Task Force on Women in the Episcopate, Interim Report (2019)

1. alpha Tomega – you ask “Can anyone find among the teachings of Jesus an exhortation that women cannot ever be successors of the apostles in the ministry of the Church?”
   The fact that Jesus Christ selected only men to be His 12 key disciples, 11 of which later become the first Apostles, and that nowhere in God’s Holy Bible is there ever any indication of a woman ever even being considered for the Priesthood I think that it is perfectly clear that God does not women in His Priesthood.
   Also that you attempt to limit the debate to only “…the teaching of Jesus an exhortation…” displays either and ignorance of the fact that it is the entire Holy Bible that is the foundational teaching for our Faith, or a deliberate and sinful attempt to divert others from much of what has communicated to us. Including the things that Jesus Christ did. The teachings of Jesus Christ is not limited to only the things that He said or “exhorted” but also includes all of the things that He did.

   • alpha Tomege,
     To which passages in the Holy Bible are you referring to that show clearly and definitively that there were women in the Priesthood? I ask because I have looked and found none. What I have found are passages that speak directly to who can be a Priest and these clearly state that these people must be men.

   • alpha Tomega,
     Your suggestion that I am subordinating Jesus’ teachings is completely false. Nothing in any of the teachings of Jesus is there anything that would endorse or support woman ordination. In fact all of His teachings are completely in agreement with and supportive of everything else that is in the Holy Bible. One is not subordinate to the other for both are saying the same thing and are co-supportive. As Anglicans we should already understand and accept this. It is not just a matter of solo-scriptura but also and equally so a matter total-scriptura. And to subordinate the rest of Holy Scripture to be somehow under or lesser to the teachings of Jesus is Arian theology which is anathema to true Christianity.

2. God makes it perfectly clear that He does not women in His Priesthood.
   And I for one will never accept woman ordination. I will not pretend to accept Holy Communion from a woman.

   • I see the Scriptural veto on women in leadership not being about the administration of the sacraments but being about leadership, with preaching more a problem area than the sacraments. But assuming that women should not preside at the Eucharist, it seems obvious that the way the sacrament is received is much more important than who presides. I do understand there is a problem if we think the bread and wine somehow change or have a “real presence” in them, but since such an idea is anathema to true Anglicanism it is hardly worth bringing into the topic of women’s ministry. .

     • So….you disavow Anglo Catholicism in one post, then back women’s ordination in another, and now you are proposing that +Frank E Wilson is the best spokesman for “true Anglicanism”??? LOL.

       • EDIT- I won’t change what I wrote, but will apologize to the reader for redundancy in twice mentioning the relative size of TEC/Anglicanism relative to the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I was distracted in the middle of writing this overly long comment- and should have proofread before hitting the button. TJ

         aTo.
         You do seem quite enamored of Bishop Wilson’s academic credentials.

         Bp. Wilson was an Anglo Catholic. Not a papist, mind, but an Anglo Catholic. I suppose if you prefer, you could adopt traditionalist- sacramentalist, or some such. Perhaps more influenced by Keble and Pusey than Newman. This comes through strongly in much of his writing, particularly the importance of Tradition (although he may refer to it as “history” or “historical practice” in his writings for broader audiences), and emphasis on restoring the unity of the Church. In his view (expressed throughout his writings) the Episcopal Church is a Catholic Church. He is one of the people most responsible for the spread of the use of Catholic vestments and praxis throughout the PECUSA/TEC. If a “broad” or “just your average country not Anglo Catholic” church uses bells, or a sanctus, or calls its presbyter a priest, in all likelihood, the rector and warden circa 1920-1950 were reading his books and it just became the way they “always” did things.

         Both the Catholic Church and major Orthodox Churches were consulted by both TEC and the CoE before they adopted women’s orders. Both major churches (between them, they are 1000 times larger than TEC and 20 times larger than the entire Anglican Communion) said “NO” quite emphatically. Both noted that the schism that exists between Anglicans and the Catholic and Orthodox communions would be deepened and broadened if they took such a step. TEC and CoE went ahead regardless.

