They're not and the writer to the Hebrews in very clear on the fact they are not. There has only ever been ONE sacrifice for the forgivness of sin, that would be acceptable to God, and it happened only ONCE and it was Christ who was the victim and the high priest, and HE who commands us to "Do this in REMEMBRANCE" of that fact, and THAT is the function of a Christian 'priest'. In that case they are all in disagreement with the writer to The Hebrews, big time. .
I hope you realise I'm not arguing with you. I'm not putting forward any position. I'm just telling you what was believed throughout nearly all of Church history and into the present; the Mass regarded as a sacrifice Clement in his letter to the Corinthians refers to the members of the Church who offer sacrifices. This is from the first century. The Didache refers to it as a sacrifice. Etc. These are the arguments you will come across and if these are not addressed the answer is likely to be shrugged off in less Reformed circles (many Anglicans here). If we connect this to the Levitical priesthood, which many have according to the saying in Isaiah 66:21, then this must also be addressed. It specifically refers here to 'Levites'. I am also a Protestant, of a kind, being an Anglican, but as a Theology student I can't just take such arguments at face value. I appreciate and understand your point of view.
A sacrifice of PRAISE, yes, or of dedication to our Master, yes but of the killing and offering of ANYTHING at all, No! "They shall bring all your kindred from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring a grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. And I will also take some of them as priests and as Levites, says the LORD." Under the New Covenant we are ALL priests and that would technically make us 'Levites' too in a sense since all priests had to be Levites but not all Levites were actually priests, even in Old Testament times. Isa. 66:21 simply implies that all Christian believers will be given the responsibility to "Give account of the hope that is in them, when asked", that is, to teach the faith, which is a sacerdotal function, and to "Do this, as often as you eat-drink it, in remembrance of Jesus the Christ", which means to call to remembrance Christ's gift to us of atonement with God, in every social occasion where we drink wine or eat bread. In other words Jesus meant us never for an instant to forget what he was about to do for us. The command was to all his disciples, both male and female. .
Again, I'm not arguing with you. You don't need to try rebutting anything I say. That's not why I'm here. You seem to want to prove some kind of a point. That's not the purpose of this thread.
@Elmo these are fair points. I agree with you that in the realm of Christian apologetics and polemics, we have become accustomed to the two sides of an issue squaring up with their bullet lists of biblical proof texts and quotes from various church fathers, reformers, and/or theologians that show incontrovertible proof that each respective side's position is correct and the other side's position, along with being incorrect, is also irredeemably heretical and somehow or other does irreparable harm to the Gospel and the dignity of God. I used to engage in those same tactics, much to my shame. But doesn't that all seem like a shallow and hostile way to winnow out the chaff from the wheat? I think so. While a biblical verse expressly stating that women are prohibited from serving as priests or that only men can serve would be very helpful in resolving the question, I wonder, does something have to be fully written down in Scripture to be scriptural? Or at least, not opposed to scripture? I think we can agree the answer is no. There are no express references in the Bible to the Trinity or a clear statement that says one's eternal salvation depends on believing in the trinitarian formula. However, several hundred years removed the New Testament's writing, Church leadership wrote creeds that said God is Triune and required the Church's members to assent. There is no express reference in the Bible to sacraments, or to the exact number of them, or to what happens in a sacrament. But the Church leadership over time determined, even in the absence clear scriptural verses, all of those issues and required Church members obey those determinations. The Church leadership also changed those determinations from time to time throughout Church history and the Church membership followed the changes (or left). The difference between the Church's decision on the Trinity, which I think is pretty set in stone (and should be) and its evolving position on the sacraments is that one is a doctrine of the faith and the other is a practice of the faith. Women's ordination, while it may have dogmatic implications for some people, is firmly an issue of Church practice. And the Church has a precedent of changing its practices to be more responsive to the needs of the people it serves. The dates of major Holy days have been established, moved, and re-established. Various ceremonies and rites have been created, changed, replaced, superceded, and done away with altogether. The Church has given its leadership the authority to change practices. In fact, in the Anglican tradition, that authority was enshrined in Article XX of the Articles of Religion ('The Authority of the Church"). The only check to the Church's power in this regard is that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." So a close reading of that would demand that we ignore all extra-biblical arguments and only focus on what "God's Word written" has to say on the matter. And as it turns out, the Word doesn't say much one way or the other on the topic. Certainly nothing dispositive. So in the absence of a clear textual proscription, shouldn't the Church leadership be free to make a change to ordination requirements when the Church reaches a consensus that doing so would be beneficial? So, in that regard 'Why not' may be a more valid argument than it first appears. But I imagine everyone's next question is the same as mine: Just because the Church is free to do a thing, does that mean it SHOULD do a thing? And that is a valid question. You know my reasons for supporting women's ordination as well as others here in the thread. Like you, I wish the Church leadership would have given us a cohesive and authoritative statement explaining its position but I haven't really found one. But I'll keep looking. I can tell you that not too long ago I had deep reservations with regard to women's ordination. I was pretty conservative on a number of "social issues" that I have changed my thinking on. One if the biggest problems I had with women's ordination