Traditionalist Opposition to Women's Ordination

From AnglicanWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Traditionalist opposition to women's ordination is the position, held across Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, that only men may be ordained to the priesthood and episcopate, and — in its strictest form — to the diaconate as well. Traditionalists present male-only ordination as the historic norm of the Church, maintained without break from the apostles until the twentieth century, and women's ordination as a recent innovation. This article sets out the traditionalist case as its proponents state it, with attribution throughout; it does not present contested theology as settled fact in the wiki's own voice. Supporters' replies are summarized briefly at the end.

The case rests on four connected claims: that Scripture reserves ordained ministry to men; that the undivided Church always understood it so; that the priest acts sacramentally in the person of Christ, so that the maleness of the minister belongs to the sign itself; and that the Church therefore lacks authority to change the practice, rather than merely preferring not to. Each claim is taken in turn.

Scriptural arguments

Creation order

Traditionalists begin from the creation narratives. Genesis 1:27 records that God created humanity "male and female," and Genesis 2 describes the formation of Adam before Eve and Eve as helper to Adam. The apostle Paul appeals to this order in 1 Timothy 2:13, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve," immediately after instructing that a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12). Traditionalists read the appeal to creation, rather than to any local circumstance, as showing that Paul's instruction is grounded in the created order and therefore not confined to first-century Ephesus.[1]

Relatedly, traditionalists cite the "household" qualifications for overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 — the overseer as "the husband of one wife," literally a "one-woman man" — as presupposing a male office-holder, and the Ordinal's own lessons for ordination as drawing on the same passages.[2] They also appeal to headship language in Ephesians 5, where the husband's headship of the wife is compared to Christ's headship of the Church, as part of a pattern in which male headship in the home and male priesthood in the Church reflect the same created symbolism.

Christ's choice of male apostles

The second argument concerns the example of Christ himself. Jesus chose twelve men as apostles, and traditionalists argue that the choice was deliberate rather than culturally conditioned. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put the point this way: "Jesus Christ did not call any women to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it."[3] The declaration notes that Jesus conversed publicly with the Samaritan woman, disregarded purity customs for the hemorrhaging woman, received the sinful woman in Simon's house, and pardoned the woman taken in adultery — yet still did not entrust the apostolic charge to women, not even to his own mother, "who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son."[4]

Traditionalists add that the apostles continued the same practice after the resurrection. When the Eleven replaced Judas, Peter's criterion was that the candidate be one of "the men" who had accompanied them, and the two men put forward were Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias (Acts 1:21–23). On the day of Pentecost, although the Spirit filled men and women alike, the proclamation was made by "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14). When the apostles carried the Gospel into the Greco-Roman world, where — the declaration argues — they were willing to break with Mosaic practice and where a movement for the advancement of women existed, they still did not ordain women.[5]

A common reply — that the apostles were also all Jews, yet the Church ordains Gentiles — is answered by traditionalists on the ground that Jewishness was a historical starting point the apostles themselves immediately transcended by ordaining Gentiles, whereas maleness was never transcended in the same way: Gentiles were ordained to the priesthood while women were not.[6]

1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14

The two Pauline prohibitions most often cited are 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man") and 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 (women to "keep silent" in the churches). Traditionalists read these not as a ban on all female speech — Paul elsewhere recognizes women prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5) — but as a ban on the official, authoritative teaching office in the assembly. Inter Insigniores states the reading precisely: "Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly."[7] C. S. Lewis made the same distinction in 1948 between preaching and priesthood: "There were female preachers. One man had four daughters who all 'prophesied,' i.e. preached. There were prophetesses even in Old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses."[8]

Traditionalists also note that Paul grounds the 1 Timothy instruction in creation ("Adam was formed first, then Eve") and in the Fall narrative, which they take as evidence against reading the passage as a temporary concession to Ephesian culture. The cultural-conditioning reading is addressed as a supporters' reply below.

