I have a church nearby that's has woman clergy. Any advice?

Sound familiar?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/heres-what-female-catholic-priests-believe

Sounds like almost every Anglican female cleric I have heard speak.

 

That couldn't have been very many then. Two, three maybe, before you got up to leave? I have to admit though, with an accent like that I too would find her difficult to listen to.

 

So you ignore the fact that 'Priests' did not exist and are never referred to as leaders of the people in the New Testament of The Bible then?

Q. If they are not mentioned once in the New Testament scriptures, where did they come from?
A. Constantine. 306-337AD.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet 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. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Since 'Priests' are never referred to as leaders of the Church in the New Testament Scriptures, how is it that you seek 'to enforce, for necessity of salvation', a male priesthood which is never referred to as such, and therefore has no New Testament foundation.

 

As I have already explained, presbyters > presters > priests very much do exist in the New Testament.

 

Actually there are no texts authorizing priests or bishops at all; there are texts authorizing presbyteroi and episcopoi. Elders. Overseers. Etymological shifts in English do not excuse us from understanding the original Greek.

Incidentally, you bring up rich western modern people a lot. I wonder what sort of poverty you think Popes in the 1400s and Roman Emperors in the 300s lived in? This is a totally fallacious pretext to reject someone's reasoning in any matter. Undoubtedly riches make us fat, corrupt, and lazy, but it doesn't follow that everything a rich modern westerner believes is objectively wrong.

 

Those who support or allow W.O., as I do, make the argument that the Church has lost its way many, many times in many areas. Perhaps you'd like to apply your argument to Dr. Luther in 1521?

I sympathise with the perception that only liberals are pushing W.O., and that they're affected not by theology or faithfulness to Christ, but by secular feminism. Undoubtedly it's true for many. But for me, it's entirely about people like Junia, Eudoia, Syntyche, Lydia, and Priscilla in the New Testament. I am forced by their existence and the words of Paul to acknowledge a certain ministry among them. Do I want female priests? No. Do I kind of have to accept it, by my conscience? I think so.

 

It must be said that the etymology of "Priest" is only potentially from Prester-Presbyter. Alternative theories do exist (vulgar Latin "prevost"). Anyway, even if the etymology is correct, it is a relic of Medieval sacrificial priesthood. Not exactly helpful for us.

I personally think that if we really are a kingdom and priests, if there is a priesthood of all believers, and if we've denied the Roman Catholic sacrificial priesthood, then there is no magical-sacramental-ordinal change in a person by the laying on of hands. I see it more as a commissioning.

Conservatives in this area virtue-signal to each other about the liberal-feminist reasoning behind women-ministers. What if we saw beyond the current associations and judged righteously, not by appearances (John 7:24)?

 

Why? The medievals were simply using an adapted corrupted transliteration of the Biblical presbyter; and called clergy presters. "Prester John" is a famous medieval case of this. There were presters this, presters that. By it they simply meant presbyter. Did they corrupt the theology of the priesthood, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the word priest itself is innocent, and is directly a descendant of the word presbyter. When Christ ordained the institution of presbyters, he literally instituted the priesthood, as properly understood. A medieval understanding of priest is incorrect/corrupted, while the patristic and the Reformation Anglican understanding of it has been purified.

Sorry no, that's not how it works. There very much is an ontological change:

 

Priests The New Testament does not mention priests except in the sense that all believers are priests; and believers were regarded as priests only in the sense that all Jews had been regarded as priests in the Old Testament (Exodus 19:6). Nowhere in the New Testament is the ministry of Jesus" followers described as a priesthood. Neither is any follower referred to as a priest, except in the general sense that all followers were priests.

