ANCA and Continuing Churches

How much do they work together and what are the relationships like.

 

That's a good question. I am not certain that there is much interaction between ACNA and at least some of the Continuing Anglican Churches. This document dates back several years but sums up some concerns that the Continuers had about ACNA:

http://www.anglicancatholic.org/an-...anglican-churches-to-the-acna?class=greenlink

I think that the issue of women's ordination, unless ACNA takes a stand against it, will likely prevent closer relationships between ACNA and the Continuers. There *are* components of ACNA that might work well with the Continuers.

 

You asked a similar question last month: https://forums.anglican.net/threads...-and-the-continuing-churches.3827/#post-36660

I'll add this to my other response, since it was recirculated recently:

 

Yeah sorry about the double questions.

 

To go with Fr. Shane's post, this blog post probably indicates some things going on in an ACNA diocese that I can't see Continuers being enthused about:

https://byzantineanglican.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/the-state-of-c4so/

 

The way it was told to me, there already were ordained female priests in what is now an east coast diocese in ACNA, so they were 'grandmothered in.' But I don't think any further such ordinations are to be allowed. Ordained female deacons in ACNA are somewhat more numerous and scattered about the country, and again I think it was agreed that no more such ordinations are to take place.

I would not attend a church with a female priest. But a female deacon wouldn't bother me, personally.

 

There were already female clergy in at least five of the founding dioceses of ACNA. Then they accepted the diocese of South Carolina, which has a bunch of female clergy. I know David Virtue's flunky Bruce has been babbling about a moratorium on female ordination for ages. Somehow this myth came to be accepted as a truth. It's not true and a number of the dioceses continue full steam ahead with ordaining their female candidates. I just had this conversation with one of CANA's canon missioners last week. He acknowledged that they had been hoodwinked to some extent by C4SO etc.

 

Oh. Fooey. Well, I stand corrected. (What I heard, I heard about 4 months ago; not only could things change in 4 months, so could my memory!)

Are they continuing with ordinations of females for priesthood, or just deacons?

 

Both.

 

I agree. Female priests are an absolute red line for me.

 

A friend in TX shared this with me today. It is an opinion piece by an ACNA member who was appalled and disturbed by the comments of a recent female ordinand that she could have gone either way in TEC/ACNA postulancy and she didn't understand why the groups are apart. This is the type of thing that makes continuers point a finger and say: told you so!
https://standfirminfaith.com/3-reas...P3Z9zEvh7yZ163P6hsByFT7dkid66FXw6U6z2x-TtNqNs

 

Oh awesome, Standfirm is back. Aside from the article itself, which I am glad you shared with us, the return of Stand Firm In Faith, the best of the traditional Anglican blogs, makes me very very very happy. I feel the urge to hug you, but this being an Anglican forum, there seems to be no suitable hugging emoticon, because, you know, stiff upper lip and all that good British stuff, so instead, drinks for everyone!

 

ACNA most certainly could walk hand-in-hand with TEC... if TEC would steer itself out of the ditch it has wandered into. Until that time, no. We have to call a spade a 'spade': sin is sin!

Now, that shouldn't stop the two from cooperating in, say, a pro-life rally or some such. But there have to be some limits.

I wish Hannah King had been ordained in TEC instead of ACNA. Hmm.... what do you call a female priest, anyway (besides "just plain weird")? Surely "Father" is out of the question?

 

Maybe you've all seen this before, but I just came across this video interview of Archbishops Foley Beach and Benjamin Kwashi, and found it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfzNNXwkhE

 

I have seen them use the title of "Mother". C. S. Lewis, I suppose, called them "priestesses":

http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html

 

I don’t see that either term is appropriate for them. Calling them priestesses simply creates confusion around the word Priest; it is a semantic error to use the words Priest and Priestess to refer to the sacerdos or hierus of ancient Judaism or the Pagan religions, in that the sacerdotal, hieratic function previously limited to the Kohanim is now distributed among all baptized Christians.

