Are female Holy Orders valid and is Sacramental assurance maintained?

I truly believe with all my heart that a women is just as much a valid priest , deacon or bishop as a man is . Thats why I'm having this discussion certainly they have valid concerns but valid doesn't mean correct. I love the mass and the sacraments I wouldn't support women's ordination if I didn't believe they could be priest. Our lords came down and told his disciples in the upper room to receive the Holy Spirit and forgive sins and heal women ( his mother for sure but mostly likely also the other Mary's ) where also there. This scripture is where we get the idea of priestly ordination.

 

I mean, I basically believe women can be ordained, as I mentioned above. I'm still in the process of deciding that I believe that for the correct reasons, which is tricky.

 

Why would you expect to be the "black sheep" instead of expecting to be accepted as another valued contributor? By the way, what a beautiful child in your picture

 

I mean, I don't think I fare well here because I'm an Episcopalian and great with it. Garden variety Episcopalians, I'd say, wouldn't get along well here generally.

 

I'm TEC and I've enjoyed my time here quite well.

 

I've been reading Bp. Hewett's book The Day-Spring From On High, and he gives a lengthy discourse on 1 Timothy 2:15 from pgs. 458-475. The text is that difficult passage: "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continuesb in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." Here is what I believe to be the core of Hewett's discourse:

First, let us establish that ceremonial uncleannesss in the Old Covenant was not degrading. There were various ways in which men and women could be unclean, and uncleanness was part of the system regulating the approach to the infinite holiness of Almighty God. In the Old Covenant, the motto was "Touch God and die," but now, in the New, it is "Touch God and live." God's laws of ritual purity and impurity were also mercifully ordained to allow for times of repentance, rest, and recovery. In the new creation, women's blood shedding to engender new life is redeemed, along with everything in creation that is returned eucharistically to the Father.

Williams offers us in this passage a profound Christian anthropology. "Women share the victimisation of the blood; it is why, being the sacrifice so, they cannot be priests." Only Jesus can be both Victim and Priest. Only He, being God, can offer himself as a perfect sacrifice. . .

Women cannot be priests because they cannot offer the sacrifice of which they are already victims. Men, ordained priests, offer the Sacrifice of which they are not already the victims. They offer, objectively, the Sacrifice of Christ. They offer Blood that is His.

Blood is altogether sacramental, and is a word used 447 times in the Bible. The blood shed by men and women is sacramental. Men and women shed their blood for different reasons; their "blood work" is different and complementary. Men shed their blood in three ways: during circumcision, in battle, and in executions. Women shed their blood to engender new life. They are not to shed their blood in any other way. Jesus sheds His Blood in battle, in the combat stupendous, in the sacred violence of the Cross, to redeem the cosmos and the sinner alike. A priest of Jesus Christ, who re-presents this Blood to the Father in the Eucharist, must not have on him any blood of his own. He can only offer to the Father the Blood that is not his, the Blood that is Christ's. This is the ultimate, deepest reasoning, or theology at the deepest level, of why a great-high-priest, a priest, and a levite, must all be men. . .

And so the woman looks to her husband to be the priest, the one who offers her as his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to the Father, as the ordained priest offers the bread and wine brought forward by the Church, the Bride. The whole of God's revelation to man is unap0logetically and radically patriarchal. God is the Father Almighty, from Whom is eternally begotten the Son, and from whom eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Scripture is the story of the redemption of patriarchy, from fallen, twisted, self-aggrandizing patriarchy, to the restoration of gracious, kenotic patriarchy. Jesus fully reveals the kenotic (self-emptying) patriarchy of the Kingdom by emptying Himself, even to the death of the Cross.
​

Hewett is about as far out on the Anglo-Catholic spectrum as one can get and much of his argument is based on the concept of the eucharist as a Mass. He also makes some of the usual arguments about the Priest being an icon of Christ and so on, but this argument on the nature of child birth as the proper offering of the woman is new to me. Everyone is afraid to approach that text, but he has dived headlong into the project. It's an interesting study.

But the Articles are unequivocal in affirming the eucharist as a sacrament of the Gospel. Thus it has often been said that a truly Anglican view, though prohibiting trans-substantiation (not necessarily because it is untrue, but because it is uncertain), cannot permit Zwinglian memorialism either -or Baptistic discussion of 'ordinances.' And although the ceremony of the OT Law has been eclipsed by the paschal mystery and the liturgy of the church, there are certain principles of worship that are evident from the time that Cain and Abel offered sacrifice to God throughout the Biblical narrative. One is that God never called a woman to service at his holy altar.

 

No we will not. Your argument is not with me. But God.

Blessings

Fr. Mark

 

Tom,

I would encourage you not to do that. I understand your attachment and feelings for your old parish.
As they are in error, extreme error, why exposure yourself to it. In Church history, when a parish began
bringing "strange fire" before the Lord, the faithful walked no more with those who brought the deviation
from the teachings of the Church.
I encourage you to remain in your Forward in Faith parish.

Blessings,

Fr. Mark

 

Feelings. Will get you in theological trouble every time. I am sure back in the days of the Arians, there were those who felt like you. Then hardliners
like St Athanisus and St Nicholas spoke the truth and everyone felt torn. I am sure the Church seemed to live in the parishes shepherded by Arians, which inclined people to listen to their arguments for accepting their teachings on Christ. I am sure the Arians had many nice and well meaning people counted in their number. They were still wrong, even though they were nice.