Women in New Testament ministry

Traditionalists do not deny that women exercised important ministry in the New Testament, and their case is weaker if it is presented as though they did. Phoebe is called a servant (diakonos) of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1); Priscilla, with Aquila, instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26); women were the first witnesses of the resurrection and carried the paschal message to the apostles. Inter Insigniores acknowledges all of this and draws the traditionalist conclusion from it: "All these facts manifest within the Apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women."[9] The distinction, for traditionalists, is between the many ministries open to women — teaching in informal settings, prophecy, service, patronage, evangelism — and the ordained apostolic office itself.

The appeal to unbroken tradition

The historical argument is that male-only priesthood was the universal practice of the Church, East and West, from the apostles until the twentieth century, and that this universality itself carries doctrinal weight. Inter Insigniores states: "The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church."[10] The same section adds that "by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles," and that the tradition "has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked."[11]

Traditionalists argue from this that the burden of proof lies on innovation: a practice maintained universally for nearly two millennia, and reaffirmed whenever challenged, should not be overturned by one part of the Church acting alone. Lewis made the ecumenical form of this argument in 1948, warning that establishing "an order of priestesses in our midst" would "cut ourselves off from the Christian past and... widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches."[12] The same concern appears in Anglican traditionalist writing, which treats women's ordination as tearing "the fabric of the Communion" in the words of GAFCON's Kigali Commitment, as quoted by Brashier.[13]

Patristic writers are cited not as proof-texts but as witnesses to the consensus. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood (2:2), wrote that "when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task."[14] Traditionalists acknowledge that some patristic writing reflects the prejudices of its age; Inter Insigniores itself concedes "the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to woman" in the Fathers, while arguing that those prejudices "had hardly any influence" on the Church's practice in this matter, which rested instead on fidelity to Christ's example.[15]

The deaconess question

The existence of deaconesses in the ancient Church is the strongest historical evidence supporters cite, and traditionalists handle it in three ways.

First, they distinguish the office. The ancient deaconess, on the traditionalist reading, was a distinct ministry — serving women in baptism, visiting women, and assisting in contexts inappropriate for male clergy — not the male diaconate, and still less the presbyterate. She did not serve at the altar or consecrate the Eucharist. The Reformed Episcopal Church embodies this reading today: its bishops state that the church has restored "the ancient and Biblical lay Office of Deaconess" as a ministry for women, explicitly distinguished from ordination to the diaconate.[16] See Deaconess.

Second, traditionalists dispute the sacramental status of the ancient rite. Whether deaconesses were "ordained" in the same sense as deacons is genuinely disputed: one reference summary notes that "[t]here is dispute over whether the deaconesses were considered female deacons, or if they were a separate order fulfilling separate duties," while contemporary scholarship has argued that the female deacon was ordained in the altar after the male deacons.[17] The standard traditionalist reference is Aimé Martimort's Deaconesses: An Historical Study (Ignatius Press, 1986), cited by Brashier "for a detailed review on the role of deaconesses."[18] Traditionalists argue that a rite of blessing or setting apart, even with laying on of hands, is not the same as ordination to the diaconate, and that the ancient evidence, at its strongest, concerns the diaconate alone.

Third, traditionalists note that even writers who favor restoring a female diaconate generally exclude the presbyterate and episcopate. The St. Phoebe Center, which works for restoration of the female diaconate in Orthodoxy, states plainly that "ordination of women to the episcopos or presbytery is not part of the Orthodox Christian Tradition, and the St. Phoebe Center does not promote ordination to the priesthood."[19] Within Anglicanism the same distinction has sometimes been observed institutionally: the 1968 Lambeth Conference's Resolution 32 recommended women deacons, while the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops proceeded later and, in the traditionalist telling, without comparable consultation of the wider Communion.[20] For strict traditionalists, however, even the diaconate is male-only: the REC admits only males as postulants for any of the three orders.[21]

