Preliminary comments. Priests are for sacrifice. Sacrifice requires priesthood. If you don’t have sacrifice, you don’t need priests. You can have ministers, instead. Ministers are fine, but they aren’t priests.
Second, Anglicans/Episcopalians don’t have priests because they don’t have valid orders. No, they don’t.
Moreover, do Anglican even want to have sacrifice? Isn’t their “Mass”, their “Eucharist”, a memorial of Christ’s Sacrifice, merely? Catholics believe that Mass is an objective Sacrifice, the renewal of the once-for-all time event, rather than its mere commemoration. We had this fight in the 16th century.
They reject the notion of objective sacrifice, an understand of Mass as the unbloody renewal of Christ’s bloody Sacrifice on Calvary as propitiation for our sins. Mass can also be seen as “banquet”, but it is, first and foremost and inextricably Sacrifice.
It seems to me that these women - catholic priest-wannabes too – want to be ordained to the clergy, rather than to the priesthood. They don’t really want to be ordained to the priesthood, properly understood, because – say it with me – priests are principally for … sacrifice. A priest who rejects sacrifice is like a potter who condemns clay, a butcher who nixes knives, a fireman who flees fires. Priesthood detached from sacrifice is an absurdity.
Lastly, even if Episcopalians did have valid orders, women couldn’t receive them. No, they can’t.
Now, I direct your attention to Fishwrap (aka, at least today, the National Episcopalian Reporter) which is celebrating 40 years of Episcopalian women being “ordained” (not) to their “priesthood” (not). The piece as all the right words and phrases: “informal barriers to advancement” … “irregular ordinations” … “brave women deacons and a handful of risk-taking bishops”. It’s a hoot.
Watch especially for the strange use of “ordain”. Ask yourself along the way: “Ordain … to what, exactly?” To ministry, perhaps. There is complete confusion about the concept of “ministry” and “priesthood”. These are NOT the same concept. They article was, by the way, written by a Presbyterian, so this confusion isn’t really a surprise. But let’s admit it: lots of Catholics are confused about priesthood and ministry.
As you read, ask yourself another question: “Why do liberals pretend that women can’t do anything valuable if they don’t say Mass? Are women who give their lives in service to the Church simply losers because they don’t say Mass?” What are we to make of make of this condescending attitude? For example, from the article: “Would I be the energetic Episcopal church lady that my mother had been, content with teaching Sunday school and organizing the food pantry? Or would I have left the church altogether? I don’t really know.” My emphasis.
By the way, note how Fishwrap exalts Episcopalian “Bishop” Katharine Jefferts Schori. They splash a big photo of her.
Is this the same Katherine Jefferts Schori who, as “bishop” in Nevada hired a former Benedictine monk from Collegeville knowing that he was a pedophile? Yes, I believe she is the same. HERE
Have the editors of Fishwrap howled for her chitlins as they have for Bp. Finn’s or Archbp. Nienstedt’s? She did something worse than those real bishops are alleged to have done.
No, she get’s a pass from the Fishwrap. And she is exalted by them. Why is that?