www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Vatican: Anglicans must choose - Protestantism or tradition

This is especially problematic with people who wrongly believe that there have ALWAYS been "High Church Anglo-Catholics" in the Church of England. Today's Anglo-Catholics go back no further (at the very best, and always as a minority at that) than the 1820s. During the Oxford movement, fiddlebacks, ad orientum liturgy, talk of "7 sacraments" and the like started to be re-introduced into this minority subset of communities. The first Anglican bishops to wear mitres in centuries started doing so in 1908!

There is no "Golden thread" of a community that goes back to the Reformation. This is a later construct. And the "comprehensiveness" of Anglicanism does NOT show a "spirit of Anglicanism" it shows a series of disagreements allowed by a government that wanted to do its best to maintain its hegemony.

Memo

You have confused me

You said

It has always been my understanding that the Diaconate is part of Major Orders - yes ?

In that case I understand that only males can be ordained to Major Orders.

Hi,

I do not know about other Communions, but the Catholic Church has reserved to males only priestly ordination.

The Diaconate, while one of the Major Orders, is not an ordination to the priesthood or to a priestly ministry, but rather to a ministry of service.

The official answer from the Catholic Church about ordaining women to the diaconate is: We do not have an answer yet.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo,

Can you please post anything official stating "we do not have an answer yet"?

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

It may be that the question of what exactly was the role and position of the ancient order of deaconness comes into play in this answer. Some sources I've read rank the deaconness with the order of subdeacon that was suppressed after Vatican II. That would make it a bit awkward to restore that order since the question then would become why institute an order whose male counterpart has been suppressed. Other sources rank the deaconness with the order of deacon itself. Overall, however, it doesn't seem as if the order of deaconness was used all that much in the West and probably was discontinued long before it was in the East. Today it seems to me that the only reason calls have been made to have the order of deaconness restored springs from the same sources that have called for feminist language in Scripture and liturgical translations.

In Christ,

BOB

It is not true that the Catholic Church has reserved only the Priestly ordination to males. To be precise, priestly ordination is part of Holy Orders. The Catholic Church has reserved the Holy Orders to be conferred only to baptized males.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that Diaconate is part of Holy Orders and is reserved to males.

1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

1598 The Church confers the sacrament of Holy Orders only on baptized men (viri), whose suitability for the exercise of the ministry has been duly recognized. Church authority alone has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.


There were several posts regarding history and role of deaconess in this forum already. From those posts I read, and from position of Orthodox churches which still have this order, the function of deaconess is liturgically different from that of a deacon.

I read more about the order of deaconess of the Coptic Church. They are consecrated to live and to serve like religious sisters in the Latin Church. Thus in the Latin church, we do have a bunch of deaconess already, although the term is now not used anymore in the Latin church.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/479/spec1.htm

And from this publication, I found this quote:
"The Coptic Holy Synod has made it clear that deaconesses may not in any way participate in service of the altar or sacerdotal service."

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-133.shtml


Why I brought up the Coptic Deaconess as an example? Just to show that in Church tradition where the order of deaconess still exists, a deaconess is not a woman deacon.

�WEARING OF THE GREEN�.
X. B!
C. I. X!
What an analyzetion! High Church, Middle Church, Low Church and remembering it is a Church. �We saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name�� (Mark 9:38). All Churches are not brick and mortar but people. If only we could analyze ourselves so objectively.

The Catholic Church does not use the term "Church" to describe them. They are fellowships or communions but not the Church.
Stephanos I

So WWJD in Mark 9:38?

Since when have the majority of Anglicans (certainly not all) been interested in casting out demons? I thought they were more interested in inviting them in, publishing their books and sponsoring them as keynotes at their conferences!

WWJD? Cleanse the temple, my friend. Cleanse the temple.

Gordo

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

Easy there. Charity is being roughed up a bit. Remember that there are sincere Christians in this Communion who are as frustrated as some of us are at liturgical abuses and the RDL. Remember that many have been born into this Communion and would no more move to another expression of Christianity than many who occupy our Churches.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

I agree and am sypathetic with those "orthodox minded" Anglicans who also want to have their temples cleansed.

