Which sacraments of other denominations do you accept?

[prodromos]

Yes, precisely. Hence my discernment that I cannot be Orthodox with integrity.

Little more than 30 years ago, you couldn't have been Anglican with integrity.
And apparently you still can't be in the Sydney archdiocese.

 

[Paidiske]

Little more than 30 years ago, you couldn't have been Anglican with integrity.
And apparently you still can't be in the Sydney archdiocese.

Yes, well, Sydney...

I was 12 years old when women began to be ordained as priests in the Anglican Church of Australia. I was fortunate that the door was open by the time I was old enough for it to be an issue for me, personally. Perhaps if I had been born before that, I might have had to be Methodist...

 

[prodromos]

Yes, well, Sydney...

I was 12 years old when women began to be ordained as priests in the Anglican Church of Australia. I was fortunate that the door was open by the time I was old enough for it to be an issue for me, personally. Perhaps if I had been born before that, I might have had to be Methodist...

It would seem on the surface that the Church you belong to has to conform with your beliefs, and not the other way around.

 

[Paidiske]

It would seem on the surface that the Church you belong to has to conform with your beliefs, and not the other way around.

I think it's a bit of both.

Yes, we have to place ourselves under the authority of a church if we wish to be part of it (and I accept the authority of my church even when it makes decisions that aren't the ones I would make; and I'm fortunate that it hasn't made any that have left me wondering if I can truly live with them).

But how could you be part of a church which taught beliefs which you found to be destructive and harmful? Wouldn't that make you pause and wonder whether this was really something you could commit yourself to? Is there no line that humble conformity wouldn't compel you across?

 

[prodromos]

But how could you be part of a church which taught beliefs which you found to be destructive and harmful?

If I thought teachings of the Church were destructive and harmful, then learned that the same teaching was ever taught by the Church throughout the centuries in the context of many different cultures, I would then have to consider that it was my thinking that was in error and not the Church.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you really think proponents of women's ordination haven't sincerely considered that question, prodromos?

Come on, disagreement is one thing; but suggesting that people are thoughtless or careless in arriving at their positions isn't either kind or realistic.

(For what it's worth, I was once against the ordination of women...)

 

[Dan the deacon]

My daughter was recently baptised, and I was just wondering about this. Which sacraments are accepted by whom?

I see Roman Catholics accept Protestant baptism as legitimate, provided a trinitarian formula is followed and actual water is used. They also accept Orthodox baptism, but it seems the Orthodox rebaptise converts, from what I can see.
Why do Catholics so readily acknowledge Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox seem so reticent to reciprocally do so?

Similarly, I doubt some Protestants accept the Catholic Eucharist as legitimate, seeing as they would view it steeped in superstition. Likewise, generally Protestant Communion is definitely not accepted by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What of Anglicanism though? I mean, they maintain Apostolic succession.

What do you think? When is a sacrament, by another denomination, a valid one in your eyes?

As an Orthodox I do not know if the sacraments of other groups are valid. I would never say they are not but I would also never say they are. Best to only judge one's own group.as that is the one we are in.

 

[prodromos]

Do you really think proponents of women's ordination haven't sincerely considered that question, prodromos?

Have they? Do you have links to their arguments? I would sincerely like to see how they arrived at their conclusions.

Come on, disagreement is one thing; but suggesting that people are thoughtless or careless in arriving at their positions isn't either kind or realistic.

You are reading things into my post that were never suggested or implied.

(For what it's worth, I was once against the ordination of women...)

So once upon a time you could have been Orthodox with integrity. The Church hasn't changed, you have, and who's to say you won't change again. The Orthodox Church will still be the same if and when that happens. It was only a bit over 30 years between when the Episcopal Church started ordaining women to the priesthood and their ordaining of a practicing homosexual as a bishop. Do you think the Anglican Church will be any different?

 

[Paidiske]

Have they? Do you have links to their arguments? I would sincerely like to see how they arrived at their conclusions.

It's late here and I'm not going to look for links now. There is an enormous amount of material, and I'm sure you can google for yourself, although probably the better stuff is in the scholarly books rather than web pages.

So once upon a time you could have been Orthodox with integrity.

I'm not sure about that. By the time I was old enough to be interested in belonging to a church (I wasn't raised going to church) I didn't have enough exposure to Orthodoxy to be prompted to investigate it. But I did very seriously consider Catholicism and reject it, not specifically because of women's ordination but for reasons for which I suspect I would have also rejected Orthodoxy.

I don't cope very well with any church which claims infallibility...

The Church hasn't changed, you have, and who's to say you won't change again. The Orthodox Church will still be the same if and when that happens. It was only a bit over 30 years between when the Episcopal Church started ordaining women to the priesthood and their ordaining of a practicing homosexual as a bishop. Do you think the Anglican Church will be any different?

Your question assumes that this will be a deal breaker for me. It wouldn't.

I am well aware that there are - even among the bishops of my church - people who have made personal decisions with which I profoundly disagree. That's none of my business, though; my business is to be obedient to the work to which God calls me.

Frankly I'm much more disgusted by the bishops who covered up child abuse than any hypothetical or actual homosexual bishop, and yet somehow I still stomach to be here.

 

[BobRyan]

My daughter was recently baptised, and I was just wondering about this. Which sacraments are accepted by whom?

1. Baptism if it is full water immersion baptism (as in what we see in the actual Bible).
2. Marriage.

 

[Dan the deacon]

I find it interesting that many lean on their own thoughts rather than scripture. I am speaking of women being ordained as priests. I can find women being deacons bit not once a woman being a priest in scripture. So why do we assume it is suddenly valid today? Scripture please. I'm not interested in opinion.