         But it is quite confusing that you could find Bp. Wilson’s writing authoritative, with his emphasis on church tradition, and derive from that a pro or up in the air position on women’s orders. This is not a matter of dispute in the church catholic, or among those churches claiming apostolic episcopate. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches between them are 1000 times the size of TEC, and 20 times the size of the entire Anglican Communion. So, of the churches claiming apostolic succession, 95% are saying “no” to women’s orders (much less the episcopate), so how much more consensus do you need?

         Wilson is also among the most misquoted and abused writers on such matters, as the modern progressive/revisionist wing love to take his writings out of context (especially his remarks about the canon of Scripture being finally determined in 397- leaving out the balance of his remarks that the books that would become the New Testament had been in constant use since the earliest days of the church).

         TJ (one of those Anglican Missal Anglo Catholics who finds it unfortunate that the closest parish using it is 500 miles away).

     • Article XXVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which with the BCP 1662, is the standard of faith and practice for the Anglican Church of Australia, a better “spokesman” for true Anglicanism than Bishop Wilson, says in part, “The body of Christ is given taken and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped.” These words were probably written by Thomas Cranmer, an archbishop of archbishops if ever there was one.

       If we are to quote modern bishops, I could quote Archbishop Sir Marcus Loane, Anglican Primate of Australia in the 1970s and 80s, who wrote a booklet strongly denying the idea of the Real Presence.

       I do believe that a group of people partaking in the Lord’s Supper, calling it by different names and having different ideas of what exactly is going on, can all nevertheless benefit from the experience. It may be bit like dispensationalists, non-dispensational pre-millennialists, amillennialists and post-millennialists meeting together for a discussion of eschatology and while disagreeing strongly on the details, all rejoicing in the fact that Christ is going to return and bring history to a close, bringing in judgement and eternal life. .

     • David Morrision,
       What you are referring to when you say “real presence” is the papist notion of transubstantiation, which we as Anglicans reject. I would clarify for you that for me it is not an issue of transubstantiation but is in fact an issue of women pretending to do something that God makes perfectly clear they can never do. Any Church that pretends that women can be Priests is denying the authority of God over His Church and that is a great a grievous sin.

   • alpha Tmega, But you are perishing. Those denominations that have accepted woman ordination are declining in membership. In fact it is remarkable that this decline began at the same time that woman ordination was inflicted.

3. The task force can save a lot of time by asking the simple question of why WO went so horribly wrong in TEC, AC of C, and C of E. Second question is when will ACNA make it official?

   • ACNA will draw women priests from the same candidate pool as TEC. Granted African women might be of a different ilk than American women. My broad statement is alike saying a major league baseball player can’t hit while drunk. There is always a Hack Wilson as an exception to the rule.

4. ..

5. Concerning the Eastern Orthodox Churches, they don`t even discuss the question of women priests. From the Roman Catholic Church, I can quote Pope Francis that said that the last word had been of St. John Paul II: there can never be women priests.

   • Just in case aTo re-edits his post above, as he has done before when called on things like this, what he said that I am responding to is:

     I have found many Anglicans, especially those in ForwardinFaith NA and those predisposed toward the Ordinates, have a view of Roman Catholicism as it was up to the 1940s, but not beyond.

     All of those reading who are Anglo Catholics, or know any FIFNA or other Anglo Catholics, will recognize this for the utter fabrication that it is. The only question is whether this statement is made from malice, or ignorance with a bit of an assist from a TEC “affirming catholicism” webpage.

     • I don`t understand why you mention the 1940s and not the 1960s, when the Vatican Council II took place. What happened in the 1940s?

       • Latin mass was never officially banned. In fact, the official documents of the Vatican Council II say that latin mass should be allowed, with the possibility of vernacular languages being used. Pope Benedict XVI with the “Summorum Pontificum” made sure that the latin mass could still be used, and in fact they are making a huge revival nowadays in the United States and in other countries. I think the Roman Catholic Church says that both styles of masses can be used for the Latin Rite.

     • I can`t believe my previous comment was marked as spam and deleted (lol). That happened probably because it was too long.

       • Thomas More,
         Disqus is an odd environment sometimes. Spam filters being what they are, sometimes all it takes is a misspelling of one word. Especially if the misspelling is in an internet link. But sorry we missed that one, the several you have posted on this thread are informative.

