Thank you for your concise summary of what has happened. I simply would argue where in church history where "innovations" are allowed have they ever just gone away. At some point in the future the bishops will have to have the convictions needed to stop the innovation and allow the departure of those that need to, happen. All that's happening now is we are pushing the problem into the the future for others to deal with. It's unfortunate.
Lord, have mercy. They are blind to what these neologisms (both ideological and aesthetic) have done to the Episcopal Church in our country. I was in the ECUSA in the 1970s-1980s. We were raising three sons and decided we could not have them exposed to the evil things which were going on (and even being promoted) there. We walked and ended up in the Orthodox Church of America. All strength and blessings to those of you who have chosen to stay and fight to keep the Anglican tradition from complete implosion. Pennsylvania sends you a prayer for strength and blessing.
Was looking for a new church. Went to a local Anglican church (in New Zealand). The Sermon came not from the present male priest buy from the screen, by a woman dressed in clerical outfit. I left immediately. Turns out the home.group is run by an assistant pastors, a woman. Might have to join the catholic church here. Or the orthodox
The ordinariate is a canonical structure comparable to a diocese. Pope Benedict XVI created ordinariates for those communities from the Anglican tradition who were entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. While dioceses are divided into geographical regions, the ordinariate is not territorial. It is called “personal” because it is comprised of those parish communities that share a common liturgical, pastoral and theological heritage of English Catholicism, wherever they happen to be. In creating this new structure, the Holy Father judged that there was something particular about these communities coming into full communion that they could share with the universal church. The creation of a non-territorial diocese of these communities was the way to integrate them into the life of the Catholic Church, while at the same time providing them the stability and structure they needed to preserve and develop their own unique identity and patrimony. There are two other personal ordinariates in the world: the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in Great Britain and the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia.
The statement concedes that other jurisdictions constitutionally ordain women. In this, the ACNA has agreed to some extent with the ordering of women to the priesthood, which makes all wonder what now truly distinguishes ACNA from ECUSA, from whom she separated over this very issue?
Damien Vargas the ACNA doesn’t go against Scripture with the liberalism of the EPCUSA. Biblically Speaking, we have women who were pastors, deacons, bishops, and apostles (read Romans 16). Also, we are all ordained to the priesthood (1 Peter 2 backs me up). No such office of priest existed in Scripture.
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282 Lol. Keep your heresy to yourself. Women being allowed in the pastorate is a damnable heresy from the mind of Satan himself.
I’m confession Lutheran, I did not realize the ACNA was liberal, I was under the impression they were conservative. Kick the can down the road. I have no idea why they needed five years when it can be done in five minutes. They are not valid priests.
Can women be ordained to the priesthood? This is a question that provokes much debate in our modern world, but it is one to which the Church has always answered “No.” The basis for the Church’s teaching on ordination is found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers. While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The Early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). “It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34-35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office”- Tertullian (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]). “When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all”- St. Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]). “For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:1-2 [A.D. 225]). “[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” - St. John Chysostom (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]). “[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. . . . But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ” - The Apostolic Constitutions (ibid., 3:9).
The Anglican Catholic Church which is an exclusive Anglo-Catholic province in the Continuing Anglican Church has already settled that issue by absolutely prohibiting the ordination of women and there is no further discussion of the issue and the subject or case is closed. It is similar to the phrase, Rome has spoken, the case is settled or closed.
Fr. Matkin, I think you have basically the correct understanding of the hopes of the traditionalist bishops. There is also a danger that those who are in favor of women priests will continue to advocate loudly and because of our American culture, persuade those believers who cannot understand the traditional position. The best thing for traditionalists in the ACNA to do now is to 1) pray for the Holy Spirit to enlighten the hearts of these otherwise faithful brothers and sisters; and 2) try to present the winsomeness of God's plan for the sexes of unity with distinction. I have read a discouraging essay by one such advocate that called on bishops who say they support women priests to actively try to ordain more women. I call it discouraging because obviously at some level she was calling for discrimination. Eventually the issue may produce a split, if the two sides for whom it is a first-order issue cannot either win over the other, or keep on living with disagreement charitably and fairly until one side or the other basically "dies off."
