I'm very scrupulous on women in orders, the eucharist, church history... Help me decide this

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by Toma, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Friends,

    I have always been very scrupulous about ordinations, validity, apostolic succession, and the Sacraments. What if an invalid person is attempting to administer the Sacraments? What if your entire diocese looks to be full of people who cannot possibly be valid?

    The Eucharist is my concern. If the Eucharist is being administered by a person who is not properly ordained (i.e. if the Anglican ordinal were ever defective), or by a person who cannot be ordained (a woman), am I profaning the very idea of the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Paul says we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we receive unworthily, but what if we go to a place that is in apostasy, or simply has invalid orders? My friend Scottish Knight may come in and tell me to drop my episcopal hang-ups, but that just can't happen right now. :p

    The reason I am sad is simply that the Church of England in Canada from 1749-1955, continuing as the Anglican Church of Canada today, has veered far away from the Gospel. Does that really leave me with no Anglicanism I can confess and join? I happen to live in one province overseen by a woman "bishop", and a gushy unorthodox liberal one at that. This stops me from converting. Even though the local evangelical parish of 1750 has a rector who was ordained by a previous male bishop, I am wary about giving public witness to a Church that would dare negate 2000 years of biblical fidelity. Her very presence in the Cathedral urges a friend of mine to consider the whole Church of Canada apostate, and liberal beyond acceptance. Whichever clergy elect, receive, and applaud a heretical bishop, are themselves heretical, he argues.

    I am aware of Donatism (the idea that immoral priests are unable to consecrate the Eucharist, among other things). There is no relation to that here, because it is about the very validity of Anglicanism itself. Surely no one who condemns Donatism would justify going to churches that are apostate and receiving their "Eucharist".

    This is all very heavy on my soul, causing despair that I will never be able to receive the Eucharist from the true Church that treats Him reverently, without idolatry, superstition, or bare memorialism. I'm not entirely sure what to do, or even what I am asking. How can I be assured?
     
  2. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Almost everybody here, whether they be Church of England, Episcopal USA, or a different province has went or is going through the same thing that you are going through.

    If you subscribe to the idea that no woman can ever be a valid priest (no matter what), then it would be a very difficult and tough position to be in. Personally, if a woman has been validly ordained by a bishop with valid apostolic succession, then I believe that the female priest can consecrate the bread and the wine. If it's sinful to have a female priest, i'd still seriously doubt that God would abandon the Eucharist and those who choose to remain faithful to his Church. If the priest, or even the Church, is in a state of sin, then I believe that the Eucharist is still valid. To think otherwise, like you point out, could be Donatism. As long as the creeds are not abandoned, then it's still a church. Heretics come and go. There have been far more dangerous and far worse heretics to infiltrate the church than revisionists or Spong-like bishops. Remember, God will not abandon his church! Furthermore, it's a wonderful feeling to know that 80%+ members of the Anglican Communion have our backs and are on our side.

    I was very very hesitant and unsure about joining the Episcopal Church, however, God continued to call me back to this Church and my current parish. In the process of all of this, i've discovered that I have a very deep love of the Anglican faith and tradition. The church needs dedicated people in her ranks, not people who will abandon her at the first signs of trouble. Even a revisionist bishop won't stop me from being an Anglican. No church anywhere will ever be 100% to our liking. This is a lesson that i've learned the hard way when I jumped from church to church.

    I hope this post helps a little!
     
    Toma and Adam Warlock like this.
  3. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Are you saying that only Continuing Anglicans are the "true church", and that a church that accepts women's ordination cannot be the true church. One episcopal hang-up is the acceptance of one's bishop.

    I humbling suggest that you list the churches in the world that meet your requirements of having a valid Eucharist and receive Eucharist once a quarter or even once a year. I understand that this might take considerable travel.

    Having solved the issue of the Eucharist for yourself, I would suggest that you find a community church of believers and consider their service to be a bible study and prayer service rather than an apostate church. Most churches have folks who come every week, but that are not members and do celebrate Eucarist with the community.

     
    Toma likes this.
  4. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    I would say to search your conscience and listen to God's voice. It is a tough place to be for us in North America. However, we need people of conviction to join and/or speak up against the innovations of our bishops. If you truly believe that Anglicanism possesses the best expression of the reformed catholic faith, I don't think you have any option but to join. Remember, though, that the Church is in its entirety when a congregation of faithful men preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments rightly. You can be assured that the evangelical parish you describe is fully catholic, Anglican, and reformed/.
     
