Speaking of the Episcopalians, does anyone know how they legitimize having a femal primate? I was just wondering.....

PP

The only thing I can think of, which may be close, is the mention by St. Paul of a greeting to a female deacon. There were female deacons at one point in the Church. I guess they figured that the goal of a deacon is often to become a priest, which led them to... Not saying they're right. Just that we did use to have at least some women deacons.

Deacon is one thing, but putting her as a bishop is something totally different. Thats like saying a guy that made St. Peter some falafel should be a saint because he kept the apostole alive.....

The argument I've seen from some Episcopalians seems to be a reaction against the medieval philosophical idea that women are just defective men (which bars them from the priesthood). They argue that if there is really one human nature, then all humans should be able to partake of priesthood. I don't know if I've seen a very developed counterargument to this point, but I find sufficient Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann's argument that it is not part of our tradition to ordain women as priests and that the church should not jump on every social bandwagon it encounters. It is an innovation which has no place in Orthodoxy, no matter how well it might be justified by the heterodox.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 07:48:11 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Well, on the one hand, some of this alphabet soup is getting cleaned up. The REC is now part of ACNA, and let me tell you, if women priests are an issue there, seeing the heirs of Bishop Cummins under the same roof as Bishop of Forth Worth is at least as strange. TAC is mostly disappearing into the ordinariate. I get the impression that the CEC is headed more into being yet another pentecostal group.

The flip side of this is that a lot of the continuers are extremely shy of church structure. I remember visiting Holy Cross Linthicum in the days before they bought their building, and encountering a group of visiting continuing clergy at coffee hour. One of them, a deacon from I don't recall which group, said flat out that they were completely uninterested in any kind of union among their various groups, because that was after all how ECUSA had made such a mess of their own house.

The final thing to consider is that the Three Catholic Dioceses managed to survive in ECUSA for thirty years after official ordination of women began. It may seem bizarre that Anglicans are willing to and indeed work around such difficult theological differences, but that's what we are.

Yes, I remember at the time being pleasantly surprised and encouraged to hear the REC was in talks with what would become the ACNA. Had Jefferts-Schori's antics not gotten me into studying the canons from the Apostolic Constitution through Ecumenical Councils (google being a dangerous research partner if you don't want to go chasing rabbit trails!) Metropolitan JONAH's words might not have had quite the impact on me they did and I might still be a Broad-High Church Anglican today.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

The Episcopal Church was actually founded by Scots so its more like the English Church in Scotland in America.

Um, no. Seabury, Claggett, and the various other early bishops were, um, Americans. The non-Jurors were used to light off the succession but I believe the only one they were the only participants in was Seabury's; after that parliament took away the loyalty oath requirement and English bishops participated in the next several rounds of consecrations (from Claggett on there were enough American bishops to do the job themselves).

The Episcopal Church was actually founded by Scots so its more like the English Church in Scotland in America.

Um, no. Seabury, Claggett, and the various other early bishops were, um, Americans. The non-Jurors were used to light off the succession but I believe the only one they were the only participants in was Seabury's; after that parliament took away the loyalty oath requirement and English bishops participated in the next several rounds of consecrations (from Claggett on there were enough American bishops to do the job themselves).

Someone might want to tell the Episcopalians because when they explain why they are Episcopalian and not Anglican that is what all of them say.

You're Episcopalian? Ok. It doesn't change that other Episcopalians do say that stuff all the time (I've personally heard it about 50 times from different people). It was even on the ECUSA website the last time I looked at it.

The non-jurors were Scottish, but they have no successional connection to the the current Scottish Episcopal Church; and the only American bishop they consecrated was Seabury, and no other consecration depends upon his. Indeed, Claggett had four consecrators because Provoost objected to the non-juror consecration.

Seabury is generally held to be responsible for the inclusion of an epiklesis in the American rite, as was used in the non-juror rites. That, however, is about the extent of the Scottish influence other than on the church flag; the rite into which the epiklesis was inserted looks like the 1662 rite and not the non-juror.