The word Priest rather is an English derivative of Presbyter, meaning Elder, just as Bishop is an Anglicization of Episkopos, meaning Overseer or Superintendent.

Only a baptized Christian man who meets the criteria for ordination can be a Presbyter (and I am a strong proponent of using the ancient criteria, based on the dictates of the Apostle Paul, for screening prospective candidates, which are set out in the Apostles’ Canons and the Canons of the Council of Nicea).

Specifically, only a man who has never killed anyone, who has never remarried (thus meeting the criteria of being the husband of only one wife), and who has not had a vasectomy or otherwise mutilated themselves (which Canon I of Nicea describes as being self-murder), since they were baptized as a Christian or received via chrismation (confirmation) or baptism, conditional or otherwise, from an heretical sect, should be ordained. The pre-baptismal exemption is warranted based on this apparently being the practice in antiquity: before he was baptized and became a monk, embracing a life of non-violence (a state in which he subsequently was ordained as a priest and founded a monastery), St. Moses the Black was a highwayman who murdered many travelers in Egypt before stealing their goods.

The feminine form of Presbyter, Presbytera, is used in the Christian East to refer to the wife of a married priest (most priests being married), who serves as the mother of her parish community. Thus, the term priestess is unacceptable, because it theoretically could be viewed as an Anglicization of Presbytera, and thus ought to be reserved for the wives of priests (who are, I should stress, not ordained, nor do they serve in any kind of official ministry; rather, their function is to nurture the community).

Speaking of marriage, the sole exception from the ancient standards I think we should be prepared to make at present would be to allow persons who have not married at the time of their ordination, to marry after their ordination, rather than requiring them to remain celibate. The reason for this of course is that various problems in the Roman Catholic Church involving not only paedophilia, but priests in secret heterosexual psuedo-marriages, or in clandestine homosexuality, suggests that secular priests should be married where possible. Only monastic priests, who are prepared for holy celibacy through service as a monk before their ordination, should be encouraged to remain in that state. However, priests who do get married after ordination should not be allowed to wed a member of their own congregation, or anyone else currently or previously under their pastoral care, because such a relationship involves a difference of power and is rife with the potential for abuse.

I should also stress that while I am not in favor of requiring secular clergy to remain celibate, I am a great supporter of monastic clergy; I believe the Anglican Communion would benefit greatly from more monasteries, and more monastic priests, and especially, from adding monastic bishops. The demands of the episcopate are considerable, and I believe that Anglican Benedictines and other religious clergy would have a great deal to offer as part of the episcopate.

 

Except TEC is not pro-life. There was recently some distressing article posted on this site about a senior Episcopal “clergywoman” (a bishop, I think), who is a major supporter of Planned Parenthood and an “abortion rights advocate.” This is a sad state of affairs, but it also underscores the need for members of ACNA and other continuing Anglican churches to, without neglecting their respective churches, get actively involved in TEC surreptitiously, to the fullest extent possible, in an attempt to seize control of it and save it, for the good of Christianity in America.

 

ROFL!

I love you @Rexlion

 

I get the myrth, however from a serious point of view, like with any male priest, it may simply amount to according them the dignity and decency they deserve as fellow human beings and finding out how they would like to be addressed. It says more about us than it says about the other if we fail in charity and decency.

 

Except that we cannot properly refer to them as priests, because they do not legitimately hold the office of Presbyter.

To give another example, if I met a Hindu or Zoroastrian “priest”, as some people call them, I would refer to the former as Brahmin or Pandit, and to the latter as Mobed. Because those are the proper names for the offices they hold, and I expect they would appreciate it. In like manner, Mandaean “priests” and “bishops” should be referred to by their proper titles, Tarmidas, and Ganzivra (which means “treasurer”; the ganzviras are the Mandaean equivalent of bishops).

To call a female priest however is wrong, because a presbyter cannot be female, and to call a female priest a priestess is even worse, because it is grave insult to all of the Presbyteras who have been martyred by Hellenic Pagans, Muslims, and Communists during the 2,000 year history of the Christian church.