John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, LORD, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
@@TimothyMatkin Interesting. I suppose being in DOMA, my vantage point is slightly different. Here, we are seeing it become a sort of default orthodoxy. For example, in our current bishop election process, potential candidates were told they must affirm WO, while also genuinely supporting those in disagreement. If they didn't meet this criteria, they would not be moved forward for consideration. Like you, I do believe we need to come to a common mind on this issue, both for our own unity and integrity, and in terms of ecumenical relations.
So they left the Episcopal Church because of progressive theology and ordination of women then proceed to allow the ordination of women, dependent on what the diocese allows. They will be in the same boat as the Episcopal church in 10 years.
Father Malkin, I agree with the comments of J Paul. While it can be shown from scripture and Church history that Christian women can be deacons, Orthodox Christianity did not ordain women as priests or bishops. I have been watching ACNA for some years now, and this might be the only shortcoming I can see in the jurisdiction, which may sound critical, but actually I have great respect and high hopes for ACNA. God bless you.
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282 not only that it is clear from the Greek that there were Presbyterresses. In English this was translated as older women and forces the translation to then speak of older men when Presbyters and Presbytresses would have fit the context better. Titus 2 is an example of this.
Nii Ayi Croffie I totally agree with you. I’m a Biblically Orthodox Messianic Jew, I’m affiliated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, I’m glad the Bible school I graduated from was Biblically Orthodox, even to the point of acknowledging that women and men are both called equally. However liberal men and women like the previous presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church (the woman right before Michael Curry) of the US, and men like “bishop” Gene Robinson, who are by no means called to ministry as they distort the Word of God. I believe in what Scripture states, pastors (bishops/presbyters) can be either male or female. When we look at 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14 were commands against specific groups, not a universal decree. We know this because of Romans 16, and other parts of Scripture.
@@michaelcaza-schonberger9282 someway somehow North American politics gained a foothold in our churches. Sadly the use of Church discipline has failed us. Bishops have refused to punish wayward members who have then risen to leadership. Then a simple issue of a member being sacked becomes a Province splitting.
Let it resolve itself??? Short for: "We ain't got the courage of our convictions ... having such courage could be more expensive than we want to suffer. See ... size matters.
@@NotablyRandom Feel better now? ... feels good to slap faces, doesn't it. But, wait, you're a leader of Christians. Aren't you supposed to pray for me?
The inconclusive (and indecisive!) study left a back door open for women to be considered priests. However, the declarations of the Nicene Creed with its statement of us as a _catholic and apostolic church_ has closed that door. There's really no discussion to be had.
If priests and bishops were meant to be female I think Jesus would have appointed a female apostle, no?? He had many to choose from. Both creeds (Nicene and Apostle’s) state that God is Father. Whatever may be the limitations of gender distinctions applied to God, it remains the clear fact of revelation that God has chosen to reveal himself as Father, not as mother or in an androgynous category. The Bible makes it clear that gender is central to the revelation. God is a Father who has a Son. And God created man as male and female. The institution of marriage in Genesis 2:24 is used in the New Testament in Ephesians 5:31-32 as the pattern for understanding the union of Christ the Bridegroom (John 3:29) and his Church the Bride. This is the principal reason the church does not ordain women as priests. The opposition to women’s ordination has nothing whatsoever to do with ability or equality. It has to do with an accurate representation of the being and nature of God. The apostolic ministry represents Christ the Bridegroom (cf. John 3:29) at the altar. Because the mystery of our salvation is revealed in categories that involve gender, it is necessary that the apostolic ministry represent the maleness of Christ. To say that a woman can represent a man is to say that gender is interchangeable. This is the root of homosexual behavior. The ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexual behavior are related theologi- cal errors and it is no coincidence that they have appeared in the church at the same time.
