Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!

That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.

Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:

15

"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.

What does "apostle" mean to you? Wouldn't it cover priestly duties? I'm giving evidence of women's ordination in church history, because it was hard to tell whether your argument was against WO generally or against women being priests or just bishops, though it's not quite clear who does what from the NT. The early church father John Chrysostom affirms that Junia was a great female apostle.

https://www.weighted-glory.com/2019/01/john-chrysostom-apostle-junia/

Anyway, I don't think it's a big logical leap to suggest that if female ordination was routinely carried out in the early church, and a female apostle is mentioned by St. Paul and affirmed by an early church father, then a female bishop would not be a departure from historical Christianity. Just because it's uncommon doesn't make it invalid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Anglicans on DCUM?

This is a DC-based site, not a UK-based site.

There are many ACNA churches in the DC area. You can look it up.

ACNA churches are not in communion with the C of E. You can look it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Anglicans on DCUM?

This is a DC-based site, not a UK-based site.

There are many ACNA churches in the DC area. You can look it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!

That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.

Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:

15

"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.

Not PP: Yes, thanks to Pope Benedict who wanted to continue the excuses for excluding women from ministry from beyond the grave bc there are so many celibate men signing up to do the job!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

If you take this literally, as you suggest, that phrase alone would invalidate the entire Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

That is their problem. They constantly reveal their own hypocrisy.

Spoken like a Southern Baptist. Don't worry, we won't tell anyone that you were ever on this thread, or at the liquor store.

But I’m not a Southern Baptist. I’m not even from the South.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!

That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.

Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:

15

"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

You seem to be conflating ordination to the priesthood with ordination as a deacon. Those two are not similar offices, although there may be some overlap in duties. A priest may later be appointed a bishop, but a deacon (whether male or female) is not allowed priestly duties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!

That link seems to upset you a lot, but nobody's overturning church history by quoting Paul's New Testament reference to Junia as an apostle. Ordained women have been a big part of church history, including in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The issue is that most people are ignorant of church history. Church history reveals many different, changing positions and requirements for ordination across the centuries, for both men and women.

Here's another fun Roman Catholic link that will help educate you about church history, from the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon from 451 AD:

15

"No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny..."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

I'm not Church of England, but I'm Anglican. The last Archbishop, Welby, resigned after it was discovered he was covering for child sex abusers, so clearly nobody ever got the "blameless" part of your prooftext correct. A lady archbishop is an obvious improvement. I think if they can't stop protecting child abusers, they should just burn it all down and go home. Same for your church.

I'm no defender of Welby. We agree that he was unqualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

That verse isn't the prooftext you think it is.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-outstanding-among-apostles/

Yes, you are correct. With that one link you have overturned 1950 years of the history of the church universal. Amazing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

If you take this literally, as you suggest, that phrase alone would invalidate the entire Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

That is their problem. They constantly reveal their own hypocrisy.

Spoken like a Southern Baptist. Don't worry, we won't tell anyone that you were ever on this thread, or at the liquor store.

Sounds like you think southern Baptist or hypocrites. What about Catholics?

In English?

ARE hypocrites

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

If you take this literally, as you suggest, that phrase alone would invalidate the entire Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

That is their problem. They constantly reveal their own hypocrisy.

Spoken like a Southern Baptist. Don't worry, we won't tell anyone that you were ever on this thread, or at the liquor store.

Sounds like you think southern Baptist or hypocrites. What about Catholics?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

If you take this literally, as you suggest, that phrase alone would invalidate the entire Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

That is their problem. They constantly reveal their own hypocrisy.

Spoken like a Southern Baptist. Don't worry, we won't tell anyone that you were ever on this thread, or at the liquor store.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...
2000 years...
CofE: We've lost relevancy... I know! Not just lady bishops. Lady archbishops!

If you take this literally, as you suggest, that phrase alone would invalidate the entire Roman Catholic church hierarchy.

That is their problem. They constantly reveal their own hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:The Vicar of Dibley finally got promoted. Huzzah!

Love her.