 

[Paidiske]

Why assume it's invalid? Priesthood as we have it today was still developing when the NT was written. (The NT makes no clear distinction between priests and bishops, for example).

 

[BobRyan]

Why assume it's invalid? Priesthood as we have it today was still developing when the NT was written. (The NT makes no clear distinction between priests and bishops, for example).

"If He were on earth He would not be a priest at all" Hebrews 8

 

[Paidiske]

That's not the kind of priest that clergy are today. Hebrews 8 is talking about a sacerdotal priesthood, the offering of sacrifices. Clergy today are, in NT terms, elders; the English word priest is a contraction of the Greek word presbyteros, elder.

 

[Dan the deacon]

Why assume it's invalid? Priesthood as we have it today was still developing when the NT was written. (The NT makes no clear distinction between priests and bishops, for example).

Why assume it is suddenly valid? Can you cite any women ordained before modern times? This is something very new. Can you call a woman a father?
Please don't think I am against women having authority. That is not the point. I believe only Anglicans ordain women as priest am I correct on that point? I do know many evangelical groups do ordain pastors who are female bit that is nothing close to the priesthood.

 

[Paidiske]

Why assume it is suddenly valid? Can you cite any women ordained before modern times? This is something very new. Can you call a woman a father?
Please don't think I am against women having authority. That is not the point. I believe only Anglicans ordain women as priest am I correct on that point? I do know many evangelical groups do ordain pastors who are female bit that is nothing close to the priesthood.

I'd start with Phoebe the deacon (Romans 16:1; the translation that this site gives of "servant" is problematic, the word is deacon) and go from there. I believe ordaining women was always valid, even when the church didn't do it.

People do call me Mother but I'm just as happy if they don't.

To the best of my knowledge, Anglicans are the only denomination to preserve a three-fold order of ministry (deacons, priests and bishops) and to ordain women. The question of how comparable being an Anglican priest is to being an evangelical pastor is interesting, and not simple. I'd argue that we both exercise a form of eldership (in NT terms) but that the specifics of that vary according to our denominational context.

Edit: I may be mistaken. I know some Lutherans have a three-fold order of ministry and some Lutherans ordain women. I'm not sure whether those two categories of Lutherans overlap.

 

[Dan the deacon]

I'd start with Phoebe the deacon (Romans 16:1; the translation that this site gives of "servant" is problematic, the word is deacon) and go from there. I believe ordaining women was always valid, even when the church didn't do it.

People do call me Mother but I'm just as happy if they don't.

To the best of my knowledge, Anglicans are the only denomination to preserve a three-fold order of ministry (deacons, priests and bishops) and to ordain women. The question of how comparable being an Anglican priest is to being an evangelical pastor is interesting, and not simple. I'd argue that we both exercise a form of eldership (in NT terms) but that the specifics of that vary according to our denominational context.

Without a doubt women were ordained deavons in biblical times. They also held other authority. But not one was ordained a priest or bishop. That began rather recent and only in your group. So either all else are wrong or your group is.
My Church existed in biblical times. We baptized St. Paul. We have not changed. We still do not ordain women as priests or bishops.
Now I do believe a woman can believe she feels the call. Whether it is a true calling is another matter. Thinking one feels called is not the same as knowing one is called.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, there is early evidence that women were in presbyteral/episcopal roles and the practice later lapsed (no, I'm not typing an essay on it. I recommend the book When Women Were Priests as a starting point if you want to examine the claims for yourself).

So I'm quite happy to claim that any group which refuses to ordain women is wrong. (Oh, I also find any claim by any church that they haven't changed to suggest, at least, a lack of awareness. No church has gone through the millennia without any change).

I agree that one cannot discern a call by oneself. But when a person has a vocation, and discerns that with the church, and that vocation is affirmed through the discernment process, that's a pretty solid place to stand. I'm not saying the church never makes mistakes, but to represent ordained women as having got there on the basis of only our "feelings" is not either honest or charitable.

 

[Willie T]

I find most of this stuff to be just hocus pocus various denomination wrote down in an official book they tend to follow more than they do anything else.

 

[Dan the deacon]

Well, there is early evidence that women were in presbyteral/episcopal roles and the practice later lapsed (no, I'm not typing an essay on it. I recommend the book When Women Were Priests as a starting point if you want to examine the claims for yourself).

So I'm quite happy to claim that any group which refuses to ordain women is wrong. (Oh, I also find any claim by any church that they haven't changed to suggest, at least, a lack of awareness. No church has gone through the millennia without any change).

I agree that one cannot discern a call by oneself. But when a person has a vocation, and discerns that with the church, and that vocation is affirmed through the discernment process, that's a pretty solid place to stand. I'm not saying the church never makes mistakes, but to represent ordained women as having got there on the basis of only our "feelings" is not either honest or charitable.

As your Church also accepts practicing homosexuals into the clergy, Don't have much faith in thier practices. Both changes were about from the dame period of time.
You say women as priests is old. In what Church? Are you speaking of priest or evangelists? If it is the latter I agree but that is not ordination. Ordination of women as priest was began by Episcopals in the late 20th century. Anything you find before that is from odd splinter groups.
Until.the reformation if Christian, one either belonged to the Roman Church or the Eastern Church. Before the 10th century those two were one. Any group outside of that was not of the Church. I am quite sire you can find an odd group ordaining women in times of old. But not any of the Church.