| Saint Peter's Anglican Church Diocese of the Holy Cross, FiF/UK 15700 Highway 290/Beltway 8, Jersey Village TX 77040 713/937-1061(church); 281/550-8302 (rectory); 713/725-1460 (fax) Church Mail: ℅ 8807 Aberdeen Oaks Drive, Houston, TX 77095 Bishop S. Patrick Murphy (e-mail); bishopmurphy@sbcglobal.net |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Welcome to our Web page. A MESSAGE FROM BISHOP MURPHY, SSC |
The Episcopal Church in the U. S. A., and the whole Anglican
Communion worldwide,-has gone through great shock waves
since 1976 , The great cataclysm that separated the Episcopal
church from the Catholic Faith and turned it into a Gnostic
sect was the ordination of women in 1976.
The issues are all part of one larger issue, the false attempt
to re-define human nature apart from Christ . The latest of
these was the recent election in New Hampshire of a
practicing homosexual to the Episcopate. The church has to
deal with the interrelationship between homosexuality, the
ordination of women, use of inclusive or gender neutral
language, the divorce culture, abortion, and euthanasia.
To accept any one of these issues is to accept them all. The
mind of Christ is clear on them all, Holy Scripture, 2000+ years
of Tradition recall us to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
St. Peter’s is part of a conservative Bible centered, tradition
bound group We welcome you to help keep alive the Blessed
Faith of Jesus Christ in all its fullest, as we have received it
from the ancient Church of England.
________________________________________________________
Communion worldwide,-has gone through great shock waves
since 1976 , The great cataclysm that separated the Episcopal
church from the Catholic Faith and turned it into a Gnostic
sect was the ordination of women in 1976.
The issues are all part of one larger issue, the false attempt
to re-define human nature apart from Christ . The latest of
these was the recent election in New Hampshire of a
practicing homosexual to the Episcopate. The church has to
deal with the interrelationship between homosexuality, the
ordination of women, use of inclusive or gender neutral
language, the divorce culture, abortion, and euthanasia.
To accept any one of these issues is to accept them all. The
mind of Christ is clear on them all, Holy Scripture, 2000+ years
of Tradition recall us to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
St. Peter’s is part of a conservative Bible centered, tradition
bound group We welcome you to help keep alive the Blessed
Faith of Jesus Christ in all its fullest, as we have received it
from the ancient Church of England.
________________________________________________________
After thirteen years at the Post Oak YMCA, our first service at this
location was the celebration of Christmas eve Mass December 24,
2003.
St. Peter's is a registered/affiliated parish of Forward In Faith
which is an ever growing group of parishes that are going
Forward In Faith.
location was the celebration of Christmas eve Mass December 24,
2003.
St. Peter's is a registered/affiliated parish of Forward In Faith
which is an ever growing group of parishes that are going
Forward In Faith.
WHY MALE HEADSHIP CANNOT BE ABOLISHED
APOLOGISTS for the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops are
accustomed to draw historical parallels with certain other great changes
of practice which the Church has made or supported, or at least
assented to, in the past. The three changes most commonly quoted are
the admission of the Gentiles to the people of God, the introduction of
democracy into society, and the abolition of slavery.
The admission of the Gentiles is like the other changes because it took
place in biblical times and in obedience to direct biblical teaching. It was
prophesied in the Old Testament, and announced by the Gospels, and
implemented in the Acts of the Apostles. The parallel between the
admission of the Gentiles and the ordination of women is therefore, a
very remote one. It is sometimes said that it is no more significant, as an
example to the later Church, that the twelve apostles were all men than
that they were all Jews; but this is clearly a mistake, since the opening
of the Church to Gentiles, is a plain fact of New Testament revelation,
whereas the opening of the priesthood to women is not. Those who
propose a parallel between the introduction of democracy and the
introduction of women are victims of confused thinking.
The Bible supports absolute monarchy, in the way that it supports male
headship in the congregation, and that those who have rejected
absolute monarchy, can therefore, logically, reject male headship, is
based upon a false premise.
The Bible does not so much support absolute monarchy as oppose
rebellion, by which absolute monarchy has customarily been attacked or
overthrown. But an advance in democracy like that made at the Glorious
Revolution of 1688 was not brought about by anything properly called
rebellion, and, advances in democracy in England since have been
brought about by entirely peaceful means.
