How to defend the belief only men should be ordained?

Quite so! Which underlines the truth that simplistic interpretation of meaning does not always arrive at the Truth. Some 'truths', especially spiritual truths, are more complex than can be encapsulated in simple statements.
.

 

Others are remarkably simple.

Matthew 28:19 describes for us the sacrament and mystery of Baptism and the Great Commission of the Church.

Galatians 1:8 tells us what to do with heretics.

John 3:16 establishes a basis of faith.

And a few slightly longer texts are powerful indeed:

A literal reading of John 1:1 is sufficient to understand the person of the Logos, and of John 1:1-14 or John 1-17, or John 1 entire, which is a very short text which explains the Incarnation and the work of St. John the Baptist. The former is read at the end of Tridentine solemn masses, except on certain days, and some Anglo Catholic services, the Armenian Soorp Badarak (or Surb Patarag in the Eastern dialect, essentially, their communion services) and in my opinion is highly desirable in Western Rite uses where it is traditional*, and also in the Western Rite on Christmas Day or Christmas Sunday. In the Eastern Orthodox church John 1:-17 is the Gospel read at the Paschal Eucharist traditionally served in the early hours of the morning on Easter Sunday (following Paschal Nocturnes, Paschal Matins, and the Paschal Homily of St. Chrysostom).

And 1 Corinthians 11, which is not a long read, explains the institution and special nature of the supreme sacrament and mystery of Holy Communion.

And James 2 explains the difference between a living faith which is demonstrated by works enabled by the indwelling Spirit, and a dead faith which is a mere intellectual belief, probably in a heretical misconception of Christianity, which lacks works. This ties in of course with the very terse Pauline instruction to “test every spirit” which applies as much to men as to angelic apparitions.

 

Here is a lecture I heard on this subject just a couple of days ago, presented by the Vicar General of our diocese of the West at a clergy retreat. His argument is based on three iconographies which appear in the Scriptures, all patriarchal. This one really stole the show and our Lutheran ecumenical guests were impressed with this teaching as well. It runs 1:07:00 so make sure you've got a block of time before you play the video:

 

Splendid!

 

I'll be that guy and bump an old thread I have just started seriously considering this subject for the first time and wanted to say that the initial exchange between @Tiffy and @Stalwart has been very helpful. I picked up a copy of Anglicans and Tradition and the Ordination of Women by Henry McAdoo to help get me going. I am, of course, familiar with the anti-WO argumentation. Can't say the same for the pro-WO side.

 

As you probably know it is forbidden on this website to promote women's ministry. I suspect that it may also be frowned upon to study any exposition of scripture which either questions the legitimacy of male only priesthood or argues for equal validity of male or female sacerdotal effectiveness in the power of The Holy Spirit. Certainly you won't be allowed to express your research results openly unless they fall squarely into the male only priesthood 'bin'.

I would be careful how you tread.

Regards Tiffy.

 

I have no desire to wade into the WO debate. However, I am in the TEC, and this doesn’t match my experience at all. It may be an anomaly, but all the female clergy I have interacted with personally have been sincerely, solidly orthodox theologically and morally. I recognize that others have had different experience. It just hasn’t been my experience, thus far.

 

When you say they are orthodox for the TEC or for Traditional Anglicanism.

 

I meant the word a little less exclusively than that. I was speaking in terms of fidelity to catholic teaching concerning what I have always taken to be the Big Three:
1. The Trinity
2. The Incarnation
3. The Sacraments
I was saying I’ve never heard heterodoxy uttered by them, and wouldn’t expect it, at least of the ones I know personally.

Arguments against WO need to be properly theological in nature. Anecdotal accounts of female clergy teaching heterodoxy (or worse), if true, are more indicative of a problem in the selection process and subsequent training than anything else, as I see it. Some of the silliest, most heterodox things I’ve ever heard uttered from the pulpit were in RC churches.

 

It’s more than that, because as Anglicans we participate in the web of synodal authority and decision making; most especially the priests and especially the bishops.

At this very moment you’ve got the TEC hierarchy persecuting faithful bishops (the last ones left). Bishop Love of Albany was forced out just a few weeks on trumped up charges, because he wouldn’t go along with sodomite marriage. (He’s now safely within ACNA.) Has your WO priest spoken out in his defense, or put spokes in the wheels of the kangaroo courts, to slow down the process, or even overturn it?

At this very moment you’ve got TEC women priests and transgendered priests saying that Abortion is a blessing to women. Is your WO priest mounting a campaign to defrock such people, or even put her life on the line to alter the course which TEC is on?

 

I was only responding to the claims above regarding support for abortion, de-gendered Bibles/prayer books, SJWs, etc. This phenomenon is simply not something I have personally witnessed. I think arguments in this area need to be based on something more properly theological. But I’m not trying to wade into the debate, just sharing my own observations since they seem to be a bit of an anomaly. If that turns out to be the case, I’d be very interested in finding out the reason why.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, the literature on the subject is practically nonexistent, and the subject simply doesn’t come up. There are no properly theological arguments against it in EO that I am aware of. The argument is solely based on Tradition, where it is articulated at all: Christ established a male priesthood, the end. All the arguments one typically comes across in RC or Anglican circles don’t get recycled because they rely on concepts the EO never thoroughly worked out (e.g., in persona Christi, etc.). Yet there is no shortage of female saints in EO, nor is there the slightest hesitation about ascribing great spiritual authority to them. And of course the role of the Mother of God receive far greater prominence than is the case in RC. There are some Orthodox who understand there to have been female deacons at some point, but this only ever comes up in Greece proper. I’m not aware of any great pushes to make that a “thing” elsewhere. The whole situation is interesting and provides a curious and puzzling contrast to what’s going on in many Western Churches today.

