Tags
“If men can represent the church and the Bride (of Christ), why cannot women represent Christ as Bridegroom?” [+Kallistos Ware]
Commenting on yesterday’s post by Scoop, I asked whether he really was drawing a parallel between abortion and the ordination of women; could he really imagine that both were mortal sins? His answer was clear – they were.
Scripture is pretty clear about the tendency of Pharisees to add burdens to the people, and equally clear about what God thinks of that. The great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, drew a distinction which is critical for the consideration of the issue between “things accessory, not things necessary”. He makes this comment concerning “matters of government” in the Church. There is a “difference between things of external regiment in the Church, and things necessary unto salvation.” Matters of doctrine fall into the first category, and one of the many reasons that the Anglican Church has taken the view it has on doctrine and dogma is the recognition that the Pharisee tendency – adding burdens – had gone too far in the medieval church. In essentials there must be unity, and by essentials we mean the dogma and doctrines decided upon by the undivided church.
Is it really essential for salvation that only men can represent Christ in ministering the sacraments? Do we go to hell otherwise? The emphasis in Christianity on the terrors of hell may have been a good means of social control, but it is a bad representation of God’s love for us, and one of the reasons so many have a profound hatred of our faith. What would be our attitude to a human ruler who, deciding that women should not teach and should remain silent outside the home, decreed that anyone contravening it should be tormented for the rest of their life? I suspect we’d all agree that such a man was a monster. Yet some think that a God who does this should be worshipped? If, as we believe, God is omniscient, and if we believe St John that God is love, we are asked to believe that one whose thoughts and ways are so much higher than ours, behaves in a way that in us would be condemned? That sounds awfully like making a God in our image – us in this case being a vengeful control freak. Sorry, but that is not the God I know and love. That would be a being to be feared, to be sure, but sincere worship?
That’s not to say we cannot condemn ourselves to hell – it is clear enough we can. We are free to reject God’s love. But the idea that it is necessary for salvation to believe in an all-male priesthood on the basis that Jesus only chose men, is as sensible as believing that because he only chose Jews, all priests should be Jews.
We are all, we are told, part of a royal priesthood – no gender specified. Whatever one’s view on the issue, to suppose that one goes to hell for believing that women have a vocation as priests, is assume that the only Just Judge resembles the Ayatollah Khomeini. Worship him? No, I’ll stay with the God who loves me and whom I love because of that. I know some think we speak too much of love, I think we can’t do that – if God is love, then we can’t speak of it too often or in a lukewarm manner. I am excited by God’s love, it warms my heart.
What each Church decides is essential is up to it and its members, but it would be hard to demonstrate that the view that mortal sin includes women priests is in Scripture – though fallen mankind, having put it there, can of course claim to have found it.
Aquinas himself admitted that: “It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to receiving Orders” before explaining that it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. That may well have been so in his day, but it is not so now. If we wish to rest our objections on outmoded prejudice, so be it, but to say that only a man can represent Christ would be to admit that men cannot represent the Bride of Christ – that is the Church. Are we really using representational language that literally to exclude women but not men? There is an awfully good piece here, which sets these things out in some detail.
It must be because it is so easy to do it that it is so often done, that is to represent Anglican aguments in favour of ordaining women as nothing more than outworkings of modern feminism, but as I hope my series of pieces here have shown, there is far more to it than that. There is a detailed study of what Acts tells us, and of what we see in Scripture, where the Lord Jesus sets an example which many have not followed.
We all know, of course, about the great occasion in Scripture when Jesus is declared to be the Christ. When I used to teach Sunday school the hands shot up – “Peter, Miss, it was Peter.” And so it was. I then used to ask who else, before the Resurrection knew Jesus was the Christ. No hands went up. The answer of course, is that it was Martha who said: “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” [John 11:27]. I am glad that my Church, after so long, has recognised the full ministry of women. I have found it a blessing, as have so many. A mortal sin? Well I suppose for those intent on adding to the yoke Jesus declares is light, anything can be added – but why?