Sacramental theology

In persona Christi and natural resemblance

The sacramental argument, developed most fully in Inter Insigniores, is that the priest does not merely perform functions but acts as a sacramental sign of Christ. "The bishop or the priest in the exercise of his ministry does not act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through him." In the Eucharist above all, "the priest... acts not only through the effective power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi, taking the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of consecration."[22]

Because sacraments work through signs, the sign must resemble what it signifies. Quoting Thomas Aquinas, the declaration states: "Sacramental signs represent what they signify by natural resemblance." It continues: "when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man... For Christ himself was and remains a man."[23] The argument is expressly not that men are superior: "This does not stem from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service."[24]

Lewis stated the same point in Anglican terms. A priest, he wrote, "is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us." The difficulty concerns the second direction: "Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him."[25] Lewis insisted that this has nothing to do with capability: "No one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office."[26]

Nuptial imagery

Closely connected is the nuptial, or spousal, imagery of Scripture. From the prophets through the Song of Songs to Paul (Ephesians 5:22–23) and Revelation (19:7, 9), God relates to his people as bridegroom to bride: "Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church his Bride."[27] The priest, standing in the person of Christ the Bridegroom before the Church his Bride, must therefore be male if the sign is to speak truly. Lewis pressed the point with a series of suppositions: to say a woman can represent God as a priest does is, in effect, to say we might as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven," call the Second Person Daughter rather than Son, and reverse the mystical marriage so that the Church were bridegroom and Christ the bride. "All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does," and if carried into effect "we should be embarked on a different religion."[28]

For Lewis the deeper issue is whether sex is spiritually significant at all. "To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant"; but, he argued, "unless 'equal' means 'interchangeable', equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women," and interchangeability "among humans, is a legal fiction... But in church we turn our back on fictions."[29] Traditionalists adopt this as a general principle: equality of dignity does not entail interchangeability of office.

Apostolic succession and validity

Because ordination transmits apostolic authority through the laying on of hands in succession, traditionalists treat a break in the male line as a break in succession itself. The bishop alone possesses the fullness of the apostolic office and ordains; if a woman cannot validly receive priestly ordination, she cannot validly ordain others, and the chain is interrupted. This is why traditionalists describe the issue as one of validity rather than preference, and why the episcopate matters most: even provinces that permit women deacons and presbyters have generally retained a male-only episcopate, and traditionalists argue that a female presbyterate without a female episcopate is incoherent over time, since bishops are drawn from presbyters.

Three positions must be distinguished, as in the companion article on ACNA:

  • Choosing not to ordain women — a diocese or parish simply does not do so, without judging other dioceses' orders.
  • Holding women's ordination impermissible — the Church lacks authority to admit women to the office, so the practice should cease, even where it occurs.
  • Denying that the ordination confers orders — the rite performed for a woman does not make her a priest, so her sacramental acts, above all the consecration of the Eucharist, are not recognized. The REC bishops practice this distinction: "We do not receive Holy Communion where a woman consecrates the elements."[30]

The Roman Catholic Church states the validity claim in canonical form: the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that "a baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly" (canon 1024).[31] Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) declared the underlying doctrine in the strongest terms: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (n. 4).[32] The letter adds that the Blessed Virgin Mary herself "received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood," which "clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them" (n. 3).[33]

Anglican formularies

Anglican traditionalists argue that the Church of England's own formularies — the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal attached to it — presuppose and require male-only orders, and that later prayer-book revision cannot silently overturn them.

The Preface to the Ordinal in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer declares: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." It continues that "no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto" according to the Ordinal.[34] Brashier notes that the Ordinal's rubrics consistently speak of candidates as a "man" of a certain minimum age, of a deacon continuing in office before he may be made priest, and of the bishop-elect addressed as "Brother" — language traditionalists read as substantive, not merely conventional, on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi: as we pray, so we believe.[35]

The Articles are cited to the same effect. Article XXIII provides: "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same."[36] Article XXXVI decrees that those "consecrated or ordered according to the rites" of the Edwardian Ordinal "be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered," which traditionalists take as the Articles' endorsement of the Ordinal's male-only order.[37] Article XX adds the general principle traditionalists invoke against revision: "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."[38]

GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration (2008) is cited by global Anglican traditionalists as restating the same standard: "We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God's Word," "we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer," and "we uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders."[39]

The ecumenical dimension

Traditionalists argue that women's ordination is not a matter on which one province may act alone, because it touches the faith of the whole Church and the possibility of reunion with Rome and Orthodoxy.