 

The reason it hasn't been an issue for EO is simply a matter of geography. The EO is based in backward Eastern European countries. While that had its downsides, it had its upsides: the ferment of invention and change that defined the Western world largely passed them by.

So there is no theological reason. It's just that no one has really proposed it to them. Only 70-80 years ago it wasn't proposed to the Western world either, and anyone living in that time would've found unimaginable what their descendants are dealing with today. A hundred years ago, it was understood by everyone (East and West) that the husband is the head of his household, simply. He is the priest of the house altar. You could find Scriptural arguments, and natural law arguments, but you rarely had to because it wasn't even a question.

Now that it's becoming a question, even for the Eastern Orthodox. I don't see them having the strength to withstand it, because like you said it's mostly traditional rather than well-grounded. Already you're starting to get women deacons in Alexandria, girl altar boys and women deacons all over the place in Greece. The Ecumenical Patriarch is onboard with Pope Francis on women's ordination, so now the wheels are moving as well.

By the way you're getting progressive Muslims in the US who are advocates for gay marriage and feminism, so it's coming for Islam too. Anyone who's based their views on tradition will be ground into the dust.

We need to return to foundational grounded positions, based in objective truth.

 

Exactly. I think a lot of those people are in for a really rude awakening when that ball starts to roll (and it will at some point). Many of them see EO as the last ship without a leak in the hull. It’s ironic in many ways because many (former Protestant) converts come into EO retaining the same anti-RC biases that they had before, not realizing that most of the things they don’t like about RC are completely present in full force in EO, whether theological (e.g., real physical presence), or ecclesiastical (e.g., authoritarianism, no representation for the laity, etc.). It’s going to be a very tough pill for many to swallow. Their over-reliance on Tradition to answer all questions might very well have the effect of making them the easiest and quickest to knock down once the modernist wave reaches them. In a very real sense it’s already there among many of the laity; it just hasn’t “filtered up” yet. They will have to come up with theological arguments of their own and at present I don’t think they have the resources to do that. The state of the theological argument itself (on either side) at this stage is exceptionally weak, as I see it. I personally don’t find the arguments on either side to be terribly convincing. That’s why neither side has been marginalized, I suppose.

 

The argument for the traditional side is pretty simple: men and women are not equal. Man was made in the image of God, but woman was made in the image of man. Man being covered in Church is impious, but women being uncovered in Church is impious. Woman cannot teach in the Church. And between the two of them, woman is to obey the husband, while the man is to honor his wife.

This will sound terrible to most people today, but it is God's honest truth (literally). These are verbatim quotes from the Scriptures. There is simply no case from Scripture, or Tradition, or Reason, for egalitarianism or the marxist equality of the sexes.

That's all I'll say since I know you didn't want to start a whole debate.

 

I appreciate that. I studied the issue pretty intensively some years back, from as many different angles as I could. Although I approached it with an open mind I never arrived at what I would consider to be a satisfactory conclusion. Since then I’ve just not had anything to add to it other than personal, anecdotal observations. That’s all I’m offering here.

 

...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? -Luke 18:8

 

Meaning what? Surely it can't be imagined that preserving a male dominated priesthood by force of traditions of men, will be what elicits the comment from Christ, "Well done thou good and faithful [man]-servant". It might even be Matt.25:29-30. Luke 11:52.

On the other hand if you are meaning that it would take greater faith in the character and teaching of Christ to accept the many 'Marys' into the priesthood rather than traditionally consigning them to the kitchen along with the moany 'Marthas', like Christ refused to do, perhaps you're right. Maybe all he'll find on earth on his return are a few sad old men desperately clinging to age long tradition, having buried their own talents in the ground and fighting tooth and nail to stop any women gainfully using theirs in the service of God's kingdom on earth. The Great Commission having been rendered only 50% effective by men, for 2000+ years.
.

 

No; simply to advocate for the unbiblical practice of ordaining women into the priesthood. The only way to allow for women in the priesthood is to appeal to extra-biblical sources, which we may not as orthodox Anglicans do as it goes against the plain reading of Scripture and is thus in contravention of article VI of the 39 Articles (as well as nineteen centuries of Christian doctrine and practice).

And in anticipation of Tiffy's response, I'll simply link back to this thread. My responses there stand unchanged.

 

How is the ordination of women 'unbiblical'? Which actual apostolic edict, (chapter and verse), is cited which deals specifically with the forbidding of 'ordination' of women? Was 'ordination', per se as we now know it, practised in the apostolic period of church history or did that come later, some time after most of the New testament part of what was to become the Bible in 356 or thereabouts, was written?
.

 

Refer to the link I gave, Tiffy - it's all there. I have nothing new to add.

Meanwhile, I wait in vain for your contra posts showing me biblical evidence for female priests in the early Christian church.