Alice C. Linsley: Ten Objections to Women Priests

As a woman who served as a priest in the Episcopal Church for 16 years, I have some experience of the nature of the priesthood. In 1982, with the encouragement of my parish clergy, friends and family, it seemed the right course for my life. Over the years, I began to question the rationale for women priests. I remember feeling that I was standing in another's shoes, not appropriately mine. I wanted to explain this to my bishop, but he clearly did not want to hear it.

Galatian 3:28 has been used to justify the innovation of women priests: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." In the fourth century, St. Epiphanius remarked that the heretical Cataphyrgians (Montanists) employed Galatians 3:28 to elevate women as "bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference 'For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.'''

Reading Galatians 3:28 in context, it is apparent that Paul is speaking of the unity of the body of Christ. He is not promoting gender equality as it is framed today. As the Supper was intended to unite the participants to the Head, Jesus Christ, the idea of a woman presiding at the Feast would have been unthinkable.

My doubts made the priestly ministry increasingly burdensome and problematic. As a heterosexual, Bible-believing, Anglican Traditionalist, I found no affirmation in the Episcopal Church as it moved toward a radical revision of the Gospel, setting aside the Apostolic Tradition for its social justice agenda.

Eventually, I renounced orders in the Episcopal Church and left that body. This initiated a decade of reflection on the role of women in the Church and the historic priesthood. During that time, I was in conversation with three former women priests who were seeking clarity also. One entered the Roman Catholic Church and the others entered the Orthodox Church of America. I explored both traditions, but I am thoroughly Anglican and have been for forty-three years.

I have written on the question of women priests, exploring it through Biblical studies, Church history, and cultural anthropology. As with many Anglicans, I believe that the Episcopal Church erred in 1976 when it departed from the all-male priesthood. On a single day the General Convention of the Episcopal Church overthrew catholic orders, rejected the teaching of the Fathers, and denied the authority of Holy Scripture.

Read the rest here.

The Oath and Consecration of the Newly Elected Bishop Methodius

The solemn affirmation of the Orthodox Faith by a newly elected bishop. I don't recall this ceremonial oath before. Perhaps it is unique to the Serbian Church. The English translation is imperfect but you can clearly get the gist of what is being said.

Cardinal Coccopalmerio: Anglican Holy Orders may not be invalid

Sigh. There is so much disturbing news coming out of Rome these days that I am consciously trying to ignore most of it. But I do think this is significant.

Deaconesses: This is Not That

...Orthodox feminists often collapse the office of deacon and deaconess into a single office, referring sometimes to “male and female deacons”, as if the office were identical for both. It is true that Chrysostom referred to “woman deacons”, but he also knew that the two offices were utterly different in kind and function. The feminists pushing hard for the creation of an order of female deacons often emphasize that the rite wherein the candidate was made a deaconess was a true ordination (as opposed to a simple blessing), a true cheirotonia, not a mere cheirothesia, and that it took place at the altar. That is true, but the anachronistic distinction between ordination and blessing hides the profound distinction between the two ordinations, and therefore the office to which the candidate was ordained. That is, both male deacons and female deaconesses were given the ceremonial orar (which was rapidly becoming customary among subdeacons also, indicating that the bestowal of the orar did not indicate sacramental parity between deacon and deaconess), but the deaconess wore it differently than did the deacon. The deacon was given the chalice during his ordination, so that he could help administer it during the Eucharist that followed, while the deaconess immediately returned the chalice, expressing her exclusion from Eucharistic administration. Also, the deacon was ordained while kneeling on his knee, resting his head on the altar, while the deaconess stood and merely inclined her head. Most significantly of all, the prayers of ordination for the two orders were entirely different. These liturgical differences were not merely stylistic; they reveal that the two orders are different in kind.

Read the rest here.

On Anglican Orders

Fr. Hunwicke has written something important on the subject of Anglican Holy Orders. I have made a few, though far less erudite, noises of a similar nature in the past. Read his post here.

P.S. It goes without saying that the Orthodox Church does not recognize Anglican Orders, though for different and somewhat less complicated reasons.

Vatican Radio: Anglicans and Catholics discuss recognition of ministry

Catholic and Anglican theologians have been meeting together near Rome to discuss ordination rites within the two communions, as well as the significant ecumenical implications of Pope Francis’ recent document ‘Amoris Laetitia’.

A meeting of the Malines Conversation group took place from April 17th to 22nd at Rocca di Papa, south of Rome, culminating in an ecumenical evensong celebrated by Archbishop Arthur Roche of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

A communique issued after the encounter said the theologians from seven different countries discussed “contemporary and historic ordination rites” and the developments that have taken place in both communions since Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders to be “null and void”.

