unorthodox anglicanism spreading

[Aymn27]

Female priests is not an inevitable outcome. I do believe that those who do ordain priests, always will, but there are many who never will.

BTW. The RCC is about defending what they consider orthodoxy. I doubt they will abandon their view of orthodoxy just to meet an logisitical need.

Agreed Cola - and (just a note here) but the Lord started out with only 12 men....I think the church can fare well with a small number as well -

 

[Aymn27]

If you are to have any hope in your match making career, I suggest you make your first rule before embarking on introductions, a throrough examination of each party's ring finger!

rofl...I DID NOT notice the wedding bands --oh my

 

[Catherineanne]

I doubt they will abandon their view of orthodoxy just to meet an logisitical need.

You are fully entitled to your doubts.

 

[Catherineanne]

Agreed Cola - and (just a note here) but the Lord started out with only 12 men....I think the church can fare well with a small number as well -

Easy to say, until the day you see a loved one die without a priest to give extreme unction, because there are no priests.

There is no longer a Catholic priest at a hospital I know, because there are no priests. This is reality, and it is a growing reality.

 

[Colabomb]

Easy to say, until the day you see a loved one die without a priest to give extreme unction, because there are no priests.

There is no longer a Catholic priest at a hospital I know, because there are no priests. This is reality, and it is a growing reality.

It does not however mean we should ordain those who are not to be ordained.

 

[Timothy]

Who should we ordain then? Every church, including those that don't ordain women are desperate for priests. This island, in point of fact. If the province gave permission for us to ordain women as priests, I know of three women who would be willing to stand for ordination. We have one retired man who's been ordained deacon and one lady who's been ordained deacon in the past 8 years.

My grandmother's church, which has 200 in it would have closed had it not had women priests, because of the gross shortage in the diocese. And that's Birmingham which tends to be by and large pretty sound for the current and the last bishop.

Timothy

 

[Groce]

It does not however mean we should ordain those who are not to be ordained.

Point and Case

 

[No Swansong]

Point and Case

The point goes further than that. We can't ordain someone who can't be ordained. If it is God's will that a woman cannot be a priest there are no women priests regardless of how many have hands laid upon them. If the Sacraments are tied to the Episcopacy, and women cannot be ordained, then there are a number of people out there who think they are receiving communion, that aren't.

 

[Groce]

The point goes further than that. We can't ordain someone who can't be ordained. If it is God's will that a woman cannot be a priest there are no women priests regardless of how many have hands laid upon them. If the Sacraments are tied to the Episcopacy, and women cannot be ordained, then there are a number of people out there who think they are receiving communion, that aren't.

Well said

 

[Inside Edge]

The point goes further than that. We can't ordain someone who can't be ordained. If it is God's will that a woman cannot be a priest there are no women priests regardless of how many have hands laid upon them. If the Sacraments are tied to the Episcopacy, and women cannot be ordained, then there are a number of people out there who think they are receiving communion, that aren't.

Precisely.

So then, why all the fuss? Don't attend mass presided over by a female priest.

Those of us that do not see it your way are duped. The issue is made known - live and let live. I believe there are churches out there, very similar to the greater AC, that continue in the traditional Anglican faith.

What's the problem with those?

 

[john23237]

If the Sacraments are tied to the Episcopacy, and women cannot be ordained, then there are a number of people out there who think they are receiving communion, that aren't.

Yes and if we accept the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, no Anglican orders are valid and therefore all 77 million Anglicans only think we are receiving communion, but are not. So much for opinions. Christ gave His church, and that most certainly includes the ECUSA and the C of E, the authority to "bind and Loosen" on earth and in heaven. The church has chosen to exercise that authority in this case. That is more than good enough for me. I cannot speak for others, but on Sundays ( and occasionally other days) I receive the physical as well as spiritual flesh and blood of the Risen Christ. Period. And yes, gasp for breath, that is sometimes from the hand of a, dare I say it?, a female priest and I thank God that she is there to administer His sacraments to me.

