"July 16, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – There has been much concern among faithful Catholics about the upcoming Amazon Synod. Progressive Cardinals from Germany and the Vatican have already held a private meeting strategizing about how to get the Synod to approve a female diaconate. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the two remaining dubia cardinals, issued a strong critique of the working document of the synod saying its real intent is 'the abolition of priestly celibacy and the introduction of a female priesthood – beginning with female deacons'.”
"The Vatican’s working document for its upcoming Amazon Synod is 'politically correct nonsense', a venerable Catholic journalist, editor, and author has said.
"Damian Thompson, of late the former editor-in-chief for the Catholic Herald, said certain parts of the document are “garbage” and that given some elements involved in the forthcoming Pan-Amazon Synod, the assembly should be called off...
"The Amazon Synod’s controversial working document, or Instrumentum Laboris, aside, many fear that the synod is being used as a vehicle for abolishing the discipline of priestly celibacy and for ushering in female priests, using the remoteness of the region, its indigenous customs, and its religious practices as a rationale."
One would have thought that the innovation of ordaining women in the Anglican Communion would have provided the Vatican with sufficient experience-based evidence that, in general, women who seek ordination are advancing themselves not the Kingdom of God which has become a vehicle to further personal aspirations.
Using the Son of God as their model, they play on the various meanings of 'love' to legitimise their departure from the bible, twisting scripture to fulfil their particular desires. - Jesus loves me, therefore....
Their campaign has resulted in leading gullible women into believing that only love matters, excusing any excess. Familiarity leads to 'normality' and acceptability. Opponents are regarded as disposable bigots. They are the odd ones out, despite having given decades of service to the Church and being among the majority in the Anglican Communion and the wider Church.
First and foremost the ordination of women is about women's rights and equality of opportunity in the workplace based on secular criteria. Their claims are not supported by scripture or tradition. They are based on criteria that permit ambitious women and their supporters to attack the Church as being out of touch for not moving with the times. As a consequence congregations have plummeted.
Regular attendance projections indicate collapse. The Church Growth Modelling blog indicates that the Church in Wales, Scottish Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church of the USA are all firmly under the extinction threshold with some doubt about the Church of England.
The 'Historic Episcopate locally adapted' has resulted in do as you please provinces, some with women bishops, some approving of same-sex marriage. In Canada where same sex marriage has been defeated, some bishops have decided that they will ignore the decision and go their own way.
The Anglican Communion is unravelling but there is no indication among those responsible for the innovation of women's ordination that it was a step too far. They carry on regardless while Church in Wales bishops have admitted in private that it is finished but encourage congregations to dig ever deeper.
Women have shamelessly lied and cheated their way into the Church, misrepresenting Christ's teaching to satisfy their personal demands.
If what they claim is true, why the lies and deception? False accusations of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia designed to smear anyone who defends the faith against the false prophets as predicted.
It does not stop there. The complete package includes the full liberal agenda leading to LGBT+ clergy promoting so-called 'equal' marriage so that they can live with their partners with the apparent approval and blessing of the Church.
The Anglican experience is clear, progress step by step: Deaconesses leading to women deacons, women priests and women bishops leading to demands for the acceptance of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
There is the constant self-promotion of women clergy on Twitter with endless celebrations of women's ordination.
A recent Twitter example illustrates how the trail leads from a tweet to The Campaign for Equal Marriage in the CofE and onto the rainbow collar under the banner 'When in doubt, love'.
That is the ordination of women package. You don't get one bit without the other and the other and the other, etc. Are you listening Francis?
If Francis agrees to the change, papal infallibility will have to go at last.
ReplyDeleteRob
"In general, women who seek ordination are advancing themselves not the Kingdom of God."
ReplyDeleteOh, come now. Male examples of self-interested, self-absorbed, hyper-ambitious, greasy pole climbing clerics who wouldn't know the Kingdom of God if it walked up and bit them on the backside are ten a penny. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the theology behind women's ordination, this problem is hardly more endemic to women than to men. Anyone who's ever been to an Anglican theological college knew exactly which ordinands were having themselves fitted for mitres years before they were even deaconed.
And, as for them across the Tiber, isn't it the ordained Vatican bureaucracy that are world famous for raising backbiting, game-playing, sycophancy, and false sycophancy to the level of a high art form?
Not to mention their reputation for ... um ... frolicking, shall we say, in ways that Mother Church does not formally sanction?
There are plenty of LGBT agendas that have been quietly advanced in both Rome and Canterbury for decades, if not centuries, that have neither needed nor wanted any female input whatsoever. (Unless, of course, you count old queens.)
The inexcusable is no excuse.
