For the same reasons that RC, EO, and OO/ACoE churches do not accept it: scripture and tradition point only to the ordination of men to holy orders. The official cult of Israel was centered around sacrifices offered by exclusively male priests; the continuation of this worship comes through the New Testament cult of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is, likewise, offered by a male priesthood standing in persona Christi.
A New Testament cult, you say? List for me the the NT references for use of the word for “sacrificing priest” (Gr. hieros) for a minister of the Gospel. I’ve got all the time you need.
Our Lord identifies the bread of the Eucharist with his body and the wine of the Eucharist with his blood. That same body, later in the Gospel narrative, is then sacrificed and the blood spilt on the Cross in fulfillment of the OT sacrifices. We are probably not going to agree here, but the Eucharistic discourse found in John 6 (we should remember that the Gospels are memoirs of the apostles, not biographies; there is a lot of theological reflection in St. John) and the warnings of 1 Cor. 11, to my mind, support the stance that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a re-presentation of Golgotha because the body, blood, soul, and divinity are truly present. We do believe in transubstantiation, which I am sure you reject. In short, we see that the Lord identifies his sacrificed body and blood with the elements, thus the ordained hands which confect it offer sacrifice.
Also, hieros doesn’t mean “sacrificing priest”. If my memory serves, the word was used to refer to the activities of the temple and the temple itself at times.
This brings up an interesting point. Apostolic succession is passed down through Bishops and as St. Augustine says even if the Bishop holds heretical views he is still a bishop and can ordain people as long as he is intending to create another Bishop. I fully agree that WO is a huge problem but if all the men are Bishops, even if some of them hold to the incorrect view that WO is ok they can still ordain valid Bishops and the men they ordain are valid priests. That is at least my understanding of it. But if a women is ordained a priest or Bishop neither are real priests or Bishops.
Absolutely correct. The problem is one of intent and the mixing of female “orders”. I can ask the bishop how he would receive a male Episcopal priest for you and report back if you would like.
I would be more interested in how one would receive a ANCA bishop who ordained women priests but believes only men can be Bishops but anything would be great. I really don't know a whole lot about the PNCC so everything on this thread is new an interesting to me. How do yall differ from regular Catholics?
I can ask him that as well. We differ from RCs in that: -we accept only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church as dogmatic. -we don’t accept papal infallibility or immediate jurisdiction of the pope in every diocese. -we don’t accept the *dogmatization* (not the beliefs themselves) of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. -we don’t accept communion in the hand and believe in receiving in both kinds. -we mostly use a vernacular Tridentine Mass. -parish assets are owned by the parish community, not the diocese. -we follow the Orthodox in their views of contraception and divorce.
Interesting. I do find, from my study of the early church that the Orthodox have the more accurate view of how the church has handled divorce and remarriage
Interestingly, we and the OCA have agreed statements wherein we, quite literally, agree on everything except that we allow married bishops.
There are several problems with this. For one, as an interpretive theory it is antecedently improbable, for the following reasons. The particular scenario of atonement you have described is tantamount to human sacrifice, which is prohibited by divine law in the strongest possible terms. Innocence and guilt are not things that can be transferred; each person's sin is his/her own, and one is restored to a right relationship with God by repentance. (cf. Ezekiel 18). There is a perpetual ban on consuming blood, which applies to Christian Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. Acts 15:19-21). The only theory of atonement I'm aware of that doesn't in some way contradict the Old Testament is the Moral Example/Influence Theory. Jesus' mission was to show us a perfect example of what it means to be a human being, and his death was meant to motivate the repentance that would serve as the proper impetus for us to follow his example. Jesus' command "be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" is the core of the Gospel message. Another problem is that if the NT writers thought of the ministers of the Gospel as sacrificing priests, we would expect those writers to speak of them as such, but this is not what we find. Hieros does not have to refer specifically to the officiant, but does refer broadly to temples (which were places where sacrifices were performed), or their activities (i.e., sacrifices). But if one wanted to refer to one who officiates at a sacrifice, i.e., a priest, hieros is the word one would have used in Greek at that time: The NT never uses this word to describe the activities of a Christian minister; what they are commissioned to do is to teach and to baptize, not to offer sacrifices: I do indeed reject transubstantiation, as has Anglicanism, at least historically. It is also not at all clear from the context that John 6 is referring to the Eucharist at all. The purpose of the Gospel is to teach us to be the perfect human beings we were intended to be. All this talk about substances being transformed and holiness and evil being transferred as though they were physical objects is frankly just premodern, superstitious blood magic, and as such is morally degrading. And I say this as a lay Benedictine who observes the Latin rite Monastic Office, with the approval of my parish priest. One may keep the discipline without taking everything literally.
I would understand if the PNCC said we do not believe in either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What I do not understand is the PNCC saying it believes in both these mysteries but objects to the Roman Catholic Church declaring these beliefs should be believed by Roman Catholics.
I’ve been around the block enough to not get into arguments on the Internet. You are free to believe as you please, obviously, but, as a Catholic, I’m bound to the Tradition which is against what you’ve written here. This was the belief of the Christian Church, East and West, for 1,500 years and there are plenty of interpretive commentaries available for those who are interested. Tradition may not mean a lot to you, but it means a lot to me. This is also why, outside of the G-3, I could never make a good Anglican!
Fair enough (though I'm not the one who raised the issue, let's be clear). I didn't expect to change your mind, and I respect your dedication to (your understanding of) Tradition, even if I happen to disagree with it. I also think it's important to be honest about these differences, and that it is better to do so than to have false unity in the name of ecumenism. That is probably something we could agree on.
I conscious of you replying to another member that you don't get into arguments on the Internet. I'm not looking for one nor am I trying to pose an alternative view. I'm still not sure I understand the PNCC's reason. I could understand the PNCC objecting to, as occasionally happens in the RCC, the pope declaring something new and claiming 'it is the development of doctrine'. Believing Our Lady was immaculately conceived is not an new belief. The pope simply defined it more clearly than hitherto. The same with the Assumption. Whereas I would fully understand any objection to something new introduced by Rome I'm not clear on why the PNCC objects to Rome issuing a document about something the PNCC does believe. As an aside to the above, although you seem to share a lot in common with the EO, the PNCC must have the same beliefs regarding Original Sin as the RCC. The EO has a different approach to original sin and rejects the Immaculate Conception on the grounds it was unnecessary.
Well, to be fair to me as well, I’m only trying, in my limited capacity, to relay the positions of the PNCC. And, yes, I do agree with you on the ecumenism bit.
Thank you. I admire your honesty. Some would try to fudge an explanation even if they didn't understand. I, too, wouldn't be able to explain to you everything about C of E/Anglican theology.
I understand what you’re saying. I do wish to clarify a bit: some Orthodox do believe in the IC, for example St. Gregory Nazianzen’s “pre-purified Virgin”. The point as far as the PNCC goes is that we allow the option for this doctrine to be believed or not to be believed according to the conscience of each believer; we are not a confessional church, but are guided by our bishops in faith and morals and they are guided by the fathers and councils. Just like the Orthodox, very little content is actually dogma. For example, I know priests who believe in purgatory and I know priests who believe in something more akin to the Orthodox middle state doctrines, but we all agree that we should pray for the dead. One final note: please don’t let my limitations paint the PNCC in a bad light; I’m just a simple laymen here to converse with some fine Anglicans. I’ll answer as best I can or find the answer out from our capable clergy.