    Gordon, Stalwart and Toma like this.
  5. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Adam Warlock, mark1 and Toma like this.
  6. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Sean, I thank you for your encouragement, but women presbyters go against the Scripture. Paul instructs us not to allow women even to speak in the sanctuary. How can one celebrate the holy Eucharist if she's supposed to be silent? I don't believe this ordination-development an innocent development of the Holy Ghost, but rather it's a machination of the Devil using politics against the people of God.

    You are correct that the refusal to recognise womens' ordination makes it difficult for me. I find it impossible to have any part in a Church that grossly defies the solemn ordinance of our Lord's foremost Apostle. The only people who ordained women in the history of the Church were (gnostic) Marcionites, as described by Irenaeus in the first book of Against Heresies. That very fact makes me suspicious.

    In all of this, I don't want to get into a womens'-ordination debate because nothing can convince me, so it'd be pointless to go on and on about it. I deeply wish to be an Anglican... but a classical Anglican of the great era of expansion, majesty, and orthodox faith, where the sexes were recognised for what they are. There were no women presbyters in the Church of England since the beginning; so, our feminist, marxist-influenced era is suddenly right, and all those wise generations wrong? I cannot take it!

    I'll read your article now. Thank you! :)

    Mark1, I have no idea about the Continuing Anglicans. All I know is that the only "Anglican Church of Canada" accepts something that the faith has denied for 2000 years. I am sure there are male bishops in Canada who are orthodox, but they aren't anywhere near me. I am currently not able to move anywhere, so I'll have to remain without the Body of Christ for several years. This pains me so deeply I cannot describe it. Your suggestions are sensible, though.

    The Hackney Hub, I believe the Anglican Church of yesteryear was the true expression of the reformed Catholic faith. "If only I was born 100 years ago!", that's my battle cry. The fact that it has abandoned this for the sake of political diversity makes my faith in God waver a little. What a constant succession of error and truth abounds in this wicked world!
     
  7. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
     
  8. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    So basically I must moderate myself. :p

    I am convinced that the Roman church is in error, as are the falsely-titled "Orthodox". Anglicanism is, honestly, the only option left to someone who is extremely traditional and yet considers himself bound by truth. It's just so saddening to see it overwhelmed by weird theology and, potentially, the apostolic line will die out because of political correctness.
     
    The Hackney Hub and Sean611 like this.
  9. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    Join the fight, Consular, contend for the faith!
     
    Sean611 and Toma like this.
  10. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Oh, stop it you. :)

    Your blog posts have been a big part of my almost-decision to join what's left of the Communion. Those long historical discourses are so full of virtuous stories of great, holy men. I'm convinced that the Laudian liturgy is a glorious evangelical sacrifice of praise given to God. Would that the evangelicals embraced it today! Regardless, the evangelical church at town center does rotate its 11 AM BCP Eucharist with 11 AM BCP Morning Prayer each Sunday. This is probably about as close to the 17th century as we can get right now.

    I think I will join... maybe the (male) Suffragan bishop can receive me. Regardless, I have to wonder if the very rigorous Church Fathers (our model for piety and honesty) would reject such a Church as this, if only because of its insistence on female clergy. This really is a back-and-forth issue for scrupulous people.

    Please pray for me and all those who deal with scrupulosity about ritual, sacraments, rites, and validity. These are horrible worries about legalism and laws which Christians should have no part in. So long as this thread puts even a tiny spotlight on people who suffer because of that, it will have done its duty.

    Along with heart-felt people like you, Sean, Adam, Anna, and Scottish Knight (even if I may disagree with them), this whole forum can hopefully act as a beacon for people who wish to find a Church that is traditional and truth-centered, yet which does not arrogate to itself the proud assertion of Infallibility. Anglicans genuinely seem to care for the Church, evidenced by the fact that many Anglo-Catholics did not run to Rome when the recent Ordinariate was offered to them. Schism seems abhorrent to all of you, regardless of position.
     