DeleteI accept of course that church attendances have sadly plummeted over the last 20 years. But what evidence is there to say that this is a specific consequence of women's ordination? It could be that, in fact, numbers would have gone down even more had women not been ordained - we simply don't know! All I am saying is that, from a statistical point of view, "correlation" does not necessarily equate to "cause and effect" especially as, in this case, there isn't really a "control" to act as a yardstick to what is going on. (Drawing comparisons from other countries and/or church traditions may help our evaluation, but only up to a point, as cultural backgrounds and expectations may be very different).
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting & oft-debated point, BT. Many studies generally have shown constant decline in '1st world' countries for 'established' churches (of all theologies) but church growth in other regions less inclined to follow prevailing 1st World zeitgeists.
DeleteThose Anglo Catholics amongst us long enough in the tooth to remember the debates of the late 80s & early 90s in the CofE were told - in writing - at the time by episcopal proponents of Women Priests that a) it would definetly turn the congregational tide & stop decline, and b) (I'll never forget this phrase), "not to worry about all those leaving but to think about all those who will join". The bishop who said that was in charge of the doomed Decade of Evangelism ..(enough said!)
However what has happened is that the CofE (and other Anglican churches) has both lost members (to Rome & Eastern Orthodoxy), and failed to compensate these losses. This is not what was announced or envisaged by those who considered 'they knew best' & that everyone would jolly well keep voting until the Holy Spirit apparently 'got with the programme'.
Given this, as AB has so often pointed out, the "reluctance" (if we remain kind and stick to typical British understatement) by the most strident elements to accept & encourage "mutual flourishing" is all the more worrying. Gracious it may well be in many genuine cases, but in others it is a barely concealed desperate dash after a train which has departed, or may be about to depart.
Thank you. I suspect that our views on women's ministry will differ (and, in any case, I come from a tradition with a rather different viewpoint on what "ordained ministry" actually means) - but I do appreciate your considered reply. By the way, I have been around for long enough to remember many of the debates and claims you mention!
DeleteYes BT regular attendance figures were falling, something the ordination of women was supposed to rectify as In Pectore has explained. Another claim made by a former Asst Bishop of Llandaff was that ‘the ordination of women would rid the world of homophobia, misogyny, brutalisation of women in all situations including those in war zones’.
DeleteAccusations of homophobia and misogyny continue with no supporting evidence. There have been numerous examples in Wales of supporting allegedly persecuted minorities while orthodox Anglicans are told bluntly that if they don't like it they will have to make their own arrangements. That is despite the promise of mutual flourishing, another promise quietly forgotten and even subverted.
https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2019/06/backwards-in-faith-preposterous-proposal.html
In c.1988 I heard the then Bishop of Ballarat, John Hazlewood, preach at All Saints Margaret St. I think he may have been in London for the Lambeth Conference. I remember the 'punchline' of his sermon: "It was at that moment that I discovered that Humble Pie is a most disgusting meal"!
DeleteRather than eat Humble Pie, which is all that is currently on offer for many 1st world Anglican churches, the 'illiberal liberal' extremists appear to prefer to impose a Starvation Diet induced by their own zeal. The problem with Starvation Diets is that diminish not develop the body.
It is better for all to eat their portion of Humble pie and build for the future together, rather than fast and fade.
The churches that have thrived such as the Pentecostal movement have no barrier to women in ministry although almost always the most senior of leadership turns out to be male. Make of that what you will.
ReplyDeleteWhat kills a church is liberal theology since it is not owned by the Spirit who always gives the increase. Another 'gospel' is no gospel at all.
Surrounding this post and comments is a question that cannot be avoided. How do you discern the mind of the Catholic Church as an expression of the will of God - especially if the tradition develops in a way that I neither expected or particularly like? Closely coupled is the question that asks to what extent is the Pope the embodiment of the Church's catholicity? I'm in little doubt as to how the Catholic Church would answer that question, regardless of whether certain individuals would wish to abandon the idea of Papal infallibility.
ReplyDeleteCardinal Newman's essay on Tradition (which Barry Morgan was fond of filleting for his own purposes by wrenching isolated lines out of context and twisting their meaning) would seem to suggest that the evolution of tradition is an essential mark of the Church's catholicity; but that this evolution happens with the consent of the whole body - not just regional and local manifestations of it acting unilaterally without full regard for the whole.
Catholic theology would firmly insist that it is never a question of whether the ordination of women is an expression of the will of God. In theory, potentially, any possibility is an expression of the will of God, because we believe the Spirit is always leading us in to new truth. The nub of the issue, theologically, is this: HOW has the Church discerned that this could be an expression of the will of God?
