have a different opinion.

What is that opinion, GKC? You express yourself as if there exists a single, official, formal or authoritative one for Anglicans.

 

[1AugustSon7]

What is that opinion, GKC? You express yourself as if there exists a single, official, formal or authoritative one for Anglicans.

The reason I mention this is because, as I refresh my memory of Apostolicae Curae, I find this mentioned:

1. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
2. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.

There does appear that - at the time of Apostolicae Curae - there were identified *at least *two, and possibly three (see red text) schools of thought or opinion within Anglicansim at time of Apostolicae Curae in regards to the nature or efficacy of the Anglican rite.

 

[GKC]

What is that opinion, GKC? You express yourself as if there exists a single, official, formal or authoritative one for Anglicans.

No, I express myself by saying that Anglicans have a more unified opinion as to Apostolicae Curae, as opposed to such things as placing sacerdotal garments on females. I have never found any Anglican who accepts AC, as an RC would accept it, to say that the orders, hence the relevant sacraments, in Anglicanism, are null and void. Which is not to say that you might not find such an Anglican, somewhere. You can find an Anglican who will assert most anything, if you look hard enough.

If you had read more of my posts on the subject of Anglicans (and there is no reason why you should have), you would know that I am the most likely poster on the board to say that there is no single, official, or authoritative anything for Anglicanism. What you get depends on which one of them you ask.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The reason I mention this is because, as I refresh my memory of Apostolicae Curae, I find this mentioned:

1. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words “for the office and work of a priest or bishop”, and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
2. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, “Almighty God, giver of all good Things”, which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate “form” of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.

There does appear that - at the time of Apostolicae Curae - there were identified *at least *two, and possibly three (see red text) schools of thought or opinion within Anglicansim at time of Apostolicae Curae in regards to the nature or efficacy of the Anglican rite.

No, it says that there were schools of thought as to what the rite was confecting; what the priesthood consisted of.

GKC

 

[Busy_bee]

You are very welcome.

I suspect you are from an English-speaking country.

As to* Apostolicae Curae*, see my previous post.

GKC

I. Yes, from Nigeria. I found out that the Anglican church in Nigeria broke away from the rest of the Anglican community. So what you said is in fact, correct!
Of course, homosexuality in christianity is out of the question for us Nigerians. I can understand why they broke away.

II. I read it. Thank you.

 

[Busy_bee]

Hi busy bee

The Church of England (CoE) first ordained women priests back in 1994. It was never universally popular though and caused deep divisions. It has caused some Anglican priests and laity to defect to the Catholic Church - both at the time, and via a trickle flow ever since.

Most recently, a (small) group of about 60 priests (including 3 CoE Bishops) and ~1,000 lay people defected, as part of the UK Ordinariate created for them by Pope Benedict, a year ago. (Similar to the Ordinariate recently set up in the USA for defecting Episcopal Christians). They are now in full communion with Rome, but get to keep part of their former Anglican identity.

The current hoo-ha in the CoE is now about women becoming Bishops. Those who did not agree with female clergy - but who did not choose to leave - are now speaking out over this. For me, the minute the CoE appointed women priests, then women bishops were inevitable.

Like most protestant denominations, the CoE is united only in appearance. It is really a disagreeable mess of various different factions, who do not have much time for one another. The main factions within the CoE are:

• Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans who like to play at being Catholics. The defectors have all come from this faction).
• Evangelicals (A “very protestant” faction, similar to evangelical protestant groups elsewhere)
• Liberals (those who treat the CoE as a social club, think homosexuality should be fully accepted, give communion to dogs etc)

What a mess, eh? Sorry if that is uncharitable, but I am afraid its an accurate description. When I was a kid, we would visit relations in England. We would go to CoE services while down there, and you would almost not have known the different between them and a Catholic service.

But that is years ago now, and - like many protestant denominations - much of the CoE’s decision making is now driven by conforming to secular society.

Yes this is also true. There are many openly gay CoE clergy, who openly criticise and undermine their own church regarding homosexuality. Some of them are even in civil partnerships (a civil form of “gay marriage”) with other gay CoE clergy. Yikes!

Note that many Catholic clergy will be gay too, but that is irrelevant for us, as we have a celibate priesthood - whereas the CoE does not and so they are forced to grapple with this issue. It is a very good example of how abandoning principles of orthodox Christianity naturally means one error will inevitably lead to another, and cause all manner of problems.

Currently, there is a gay CoE priest - John Jefferey - who is causing runctions. He is “married” (civil partnership) to another gay CoE priest. Jeffrey is said to sometimes use the nickname “Jennifer”. However, the couple claim they are celibate and their “love” is purely spiritual, not physical. Jeffery is claimed to be a respected theologian and has been nominated to be a CoE Bishop at least twice in recent years. His appointment has been consistently blocked by the CoE hierarchy though, due to his personal circumstances.

The latest twist in this sorry drama is that Jeffery is now considering suing his own church, on grounds of “discrimination due to sexual orientation”, because they will not make him a Bishop. Gay clergy in the CoE have been emboldened, due to the US Episcopal Church - also part of the Anglican communion - appointing gay and lesbian bishops in recent times.

The whole thing is out of control in my opinion. The CoE’s Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is the “leader” of the Anglican communion, but he is only a figurehead - he does not have any actual authority, in the way our Pope does. So he can do little except watch the CoE destroy itself around him.

Hell, if you didn’t laugh, you would cry.

See these links for more information on the current CoE dramas:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089702/Dr-Jeffrey-John-Will-gay-Dean-Jennifer-chaplain-boyfriend-tear-Church-apart.html

telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9014121/Archbishops-reassure-traditionalists-ahead-of-women-bishops-debates.html

Note that the current shambles the CoE is in presents a great opportunity for Catholicism to attract CoE members back to the truth. This is why Pope Benedict created the Ordinariate, to make it easy for them to defect. But it is said the English Catholic Bishops lack the will to do this effectively - it is said they are afraid of causing a fuss and attracting criticism

You know, at first I laughed, then I screamed, then I simply gasped all the way to the end. Wow! This is a sorry mess.
God the Father and Jesus’ name didn’t occur even once! I thought I would read something about how on earth they found biblical backing for this horror, but it has NOTHING to do with God’s teaching, does it? Sue his church for not making him Bishop??? Na wahala oh!

 

[GKC]

I. Yes, from Nigeria. I found out that the Anglican church in Nigeria broke away from the rest of the Anglican community. So what you said is in fact, correct!
Of course, homosexuality in christianity is out of the question for us Nigerians. I can understand why they broke away.

II. I read it. Thank you.

You are very welcome.

The Anglican Church in Nigeria is certainly standing against the errors of much of the Anglican Communion, but, as far as I know, it is still officially a part of the Communion.It is, along with some other orthodox Anglican jurisdictions, in impaired communion with the odder portions of the Anglican Communion, such as the Episcopal Church in the US. The Nigeria Anglican Church established a missionary branch of its Province, the Convocation of Anglicans in America, to provide episcopal oversight to some of the orthodox Anglicans who left the Episcopal Church, over matters such as these.

GKC