The Roman Catholic Church position is stated in Inter Insigniores (1976) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), summarized above: the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination," and "has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women."[40] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed in 2018 that the teaching concerns "a truth belonging to the deposit of faith," and Pope Francis stated in 2016 that on women's ordination "the last word was clearly given by Saint John Paul II, and this remains."[41]

The Orthodox churches likewise do not ordain women to the priesthood or episcopate. Inter Insigniores observed that "[t]he same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity," and that those churches "refuse to associate themselves with requests directed towards securing the accession of women to priestly ordination."[42] A contemporary Orthodox parish statement puts the same position in its own terms: "the Orthodox Church precludes the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. It is a matter of Holy Tradition, as well as a vision of ministry as something not limited to the ordained priesthood."[43] Anglican traditionalists draw the ecumenical conclusion that a province which ordains women places a further obstacle in the way of communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy, since neither communion recognizes such ordinations — a point Lewis already made in 1948 about widening "the divisions between ourselves and other Churches."[44]

Two cautions apply. First, the Roman and Orthodox positions are their own, stated in their own doctrinal terms; Anglican traditionalists cite them as convergent witnesses, not as authorities binding Anglicans. Second, the Orthodox discussion of the female diaconate is live — see the deaconess section above — and should not be collapsed into the priesthood question, on which Orthodox teaching is not in comparable dispute.

Opposition within Anglican provinces

The Church of England

The Church of England voted on November 11, 1992, to admit women to the priesthood. The following year, the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (1993) created Provincial Episcopal Visitors — "flying bishops" — to provide extended pastoral care and sacramental ministry to parishes unable in conscience to accept the ministry of women priests, on the stated principle that "the integrity of differing beliefs and positions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood should be mutually recognised and respected."[45] Forward in Faith, the traditionalist organization formed in this period, welcomed the visitors' appointments as laying "the foundations of a 'permanent and equitable provision'" for traditionalists "unable in conscience to receive the ordination of women as priests or bishops."[46] Traditionalist writers in Forward in Faith's New Directions argued that the Church of England's settlement was provisional and reversible — that the Church had said it was "incompetent to make a judgement" finally, and had proceeded "by making space for those who cannot accept this procedure."[47] The admission of women to the episcopate later renewed the same dispute over provision for traditionalists.

The Anglican Church in North America

In North America, traditionalist opposition is organized principally in the Reformed Episcopal Church and in dioceses such as Fort Worth, within the Anglican Church in North America. The full account — the constitutional settlement, the 2017 College of Bishops statement, the REC pastoral letter, impaired communion, and the question whether the accommodation is provisional — is given in the companion article Dual Integrity and Holy Orders in the Anglican Church in North America, and is not repeated here. In brief: ACNA's Constitution leaves the diaconate and priesthood to diocesan practice while reserving the episcopate to men; the College of Bishops stated in 2017 that women's ordination to the priesthood is "a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order" with "insufficient scriptural warrant" as standard provincial practice, while acknowledging diocesan constitutional authority to ordain women; the REC bishops, maintaining male-only orders in their own canons, explained their continued participation as preserving their jurisdiction and catholic connection while seeking eventual change; and the Diocese of Fort Worth declared itself in impaired communion with dioceses that ordain women.[48]

Supporters' replies

A fair statement of the traditionalist case must record the principal replies made by supporters of women's ordination, who read the same Scriptures and history differently:

