Most people who put forth the proposition that woman can hold any office in the Church use Saint Paul’s saying “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”Gal:3:26: as their proof text. This passage may very well be one of the most quoted scriptures, which is used to attempt to establish the false contention that in Christianity there is no distinction between the sexes. In the Old Testament the Law clearly made clear distinction between the role of the sexes. In Gen:1:27 we are shown that in our earthly body it was God who made us male and female. It is very clear the priests of the Old Testament appointed by God were the sons of Aaron (Ex:28:). It is also clear from the Old Testament that there is a desired hierarchy in the family. (Gen:3:16) ” Unto the woman he said,. . . thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
How then does this relate to the idea of woman clergy. One must first discuss what is the meaning of clergy. Some define clergy as someone who has a formal ministry within the Church. usually in preaching, or teaching. This view of clergy is held by most of the Protestant denomination. This is clearly not the Catholic view of Holy Orders as understood by the Eastern Church, the Roman Church and the Anglo-Catholics.
I think it wrong to equate the terms Holy Orders and clergy. Men in Holy Orders are clearly clergy. In modern times the common understanding of clergy has included nuns and monks not in Holy Orders. I would suggest, that one can find support for the definition of clergy as a formal minister in the Church, in the writing of the early Church.
With this as the definition of clergy, I find no scriptural warrant to exclude woman from the office so defined. It is clear that Saint Paul had the Deaconess Phebe. It is very clear that Phebe had a very important role in the Church (Rom:16) This role was one which was important enough that St Paul called for all of the Church in Rome to lend her assistance in whatsoever business she hath need of you. It is clear that she had a mission and Saint Paul granted his authority to complete that mission.
I contend the title of clergy does not convey with it a sense of Spiritual Authority. It describes someone with a formal Church office. It does and should convey the sense of education, training, or experience which are helpful in the ministry. It does convey a sense of organizational authority. It may also convey a reality of secular authority such as being the CEO of the local church, but usually not Spiritual Authority. The term clergy does not necessarily mean a man with sacerdotal duty. Spiritual Authority is implied with the term Holy Orders.
My study suggests, it is the sacerdotal concept that makes a distinction as to whether or not woman can hold all offices. In sacerdotal churches, men in Holy Orders are given and expected to use authority. In the sacrament of Penance the Priest is to forgive sin as Christ has so provided.(Jn:20:21) It is not my intent to get into Spiritual Authority and the office of priest so I leave this one example.
In sacerdotal churches, the sacraments are not only a sign or symbol. The sacraments actually conveys the grace for which it is a sign. Baptism and Penances actually convey the forgiveness of sins. The Holy Eucharist is the actual feeding upon Christ. Matrimony enables married Christians to fulfill the duties of family life. Unction confers upon the sick and dying graces as may be best for their condition, which may in many case include actual healing. The sacraments have their root in the New Testaments and were developed by the early church.
The ministerial priesthood, a term used to distinguish it from the priesthood of all believer, is a representative of the whole body of Christ. The Priest does not represent himself or the local congregation, he represents the whole Body of Christ, the Church. As such no one is ordained because a group of people like his teaching or personality, he is ordained by the Bishop acting for the whole Church.
The Bishop is a man who has been delegated by the Church to hold the authority of his office. He hold this authority by virtue of been from an unbroken line of man so authorized, each having been given authority from other Bishops. This authority goes back to Christ giving authority to his Apostles (Jn20:21) and the Apostles delegating their authority to others. (Acts:1:26)
The ministerial priesthood is an assistance to the Priesthood of All Believers. The priest perform a very specific and necessary function. Just like the hand can not see, the various members of the Church each have their function. This is a New Testament concept express by Saint Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. (1Cor:12:)
Christ only chose men to be Apostles. This not withstanding the facts that it can be inferred that a sizeable portion and possibly majority of those who followed him in his lifetime were women. It is presented by those who want to ignore this fact, that this was only a matter of then social convention. This is a bogus argument. To accept this argument, you must ignore the fact that Christ was God. You must also ignore that Christ made major upsets to the social convention of the time. It can logically be inferred that social convention not upset by Christ are acceptable to God. (Please note here I said acceptable to God, not necessarily God’s will)
On the other hand, there are references to women in the New Testament, and some which clearly show women in ministry (Mt:27:55:) and leading payer (Acts:1:14:) On the other hand scripture (1Tm:2:12) clear talks about women not having authority over men. How far does this go. It clearly does not universally apply to civil authority for there were women in the Old Testament who held the authority of Judges. (Judg:4:4). (Esth:9:29)
This then all seems to focus on spiritual authority. What then is spiritual authority? Authority is found is in Scripture, when Saint Paul says that all should be under authority (Rom 13:1). Rejection of authority and it consequences is also found in Scripture in the fall of Satan (Isa:14:12:). All authority comes from God (Rom 13:1)
Spiritual authority on earth was given to Christ. Christ delegated this authority to the Apostles who delegated it to the Church.(Mt:16:18). One of the delegations of authority by the Church is the delegation to its clergy. Back almost as far as New Testament times the Church has viewed the priest so authorized as being a form of the Old Testament Priesthood.. That is man who is authorized to perform the various sacramental acts on behalf of the whole Church.
The Old Testament required that the Priest be male, Christ did nothing to cause this to change, and this has been the practice of the Church back into New Testament times. Therefore, the Church has no authority to allow women to be priests. The changes in the culture do not negate this.