 

[No Swansong]

Precisely.

So then, why all the fuss? Don't attend mass presided over by a female priest.

Those of us that do not see it your way are duped. The issue is made known - live and let live. I believe there are churches out there, very similar to the greater AC, that continue in the traditional Anglican faith.

What's the problem with those?

I don't understand your point here. I am a member of another Anglican body precisely because of this. While I disagree on the issue of women's ordination I do not argue that ECUSA can't do anything they want to. I am simply stating that just because ECUSA is doing it doesn't mean that it is by the direction of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Inside Edge]

My point is that I don't think you need to make that point. The same could be said for almost anything.

I can understand the need to harp on that sort of point if there were comments that your church should do the same, but I don't see that happening here.

 

[No Swansong]

Yes and if we accept the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, no Anglican orders are valid and therefore all 77 million Anglicans only think we are receiving communion, but are not.

Sorry Joe I don't see what the RCC has to do with this?

So much for opinions. Christ gave His church, and that most certainly includes the ECUSA and the C of E, the authority to "bind and Loosen" on earth and in heaven. The church has chosen to exercise that authority in this case.

Agreed but He did not give them authority to bind or loose anything contrary to His will. In other words if ECUSA decided that one must own red shoes to attain salvation, it would not become encumbant on all of us to go out and buy red shoes because God has made the provision for salvation and we can't change it. Our point of course is that God made provision for the ordained ministry and excluded women. And obviously the argument is whether he actually did or not. But your argument seems to be that if he actually did as continuers claim then the ECUSA can change it anyway.
If I misunderstood then I apologize.

That is more than good enough for me. I cannot speak for others, but on Sundays ( and occasionally other days) I receive the physical as well as spiritual flesh and blood of the Risen Christ. Period. And yes, gasp for breath, that is sometimes from the hand of a, dare I say it?, a female priest and I thank God that she is there to administer His sacraments to me.

While you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, simply because you assent to it doesn't make it so. If women can or cannot be priests is, as I am sure you will agree, entirely up to God, not to us. Those of us who disagree with women priests do so based upon Scripture and the teachings of the Church from which that Scripture emerged. But of course none of this is new to either you or I.
The reason for my earlier post to which you responded was to indicate that there is more than just "social convention" ramifications to women being priests. As I posted earlier, IF they cannot then many are not receiving communion.

 

[kiwimac]

And scripture supports slavery, levirate marriage, no eating of shrimp, no mixed cropping etc.

As a church we have bid goodbye to all of the above and we were right to do so. I am firmly convinced that we are right to do so in the case of a male-only priesthood.

Kiwimac

 

[john23237]

Sorry Joe I don't see what the RCC has to do with this?





Agreed but He did not give them authority to bind or loose anything contrary to His will. In other words if ECUSA decided that one must own red shoes to attain salvation, it would not become encumbant on all of us to go out and buy red shoes because God has made the provision for salvation and we can't change it. Our point of course is that God made provision for the ordained ministry and excluded women. And obviously the argument is whether he actually did or not. But your argument seems to be that if he actually did as continuers claim then the ECUSA can change it anyway.
If I misunderstood then I apologize.

Sorry, I was not very clear on this one. Let me give an example from the RCC text, so to speak. The church, in the past, appointed Fridays as a day of partial fasting (red meat). Did it have the authority to do so? In my opinion, yes. If I had intentionly defied that while I was a still member of that church, would I have committed a sin in God's eyes? Again, IMHO, yes. The church does have that authority. The real question is whether it was/is wise to exercise that authority in a given case. Because I do not believe God excluded women from the priesthood for all time, yes, the church does have that authority. Is it wise to exercise that authority at this time? I think so, but I do understand why others do not. Oh yes, in regard to the red shoe bit, if the church so ordered, yes it would be a sin to intentionally defy and remain a member of that church. I am from the old school, some might say very old. It is a sin to willfully defy one's bishop. The only way out of that is what the continuers have done (or I did when I left the RCC), place oneself under the authority of a different bishop. That is exactly the reason George and I never received a blessing of the union. Bishop Lee forbid the practice in our diocese and we both believed that to go to another dioceses (D. C.) to have such a service and thus circumvent his wishes was not right. I clearly do not agree with Bishop Lee on this matter, but I do not question his authority on it either.