To find out more about the conversation and about prospects for progress in the dialogue, Philippa Hitchen spoke to one of the Catholic participants, Fr Tony Currer of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

Read the rest here.

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.
8. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.
5. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.
4. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.
1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.

From blog reader Eric.

Consecration of Bishop Vladimir (Samokhina)

Consecration of Archimandrite Vladimir (Samokhina) Bishop of Skopinsky and Shatsky on the Feast of St. Philaret of Moscow in Christ the Savior Cathedral.

Good Guys Wear Black

An outstanding new website for religious vocations.  Read about it at Byzantine Texas.

Holy Orders

TO SPEAK OF "holy orders" in the Church is of necessity to speak of the Church herself. The Church is a living body, perpetuated through time and space. No living organic being is formless and orderless — and no more so is the Church. It is not within our scope here to provide a detailed history of the growth of order in the Church — a magnificent story of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the first century of the Church’s life. Neither can we here enter into an extended apologetic, citing the extensive writings of the early Fathers of the Church concerning her order and the place of orders within the Body. But it is necessary that we attempt to sketch the form which became quite clear in the Church before the first hundred years of her life had passed, and the place within that order of sacramental ordination.

It was the Apostles’ mission to go forth into the world to preach the Good News, to "teach all nations... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). As this mission was carried out, there came into being many local assemblies of the Church — the faithful in a given place who came together in oneness of spirit with the whole Church to worship and live. The Apostles did not leave these local congregations formless but rather appointed over them elders to lead, teach, serve and preside at the celebrations of the Mysteries — both "episcopos" (bishop) and "presbyteros" (elder/priest) were used to designate these persons. These successors to the Apostles, consecrated by them, clearly stood at the center of life of the local congregations as living links with the Apostles and the other congregations and thereby with Christ Himself. As they neared the ends of their lives and as bishops were needed in other newly-established congregations, they in turn consecrated successors to carry on this living, vital tradition. "Tradition" means "that which is handed on."

The bishops, as they came to be called, were the teachers of the faith, the carriers of Tradition, and the living vessels of the Grace which enables the true celebration of the Holy Mysteries. Wherever true Orthodox Christianity continues to be lived and taught, they continue to fulfil the same function today. While our Lord alone is the head of His Body the Church, the bishop is the head — the center of life and direction — of each local congregation of the Church, usually called a diocese.

It soon became apparent that bishops alone were inadequate to the task of the celebration of the Mysteries and teaching the faith in all the places where these were needed, and there came into being a distinct second order, that of priests, extensions of the bishop, to do his work with and for him. Priests were and are ordained by the bishop. They are given, by laying-on-of-hands, Grace to function as the bishops’ right-hand-men, doing his work (with the exception of ordinations and some blessings reserved to the bishop) in places and at times when the bishop cannot personally serve.

The third principal order of the Church is that of deacons — those appointed to serve. The ordination of the first deacons is recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Their function then and now is to attend to the material works of mercy of the Church and to assist the bishop or priest in the celebration of the Mysteries.

Each of the orders (bishops, priests, deacons) exists for service to the Church — to provide for the whole Church the Holy Mysteries and to serve as a bearer of the Holy Tradition. This function, which is performed on behalf of and as part of the whole people of God, the Church, is one which cannot be arrogantly claimed by an individual but rather must be bestowed upon him by the action of the Church. For any ordination, Orthodox Tradition clearly insists upon the common action of the bishop, who as the vessel of the sacramental Grace must actually perform the ordination, and of the people as a whole, who must either actually elect the candidate, or during the ordination itself ratify his selection by proclaiming him "Axios" — Worthy!

All ordinations have essentially the same form: the laying of the bishop’s hands upon the candidate’s head with an invocation of Divine Grace, the bestowal upon the candidate of the instruments of his office (both the particular vestments to be used and appropriate books), and the proclamation by the bishop, attending clergy, and the people present of his worthiness. The consecration of a bishop is initiated by his election by the whole hierarchy of his Church, continues with his declaration before his fellow bishops of the faith he proclaims, and is confirmed by all the consecrating bishops (at least two or three, as he is consecrated for the whole Church and not just for a single diocese), each of whom places one hand on the new bishop’s head and the other on the open book of the Gospels.

The Holy Spirit is not subject to human constraint, but it is apparent to anyone who has experienced the life of Orthodox Christianity that this very Holy Spirit has provided an orderly manner for the continuation in their midst of the Grace of Pentecost for the people of God. This Grace in the Mysteries provides for true spiritual food and drink, forgiveness of sins, healing, and life for the members of the living Body of Christ. We deceive ourselves if we suppose that apart from this Grace, apart from membership in the Body of Christ, we are assured of life as followers of Christ Jesus and inheritors of the Kingdom of God.

Bishop Alexander (Mileant) ROCOR