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

You seem informed enough to to know the Greek, so clearly you also know that priest and bishop are merely the English terms for presbyter/episkopos. Priest comes from the Germanic preost and bishop comes to English via the Latin eposcopus to the British Latin biscopo and finally to the modern English bishop. This is't an argument but rather just an evasion of the obvious. There is no Scriptural authorization for female presbyters/epikopos, or rather, priestesses and bishopesses.

As far as the rest, the correct understanding of church offices has been held to by poor Greeks and Galileans to rich Romans, to poor Englishmen and Frenchmen. It is only in the modern era that in particularly rich and well developed parts of the world that a new "understanding" has arisen. The particular origin of this innovation goes to show how it is not a truly catholic understanding of the Scriptures but is in fact one thoroughly infected with the modern liberal zeitgeist and now is being inflicted on the rest of the Communion through money and power.

 

Q. Is Tiffy speaking anything resembling historical fact about Church offices?
A. No, as usual, it is bereft of historical truth.

Not only are the accusations of a "Constantinian shift" one of the most overblown, nonsensical accusations to come out of the "restorationist" wing of the Radical Reformation, but to pretend that Constantine founds the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons is just historically laughable. One would have to literally believe that Constantine not only corrupted the church but also was the inventor of a time machine to do so before he was ever born.

Clement of Rome

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).


Clement of Alexandria

"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for priests, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere" (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).

"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, priests, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel" (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).

Hippolytus

"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).

@Tiffy,

Perhaps you can explain how Constantine enforced a priesthood (that is an order of presbyters) on the Church before he was ever born?

RE: Semantics

This has been pointed out to you several times so this is clearly futile but priest is literally the local leaders of the Church as it is the modern English word for presbyter, the term found in the NT Scriptures. You are being either obtuse or purposefully obscurantist to avoid the obvious implication of your statements here.

RE: The Articles of Religion

"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. "

What you are suggesting is directly contra to the Scriptures. Not only is this the face value meaning, carried over from the Old Testament, but is confirmed by the fact that the Early Church, from the earliest times until now has held this definition except for a few fringe elements.

 

Constantine merely consolidated what was already going on in the church. He used the church to consolidate His Empire and rule it without dissent. The Church enormously helped him in that enterprise and were suitably lavishly rewarded with temporal gifts and great power, but only the bishops and priests.
.

 

Very long of words, but utterly bereft of any New Testament scripture to support the historical development of priesthood, episcopate or papacy. Papacy was disposed of at the Reformation because there is no scriptural warrant for its existence. An exclusive male only Aaronic style priesthood has no greater scriptural foundation than does the Papacy.

The Anglican priesthood and episcopate should be firmly endorsed by New Testament scripture and the only way that can be demonstrated is by quoting scripture to support it.

Lets have some.

 

To be blunt, there is not a shred of historical proof for your argument that Constantine is the cause of the three-fold ministry. Cite a single historian that says that we would not have bishops-priests-deacons if it weren't for Constantine. Not a single reform or religious policy of Constantine acted to construct this, it is simply how the Church existed after the Apostles, through the persecutions, into the Roman period, medieval period, and to the early modern period. You claim Constantine lavished resources only on bishops, priests and deacons but then cite to me what other church offices existed by the 300s for him to lavish resources on? They didn't exist.

You've already been presented with evidence that the distinction of bishops/priests/deacons existed long before Constantine and just admitted that it "was already going on." There isn't a shred of proof for your Constantinian shift theory which means there were holy orders in the Church and they were clearly restricted, as per Paul's writing.

Especially damning for this is the fact that these holy orders exist early on in branches of the Church outside the Roman Empire; in particular in Armenia, Ethiopia, Nubia and Persia. Perhaps you can explain Constantine's allegedly (and time-constraint defying) pernicious influence on them as well.