 

[No Swansong]

And scripture supports slavery, levirate marriage, no eating of shrimp, no mixed cropping etc.

As a church we have bid goodbye to all of the above and we were right to do so. I am firmly convinced that we are right to do so in the case of a male-only priesthood.

Kiwimac

Of course I would point out that the Scriptures that purportedly support all of these are mostly Old Testament Law from which we have been set free. The contention that Paul supported Slavery has been rebutted quite well several times on this board, and I have no desire to revisit it. The prohibition against Women in the ordained ministry, for those of us who believe it is there, comes from a New Testament writing, from an Apostle who was taught directly by the resurrected Christ Himself. (I freely admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus directly, verbally, addressed this issue with Paul)

As to what you are convinced is right or wrong your voice is one many (some who agree, more who do not.) and I certainly support your right to have it. However just because it is your opinion does not change whether it is right or not, neither does mine.

 

[No Swansong]

Sorry, I was not very clear on this one. Let me give an example from the RCC text, so to speak. The church, in the past, appointed Fridays as a day of partial fasting (red meat). Did it have the authority to do so? In my opinion, yes. If I had intentionly defied that while I was a still member of that church, would I have committed a sin in God's eyes? Again, IMHO, yes. The church does have that authority. The real question is whether it was/is wise to exercise that authority in a given case. Because I do not believe God excluded women from the priesthood for all time, yes, the church does have that authority. Is it wise to exercise that authority at this time? I think so, but I do understand why others do not. Oh yes, in regard to the red shoe bit, if the church so ordered, yes it would be a sin to intentionally defy and remain a member of that church. I am from the old school, some might say very old. It is a sin to willfully defy one's bishop. The only way out of that is what the continuers have done (or I did when I left the RCC), place oneself under the authority of a different bishop.

I understand your point Joe but I strongly disagree. Could the Church for instance claim that one must deny the Divinity of Christ? If I understand you correctly it would then be a sin to not deny the Divinity of Christ.

Concerning your idea that one could avoid this issue by changing Bishops. It is possible then, if I understand you correctly, to have one specific action (use of birth control for instance) a sin for Roman Catholics but not for Anglicans. I believe God to be the arbitor of what is sin and what is not.

 

[john23237]

I understand your point Joe but I strongly disagree. Could the Church for instance claim that one must deny the Divinity of Christ? If I understand you correctly it would then be a sin to not deny the Divinity of Christ.

Concerning your idea that one could avoid this issue by changing Bishops. It is possible then, if I understand you correctly, to have one specific action (use of birth control for instance) a sin for Roman Catholics but not for Anglicans. I believe God to be the arbitor of what is sin and what is not.

Because I believe the Holy Spirit guides the church universal, I cannot believe any member church thereof would ever question Our Lord's divinity and therefore that question is mute. As to birth control, yes I do believe exactly that. God in Christ gave the church that authority and to defy one's bishop (church) is a sin regardless of the issue. I guess there is still a lot of "Roman" in me.

 

[No Swansong]

Because I believe the Holy Spirit guides the church universal, I cannot believe any member church thereof would ever question Our Lord's divinity and therefore that question is mute. As to birth control, yes I do believe exactly that. God in Christ gave the church that authority and to defy one's bishop (church) is a sin regardless of the issue. I guess there is still a lot of "Roman" in me.

If the Holy Spirit is guiding both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church then is there not a contradition? On many issues not just this one? If that is true then can God contradict Himself?