What the Bible really supports is obedience to the powers that be, but
it does not therefore oppose peaceful channels in the powers that be,
provided the principle of obedience to lawful authority is itself
maintained, Provided the principle of obedience to lawful male
headship, however, IS described in the New Testament as part of the
created order (I Cor. 11.8f; I Tim. 2.13), and is therefore, not open the
same change as a form of government is.
Probably the favorite historical parallel to ordination of women priests is
the abolition of slavery. There are two important distinctions between
the two cases which make the parallel unsatisfactory
The first, is that slavery is not part of the order of nature, whereas male
headship is what man has created, man can abolish, but he cannot
abolish what God has created.
The second is that, though the Bible tolerates slavery as an existing
institution, it gives many indications that slavery is an undesirable
state,and therefore one which conflicts with the great command to love
one's neighbor as oneself.
The most considerate thing that a master could do to free his slave, and
release him, and his slavery was at an end. When slavery was abolished
the institution was abolished.
The institutions, within which we are commanded to observe male
headship, and the Christian family, and the Christian congregation, if
these could be abolished like the institution of slavery, then the duty of
observing male headship within them, would disappear as well. But
since the Christian family and the Christian Congregation could not be
abolished without abolishing Christianity itself the institution remains
and the relevant duties remain with them.
R. T. Beckwith
Warden. Latimer House, Oxford, UK
APOLOGISTS for the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops are
accustomed to draw historical parallels with certain other great changes
of practice which the Church has made or supported, or at least
assented to, in the past. The three changes most commonly quoted are
the admission of the Gentiles to the people of God, the introduction of
democracy into society, and the abolition of slavery.
The admission of the Gentiles is like the other changes because it took
place in biblical times and in obedience to direct biblical teaching. It was
prophesied in the Old Testament, and announced by the Gospels, and
implemented in the Acts of the Apostles. The parallel between the
admission of the Gentiles and the ordination of women is therefore, a
very remote one. It is sometimes said that it is no more significant, as an
example to the later Church, that the twelve apostles were all men than
that they were all Jews; but this is clearly a mistake, since the opening
of the Church to Gentiles, is a plain fact of New Testament revelation,
whereas the opening of the priesthood to women is not. Those who
propose a parallel between the introduction of democracy and the
introduction of women are victims of confused thinking.
The Bible supports absolute monarchy, in the way that it supports male
headship in the congregation, and that those who have rejected
absolute monarchy, can therefore, logically, reject male headship, is
based upon a false premise.
The Bible does not so much support absolute monarchy as oppose
rebellion, by which absolute monarchy has customarily been attacked or
overthrown. But an advance in democracy like that made at the Glorious
Revolution of 1688 was not brought about by anything properly called
rebellion, and, advances in democracy in England since have been
brought about by entirely peaceful means.
What the Bible really supports is obedience to the powers that be, but
it does not therefore oppose peaceful channels in the powers that be,
provided the principle of obedience to lawful authority is itself
maintained, Provided the principle of obedience to lawful male
headship, however, IS described in the New Testament as part of the
created order (I Cor. 11.8f; I Tim. 2.13), and is therefore, not open the
same change as a form of government is.
Probably the favorite historical parallel to ordination of women priests is
the abolition of slavery. There are two important distinctions between
the two cases which make the parallel unsatisfactory
The first, is that slavery is not part of the order of nature, whereas male
headship is what man has created, man can abolish, but he cannot
abolish what God has created.
The second is that, though the Bible tolerates slavery as an existing
institution, it gives many indications that slavery is an undesirable
state,and therefore one which conflicts with the great command to love
one's neighbor as oneself.
The most considerate thing that a master could do to free his slave, and
release him, and his slavery was at an end. When slavery was abolished
the institution was abolished.
The institutions, within which we are commanded to observe male
headship, and the Christian family, and the Christian congregation, if
these could be abolished like the institution of slavery, then the duty of
observing male headship within them, would disappear as well. But
since the Christian family and the Christian Congregation could not be
abolished without abolishing Christianity itself the institution remains
and the relevant duties remain with them.
R. T. Beckwith
Warden. Latimer House, Oxford, UK
| Home Page ************************************* |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