Libby Ibanez The women of the churches Paul planted came from a cultural background where the women had the role of priestesses and religious authority in Greek paganism which adds to the reason why Paul forbade these women, and to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 14:33-36, CF. Gen. 3:16). These women were so used to having authority that they were acting on their own presupposed notions, instead of being in in line with what was acceptable with the New Covenant community. While Paul did commend certain women in ministry (at the end of his Epistle to the Roman Church he mentions some of these women pastors elders, and deacons by name, as well as Chloe in 1 Cor. 1:11), the majority of the women he taught to keep silent as they were acting in an ungodly manner, exhorting themselves over the men of the church, instead of being the partners they were called to be. Read 1 Cor. 11:9-12, what does it teach? Paul is stressing the beauty of the relationship between man and woman, that they’re dependant on one another, but that women were created for the purpose of being man’s helpmate, his equal. However woman are not created to usurp the authority from man, however just as Galatians teaches “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female-for you are all one in Messiah Yeshua.” (Galatians 3:28, TLV), the calling and gifting of God are irrevocable, and God calls both women and men to certain ministries, however He doesn’t call everyone to the ministry of the word, nor to the ministry of eldership, diaconate, or overseer. These women were acting in their former lives, usurping the authority from the men that God had called, and by doing so they were leading the congregations astray as they were not properly trained. This is why Paul taught that women must learn in submissiveness at home from their husbands, as what was being established is order in the community. While classical church teaching has asserted that woman are not to have any authority in the church, and base this on their reading of the Pauline Epistles, we see otherwise in the texts, and in the ancient historical records that women indeed played a major role in ministry. In his book, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn dives into this sometimes contentious issue. One that has divided the church, and suppressed women unfairly over the centuries. On page 588 he notes that Paul exalted some women, but was also embarrassed by other women in ministry. He writes that there is no denying that woman held offices in the church, and that they had an anointing in the ministry that God gave them, others he noted that he was perplexed by the way they were carrying out their ministerial callings. He writes “Finally, it should be noted that four people are picked out for their “hard working” (kopiaō)- the term Paul uses elsewhere in commending those whose ministry and leadership ought to be recognized. In Romans 16 all four are women, and no man is so designated. - Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis (16.6, 12). We see women also taking authority in the prayer services and even prophesying in 1 Cor. 11, however to note the sharp contrast of women doing ministry correctly, and those not acting in accordance to the ways of God Dunn comments on the passages that some on the church like to rely on to strictly forbid women from entering the ministry. The middle of page 588 and 89 he writes: Despite some tensions Paul had regarding women in ministry, It’s clear that he was a proponent of people rising to the call of God on their life, no matter what gender normatives are, and no matter what some people may say. It is quite evident even today with some (men and women) in ministry, who are effectively acting as wolf in sheep’s clothing, and not as ministers of the Gospel of our L-rd Yeshua. It is also evident in the ministries of others that they’re ministers of the Gospel, a few examples out there are Beth Moore, Aimee Semple McPherson (founder of the Foursquare Church), and Kay Arthur. So in summery to say that it is expressly forbidden for a woman to teach, or take authoritative roles isn’t fair to say, however to say that one should be cautious to lay hands on a person, as this is only done through sincere prayer and fasting as not all men and women are called out as teachers and preachers.
Michael Caza-Schonberger I never once said women couldn’t teach. Women can’t be priests. Women cannot be ordained to holy orders. You’ve misunderstood the conversation.
Time for you to cross the Tiber. The ordinariate is a canonical structure comparable to a diocese. Pope Benedict XVI created ordinariates for those communities from the Anglican tradition who were entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. While dioceses are divided into geographical regions, the ordinariate is not territorial. It is called “personal” because it is comprised of those parish communities that share a common liturgical, pastoral and theological heritage of English Catholicism, wherever they happen to be. In creating this new structure, the Holy Father judged that there was something particular about these communities coming into full communion that they could share with the universal church. The creation of a non-territorial diocese of these communities was the way to integrate them into the life of the Catholic Church, while at the same time providing them the stability and structure they needed to preserve and develop their own unique identity and patrimony. There are two other personal ordinariates in the world: the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in Great Britain and the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia.
That was a year ago, what now? I left the Episcopal Church in 1975 for several reasons. Women priests are ridiculous. The turning around of the altars to face they people, I can´t stand that. Modern language in the missal. I attended a parish that always used the Anglican Missal and nothing else. It was the Anglican Missal or nothing! I now live in London UK and I attend St Marys Bourne Street. There are no women priests. But they have adopted a more modern liturgy and yet they still have the music in Latin and do the Asperges. It´s terrible what has happened to the Episcopal Church.
