Sure, I understand irony. That's what women of childbearing age need to take, to build up their blood. Right? Whereas men need more zinc. Just kidding.
Well, the Canon is the Canon, and you're stuck with it. Might as well make the best of it. Actually, Paul had "a lot on the ball" in terms of theology. I think Jesus did well in choosing him.
I think the leadership of a denomination has the authority to designate reasonable bylaws and rules whereby that group's conduct will be governed. Which is why many Christian denominations have female pastors: the leadership made a choice, and if the members don't like it they will let the leaders hear it. However, so long as a particular denomination has a liturgy which calls for the conductor of the service to pronounce an absolution and/or a consecration of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood, I personally would like to see this person be of the male gender. That feels right to me when I look at the past pattern God has exhibited in choosing those who were to deal with with offerings at altars to God. But I have to admit, there are bigger fish to fry among the aggregate of serious issues which are affecting the churches. W.O. is rather far down on the list of objections in my estimation.
May I inquire if your bio is correct in that it says, "Catholic"? Is it Roman Catholic? If so, do you or any others post polls on RC sites to discuss and push for Women's Ordination? Is it a topic that is discussed in your circles within the Catholic Church in Germany? I am curious.
There is no 'offering' on that 'altar'. The only 'offerings' in any Eucharist (thanksgiving), are ourselves, and WE are the congregation. The 'presence' on the Lord's Table is not an 'offering'. It is a sacrament to be shared among the congregation. "Though WE are many, we are one body, BECAUSE we ALL share in ONE bread". That bread is Jesus Christ. WE are only truly ONE Body when we are "IN" Christ, and Christ IN us. THIS is what the sacrament symbolically represents. Christ in US. .
ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again: Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; cthis is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen. (bcp) Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation: through your goodness we have this bread to set before you, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. Blessed be God for ever. Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation: through your goodness we have this wine to set before you, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become for us the cup of salvation. Blessed be God for ever. (Common Worship) Whilst I take your point, you do make it in a way that is perhaps a little too reformed for me. The notion of offering of bread and wine tracks all the way back to Abraham in his encounter with Melchizedek and strongly reflects the remembrance of the liberation of Israel in the Passover Seder meal and indeed in the breaking of the bread in the Christian tradition/s. It is not a recreation of the event, as an observance and celebration of those events, and for us the promise of Jesus that this would be his anamnesis (his liberating history made live). I think Pope Francis said this well in Laudato Si at paragraph 235: For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation. “Christianity does not reject matter. Rather, bodiliness is considered in all its value in the liturgical act, whereby the human body is disclosed in its inner nature as a temple of the Holy Spirit and is united with the Lord Jesus, who himself took a body for the world’s salvation”.
I never suggested the offering was on the altar. But the priest is leading the people in the communal offering of thanksgiving and praise while he is standing at an altar. So there is some similarity, in that the elements of an offering, the presence of a priest, and an altar exist in both cases. All of the priests in OT times were men, and we know of no female priests during the first 1900 years of the church age, so what is wrong with maintaining a traditional practice? Personally I don't care for musicians on the front platform with drums and guitars, I don't care for modern praise songs, I don't care for priests presiding while wearing shorts, etc. I don't care for female priests, either. I think anyone who wants all of that modern stuff can find themselves a congregational protestant church and have themselves a great time, but I think Anglicanism should stand for conducting church services the old-fashioned way. Call me a Luddite, if you wish!
Where, in your church, does your sentence suggest the real presence actually 'turns up'? (Bearing in mind that the 'church' is the people). Who are you suggesting manages the 'turning up'. It used to be a priest who slayed a victim, spilling blood, and ending a life, on an altar. The body of Christ and therefore the 'presence', is the people gathered round the table, not the bread or the wine on the 'altar'. Altars are for killing things by ending life and shedding blood. Priests were for killing things and offering things to God 'supposedly' to beg forgiveness of sins, on behalf of others, (which according to the author of Hebrews, never did work). But Tables are for sharing food in hospitality and fellowship, thus enhancing life. And 'priests' are for declaring the wonderful deeds of Christ. .
Between the insults to Saint Paul and the insinuation that some of his epistles were not truly Scripture or written by him, this thread needs to be over.
I'm not inclined to dispute what you've said in this post, and in fact I tend to agree with most of it; however I would like to know whether you think this is what folks like Cranmer and Jewel meant when they wrote about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? And why do we see references to altars in Anglican church context as well as in the N.T.? (Hebrews 13:10; also, Revelation tells us there is an altar in heaven.)
I can’t answer for what Cranmer or John Jewel meant by the term ‘real presence’ but my own view concerning what it should mean would be as follows: God is Spirit and those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. This is what our saviour Jesus Christ stipulated. Therefore any ‘presence’ if is ‘really God’s presence’ MUST be spirit, not material flesh and blood, because GOD is Spirit, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Christ became a life giving Spirit, according to Paul under revelation from the Holy Spirit’ So the presence we experience at the Eucharist is a Spiritual presence and as such it is the Real presence of God, who is Jesus Christ. Just as He has promised in the scriptures he will be with any two or three of us gathered in his Name until the end of this age. The ‘altar’ is actually a table in most churches. The only time that is actually obvious though is when it is stripped on Maundy Thursday revealing it’s made of wood (usually), only symbolically representing a stone altar. Symbolically it is referred to as an altar because mankind has always thought, right back to pagan times, that God could be appeased by killing things on an altar and offering the sacrifice to their gods. Our Saviour Jesus Christ put an end finally to all that nonsense when he died upon the ‘altar’ of a Roman torture tree, most probably in the shape of a cross, ONCE and for ALL.
Thanks for asking, Tully I do not give either response unqualified; those whom God called, He called. Real question is, Does God? In the beginning God created male and female in His own image, so we are talking of spiritual image here, not physical at all God told Adam and Eve they would die that day if they ate of the fruit They did NOT die (Seth for example) physically so again we are speaking of spiritual things Jesus in His conversation with Nicodemus said “you must be born again” Nicodemus and Jesus agreed this could not be a physical re birth so again we are talking spiritual re-birth and Jesus commented “spiritual things are spiritually discerned “ Paul wrote ‘in Christ there is neither slave nor free, Jew or Greek, male or female. Again the Bible is speaking of spiritual things. So, who is “in Christ?” And who is not discerning the plainly expressed biblical truth? I fully expect that those who want to maintain a lock on male ministry will find a way to say “but this means something different” It is a foundational truth of the reformation that the Bible in the common tongue is to ensure that even the ignorant”ploughboy can understand. This is why I believe we all are priests after the order of Melchizadek, following our Great High Priest Jesus. The division into laity and clergy was developed over the last 2,000 years as a cultural power grab by an unchristian elite instead of being a more humble leadership. Bishops and clergy are not the richest or best educated, the primary consideration was originally and always should have been that they are the most holy. Genuine Bishops do not live in palaces.