  • Galatians 3:28. Supporters argue that "in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women" (Galatians 3:28) speaks to the new creation in which sex does not determine ministry. Traditionalists reply, as Inter Insigniores does, that the passage "does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all."[49]
  • Gifts and calling. Supporters argue that women manifestly exercise gifts of teaching, preaching, and pastoral care, and that a genuine sense of vocation should not be dismissed. Traditionalists reply that capability and vocation are not the issue — Lewis conceded women may be more "God-like" than any given man — and that Inter Insigniores likewise holds that "a vocation cannot be reduced to a mere personal attraction."[50]
  • Cultural conditioning. Supporters argue that 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 address specific first-century situations (disorder in worship, untaught teachers at Ephesus) and that the prohibitions are disciplinary rather than doctrinal. Traditionalists reply that Paul's appeal to creation order, and the Church's universal reception of the passages, mark them as doctrinal, while conceding that genuinely disciplinary prescriptions (such as head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11) have passed away.[51]
  • The diaconate precedent. Supporters argue that the ancient deaconess shows women once held ordained ministry, so the male-only line was never absolute. Traditionalists reply as set out above: the deaconess was a distinct ministry, and in any case the presbyterate and episcopate were never opened to women.[52]
  • Diocesan freedom within a shared confession. Within ACNA, supporters argue that differing hermeneutics are "acceptable within Anglicanism" (in the 2017 statement's own words) and that diocesan freedom is itself the settlement. Bishop Grant LeMarquand and Dr. William G. Witt, writing at the ACNA bishops' request in 2018, argued that "the ordination of godly women as leaders in Christ's church should continue to be authorized in ACNA dioceses that have decided, or may in future decide, in favor of this policy," while bishops and dioceses not convinced "should not be forced to do so."[53] The Diocese of Christ our Hope similarly described the founding flexibility as resting on the shared assumption that all dioceses are "united in unwavering submission to the authority of God's Word."[54]