was that it could be seen as a break with catholic tradition. According to the Creeds, the marks of the true Church of Christ are that it is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. One of my favorite go-to lines when arguing religion online used to be "Nothing new is Catholic". I'd use that old banger to shoot down anything that I saw as an innovation or accretion to the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints". As you've correctly pointed out, scripture only records Christ choosing men to be his Apostles. Nothing in Church history until recently shows the Church practicing women's ordination. Therefore, I would have seen women's ordination as an innovation that threatened the Anglican Communion's catholicity, and, therefore, its a identity as part of the one true Church. Easy peasey, case closed. No further analysis required. But what I forgot was, in my rush to question whether the practice was catholic, I forgot to consider two more important and prerequisite questions: 1. What does catholic even mean? 2. Is the practice Christian? With regard to the first question, I immediately go to the Vincentian Canon, which defines the catholic faith as “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” But is this helpful with practices? Perhaps a better measure of the catholicity of a practice should be what did the Apostles do? There is no evidence that the Apostles refused a female candidate for Holy orders. We also know from scripture that at least deaconnesses and prophetesses were present in the Church during the Apostolic age. But more generally, one important feature of the Apostolic age was change. Hebrews tells us that both the Law and the nature of the priesthood changed. The council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts shows that as a body, the leaders of the Church did away with the need to adhere to old Covenant practices and requirements. Even the day they gathered to worship changed from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day, which clearly contradicted the 10 commandments. Perhaps, with regard to church practices, change and innovation is the tradition. Why can't this extend to women's ordination? With regard to the second question, whether a practice is Christian, I mean to ask does it reflect the spirit of Christ and His teachings. Given that the Gospels record (1) Jesus showing high regard for the women who followed him and the gifts they brought with them, (2) the special role one woman in particular played in the miracle of the Incarantion and the great respect He showed her in His earthly ministry, and (3) the unique role Mary Madgalene and the other Mary's had in witnessing and then preaching about the Risen Christ on Easter Sunday; Jesus obviously saw women as equal and valued co-workers in His vineyard. It strikes me then as far more Christian to welcome women into the clerical ranks than to refuse them solely on the basis of their womanhood. Now I see wonen's ordination not as a break with tradition but an answered call of the Spirit to do a new thing. And that's OK. If you've read this far, my deepest apologies for the long post.
Long posts are exactly what I am looking for. I don't mean bulleted lists to prove a point per se, but merely to explain a position (whether or not one takes it). For example, I have many textbooks on Christian Theology and they have to write from a neutral standpoint about what each major group believes. This is helpful as a starting point for explaining a doctrinal position. I became concerned when no-one came forth with any such explanation for this particular, still rather thorny issue. Had I asked, for example, why many Protestants believe in a symbolic Communion, many would surely bring up Zwingli, Wyclif and Ratramnus and say that there is a precedent for this, theologians have explained it thus etc. etc. and they concur with these arguments. The fact that the Anglican Church hasn't put out a statement on this is still fairly troubling. I would prefer they had something like the encyclicals the RCC uses, which are incredibly useful for going to for understanding why that Church believes what it believes. The AC is fuzzy on some issues, but one can at least start with the XXXIX Articles for most things, such as Communion theology, predestination, purgatory etc. If one starts with these on this particular issue one comes across Apostolic Succession, or at the very least consecration, which I don't see being addressed, for instance. I understand the points you are making and it's not really my intention to agree or disagree with them here. In truth, this is low on my list of theological priorities. My ex is a Catholic and we are still friendly. I was going to explain to him in rich theological detail why the AC has female priests, as he gave me such theology for his Church not doing so and I wanted to respond in kind. I found to my dismay there is almost nothing on this issue from Anglicans and to be honest it becomes slightly embarrassing. Religiously I lean conservative with a springling of liberalism. As I am a Theology student, I do basically expect 'papers' in response to my questions with 'Here's what we believe and why, here's the background information, here's the authority behind the doctrine, here's the history and here's our conclusion based on these things,' etc. I am on another forum where there are a lot of heretical Christians who don't believe in the Trinity and obviously anyone who seriously defends the Trinity is going to go to Athanasius, Augustine and so on. It has baffled me a bit that no-one here did anything like this for this issue and did admit it's a very modern issue based on modern understandings. I must say I am somewhat uncomfortable with that as it is currently, unjustified by any official doctrinal statement.
I'm not rebutting what you have raised as possible objections to women's ministry within a Christian 'priesthood'. This is not personal. I have simply stated what I would say in reply to such objections if they were used to object to women's ordination in the Church of England. Why are you so desperate to be given instruction, examples or reasons, from dead people who were once leaders in the church? Why not Ask God yourself as St James advises. Try praying and asking someone who knows, then you will discover first hand the reasons women's ministry is OK with God, from God. That's what I've done. You will gain something far more valuable than knowledge of what a lot of long since 'sleeping' saints have said or the opinions of living saints who may only think they know the mind of God, but don't. You may even have already had some answers from God by reading what some of us have written. .