         • I already wrote it back once again, this time in a shorter form.

   • First, I am not an Anglican, I am non-denominational. Second, I think you missed my point, I am not cutting off, I know for sure that most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend do disapprove strongly women`s ordination. I also can mention confessional Lutherans, who fortunately also take the same stance. I`ve read the arguments for women`s ordination and I think they all seem pale compared with those against it. Apostolic succession always has been male. If we believe Jesus ordained the first Apostles as the first priests, then they only could have been male, because the priest becames an “another Christ”. I am with C.S. Lewis: “Suppose the reformer begins to say that God is like a good woman. Suppose she says that we might just as well pray to Our Mother which art in heaven as to Our Father. Suppose that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form. Suppose the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called Daughter of God as Son of God. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage betwixt ‘Christ and his Church’ were reversed, that the Church became the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as priest…If all those supposals were ever carried into effect, we should be embarked on a different religion.” I also can quote Pope St. John Paul II, from “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”: “Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches./ When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”” He also stated: “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 Our ministry of confirming the brethren. We 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.” You can read the entire apostolic letter online.

   • I am non-denominational.I think you missed my point, I am not cutting off, I know for sure that most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend do disapprove strongly women`s ordination. I also can mention confessional Lutherans, who fortunately also take the same stance. I`ve read the arguments for women`s ordination and I think they all seem pale compared with those against it. Apostolic succession always has been male. If we believe Jesus ordained the Apostles as the first priests, then they only could have been male, because the priest becames an “another Christ”. I am with C.S. Lewis: “Suppose the reformer begins to say that God is like a good woman. Suppose she says that we might just as well pray to Our Mother which art in heaven as to Our Father. Suppose that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form. Suppose the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called Daughter of God as Son of God. Suppose finally that the mystical marriage betwixt ‘Christ and his Church’ were reversed, that the Church became the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as priest…If all those supposals were ever carried into effect, we should be embarked on a different religion.” I also can quote Pope St. John Paul II, from “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, which I invite you to read if you doubt the Roman Catholic Church already closed this question. “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 Our ministry of confirming the brethren. We 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.” You can read the entire apostolic letter online.

     • Unfortunately, yes, and for some reason they call it National Catholic Schismatic, they support women`s ordination, artificial contraception and even same-sex unions. They aren`t representative of mainstream Roman Catholicism for sure.

       • The NCR elected the gay couple whose case led the way to legal same-sex marriage in the United States as “persons of the year”.

6. I must admit I find Anglican discussions on WO quite fascinating, as they inevitably involve discussions of tradition and Anglo-catholicism. I’m coming from a conservative Reformed evangelical perspective, which, giving no real confidence in tradition, has held firm against WO, on the basis of scripture alone.

   The twelve Apostles, Paul’s prescriptions for elders & deacons (“husband of one wife…”) plus the very clear, explicit instructions of 1 Tim 2:8-14 (based on the most universal principles of creation & the fall), 1 Cor. 14:33-36, 1 Cor. 11:3. All of these passages and more, indicate there were no female presbyters sanctioned by Paul and the Apostles in NT times. Considering how revolutionary the Gospel message was….and how much change in lifestyle–particularly to Gentiles, walking in the Spirit required, if egalitarian leadership was a godly ideal–the Apostles & the scriptures badly failed in establishing it….

   Since I do understand scripture as God’s Word, I cannot accept the Apostles & the Word failing–so I have to conclude the pattern clearly set in NT leadership, in explicit instructions, and example–of not having women in leadership over men in the Church–is one for all time, and not merely a reflection of Greco-Roman &/or Jewish cultural values. One has to take a loose view of biblical authority, I believe, to conclude otherwise.

   • Some might point to exceptional mention of women elders, presbyters, priests.

     Now, I have read modern authors who will speculate that ________ (name of 1st or 2nd century person) might be a feminine name under certain circumstances in such and such a place. If there is ANY definitive mention of women presbyters (or priests) in an ancient source, please provide the source. We can all stipulate that throughout both Scripture and Church history, there are many, many women held in high esteem, many women martyrs, and many who have led by example. Indeed from a Catholic (or catholic) perspective, many women saints who are much closer to Christian ideals than the vast majority of bishops or priests- male or female.