  11. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Agreed, in many ways it is a sad state of affairs. I'm not going to try to convince you of the validity of women priests, however, consider the following:

    Divorce is strongly codemned by Jesus Christ himself and by the early church. Yet, the Anglican Church has divorced and remarried clergy. No Anglican, that i've ever read, has ever said that remarried or divorced clergy causes a loss of apostolic succesion and the ability to consecrate the Eucharist. If the idea of a female priests is sinful and causes a loss of apostolic succession, then why do our divorced and remarried clergy get a pass? I'm not trying to justify female clergy, just trying to look at this fairly. What makes the sin of having female clergy any different than other sins committed by clergy? Maybe i'm completely wrong, but it's something to think about.

    Further if female clergy or revisionist clergy/bishops unmakes the Anglican Church, then we must come to the conclusion that God has abandoned his Church. I just am not willing to accept this. It's a sad state of affairs, but I feel called to press on!
     
  12. Scottish Knight

    Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    569
    Country:
    Scotland
    Religion:
    Christian
    Indeed I would :p
     
  13. Scottish Knight

    Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    569
    Country:
    Scotland
    Religion:
    Christian
    In the wise words of Gandalf "That is not for us to decide, what we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"

    I think God is wise in the times of history He chooses to place us, even if it's not the time we would choose lol
     
    Toma likes this.
  14. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Divorced and remarried clergy are still clergy. Women cannot be clergy. There's a sharp difference here: as you like to say, "comparing apples to oranges". I am very much afraid that, by attempting to go against Apostolic ordinance and dare to ordain women, clergy are denying the very faith. What is a clergyman who has not the true faith? Do you believe "Holy" Orders remain for someone who denies the faith and never repents? It's so mechanical! Scottish Knight, at least, could put forward convincing reasons why such mechanical legalism is horrid. I'd probably concur with him!

    The sin of having female clergy is not just sinning once like filing a divorce, but it's ordaining, recognising, and continuing to recognise women as valid clergy, which gives me the doubts. It is not that I think "ordaining a woman into the priesthood" breaks the ordaining party's apostolic succession; I'm saying he denies the faith by trying to do so. The true Church never denies the faith, or at least it tries to avoid doing so, unlike practically the entire Communion (except the Africans :))

    The Anglican Church will simply have no men left in clergy positions soon enough, given trends of women overtaking men in terms of ordination. That will truly be a loss of apostolic succession, since women cannot receive or communicate the office intended by the Lord Jesus for the masculine sex. That's my thought, anyway, and it stops me from joining without hesitation. It's more a long-term horror than considering it an immediate sin.

    Apart from that issue, I would definitely appreciate any resources you have or know of, which defend Anglican ordination from 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662. Catholic and Orthodox sentiments somewhat poisoned me for a long time on that matter, and I sometimes doubt whether Anglicanism ever received valid orders (especially given how whacky the situation is today: a consequence of this temerity?)
     
  15. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Thank you for the encouragement, Adam. :) It doesn't much matter what Bishop Sue's ordination line is, of course, but it could be humorous just to look for a lark.
     
  16. Symphorian

    Symphorian Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    351
    Likes Received:
    518
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    Anglican, CofE
    Consular, re Anglican Orders:

    The early Church was able to quickly establish a definite method of ordination, the essential features of which are the imposition of hands and appropriate prayer. Provided that in one place or another the intent of the rite is specified, all is done which is necessary according to the most ancient rites.

    In the case of the Edwardine Ordinal, all the essential acts of consecration prescribed by the African Canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage were precisely complied with. There was considerable repetition in the Medieval Pontificals and ceremonies were added which provided pomp and dignity but did not add to the validity of the rite. If the Edwardine rite be rejected for its simplicity, then ordinations/consecrations of the first 1000 years of Christianity fall with it.

    Rome has objected to the Edwardine Ordinal saying that the order conferred should be clearly determined. However, in the Sarum Pontifical for example, the office of Bishop is not specified in the actual words of Consecration. (The Sarum Pontifical was regarded as valid). It is not necessary therefore that this should be done simultaneously with the imposition of hands. There are ample passages in the English Ordinal which determine the order being conferred. It is more specific in the 1662 Ordinal.

    Another objection by Rome is that it is necessary (if it fails to mention priesthood) that the rite must allude to it by the power of offering sacrifice. However, the oldest ordination prayers such as those of the Hippolytean Canons and the Sacramentary of Serapion have no such explicit mention of offering sacrifice. Indeed, this was not originally part of the Roman Rite. So again, if the Edwardine Ordinal be rejected on these grounds and Anglican orders be declared null and void, so must many others in the early history of the Church. It is interesting to note, that when the 1559 Book of Common Prayer was officially translated into Latin in 1560 for use in universities, the word 'priest' was translated as 'sacerdos', implying a sacrificial priesthood.