I won't pay any attention to The New Testament, then, since it's written by dead saints. Nor the creeds, councils, sermons or the epistles. I'll just throw them all out.
You have a right to your opinions. However, just because there is a new covenant, doesn’t mean the old laws are null and void.
with all due respect, you talk much interpretation, however, fail to quote any actual scripture. again with all due respect, this leads me to to believe that your opinions are more political than scripturally based.
Tiffy seems to have a strong Reformed perspective fairly unusual in modern Anglicans, but within the realms of Anglican orthodoxy. I do wish it were more backed up, though, I agree. A lot of can be political posturing or anti-Catholic sentiment. I'm concerned about lack of care for the Fathers :/
Of course not, from reading them you can gain insight and some knowledge, but have you actually tried asking God yet? Lee, you should try clicking on any highlighted text in any reply of mine. You will often find relevant scripture quoted there. .
I did find some Resolutions put out by Lambeth that basically acknowledge that this is still an open issue for its member provinces but that the each member recognizes and respects each the autonomy of other provinces to come to their own conclusions on the matter amd that whatever differences there may be between provinces on this issue, they will not rise to a level that would impair the Communion. Resolution 1 - https://www.anglicancommunion.org/r...?author=Lambeth+Conference&subject=Ordination Resolution 21 - https://www.anglicancommunion.org/r...21-women-in-the-priesthood?subject=Ordination
"8. This Conference urges that further discussions about the ordination of women be held within a wider consideration of theological issues of ministry and priesthood." It strikes me that this is the area of research that this thread is actually engaged upon. An exploration of the theological and non theological issues surrounding the nature of the Anglican Communion's priesthood, and the inclusion of women into it's corporate vocation. .
Anti-ROMAN-Catholic perhaps, even an anti-Anglo-Catholic, (where it has wandered into the theological Roman Catholic errors mentioned in the XXXIX articles at #28), but definitely not anti-catholic, with a small 'c', in reference to the invisible, universal, church of Jesus Christ, on earth and in heaven. I am just as critical of some of the behaviours of the Anglican communion where I think it might be departing from or failing to adhere to praxis approved of by Jesus Christ, it's Covenant Head and Master. .
Well, I'm more Anglo-Catholic, Laudian etc. so it would be wise to keep in mind the range within Anglicanism instead of assuming yours is the only valid understanding.
Identifying beliefs and practices among the flock which I believe are contrary to the teaching of our Master, is a long way from doing anything about it. My own congregation is broadly Anglo-Catholic, with a large 'C', I don't see that as being a problem for me unless any of them start preaching that their beliefs and practices are the 'right ones', for members of an Anglican Church, and mine are 'wrong'. I recently complained about someone preaching from the lectern, that "WE at St Andrews, of course, all believe that the wafer and the wine ACTUALLY turn into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ". THAT is behavoiur that is unacceptable in the Church of England, so I got it stopped. The issue there is not the espousement of a questionable doctrine, (what the preacher believes is their own affair), but rather the propagation of it from a Church of England speaking platform and the tacit assumption that belief in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstatiation is a necessary prerequisite for true membership in the church of St Andrews. We at St Andrew's have a number of parisioners and members of our congregation who will not receive communion from a woman, so they stay away whenever one is celebrating the Eucharist for us. Some of them have opposed the church of St Andrews ever allowing a female priest to celebrate at St Andrews, and tried to get that 'set in stone', but it cannot be right for any individual's cherished beliefs to dictate their praxis on an entire congregation, depriving them ALL of the ministry of a female priest, just because of an individual's or even a number of individuals personal opinions. The majority of our congregation are much in favour of women's ministry in Holy Orders. So we now have BOTH male and female priests at St Andrew's because, as yet, we are still waiting, during a vacancy, for a priest of our own. I'm hoping when one offers their services to us, he, or she, will be accepted on their merits as an ordained priest best fitted to lead our congregation in the will of God. Not just because they are either male or female, regardless of any other of their attributes. .
So why be so argumentative on this thread? No-one was actually arguing with you about anything nor trying to prove anything, I just asked a question and gave some objections one might hear to the premise.
I stated what I would answer in reply, if confronted with some of the objections you quoted. I hadn't formed the impression that you were actually antagonised by the proposition that women and men are equally able to carry out the duties of a Christian Priest in the Anglican Communion. So there was no intention on my part, to treat you as a sparring partner. More as just a fellow participant in a search for truth surrounding the issue of female ordination to the Christian Priesthood. This is a subject of some considerable personal interest to me incidentally, because I married a female priest in the Church of England, 26 years ago and am currently a Licenced Lay Minister in the Church of England. .
I agree it is hard to explain a church that has such diverse opinions within it, and does not care for offering a clear justification for such a significant change. However, the reason that a Roman Catholic can very clearly explain his church's position on this or any other issue is the Catechism, which we do not have. That is fundamentally why we can have such huge differences among ourselves, and the Church of England never did say "Women can be Priests because..." and then require all members to agree, because without a Pope or a Catechism, some were saying "Why not?" and others were sticking with this https://www.bishopofebbsfleet.org/ .