@@anselman3156 women priests are biblical. Lots of female prophets to prove it alongside older women (presbyteresses) in the Bible. The office of teaching elder is descended from that of the Prophet rather than the Levitical Priest. The problem is discipline which we have refused to enforce and claims that Anglicanism has no standards (39 Articles should be abandoned?). Those are our issues. Traditional Anglicanism does not mean ad orientem or ad populum worship. In fact the BCP rubrics suggest ad populum. We have made things hard for ourselves by allowing variance of opinions and claiming it is the Anglican way. Look at how many defections come from the Anglo-Catholic elements? The Anglo-Catholic Liberals also do not help much. The Anglican Church is a Protestant Orthodox Catholic denomination and the earlier we throw out those who are neither of this the better for all of us.
@@anselman3156 I am sure you do realise that the Prophet is higher than the Levitical Priest in the Bible. I can cite more than enough examples for this in the Bible. Your claims that the Church never "ordained" women for eldership means you do not understand that ordination is primarily a consequence of the Gnostic cults. It came along with the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Prophesy in the NT often means to preach. So female preachers were allowed. And Paul's injunctions against female rabbis (erroneously rendered teachers) in one situation meant that they were allowed elsewhere. This is not a surprise since Jesus as a rabbi allowed Mary of Bethany and several women to sit at His feet (essentially attend Seminary). I am not being feminist here. We have to understand that the Bible was not written in English and a lot of the time several translation conventions have been detrimental to the growth of the Church. The title of Jesus for example Lord (Rabbi) contrasts with Lord (Adonai) used for God or LORD (Yahuweh) for the Tetragrammaton. There was a Hebrew New Testament as evidenced by the Mishnah and Toseftah. A lot of anger you are displaying here may be because you have not considered the possibility of being wrong in following Rome. Jerusalem is the mother church. Every Protestant should focus his efforts there.
@@anselman3156 and like I always tell deceived Roman Orthodox Catholics, the full meaning of Protestant is Protestant Orthodox Catholic who refuses the authority of the Bishop of Rome and other medieval innovation. When you are an Anglican you are Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. You do not need union with either the Bishop of Rome (Roman Orthodox Catholic Church) or that of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church) to be either Catholic or Orthodox. Anglo-Catholics have denied the 39 Articles which explicitly states this. We don't need Rome or Constantinople. Jerusalem is our home.
@@anselman3156 Alternative rendering of Acts 13:1-3 from Greek and Hebrew (and this is my amateur knowledge) 1 Now in the synagogue at Antakya there were prophets and rabbis: Bar-Nabba,Shimeon HaNiger, Lucius Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Shaul. 2 While they were worshiping YAHUWEH and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Consecrate for me Bar-Nabba and Shaul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
The logical problem with the statement is the use of "authority". Christian Churches have no authority that does not come from Christ. Either Christ gave to his church authority to ordain women, or he did not. If the Constitution gives authority to do it the question is decided.
Father Matkin, while I agree with your position regarding women's ordination, I believe your conclusion as to what the result will be of this decision is in error. First, remember that at one time the large majority within the TEC were opposed to women's ordination, yet it eventually became accepted as the church fell in line with the culture. Second, there are a significant number of female priests teaching at Trinity School of Ministry, thus the large majority of new priests produced by this seminary will favor WO. So the future belongs to the acceptance of women's ordination within the ACNA - the present decision simply sets that process in motion.
It has nothing to do with "looking down on them". It is a question of following scripture which we do not get to equivocate about or change to suit the culture or times. In Christianity everyone is equal, being made in the image of God. The Church has always had both men and women who have served to advance the faith. Not holding the same position or job in the church isn't about skill or worth; it is simply following the rules God made.
As a woman, I can tell you that Christianity does not look down on us. We are highly valued by Christ. Women were the first to proclaim Christ's resurrection. The issue is that men and women are different. Equal in value, but have complimentary giftings. The Church maintains that both are needed and good. Men are gifted to be protectors, providers, and leaders. Women are gifted to be nurturers, supporters, and helpers. This doesn't put women down, but draws on the natural strengths of both masculinity and femininity. I would say, as a younger female, that our secular culture looks down on women. Being a loving wife and mother are seen as weak and backwards. We are pressured to be "boss babes." Much of modern feminism is just following Jezebel as an example. It sees femininity as less than masculinity. It encourages exploitation of women in the name of empowerment. I lived in the world. I was an agnostic. I know firsthand the difference between Biblical Christianity and the world. There is no better place to be a woman in this world than by the side of Christ. There is no greater love than Jesus Christ. The Bible is trustworthy. God's ways lead to life. Different does not mean less than.