We and the Church can only accept that which God has ordained or commanded. Regardless of how we feel or how convincing arguments against the teachings of scripture and the Church may be.

I know, and have learned much, from a very smart and Godly woman. As she has said "she thought she was a priest because she was told she could be one." Once she got out of her bubble, where everyone agreed with that idea, she studied scripture and history. Her advance degrees are in anthropology and biblical studies. She renounced that innovation as going against the Word of God. As I said she is very smart and I have learned much from her. God has used her more, to reach more people than she ever could as a priestess.

I have heard many priestess "preach". I get links sent to me by people who are for Women ordination. These links are to prove women ordination is valid. I usually am able to send back a list, with references, of heresy being taught. The seminaries that train women to be priestess are most the most part void of orthodox teaching. And it shows. Episcopal Divinity School had a Dean, Katherine Ragsdale, who taught "Abortion is a blessing." As she said outside an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 2007. No seminary that has teachers who hold to that view or any view like that can graduate orthodox ministers. Go the ACNA facebook page and look at what the female ministers there promote. Not very godly. They can not fall back on scripture, reason or tradition....all they have is feelings.

Feelings got us in trouble in the garden. Satan used it then as he uses it now.

Blessings

Fr. Mark

 

Tom

I would encourage you to research beyond a link from a dubious group to support your position or thoughts. When the Church found out what happened, Pope St John Paul II quashed it. If you google you will find the letter from the group to Pope Benedict asking him to reverse what St John Paul II did. Benedict let the ruling stand. You would also see, the pro WO listed her duties. None listed were duties limited to a priest. She did the duties of a laywoman.

Per Roman Canon law, she was not ordained. No matter how many times or who laid hands on her, she was never a priest. Now, it is immediate excommunication of the woman and Bishop. St John Paul II spoke "ex cathedra" on this issue in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. He said that Jesus instituted the clergy (priesthood) and has not given the Church the authority to alter or change it.

The letter concludes with the words:

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.

Examples of disobedience to scripture and canon law can be pulled from the web and history to try to prove WO. If any of the elements of ordination are missing, in the case of women proper recipient, there is no ordination. I can go through the liturgy of ordination with my 13 year old daughter. When I am done, my daughter is not ordained. I do not have the authority to do so and she is not a proper recipient of the sacrament. Bishop Davidek did not have the authority nor was Ludmila a proper recipient. Hence no ordination per scripture and canon law.

Blessings

Fr. Mark

 

Wow, we are sexists. Typical.

Blessings

Fr. Mark

 

"Anyone who disagrees with me is a sexist"
"God is sexist"
"The Church is sexist"

Am I following your logic correctly?

 

As always, very insightful, I want you to know first that I really enjoy your content. Though I'd argue that, to some extent, the equivalence between priestesses and Arians is a little faulty. Arians, in theory, could still act validly as a priest. Women can't. This isn't just a question of heresy, but a question of whether or not the preaching or sacraments administered by women are even effectual. For Arians, as I understand it, they are for the most part. Women should not be effectual in either of those things, primarily the sacraments, on the same level as a priest is. There is a huge difference between talking at the pulpit and preaching, and between handing out bread and wine and handing out the Body and Blood of our Lord and our God. Women should be confined the formers. However, it only seems to me that women have in fact done both of those latter things, and if the women clergy I have experience with haven't been gifted with the Spirit for pastoral and ministerial roles, I can't say with confidence anyone I know has. The experience isn't any different than in my home parish, with a male priest, and that is interesting. While the experience is, of course, subjective, it was nonetheless holy and spiritually edifying in a way that God alone could effect, in both Word and Sacrament. Hence lies the hitch in my merely saying "women cannot be ordained," as that assertion has only held up theoretically. I can at this time concede that we have no assurance of the efficacy a woman's sacrament, but I could not make the jump and say that no woman could ever administer the sacraments effectively.

 

I'm glad Im Episcopalian that's all I'm gonna say but honestly we should put aside these valid but dividing debates and work together to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

 

A noble sentiment EA. But we must remember that the greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. Feeding and clothing is a good thing, but feeding the Gospel to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness and clothing the naked with the full armor of God should always be our primary concern.

 

I disagree Jesus says that his followers with be decided into sheeps and goats based on how we treat the least of these. He didn't mention anything about our missionary efforts when he said that although I think meeting soneones needs is actually one of the greatest gospel things one can do . That's not to say that Spiritual truth is irrelevant it's very important but I think we should meet the physical needs of our suffering neighbors first then meet their spiritual needs.

 

I would disagree that spiritual needs should take a backseat to material needs. I see both as very important, but the spiritual needs take priority in my mind. One cannot conquer the evils outside of them if one cannot conquer the evil within them. We should be meeting both needs, but if we have to pick one, it should be spiritual.

 

I agree that spiritual needs are most important, however a person who is naked and hungry will not be receptive to matters spiritual. Mother Theresa knew this. Feed him and cloth him first and then he will be more receptive to talking about God.

 

A fair point but what EA was saying is that we should subordinate the very real concerns of spiritual formation and uniting under a common doctrine and doing charity work instead. At least that is how I understand it. But the fact is, we are a church not a shriners lodge. The responsiblity to preach the Gospel and confess the true faith, and all that that includes, cannot be put on the back burner. Indifferentism is a great error and we are well aware of the havoc it has caused.

 

It's the perceived wisdom that on the occasions Our Blessed Lord Jesus told the apostles "....feed my sheep...", He was speaking about food for the soul