Well, I'm new, and, after reading this thread, I imagine I won't be here long. I consider myself orthodox, but I strongly favor women's ordination. This is not a liberal-conservative issue. In the ancient Celtic church in the British Isles, long before Romanism took over, Celtic Christianity which was orthodox in every way, always believed in the equality of women and gave them leadership positions. Since Anglicanism could be considered in many ways an extension of the ancient Celtic church, I don't see how women's ordination can be called a "modern", "liberal", or "heterodox" position. I must mention that as strongly as I am in favor of women's ordination, I am just as strongly opposed to homosexual ordination and marriage, which definitely is "modern", "liberal", and "heterodox".
The Celtic Church ordained women? This is news to me. Could you give some resources on that. I'd like to learn more. Ps: Welcome aboard Rebel. I understand your scruples on this issue but I hope you consider staying. Just because we aren't all in agreement on every theological point or issue. Doesn't mean we can't interact with one another.
Same here. I would love to see evidence that the early Celtic Church ordained women priests and consecrated women bishops.
Out of all the resources on the ancient Celtic church which support what I have stated, I will simply post links to two articles from the same website; I would suggest a careful and thorough reading of both. I am not here to argue, just to offer suggestions: http://www.faithandworship.com/Celtic_Christianity.htm http://www.faithandworship.com/Celtic_Christianity_today.htm
Roman Christianity tended to be authoritarian, hierarchical, male dominated, rational and strongly legalistic. In contrast, the Celtic church celebrated grace and nature as good gifts from God and recognised the sacredness of all creation. It had a love of mysticism and poetry, and included women in its leadership. Celtic society was rural, hierarchical, family based and tribal in nature, with each tribe ruled by its own king. The Church took over this pattern, with the basic unit of organisation being the monastery. · There were few boundaries between the sacred and the secular · We see an emphasis on family and kinship ties. · There seems to have been greater equality for women than we see generally in the Church today. · A generous hospitality was an important part of everyday life.
Yes, I'm aware of that -- however, greater equality for women and women in leadership positions does not equal ordained women. That's all I meant
That's why I suggested a careful and thorough reading. This prohibition of women in ordained ministry is a holdover from Roman Catholicism, not a reflection of the ancient church, Celtic or otherwise. We have a clear case of women as deacons in the New Testament and a strong case for a woman as apostle (Junia). Further, the resurrection of our Lord was witnessed first by women whom He commissioned to tell the apostles. Collectively, all of this, including the witness of the ancient Celtic church, is good precedent and evidence for women's ordination and leadership in the church. Now if this doesn't get me kicked off here, I might like to continue to participate. As I said, though, I don't want to argue, just suggest. And I don't mind disagreement.
Rebel I believe that we're still waiting for this supposed evidence you have about the Celtic christians. Real, scholarly evidence. Patristic scholars have scoured the documents of the Patristic Church (including Roman Britain). they haven't found any evidence of any female ordination, but what they did find was excommunication of heretics, were such ideas to be found in the patristic Church. The burden of proof is on you.
Is it the case that the "Celtic Church" developed in a state of isolation for centuries until it came into contact with the Western Church in the 7th century?
I don't mind disagreement either. Looking at the historical facts mentioned here, I find nothing to disagree with -- it's the extrapolation of "ergo women's ordination" that I find unfounded.
Furthermore, this reasoning that if an ancient church practiced such-and-such therefore makes it right practice isn't the basis for orthodoxy. Tradition is important, don't get me wrong, but it isn't the last word. I do appreciate this discussion, btw!
So let's work with that for a minute. Supposing there is evidence that the "Celtic Church" ordained women (which I still haven't seen), this wouldn't make this practice necessarily catholic or orthodox. Let's work with a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Suppose today it was discovered that somewhere in the Afghan mountains, isolated for centuries, was a group of Christians that originated from a missionary bishop from Jerusalem in the 2nd century. This bishop lost contact with his fellow-bishops in Jerusalem due to travel difficulties in these mountains. In the time between his arrival and today, an interpretation of the scriptures developed, competely isolated from the rest of Christianity. This Afgan tradition of interpretation held that Christ was not God and that man could, apart from grace, be found righteous before God. They viewed these as perfectly consistent with the scriptures. Now, do we accept the Afgan Church's tradition as orthodox and catholic? If so or if not, by what standard do we determine what to do about these folks and their tradition?
There was no such thing as the ,'Celtic,' Church in Britain, there was only the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! That was probably manned chiefly by what we would today call Celts. This'particular Church,' was brought to Britain by people unknown. It was here we can be assured; the British Church was mentioned by at least eleven of the Early Church Fathers and S . Dorotheus of Tyre, S.& M. tells us that the First Bishop was S. Aristobulos, S.Paul's friend. At the Latin Councils of the Middle Ages, the English Church, the 'Seinte Eglise en Angleterre', was given priority and standing because it was brought to Britain by 'Joseph of Arimathea'. By the way this church was the Church in Britain, only later did it split into three sections.
Rebel, I'm beginning to worry that you don't actually mean to engage in discussion. That would be so disappointing! Are you going to respond to Classical Anglican's excellent post? (comment #15)
Well, I'm kind of confused about the rules. I thought this topic was prohibited, so I'm not sure how much or exactly what I can say.
Okay, let me make a counter proposal: How do we determine what is "orthodox"? Do we rely on some "collective" called "tradition"? In earlier times, what was tradition was most often determined by who was in power. For instance, look at when Arianism gained control of the church and empire and exiled Athanasius. What if this situation had remained permanent or long-lasting, by means of political power? Would that have meant that Arianism was right? Rather, I contend that we must look to scripture and earliest church practice to determine what is truth or orthodox. Thus, any doctrine or practice in accord with scripture must be considered orthodox, and any not in accord with scripture must be considered heterodox, regardless of any 'tradition" that it is based upon. Even the Anglican Articles affirm this: "VIII. Of the Creeds. The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."