All Along the Watchtower 
“What each Church decides is essential is up to it and its members”
I would suggest that there can only be one Church you may think that it has to be a visible body or you may argue that it is an invisible one but either way it is one not many. And what is ‘essential’ to a revealed religion like Christianity is that which God reveals not that which regional synods or national assemblies decide this year and change next year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In an ideal world, but what is to be done in this one? Scoop’s view is that of a traditional RC, that only his Church can decide what are and are not valid orders. I am not sure that those of us who do not believe in its magisterium have room to dissent from this. If one church insists that only it decides who is the church and what rules apply as doctrinal, then either the rest of us shug our shoulders and marvel at the arrogance and get on with it, or we stand amazed at the self-assurance and correctness of their approach and join them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If a regional synod can validly change doctrine from one year to the next then the ultimate source of doctrine must be regional synods. And if different regions define different doctrines then there is no single absolute truth but rather a multitude of relative truths each of which is subject to revision. It is difficult to suppose that this is God’s will for His Church.
The only approach that I can see which might justify the patchwork nature of the current setup would be one which argues that the Church consists of all those who stand on the truths defined by the Ecumenical Councils prior to the East West schism and that the only things upon which they differ are questions of discipline not doctrine. This, though, requires one to redefine doctrine so as to exclude whole vast regions that Christians considered to be doctrinal matters for centuries and I doubt that this can done in an intellectually consistent way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is the Anglican position as I understand it. We hold as doctrine and dogma what was held by the undivided Church. I can’t see that it made a doctrine or dogma out of an all-male priesthood. That being so, it’s a matter of discipline and can be decided locally.
Isn’t the problem that the RCC seems, if Scoop is correct, to have made this matter a doctrine or dogma? In which case no dissent is possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So much for the Council idea, I suppose:
Council of Nicaea I
“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).
Council of Laodicea
“[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] . . . In an unlawful and basphemous ceremony . . . ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).
“It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess” (ibid.).
“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses” (ibid.).
“If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good” (ibid., 79:3).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function.”
This is certainly a matter of interpretation. Mary, being a member of the Body of Christ, is part of the universal Priesthood that we all share. It is also a matter of semantics because many would consider it a “downgrading” of Mary to call her a Priest given her esteem and position as Queen of Heaven. But given her lofty position, it would be safe to say that her role in the church includes Priest and then some as the Mother of God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You cite one Ecumenical Council – try this link http://www.womendeacons.org/history-canon19-council-nicea/ which explains what you ignore, namely the context.
Your Church, like mine, has chosen to ignore Canon 15. I am surprised you didn’t mention it, or maybe I am not, because it would not support the untenable line you take, which is that everything that was passed was binding forever.
Canon 15 said that ‘neither bishop,
presbyter, or deacon shall pass from city to city’ – how dare later bishops and Popes ignore this?
To show that my Church did not act, as you keep claiming, because of pressure from feminism, you might try reading the whole of this report
Click to access gs1557-women%20bishops%20in%20the%20church%20of%20england%3F%20a%20report%20of%20the%20house%20of%20bishops%27%20working%20party%20on%20women%20in%20the%20episcopate.pdf
LikeLike
Very good post and reflection on Anglican theology. There are members of the Anglican Communion (myself included) who see themselves as catholic and reformed. You hit the nail right on the head when you write about the difference between matters of church governance, form and custom over the core tenants of our deposit of faith. We see the sinful effects of the Roman Catholic Church insistence on all things of Rome being necessary in totality for salvation. And this is the direct effect of their own twisted understanding of Papal supremacy which creates a culture of othering within the church from the word “go”.
Anglicans who see their faith as catholic and reformed (as opposed to those who are more couched in the Calvinist protestant culture of the communion) would argue that the Roman Catholic church departed from true Catholicism during the middle ages when they added barnacles and weights to the church at the deposit of faith. Nothing the church added was detrimental in itself, and nothing in itself kept the people of God away from the True Religion, but taken together it created a fester culture of relics and indulgencies and riches and kickbacks that brought horror to faithful Christians around the entire world.
Recall, the Roman Catholic church once said that the reading of the Bible in Latin and the consumption of the Mass in Latin was required for salvation. The Church of England fought hard against this idea, it was simply against everything that the English Church stood for which was just as legit and nearly as old as the Roman Church. In 1611 we get the English Bible and eventually an English service that looks entirely familiar to the Roman liturgy save for the text being in the language of the people who participate. And we hear from the Romans that salvation cannot be found within our church because our Bishops are not part of Apostolic Succession. Fast forward three hundred years and a bit and we see the Roman Church in the Second Vatican Council approving not just English texts of the Bible but a whole new liturgy that looks more like anything protestants developed. And do they admit they were wrong in the past? Do seek forgiveness for the persecution of English heroes who preached the truth in the face of a corrupt and confused Roman Catholic church? No, we get more Roman mental gymnastics in an attempt to justify the changes on their own.
