Anglican

The answer of the question is dependent on the definition of the expression 'Anglican church'. Does the term refer to organisations, schisms, a particular ethos of doctrine and spirituality, or use of the particular word Anglican itself? The four alternative questions generates four very different answers.

Some of the organisations (provinces, churches, denominations), later called 'Anglican', emerged, due to the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire and beyond, in the 3'd, 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, but they did not call themselves 'Anglican' then. The Archbishopric of York existed in pre-Saxon times, the Archbishopric of Amargh was founded in the middle of the 5th century, and the Archbishopric of Canterbury in 597 AD. They were all in communion with the Holy See, and not, at the time, a separate Communion, but these three archbishops led three distinct ecclesiastical provinces in the insular westernmost Europe - the same organisational units that declared themselves independent 1000 or 900 years later.

The three 'Mother Churches', of what became the Anglican Communion in 1867, are Church of England, Church of Ireland and Scottish Episcopal Church. The first two of them became independent of the Holy See in 1534 and 1536, respectively, and the right to appoint (but not consecrate) bishops was claimed by Henry VIII (Simultanously King of England and King of Ireland). King Henry had two reasons in particular: He wanted ecclesiastical authorities to annul his marriage (and found an archbishop appointed by himself, Thomas Cranmer, to be more compliant than the Pope); Furthermore, by financial reasons he wanted to transfer ownership of some church estate to the Crown. At the time, however, neither the particular ethos, later called 'Anglicanism', neither the word itself existed. Between 1534 and 1549 worship in latin, as well as mandatory clerical celibacy and the doctrine of transsubstantiation was retained.

Between the years 1549 and 1662 extremely different visions, of what the predominant Christian church in England ought to be, competed with each other. When the dust settled, the result was an episcopally led church (which re-ordained ministers lacking a bishop's ordination), regulated by a Canon Law, adhering to three Creeds inherited from the early Church, celebrating two sacraments 'of the Gospel' and five 'commonly called Sacraments', celebrating - at least as an ideal - daily Morning and Evening Prayer, reading Scripture (both canonical and apocryphal/deutero-canonical) in the vernacular, holding the early Church Fathers in high regard, viewing 'the Body and Blood of Christ, verily and indeed taken' as the 'inward spiritual grace' of Holy Communion (but avoiding the quarreling detailed eucharistic theologies of the mainland European churches), wary of iconoclasm and suspicious of attempts to make any particular doctrinal system from mainland Europe mandatory. An Arminian view on grace was commonly held after 1660, but not exclusively. If a particular Anglican ethos is requested, it had finally emerged in 1662, at least in England and Ireland. In Scotland, which had a quite different development, the dust didn't settle until 1689, with a different outcome: the Scottish Episcopal Church became an independent Anglican minority church, while the majority of the population adhered to Presbyterianism.

When it comes to the word 'Anglican', no-one called themselves so before the 1800's. Since Church of England didn't behave and teach like Huguenots, Roman Catholics in France began to call the life and teachings of Church of England Anglicanisme, but the Anglicans themselves didn't borrow the word into the English language until the early 1800's. It was in common currency in the 1830's or so.

Because they are not supposed to hold positions of power.

Anglican Catholic View!

It is all mixed up! I left the Canterbury Communion in 1994 at the time of Women's Ordination. The problem isn't women, they run most parishes! For me and my Church, it is a matter of Holy Tradition. For some two thousand years we have never had women priests or,'priestesses'. AS far as we can tell, Our Lord, who was quite progressive in His dealings with both men and women didn't have women apostles or elders. The early church seems to have done without them and there's no reference in scripture! In view of the ',hurrah', raised by the spectre of Women in orders amongst both Orthodox and Romanists, it would perhaps have been better for wider discussions amongst the Catholics of all three jurisdictions.

Regarding the above answer, the answerer commented that it was 'his' church - but as we know it is GOD's Church. During extensive discussions on women's priesthood at parish lever, deanery, diocesan and general synod level and right across the Anglican church worldwide, the Holy Spirit was invoked at every opportunity to guide and bless decisions made. Those who led discussions bent over backwards to discern that it was not theirwill that prevailed, but what GOD wanted for the Church. The result was the ordination of women. Sadly there were those who would not accept this, and who fought against the preceived will of God, and left the Church as a result.

There is absolutely NO reason, historical, scriptural or theological why women cannot be priests or bishops. Contrary to the above answer, women played an VERY important role in the early Church as leaders and ministers. In fact, in Priscilla, Lydia and others, many women were Church leaders in the early Church and presided at the Eucharist - a priestly function. The role of these women is clearly described in the Book of Acts, and other female Church leaders are mentioned by name in greetings by Paul in his letters. The Fratio Panis - a fresco of a Eucharist found in the Rome Catacombs and dating from the early Church confirms a Eucharist taking place where the president is (if you take into account her hairstyle and ample bosom) clearly a woman.

Even Paul - often accused unfairly of being misogynistic - declared in his letter to the Galatians that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus". A pity that some want to go against Paul's teaching and add....."er yes.... but that doesnt apply to the priesthood!".

To suggest, as the answerer does above, that Jesus somehow dismissed women is misogynistic in the extreme. Jesus had women round him all the time. He taught Mary, the sister of Martha, Kingdom values. He spoke not only to women (a social taboo) but also to foreign women of a race hated by Jews (eg the Samaritan woman at the well). He even appeared after the resurrection first to a woman (Mary Magdalene) and not to a man!

So, the Anglican Church has had women clergy for well over a decade, and is at last dragging itself into the 21st century. Sadly there are those who will still maintain it should keep 'traditional values' (and let's not forget that in the 18th Century, the 'traditional' values of the Church even supported slavery) and will not be content until the Church dies a death that it would so richly deserve unless it embraced the fact that all humanity is equal - women and men - and all have a place in serving God in the role of a priest - or a bishop.

Clement