Some followers are referred to as presbyters. The Greek word presbyter means elder, and references in the New Testament to presbyters are not to priests but to community elders. Nevertheless, the early Church soon changed its presbyters into priests, borrowing much of the significance from pagan religions where priests were holy men who enjoyed a special relationship with God and made sacrifices to him. A priesthood was thus created without any biblical justification, a fact that may have contributed to the priesthood's reluctance to allow people to read the Bible. When people did read the Bible for themselves and failed to find the word sacerdos (priest), only presbyter (elder), the result was widespread anger. Indeed, the lack of biblical justification for a priesthood was one of the main complaints of Church dissidents and reformers, and it is for this reason that Presbyterian sects have rejected a priesthood in favour of lay leaders called elders. Other Churches suspicious of an official priesthood call their officers ministers or pastors.
.

 

The Anglican, Presbyterian/ Reformed and Lutheran churches which came out of The Reformation, were historically less corrupt and 'got it less wrong' than the 'church' that preceded them. That is for sure.

 

The Anglican, Presbyterian/ Reformed and Lutheran churches which came out of The Reformation, were historically less corrupt and 'got it less wrong' than the 'self styled church' that preceded them. That is for sure, but there can be no doubt whatever that no 'Church', visible on earth, is completely free from 'error'.

XIX. Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Any departure from the above definition of 'the visible Church of Christ', constitutes error according to Art. XIX, even if it happens to be parts of the Anglican Church.

What we are debating is how 'Biblical' is the notion of a 'male only', priesthood, that some people in the Anglican Church are insisting upon, even though it can't actually be found in New Testament scripture.
.

 

So why did Constantinople get a free pass?

 

Don't blame me. I just quoted the article, I didn't draft it. Maybe because Constantinople has become Istanbul by the time this was written, and that is "No body's business but The Turks".

Personally I consider the church under Constantine was an unmitigated disaster leading to unimaginable ignorance and corruption of 'the church' to the degree that it was almost entirely darnell with precious few ears of wheat at all by the time of the Reformation.

 

I often wondered if the Article was referring to the Oriental Orthodox Churches, since those churches rejected the 4th Ecumenical Council which was accepted by what would later become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. There were Miaphysite Bishops in Alexandria, Antioch, (and I think, Jerusalem), but not in Rome or Constantinople.

 

Once again,

Let met walk you through this carefully. Stick with me here.

You will agree that all throught the New Testament, the ministry of Jesus' followers is described as that of presbyters. The word presbyter continued to be used in the Church to describe the clergy. As the terms of the Church were translated throughout the centuries, the Early English and Anglo-Saxon languages adapted the New Testament Word presbyter, as prester. The most famous name in the middle ages with that appellation is Prester John, showing the wide-spread usage of the word prester to describe clergy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John
"Prester John (Latin: Presbyter Johannes)"

Now, as we get to the early Modern era, we see the word Prester slowly morphing into the word Prest. Priest.

The word priest, and the word presbyter, mean exactly the same thing. When we say that Christ instituted the priesthood in the Church, we mean that he instituted a society of presbyters.

From that very same Wiki article:

 

The presumed 'ontological change' is very much a matter of faith and opinion. Upon exactly what New Testament scripture are you basing your assertion that "there is very much an ontological change"?

If you can actually find none, because 'priests' as now defined by the visible organization and ecclesiastical institution of the Anglican Church, are nowhere to be found in New Testament Holy Writ, then there is a logical conflict with Article XX which clearly states:

XX. Of the Authority of the Church:
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet 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. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Changing the meaning of presbyter as used in the New Testament meaning elder, to mean something different, i.e. priest, (a completely different Greek word not used in the NT for any leader except Christ), as we define it today, is not 'sticking to Holy Writ', it is changing things to suit our own prejudices or the tradition of the Church.

My contention is that a rule of 'male only priesthood, and therefore exclusion of half the worldwide invisible church of Jesus Christ on grounds merely of gender', is being 'decreed'. This 'decree' in effect demands that women are not to be permitted to the priesthood or episcopate for fear that they disrupt the transmission of the blessings of 'Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord' and thus pollute the tradition and spiritual effectiveness of 'The Anglican Church'.