This is the Roman way. And is why I am comfortable being in a truly catholic church that is not just catholic but reformed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you SO much for a brilliant contribution. Yes, Rome added to the burden for a long time, and it seems significant that those who want to continue that process opposed Vatican II.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not say that it is mortal sin if one is not aware of the “grave matter” that is being violated. Unintended consequences often excuses the sins of man due to their shortsightedness. However, one cannot dismiss that the future of invalid ordinations would be a sin against our entire progeny if, as the Catholic Church proclaims, we have not the ability to ordain women. In such an instance our sacraments are mere symbols and the damage done to our children and grandchildren in the future is like robbery: for we take from them the greatest gifts that God left with His Church . . . and He did found only One Church and we recognize, that all who are baptized are baptized into that One Church. Sadly, Satan has set us one against another. The magisterium is not accepted, nor are the ex-cathedra statement by JPII accepted and therefore if it seems good to our particular culture in our particular day, some think that we have not only a right but a duty to remake our Church into one that fits with us personally or culturally. It is not our decision to make.
So barring mortal sin for the unintentional transgressions, if we are aware of the serious nature of empty symbolic sacraments, it is not difficult to see this as a grave situation which we have aided and abetted and even expended great energy to instill; therefore a matter of moral concern as it would be a mortal sin to prevent our posterity from the fruits of sacramental grace that we, ourselves, enjoyed.
The yoke is easy for a Catholic. The yoke is to pass on to our children that which was passed on to us without change: further develop is expected concerning dogma and understanding but novel reversals of teaching cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered development. It is a worldly change for worldly purposes and many unintended consequences.
Like contraception, indeed the unintended consequence was abortion if contraception failed and it is pushed primarily by feminists as ‘women’s healthcare’. We had already determined as all of Christendom had that morally speaking contraception was unacceptable. The door opened and the consequences are now that over 50 million babies in the US have been murdered and an untold number of souls (which Christ knew from the beginning) were not given even a chance at becoming living breathing souls, made for God and for His purposes. Yes, by all means God is love and we have spit at his gift of life for fiduciary reasons or for a myriad of other hardships. But is any hardship really a yoke when the outcome is to hear Christ say: well done, good and faithful servant.
The one who was judged by man will one day judge each of us. And yet it seems the world continues to judge Him and find fault in Him. I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell personally. It is up to every souls conscience to decide for themselves and then they will fall, as I mentioned, either to the north or to the south as they will. There is no other place for us. So take care in your life and be prepared to be accused and pray that there are many saints and Mary the Mother of God at your side to argue for your soul when that particular judgement comes. And we all know that this life is short and that we cannot escape our particular judgement.
LikeLike
Your church continued to add burdens on the people. As Eric has pointed out, at one time the Bible in the vernacular was condemned. You, yourself, no longer attend it or recognise its Pope, so quit why any of us should accept that you are speaking for anyone except yourself, only you know.
By all means continue to declare we are all wrong and only you and the few who agree with you will be saved.
I hope Heaven won’t be too much of a disappointment to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, C. I hope you are well and may perhaps write posts here again, perhaps on Pusey, Disraeli, or poetry. I miss your input and should be grateful of something in an aesthetic direction. My own posts on architecture and vestments fail to express my feelings well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have on in train on English Spirituality which, God willing, I shall be able to complete soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I should like that. I miss Anglo-Catholicism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In many ways the Ordinariate symbolises one part of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there should be a grand Corpus Christi procession for the nation on a day of dedication to Christ and Our Lady. Would that it were so with the monarch, the Lord Chancellor, and the archbishops present.
LikeLike
Discussion and debate on such topics is an inevitable and, I suppose, a necessary consequence of social institutions existing. Maybe it’s just me but I have never found that participating in them has helped me to pray better or to practice love of neighbour more efficaciously. Which is a pity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oddly, I have. But then I am a woman and the denial of the female vocation is not conducive to prayerful contemplation.
LikeLike