     • aTo, quoted from your previous post of the very early hours of June 20, as it reads after edits up to noon EST 6/20

       Looking up on web I came across sources covering the subject. They seemed fascinating. Here are three:

       https://www.cbeinternationa…

       https://www.ncronline.org/n…

       https://christianhistoryins…

       The ncronline article has a select bibliography at the end.

       Much seems to revolve around the term presbytera, which has been translated also, “old woman,” but presbyteros, elder, might be translated old man too. Widows were accorded a special status. Presbytera has been associated with widows too. Titus 2.3 uses the term “presbytidas” in the Greek NT. Canon II of the Council of Laodicea used the term “presbytides” and “prokathemenai,” presiders. In 112 A.D. Roman governor Pliny the Younger interrogated two women called “ministrae.”

       In Epistle 14 of Pope Gelsius, dated March 11, 494, there is mention that “divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars.” St. Irenaeus mentioned heretical Gnostic women priests.

       Of the articles you cite, 2 of the 3 organizations (National Catholic Reporter and Christians for Biblical Equality) are dedicated, in part, to promoting the ordination of women in the Catholic Church and elsewhere- hardly neutral sources, and clearly not presenting both sides of the argument.

       Titus 2:1 through 2:8, read in context, and not for one word, is clearly a set of instructions to the elder men and women of Christian congregations to offer an example and instruction in Christian behavior to the younger men and women.
       https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/2.htm
       https://biblehub.com/esv/titus/2.htm

       Epistle 14 of Pope Gelsius is addressed to 3 bishops in southern Italy and Sicily- not to the whole church. Word has gotten back to Rome that they are violating canon law. The Pope is instructing them to stop.

       I will assume you mean Canon XI (11) not canon II (2) “Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church.” There is a fairly extensive discussion of the meaning of the canon here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm If you follow up by looking up Epiphanius, it would appear that there were other heretical sects (in addition to the Gnostics) that ordained women (specifically, the Collyridians), and there was concern about this and other practices of heretical sects creeping into the Church.

       St. Irenaeus notes that Gnostic heretics ordain women as part of his demonstration that they are heretics. We cannot use heretical practice as a precedent for establishing orthodox practice. There may be valid arguments in favor of women’s ordination, but that Gnostic sects did it is NOT a valid argument.

       What I will suggest to you, if you have not already encountered it, is to read +NT Wright arguments in favor of women’s ordination (this appears in various chapters of several of his books, and I would think easy enough to google). While I do not agree with him, his presentation is scripturally based, and substantially superior to anything put forward by TEC or liberal catholics. It will give you a much better platform for arguing in favor than Gnostics and the National Catholic Reporter.

       TJ

   • A quick glance at LSJ and BDAG (Greek-English Lexicons) indicates that diakonos is one of those words which can be either masculine or feminie. The translation “deaconess” seems appropriate.

     • I know.The case of the word was not my point.

   • alpha Tomega,
     The reference to Phoebe that is virtually always used by the supporters of woman ordination is a false argument that is by its very nature deceptive. When one reads the entire passage it is clear that Phoebe is not being sent in any type of a Priestly capacity.

   • I’d simply reply the NT office of Deacon/Deaconess is one of service, not leadership.

7. A few other questions I would like to see discussed:
   1. What relation does the sex of the priest have to the saving grace of the Gospel?
   2. Will the Holy Spirit only turn a sinner if the preaching of the word comes from the mouth of a man? (Will God refuse to accept the work of a woman?)
   3. If the means of grace are neither withheld nor lost because the priest is a sinner will that means be withheld or lost if the priest is female?
   4. Where no men are available or the vacancies cannot be filled by the available men should parishes be denied a priest / leaderdship (as we see in so many RC parishs)?
   5. Will we require another splinter faction if GAFCON refuses to acknowledge women as priests or bishops?

   I would argue items 1 – 3 are clearly “NO” then it follows that 4 should be “NO” and if it is forced as a “YES” then 5 must also be a “YES”

Comments are closed.