I do think there is a need to speak clearly, though, about the influences within global Anglicanism. Particularly within the American Episcopal church, there is a decidedly demonic tone.

Anglicans must decide which spirit they will choose to follow: the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ or the demons and the voices of the "spirit of the age." Of course, such a choice is given to every man. But for the body of Global Anglicanism, the time for a corporate and public decision is now, which is what I believe Cardinal Casper was saying.

Apologies for any offense to charity with my attempt at wry sarcasm above. My hope is that the African churches prevail in upholding what constitutes a far more apostolic form of Christianity than that touted by the likes of a Spong, a Jefforts-Shori or a Robinson.

In ICXC,

Gordo

The Anglican Church is a most beautiful tradition of Christianity, and I am very sorry for what it is embracing in this country--in the name of Christ's love. However, contemplating upon the reasons for its birth, it is no surprise that after all these centuries, the subject of sex has once again become a theme and a woe to it internally.

I am presently watching the second season of 'The Tudors' on Showtime-- it is a very accurate and most beautifully done series...(save perhaps for the most unnecessary sex scenes which they felt they needed to attract the young audience) ...and everything of the period is portrayed in depth, accuracy and detail, without anyone's commentary on any one subject interjected into it as is often done in modern day depictions of historical episodes...The Roman Catholic faith is shown in all its glory, youthful lusts in all their passion, intrigue in all its deception, martyrdom (St. John Moore for example) in all its nobility.

I am sadly coming to see how the birth of the Anglican church was not only wrong in the desire for remarriage on the part of Henry VIII due to his great lusts, but also in the sacking and pillaging of RC monasteries, and in the forced confessions all his subjects needed to make breaking allegiance to the Catholic Church and accepting him as the supreme ruler of the church in England.

It is very sad, because he was an extremely faithful subject to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning of his reign, and for a while was positively influenced by the integrity of St. Thomas Moore. It seems that very little of what happened in England had to do with the Reformers, only in that their movement was most opportune at the period in time, for King Henry to go ahead with excommunicating himself from the church in order to rationalize his lustful desires...(Granted that the life in European courts, and the power of being a supreme ruler was not condusive to a life of sexual fidelity, but atleast other Kings had the good sense not to desire their mistresses to become their new queens 'du jour'!)

So, this brings me to the subject of the title of this thread. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for the Anglican church to come under some type communion with its true Mother church, the Roman Catholic Church, once again and to reject the blatant and open immoral acts of past secular leaders and present religious leaders who rationalize them in the name of Christian love and compassion.

Alice

It is certainly time for something to happen

BUT there are some very difficult problems to overcome not least of which is the Ordination of women.

If the Anglican Communion does return to Rome - what happens to these women ?

Is it really possible to turn round and say - ' Sorry , you are not Deacons / Priests after all, we thought you were , you thought you were , but we were all wrong ' .

GORDO:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

No offense given; just IMHO skating a bit close to the edge of being uncharitable.

From my own study of Anglicanism, it seems to me that the very core of its being would prevent it from moving to Rome as it is constructed. Anglicanism seems to me to have at its core the idea of being the comprehensive bridge between Rome and Protestantism. That is, its very attempt to bring all under its tent without being judgmental is part of what makes it what it is.

This becomes clearer when one attends an Anglican Communion Service and all baptised Christians are invited to partake without regard for their particular beliefs, theological stances, practices, or whatever. One can be Orthodox or fundamentalist or any stripe in between and be welcomed. And that seems to be something so fundamental to Anglicanism that I believe it could not make a clear decision for one or another stance without striking at its own core. That is how it is able to have High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, and Anglo-Catholic groups all under its tent and still stick together. In my own experience growing up there was an Anglo-Catholic parish in my hometown that was ritually as Catholic as we were pre-Vatican II. In the very next town was a Low Church parish that was close to being Lutheran in practice.

Gordo, may I also suggest that you edit your thread title and make "tradition" with a capital to distinguish it from custom?

In Christ,

BOB