The disagreement thus turns less on whether women can preach, teach informally, prophesy, or serve — traditionalists affirm that they can and do — than on whether the ordained priesthood, acting in the person of Christ and transmitting apostolic authority, belongs by divine institution to men alone.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores, Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, October 15, 1976, § 4, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html (accessed November 3, 2026). The declaration notes that Paul's prohibition is "bound up with the divine plan of creation" (1 Corinthians 11:7; Genesis 2:18–24).
  2. ↑ The Ven. Andrew Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal," Global Anglican Commentary, supplemental essay on Article 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration, https://commentary.anglican.center/supplement-jd7-womens-ordination-and-the-ordinal/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  3. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 2.
  4. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 2.
  5. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 3.
  6. ↑ This form of the argument is stated in Orthodox apologetic writing; see, e.g., "Ordination of Women," Greek Orthodox parish of Norwich, https://www.greekorthodox-norwich.com/post/ordination-of-women (accessed November 3, 2026).
  7. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 4.
  8. ↑ C. S. Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?" (originally "Notes on the Way," Time and Tide, August 14, 1948; reprinted in God in the Dock), as reproduced at http://files.allsaintsaustin.org/files/Lewis-Priestesses_In_The_Church.pdf (accessed November 3, 2026).
  9. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 3.
  10. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 1.
  11. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 1.
  12. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  13. ↑ Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal."
  14. ↑ John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 2:2, as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal."
  15. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 1.
  16. ↑ Bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church, "A Pastoral Letter 2017," October 2, 2017, https://www.rechurch.org/resources/a-pastoral-letter-2017/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  17. ↑ "Ordination of Women," OrthodoxWiki, revision of September 5, 2014, https://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ordination_of_Women&diff=119631&oldid=18479 (accessed November 3, 2026).
  18. ↑ Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal," n. 1.
  19. ↑ St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess, "Frequently Asked Questions," https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FAQs-Document1.pdf (accessed November 3, 2026).
  20. ↑ Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal," n. 2.
  21. ↑ Reformed Episcopal Church, Constitution and Canons, as adopted 2026 (version 3.9), Canon 7, § 9, https://www.rechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/REC_Constitution_and_Canons-2026.pdf (accessed November 3, 2026).
  22. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 5.
  23. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 5.
  24. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 5.
  25. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  26. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  27. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 5.
  28. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  29. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  30. ↑ REC pastoral letter, 2017.
  31. ↑ Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 1024, Latin and English texts at https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=1024-1052&v=sbs (accessed November 3, 2026).
  32. ↑ John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone, May 22, 1994, nn. 1, 3–4, as reproduced at https://iarccum.org/doc/1110/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  33. ↑ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 3.
  34. ↑ Preface to the Ordinal, Book of Common Prayer (1662), as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal," and in John Wordsworth, "Some Points in the Teaching of the Church of England," https://AnglicanHistory.org/england/jwords/some.html (accessed November 3, 2026).
  35. ↑ Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal."
  36. ↑ Article XXIII, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1571), as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal."
  37. ↑ Article XXXVI, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1571), as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal" (where the quotation appears under discussion of the Articles' endorsement of the Ordinal).
  38. ↑ Article XX, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (1571), as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal."
  39. ↑ Jerusalem Declaration (2008), Articles 4 and 7, as quoted in Brashier, "Women's Ordination and the Ordinal" and in "Equipped by the Historic Episcopate," Anglican Compass, https://anglicancompass.com/equipped-by-the-historic-episcopate/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  40. ↑ Inter Insigniores, Introduction; Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, n. 4.
  41. ↑ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "In response to certain doubts regarding the definitive character of the doctrine of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (May 29, 2018), https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/wss/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ladaria-ferrer/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180529_caratteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html (accessed November 3, 2026).
  42. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 1.
  43. ↑ "Ordination of Women," Greek Orthodox parish of Norwich.
  44. ↑ Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  45. ↑ On the 1992 vote, see "Anglicans backpedal on ordaining women," https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Anglicans+backpedal+on+ordaining+women%3a+new+vote+makes+both+opposing...-a014728315 (accessed November 3, 2026); on the Act of Synod and the visitors, see "New Provincial Episcopal Visitors announced," http://www.churchnewsireland.org/news/irish-uk-news/new-provincial-episcopal-visitors-announced/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  46. ↑ "New Provincial Episcopal Visitors announced," Church News Ireland.
  47. ↑ Bishop Edwin Barnes, "Living in Interesting Times," New Directions (Forward in Faith archive), https://ndarchive.forwardinfaith.com/2017/06/03/living-in-interesting-times/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  48. ↑ College of Bishops, "A Statement from the College of Bishops on the Ordination of Women," September 7, 2017, https://anglicanchurch.net/college-of-bishops-statement-on-the-ordination-of-women/ (accessed November 3, 2026); REC pastoral letter, 2017; Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, resolution of June 4, 2024, https://northamanglican.com/calling-for-full-communion-within-the-anglican-church-in-north-america/ (accessed November 3, 2026). Full treatment: Dual Integrity and Holy Orders in the Anglican Church in North America.
  49. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 6.
  50. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 6; Lewis, "Priestesses in the Church?"
  51. ↑ Inter Insigniores, § 4.
  52. ↑ See the deaconess section above; St. Phoebe Center FAQ.
  53. ↑ Grant LeMarquand and William G. Witt, "A Biblical and Theological Defense of the Case for Allowing Women to Continue to be Ordained as Presbyters in the Anglican Church of North America" (written August 2018 at the bishops' request; later published), as reproduced at https://willgwitt.org/theology/women-in-holy-orders/comment-page-1/ (accessed November 3, 2026).
  54. ↑ Diocese of Christ our Hope, "The Ministry of Women in the Church and the Ordination of Women as Deacons in the Diocese of Christ our Hope," September 23, 2017, https://caef817244d5f21ecddb-92c76cb1053f4e9ea0aba27a90d8d1b2.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploaded/m/0e11299713_1608058543_minstry-of-women.pdf (accessed November 3, 2026).
Retrieved from "https://www.anglicanwiki.org/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Opposition_to_Women%27s_Ordination&oldid=5831"