Just to make myself completely clear on this, I am not suggesting that the 'priesthood and episcopate' be abolished simply because it does not appear, as such, in New Testament scripture. Quite the contrary in fact. Clearly 'A priesthood of all believers' is not only spoken of in Holy Writ, it is also endorsed and recommended as a means of 'building up the spiritual security of the people', by encouraging 'good works', which are our acceptable offering to God through Christ.

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Pet.2:4-5.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 1 Pet.2:9-10.

Now: Either we base our understanding of how 'New Testament priesthood' is defined, upon New Testament scripture and our historical understanding of how it operated in the church of The New Testament, and then try to duplicate it,

Or

We base our understanding of how the 'Anglican priesthood' is defined' on Church Tradition alone, going right back through all the filth and pagan corruption of the church, (by Constantine for political purposes), (through the ignorance and excesses of Medieval church history), (to the 'incomplete' Reformation and a much needed but admittedly partial return to New Testament principles of church government).

The Bride of Christ is in no respect perfect yet, she was not even perfect in the Apostolic period of the New Testament. She should be striving to be open to reproof from her Lord and permit her blemishes to be removed by her Bridegroom otherwise she will be found unready to meet him at His wedding feast. Eph.5:27.

Which prompts me to pose the question to male, 'male only priesthood' adherents:

How do you feel about being an unblemished Bride of Christ, married to Jesus in heaven? Rev.21:9.
.

 

The early Church soon changed its presbyters into priests, borrowing much of the significance from pagan religions where priests were holy men who enjoyed a special relationship with God and made sacrifices to him. A priesthood was thus created without any biblical justification, a fact that may have contributed to the priesthood's reluctance to allow people to read the Bible. When people did read the Bible for themselves and failed to find the word sacerdos (priest), only presbyter (elder), they were understandably dubious of the visible church's definition of the priesthood.

Further more the visible church saw fit, (with no scriptural warrant whatever), to add an episcopate and a pope which all became also increasingly corrupt.

So a priesthood modeled upon the Aaronic Old Testament concept does not accord with New Testament Scripture. It is merely a construct of an increasingly corrupt 'visible church' which became so utterly unhinged from New Testament spiritual and governmental principles that The Reformation became necessary and in the case of most of the visible church, is still as yet incomplete.
.

 

This all sounds exactly like the argument the Presbyterians made, the dissenters and schismatics, in abolishing the established order of the Church. It's just not the Anglican way of understanding the nature of the church.

Here Lancelot Andrewes defends the institution of bishop, priest, and deacon, as divinely established from the apostles on. Enjoy. And don't be such a Presbyterian.
https://www.anglican.net/works/lanc...three-epistles-of-peter-moulin-answered-1647/

 

I'm not a Presbyterian, I'm an Anglican who is very interested in seeing Article XX adhered to in respect of New Testament Church government, free from the accretions and 'innovations unsupported by scripture' imposed by successive visible generations of spiritually ignorant, powerful and often even profoundly wicked, male prelates, upon Christ's invisible Church.

I have great respect for Lancelot Andrewes, (in fact I, during the last 64 years have regularly worshiped and served in the very first Church of England church ever built and dedicated. Lancelot Andrewes wrote and officiated at our service of dedication in 1620 and parts of it were incorporated into the Book of Common Prayer, 1662).

Nevertheless, even Lancelot would have to admit that there is no mention of the word sacerdos, (Greek for priest), as a Church leadership position, anywhere in the pages of The New Testament, apart from our one Great High Priest, Jesus Christ himself.

There is far less scriptural evidence to excuse imposing an exclusive male only priesthood, supposedly after the order of Aaron, but actually never instituted by Christ according to scripture, than there is a case for women sharing in the New Testament model of service to the redeemed of Christ our Great High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek, which had no specifically male genealogical line between Melchizedek and Jesus Christ Himself because it is an entirely spiritual lineage. WE are supposed to be an entirely spiritual Church.

Thus it is perfectly possible to envisage a New Testament model of priesthood which unites both men and women in service to the church under the direct headship of Jesus Christ. Which is basically what St Peter is suggesting. 1 Pet.2:5-9. Rev.1:6; 5:10; 20:6.