Our present day is not the first time which people have made claims that women should be allowed to be priests. There was a movement which feigned to ordain women as priests during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, and this was summarily rejected by the undivided Church.
This priesthood is a function of the Church which has since the time of Christ only been performed by men. As such the burden of claiming this is a valid ministry for women falls upon those who desire to change. In some parts of the Church, it is alleged that this has been done. In fact, what has been done is a political process for a very small part of the Church. Because, ministerial Priest acts on behalf of the whole Church no province has the authority to make such changes.
How does this relate to women in the Church leadership. It is clear that the assorted denominations have very diverse views on the subject. Some Churches take the position, that no leadership role exists for women, even in secular things. As mentioned before, this position is not consistent with the whole of Scripture. (Judg:4:4) ( Esth:9:29) Others ignore the teaching of Saint Paul and the Tradition of the Church, and make a claim that women can hold any office in the Church. If the offices of those denominations do not have a sacerdotal function, then on the surface this is not in conflict with Scripture. My problem is not with women being able to hold any office within that denomination, it is their lack of a ministerial Priesthood.
In summary, the definition of the office is what makes women holding that office acceptable or not. It is clear from Scripture and the Tradition of the Church that women are not to hold the office of Priest.
Within the Anglican movement there are groups which appear to be Orthodox, with the exception of the Ordination of Women. However, when I look at these groups it is not the issue of the ordination of women which separates us. It is the understanding of the meaning of priesthood. Within the Anglican movement, there has been great differences in Ecclesiastical understanding of many topics. We have the Anglo-Catholic understanding and we have the understanding which can best be described as Calvinistic.
In the study of the history of the Book of Common Prayer you will find the influences of these two different groups. The most obvious single point is in the words used while administering the elements during Communion. The first part is the Catholic part; “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. This reflect the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The second part is the Puritan part “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” This reflects the fact that it was the death of Christ which gives salvation, not the celebration of the Eucharist. These statement are a good example of conflicting truths, both are true, yet if taken to their logical extreme, or even taken out of context, they would appear to be conflicting.
While, I tend to prefer simple services, which at times brands me as “Low Church”, I am an Anglo-Catholic. I went to a seminary which was Catholic in its understanding of the Mass and the Sacraments. I fully believe that there is real grace given in the administration of the Sacraments. But I also realize that there are people of Faith who do not hold these views.
At my ordination, I was required to state that I believe that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for Salvation. I realize that if one limits their view to Holy Scripture, one could fail to find the necessity of the Priestly office. To fully see this you need to look to the writing of the Church Fathers. Therefore, I must accept that those who do not share my understanding of the Church are still Christians and if they use the same form of Worship, they can be viewed as Anglicans.
I, as an Anglo-Catholic, must support those “low church people” in their fight to maintain the Biblical Faith. Does this mean I should be in “communion” with them. Of course formal recognition of formally being in communion is a function of the office of Bishop, but I would suggest the answer is mixed. Assuming that the Celebrant has valid Holy Orders, the Mass is valid. I would therefore, not view it as improper to receive communion when attending one of their services.
I would share in all sorts of non-worship ministerial and pastoral duties, just as I would with a Lutheran or a Baptist. But what is know as Full Communion, may not be possible, because their understanding of core theological issues are substantially different. One of these issues is the issue of women in Holy Orders. They may have tactical Apostolic Succession, but they do not hold to the same understanding of Holy Orders.
I would suggest that the differences with some groups which ordain women as priests have more to do with the understanding of Holy Orders than women in specific offices. It is their lack of a sacerdotal ministerial priesthood which is the larger stumbling block. Without the sacerdotal ministerial priesthood, the understanding of the Holy Eucharist is very different. The Holy Eucharist is the primary worship of God, which is our primary duty.
Thursday, 8 May 2008 at 12:20 pm |
I am puzzled. How can there be “traditional” Anglicans and “conservative” Anglicans who cling to truths which have been passed down through the ages? The very founding of the Church of England was a political act, disguised as spiritual “reform”. Subsequent developments were a departure from tradition, precedent, and “truth” as defined by a unified Church before the Reformation. You decry the existence of women priests and denounce homosexual acts as contrary to God’s “will”, yet do so from a platform built on greed, deception, selfishness, and the depriving the English people of their collective spiritual inheritence, that a king might be pleased.
Friday, 9 May 2008 at 4:50 am |
[blockquote]
I am puzzled. How can there be “traditional” Anglicans and “conservative” Anglicans who cling to truths which have been passed down through the ages? The very founding of the Church of England was a political act, disguised as spiritual “reform”.
[/blockquote]
It is true that in many ways the formation of the Church of England was a political act. However I should be realized that the Roman Church at the time was a very political body, very much part of the politics of Europe.
[blockquote]
Subsequent developments were a departure from tradition, precedent, and “truth” as defined by a unified Church before the Reformation. [/blockquote]
As an Anglican I try to look at the truth as told by the unified Church, but I look to before the Great Schism, as well as before the Reformation.
[blockquote]
You decry the existence of women priests and denounce homosexual acts as contrary to God’s “will”, yet do so from a platform built on greed, deception, selfishness, and the depriving the English people of their collective spiritual inheritence, that a king might be pleased.
[/blockquote]
It has had it problems, but the Anglican Church has tried to be the catholic church in England. I assume from context you are talking about the Roman Church in reference to collective spiritual inheritance. I would point out except for married priests and lack of a Pope, the reforms made by Anglicans are now for the most part of the Roman Church.
Scott+