The RECUSA's relations with Canterbury

ICTHUS · 09-19-2004, 05:00 PM

What is the relationship with the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States of America with the See of Canterbury? Are they part of the Anglican communion?

Honestly, I'm investigating membership in a conservative Anglican parish. My main issues are;

1. The ordination of women
2. The required adherence to the Thirty-nine Articles (I.E. they don't require it)

The latter issue is something I could fight for once within the Church, and to win my fellow Christians to the truth of the Reformed faith, but the former issue is something I would have to deal with immediately. I could not, in good conscience, receive Holy Communion 'consecrated' by a woman 'priest'. I am not a misogynist, I simply do not believe that the ordination of women to the priesthood is Biblical.

I don't even think there is a REC church in Canada..

Anyway, Im just ranting. But my question still stands.

**Ridley's Own** · 09-21-2004, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

What is the relationship with the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States of America with the See of Canterbury? Are they part of the Anglican communion?

REC is not in communion with Canterbury, so they are not in the Anglican Communion. As of the time of writing, ECUSA is the only recognized Anglican province for the U.S.

Quote:

1. The ordination of women

I e-mailed you on this subject.

Quote:

2. The required adherence to the Thirty-nine Articles (I.E. they don't require it)

The AoR aren't confessional documents; they have never been in the U.S., and, arguably, weren't intended to be by Cramner. I'm not sure what the sticking point is here.

Quote:

The latter issue is something I could fight for once within the Church, and to win my fellow Christians to the truth of the Reformed faith,

I think it is important to remember that while Anglicanism has always had capital-R Reformed theology amongst it, the AoR are deliberately ambiguous on this subject. It is possible to be a 5-pointer and be Anglican (lots of Edwardian bishops were), but it isn't required by the AoR. And REC is, from what I understand, becoming more 'c'atholic than it has been in the past.

Quote:

but the former issue is something I would have to deal with immediately. I could not, in good conscience, receive Holy Communion 'consecrated' by a woman 'priest'. I am not a misogynist, I simply do not believe that the ordination of women to the priesthood is Biblical.

I think I answered this in the e-mail to you. Let me know if you need anything else.

Quote:

I don't even think there is a REC church in Canada..

I would be certain that there are 'continuing' churches in Canada, but they tend to be more Anglo-Catholic both in terms of theology and liturgy.

Anyway, Im just ranting. But my question still stands.[/QUOTE]

ICTHUS · 09-21-2004, 06:30 PM

Hey Isaac! Good to see you back!

I haven't yet received your email. Are you sure you sent it to here?

**Ridley's Own** · 09-22-2004, 09:08 AM

I'm not back so much as I am relapsing.

I e-mailed it to the CGR e-mail. Essentially, it was Aaron's argument on women's ord. in the theology forum, plus an argument addressing the sacramental problem Roman Catholics tend to emphasize.

ICTHUS · 09-22-2004, 09:33 AM

You mean the email I provide in my profile? i_am_n0t_my_own@hotmail.com

**Ridley's Own** · 09-23-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

You mean the email I provide in my profile? i_am_n0t_my_own@hotmail.com

No. The e-mail I get when I click your name and select "Send an Email."

ICTHUS · 09-23-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

No. The e-mail I get when I click your name and select "Send an Email."

Hmmm..I dont know. I never got it. Did you save it?

**Ridley's Own** · 09-24-2004, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Hmmm..I dont know. I never got it. Did you save it?

No, but here goes anyway.

What are the 4 conditions of validity for a sacrament? Form, Matter, Minister and Intention. Of those three, the only one that affect women is 'matter.' What is the sacramental or ontological difference betwixt a man and a woman? Galatians seems to indicate that there isn't any (in Christ there is no male or female, etc.), unless you're willing to begin defining someone's 'sacramental' substance by their anatomy. Every other sacrament is administered the same way regardless of gender, because there is no sacramental difference between a male and a female. If there is no difference in that regard, then it would follow that a women ordained to the diaconate/presbyterate/episcopacy can be validly ordained and admitted to Holy Orders provided the other conditions are met.

Moreover, the 3 conditions do not 'make' a sacrament efficacious; God makes them efficacious and the 3 conditions are external signs that, as far as we're concerned, everything is A-O.K. So even if being female is considered to be a defect of matter, that doesn't preclude God from actually making her a priest.

**Ted Logan** · 09-24-2004, 10:18 AM

Isaac, you are teh awesome.

ICTHUS · 09-26-2004, 11:08 AM

Isaac, I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts on Rome's telling Canterbury that none of her ordinations are valid.

**Ridley's Own** · 09-27-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Isaac, I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts on Rome's telling Canterbury that none of her ordinations are valid.

I would read Saepius Officip, the Abps. of York and Canterbury's response to Apostolicae Curae.

ICTHUS · 09-30-2004, 08:33 PM

Thanks Isaac, I printed off Saepius Officio and I'm slowly reading through it now.

Mathaytace ><> · 10-04-2004, 03:44 PM

Sorry for the lateness.

As you know, I am actually a confirmed member of the REC.

1. We do not ordain women, we never have, and we hopefully never will.

2. No, the AOR are not required of its laypeople. And from what I understand from talking to my priest (I may have this wrong) the Clergy are allowed to have personal differences with the articles, they are just not allowed to teach against them.

Yes, the Rec is becoming more catholic in its practice and Theology. (which is good in my opinion.)

chaiyah · 10-18-2004, 05:41 PM

I note that the overall perspective of Jesus ["Yeshua"] and that of the apostle Paul differ widely on many issues: subjection to authorities [relative or absolute], family and parish unity [or lack of same], women's place [active or passive], articulation of "mysteries" [which Jesus never brought up at all], and the development of clergy/laity distinctions [as in the epistles to Timothy].

It is due to these differences in perspective, intentions and behavior that I cannot accept Paul's writings out of hand, as if his contradictions vis a vis the Christ are to be swallowed WHOLE.

For that reason, I must reserve judgment on the matter of women as priests. What we do know is that it is written, that "the young women will prophesy." It's hard to prophesy when a woman has been told and is expected to remain silent.

But, on the matter of homosexual priests, that is a horse of a different color. It's not unlawful to be a woman; but it's very unlawful to reject the physical gender with which God has endowed us with gifts.

While it is true, many people are temperamentally androgynous, that does not mean they must reject their physical attributes in order to pursue family life.

I know many gentle men with strong wives and they have good families too.

God is not stupid nor ignorant. He knows how to build families out of individuals with individual temperaments.

When God says homosexuality doesn't produce any good effects worth keeping, then maybe we all better listen. I'll opt for Law over Fashion any day.

: ) Chai