Recently, in response to our report that the ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) is still "ordaining" women, I received an email from someone, and we received comments from someone else, critical of the position taken last year by Archbishop Haverland, in response to the invitation to attend the opening event of the ACNA. It seems as if each time the ACC position is restated, the restatement is a surprise, and that some individuals react quite negatively. I think it has yet to become clear that the issue of women's "ordination" is based on an unchanging doctrine that is clear from Divine revelation. The Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church simply have no place either for the practice, or for communion with those who practice it. Stands that are taken about this issue are matters of principle, and they do not change. If you accept the fact that our position will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday, and will remain the same until the Lord comes again, you will not get upset so easily. I am sure that Bp. Robinson, of the UECNA (United Episcopal Church North America), is as firm about this as the ACC bishops, and his fellow bloggers on The Continuum.
It was relevant, also, that the Plano, Texas parish where the newest ACNA priestess will be "ordained" is the same one that produced the paper that Rev. Canon John Hollister so aptly criticized in his apologetics last year. We did not run that critique in order to attack that one parish, but in order to teach our regular readers, as well as to make apologetics on the question available far and wide. For the first time in more than thirty years, the defenders of Women's "Ordination" (W "O") had come up with a slightly different spin, something just different enough to require a response. The argument was not really new, but the spin was just new enough to fool people, as, apparently, it fooled the writers themselves. The Plano parish in question was part of the AMiA (Anglican Mission in America) when the paper was produced last year. Now, they are part of the ACNA. This indicates that supporters of W"O" will make decisions on the basis of this one issue, and more specifically to the non-Order of priestess, even though they regard us as "separatists" for seeing W "O" as a communion breaker (folks at Stand Firm, please note that the word is priestess, spelled p-r-i-e-s-t-e-s-s. Yes it is not nice and has pagan implications-which happens to be the point we mean to make).
Also, for you Anglicanorum Coetibus watchers, Rome has been saying less and less, appearing to back away from the spotlight when it comes to this new constitution of theirs. Certain possible reasons include:
1. Rome doesn't dig the crazy spin Hepworth & co. have been giving their constitution (remember, their work was a list of rules and procedures for converting, while TAC spin was a fairytale about the fulfillment of all Anglo-Papalist dreams).
2. Rome found out that the magic number of 400,000 was arrived at by multiplication- not multiplication of members by evangelism, nor even of children by energetic TAC couples, just multiplication, as in math.
3. Rome has no special deals or offers, and resents the implication that their deal is not good enough (you know, that perfect heaven on earth deal that is everything anyone can hope for, but that needs to be amended drastically before it is good enough).
For your edification below, see Fr. Nalls' latest contribution.