Within the framework of Catholic theology, that is not a question that is easily resolved, and certainly not as easy as the Governing Body of the Church in Wales believes it to be the case. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the question cannot be asked.
Thank you for an excellent post, Athelstan.
DeleteThe essential problem in the Anglican discernment process has been for many years now, only some people genuinely wrestle with the issues & their consciences - and of course may reach a different point of view from our own personal views, but do so literally 'in good faith'.
However for other vociferous factions, Church debating chambers are simply forums for what the head of politics at my university called 'clothed politics'; although in recent years it would probably best be described as 'near naked politics'.
While Baptist congregational politics obviously play on a much smaller scale, the same things are evident there ... some people genuinely (and at times painfully) seeking the mind of Christ, with others bludgeoning the meeting to make sure that their opinions or prejudices are heard.
DeleteAthelstan: you wrote, "The evolution of tradition is an essential mark of the Church's catholicity; but that this evolution happens with the consent of the whole body - not just regional and local manifestations of it acting unilaterally without full regard for the whole". This has been a particular problem within my own denomination which is congregational in its ecclesiology.
ReplyDeleteOur Baptist "Declaration of Principle" states that "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws". It's that last bit that's proving tricky, as it means that any local congregation, believing that it is being led by the Holy Spirit, can come to a view on a matter while another can come up with a very different view!
At its best this does allow the Holy Spirit to "shed more light and truth on God's Holy Word"; at its worst it not only makes it very difficult for the entire denomination to reach consensus on contentious matters but also begs questions about the Holy Spirit's leading and our discernment of him.
What's interesting is that everyone will claim that their views are "Biblical", which just goes to show how hard it can be to apply an ancient text to contemporary situations! Of course, such diversity of views is an inevitable concomitant of the Reformation which allowed every Christian to read the Bible for themself rather than to have its meaning mediated through the authority of the Church. It seems to me that this is an issue which our Catholic friends have been struggling with for years - just think of the controversies surrounding characters such as Kung or Guterriez!
Am I right in thinking that women deacons existed in the early church to assist women in undressing for baptism but were rapidly abolished when they began to preach? They cannot be required now that baptism is not such a wet procedure.
ReplyDeleteThe rapid acceptance of women into the priesthood has taken many by surprise, as has the enthusiastic backing of it by some leading clergy. Many traditionalists (now a pejorative term) have been left bewildered, feeling the Church they love has disavowed them. People have been hurt by the changes but the feminists have seemed remarkably indifferent to their plight and continued to push harder for full equality. Womens' ministry is valuable but not as priests. Jesus chose men as his disciples, was himself a man and taught us to pray to God the Father - as long tradition until now has informed us and on which the Church was established.
ReplyDeleteStoppit
"Jesus chose men as his disciples."
DeleteTo be sure, he did. (If, of course, we're not counting Mary Magdalene's apostolic message to the apostles themselves.) But, by the same token, he also only chose Jews. So how do we know which of these socio-ethnic qualifiers was important to him?
Perhaps his intention was that his successors as apostles would only be Jews, but male or female is a matter of indifference. In which case, we've all missed the point. Or perhaps his aim was to ensure an all male leadership, *and* to require circumcision as the mark and sign of holiness, "for salvation," of course, "comes through the Jews." (Hands up, traditionalist or otherwise, if you're prepared to show us your credentials ... anyone ... ?)
And what, exactly, constitutes male and female, anyway? Does a traditionalist viewpoint allow an XY-female (which most certainly exist) to preside because, accoutrements notwithstanding, this person is verifiably genetically male, but resistant at the cellular level to androgen hormones (in the same way that a Type 2 diabetic is resistant to insulin)?
It seems to me that we can take any of thousands of socio-ethnic physical characteristic that the 12 apostles might reasonably be expected to share and hinge the validity of ordination on it. So I genuinely don't understand on what basis we're choosing the one over all the others.
Jesus chose 12 male disciples, but that is perhaps a different thing from declaring that he went out of his way to choose them over and against someone else. It just doesn't seem to me that the evidence for the latter proposition is in any way conclusive. In fact, going by his own words at several junctures, it seems rather more likely that he *did* go out of his way to include only Jews — and, again, not conclusively; but actually a much stronger case for this proposition can be made from scripture than for the former.
There are good solid arguments for a male-only priesthood. But this is not, nor has ever been, one of them, irrespective of its undoubtedly fine pedigree. You could drive a lorry through the logical holes in it.
Have we all forgotten the scriptures? In the fullness of time,God sent HIS only begotten Son........... So? Did GOD get the fullness of time wrong?????
ReplyDelete