    The point of Apostolicae Curae was that the Ordinal had been specifically written, at the point in time it was, by whom it was, to specifically exclude the concept of the sacrificial priesthood. This is why Rome declares Anglican orders null and void.

    As to the issue of 'Dutch Touch' or 'Polish Pat', Rome has been quiet on this point. There can be very few Anglican clergy who cannot trace Dutch or Polish lines. Only 2 Anglican clergy have been ordained sub conditione as RC's - one of whom, Graham Leonard, was our Diocesan at one time. In his case, I believe he was able to show specific documentary evidence that when he was ordained (as an Anglican) with Dutch Touch involvement, the intent was to ordain him in the (Roman) Catholic sense - to a sacrificial priesthood. I believe Leonard wanted his Episcopal orders recognized also, but as he was a married man, Rome would not do so. He was subsequently appointed a papal chaplain with the title Monsignor and then a prelate of honour by the Pope.
     
    Toma likes this.
  17. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Sean611 and Adam Warlock like this.
  18. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Symphorian, what a sad story about Rome refusing to recognise the episcopacy of a man just because of marriage! I would've made an objection similar to Rome's a year ago, but then I read Paul's advice to Timothy... ;)

    Your post is fascinating, regardless. It is nice to have some simple reassurances. I found a free google-book that you might like to read (if you haven't already) by the eminent bishop Dr. Gilbert Burnet. He firstly proves the entire validity of Anglican Orders from 1549, 1552, 1559, and secondly shows that the Anglican ordinal of his day is actually more likely to be valid (in its form & simplicity) than the Roman ordinal of the 500 years anterior to his day!

    A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England
    How tragic and ironic that these beautiful valid orders are slowly being wiped out by invalid female ordination, and then women-bishops trying to ordain men! After establishing confidence in Anglican orders, it is thrown down again by political considerations. I feel ill.
     
  19. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    I was going to say that perhaps i'm comparing "apples to oranges," but I figured you would probably call me on it. :p

    I definitely understand where you are coming from and i'm very sympathetic to the points you have made. However, I believe the the idea of female clergy is a "done deal" in the Anglican Communion. Just last week, a province in Africa appointed the first female bishop on the continent. In most Anglican Communion provinces, it's already a done deal. If we subscribe to the idea that female clergy invalidates apostolic succession, then we must admit that the Anglican Communion will, eventually, invalidate its apostolic succession. We would have to accept that God has abandoned the Anglican Communion, as I said earlier, I just can't come to that conclusion. Afterall, if women's ordination breaks the sacramental unity, then TEC and most other provinces can no longer call themselves the true church. That would leave Rome, some old catholic churches, various other Catholic/Anglican breakaway churches, and Constantinople as the only Churches left with valid apostolic succession. If you believe that one has to be in communion with Canterbury, Rome, or Constantinople, then the list grows smaller.


    You said, "Do you believe "Holy" Orders remain for someone who denies the faith and never repents?"

    Yes I do, more or less, and i'll tell you why. The idea that priestly sin invalidates their apostolic succesion or the Eucharist is called donatism, as you already know. How do we judge if a priest is truly repentant? What if he goes through the motions of being repentant, yet in his heart, he is not repentant at all? Maybe the priest truly believes that his sin is not sin at all and he is not repentant because he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and the church is unwilling to punish him? What if they don't believe they are denying the faith by ordaining women and other actions? With non-celibate male homosexual priests being ordained to the priesthood and episcopate in TEC, i've never heard anyone say that it invalidates their apostolic succession or their ability to consecrate the Eucharist. If the priest was validly ordained, then his Holy Orders remain. In a perfect church, those who deny the faith or never repent would be punished or their Holy Orders revoked, however, I believe that they remain otherwise. Millions of faithful Christians would be abandoned if priestly sin causes invalidation. The Conciliar Anglican had a wonderful article on this and can communicate these ideas better than I can, but i'm unable to locate the article. I will keep searching. This topic is very interesting and very important.

    In regard to Anglican ordination resources, I recently read an article on how TEC has some of the easiest to validate and can make as clear a case of valid apostolic succession as any province in the Communion. I will try to relocate that article.
     
  20. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Well said Adam!