Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Priestesses in the Church of Ireland are celebrating 30 years of ministry - as they see it.
A video presentation in this NewsLetter link shows ordained women passing the cup and candles between themselves. What they are actually celebrating is the exclusion of many more devout women and men so that priestesses can indulge in their fantasies.
Celebrating their achievements with quips which make light of sincerely held objections to the ordination of women on theological grounds does their cause no credit. That is not saving souls.
While some women may be sincere in their beliefs, they have been deceived by those prepared to use the Church for political objectives, subscribing to secular notions that theology becomes secondary when considering equality of opportunity in the workplace.
All those feeling compromised by the innovation of ordaining women to the priesthood as though it were just another glass ceiling for feminists to shatter have been allowed to fall by the wayside.
Consequently it is the Anglican Communion that has been shattered.
This video just serves to show that the women priests do not understand what the Church is all about: it portrays that they believe it is all about there own personal achievement and acknowledgement.
ReplyDeleteIt further exemplifies that female ordination is just about change in that they devise the new ceremony of passing the cup and the candle. Here again the women priests cause confusion and the ‘ceremony’ clouds the ‘truth’ of the revelation.
Significant, perhaps, are the references in the concluding comments to the V*c*r of D*bl*y. Did the BBC put on this rather feeble "comedy" merely as entertainment, or to soften up an ever-malleable public to the hitherto unimaginable notion of female clergypersons -- all part of the modernist political "project"? Having said which, one couldn't but enjoy the quoted reactions of the (presumably largely RC) Irish people, especially those whose gut instincts was to address the new species as "Father". This should, I feel, become standard practice.
ReplyDeleteGut instincts WERE. Sorry; got carried away.
DeleteIt is interesting that none of the ladies pictured here proclaim their belief in the holy sacrifice of the mass by wearing the traditional vestments. Like Cranmer they presumably repudiate it.
ReplyDeleteDr Fredk Jones: One of them was so attired, standing behind a pulled-out altar with six candles on the gradine behind her (I hope she doesn't receive a blow on the chest from the edge of it when rounding the corner, as I used regularly to suffer when visiting celebrant at a church with a similar arrangement). Eucharistic vestments (and altar crosses and candles) are still quite a rarity in the C of I, but surely no-one is under the mistaken impression that their near-ubiquity this side of the Irish Sea is necessarily indicative of a Catholic understanding of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
DeleteAB how today would you defend excluding women from the ordained ministry? I ask as one vehemently opposed to their ordination. The quality of most women who have offered themselves is not high. Too many are cringeworthy, laughable or embarrassing. All are politically correct. What arguments would you use in a hard hitting television interview against their ordination? Four of five short paragraphs will do.
ReplyDelete1549
Forgive me 1549, it is too late for that. The deed is done. The Anglican Communion is undone.
DeleteAs the bishop of St Davids Joanna Penberthy said when questioned about the validity of her orders she said it was "water off a duck's back" to her.
I cannot do better than quote Geoffrey Kirk who wrote in 'Without Precedent' (xiv):
"This book is not an attempt to argue against the ordination of women to the priesthood or the episcopate, in the Church of England or in any other church. The orders of the church are not at the disposal of Popes, synods or debating chambers of any kind. They are a gift from the Lord."
Thus the Coven takes over and the dullards reign.
DeleteYou would have to go a long way to find a worse example than the fat dullard Peggy the Pilate.
I agree AB that a divine vocation is essential. The Lord did not call women to the priesthood. Why might that have been? So long as we continue our opposition, we have to be prepared to say why.
Delete1552
@ 1549:
DeleteI agree with 1552 that opponents of the ordination of women to the priesthood need to have a definite and clear rationale for the position which they take. Without it they readily risk the accusation of misogynist prejudice or at least rigidly ossified conservatism!
Your query reminds me of a meeting which I attended of opponents of women's ordination to the priesthood convened by my then local diocesan bishop back in the early '90s. The reasons for opposition expressed at that meeting were quite varied, and fell into two broad categories.
There were those who were opposed absolutely, and they divided between conservative evangelicals who were opposed on the grounds of what they understood to be the clear New Testament teaching about the nature of headship in the Church. And there were catholics who held that the bishop, and thus by extension the priest too, uniquely 'represents' Christ within the local church in time and place, and that as Christ was man and not woman, the 'iconography' of the role is critically undermined by female priests and, ultimately, bishops.
And there were those who, while not opposed in an absolutist sense, held that one of the grounds on which the Anglican Communion had maintained that it was an authentic part of the Catholic Church was that its scriptures, its creeds and its ordained ministry were the very same as those of the universal Church across the world and across the centuries and that the very word 'Catholic' derives from the Greek καθ'όλον, 'according to the whole', a concept going back to the patristic age. If Anglicans were to ordain women to the priesthood and the episcopate they would ipso facto cease to be καθ'όλον. Should the Holy Spirit indeed now be calling the Church to ordain women in these roles, the movement to do so would become widespread and ultimately irresistable. But thus far the evidence suggesting that was the case was by no means clear and at this point the ordination of women priests was therefore indefensible and a breach of faith and order.
You can take your choice, according to your convictions, as to which of those range of reasons you base your opposition, but it seems to me that among them lie the rationale for reasoned objection.
While I disagree with John Ellis on the matter of women's ordination, I greatly respect the way he has presented his case. That contrasts sadly, in my opinion, with the language used in some of the other comments: "priestesses", "dullards" and "coven" do not advance your cause one bit. Furthermore, someone has sweepingly said that "the quality of most women who have offered themselves is not high. Too many are cringeworthy, laughable or embarrassing" - I have no idea if this is true or not, but it sounds like a very simplistic generalisation. Furthermore, no comparison has been made with the quality of male ordinands.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore - and I do appreciate that we are poles apart on this - AB's initial blog says that many "devout women and men" have been excluded from the Anglican church by the ordination of women. I cannot know if the number is in fact as great as he suggests; moreover, one might wonder how many people would have felt excluded if the ordination of women had NOT gone ahead - it could have been many more but of course we'll never know!
@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteI doubt that you could 'disagree' with me in terms of what I've written in my contribution on this particular thread, since I expressed no personal view but simply tried to respond to 1549's wholly reasonable plea to know 'what arguments would you use in a hard hitting television interview against (women's) ordination?'
I just cited the range of arguments that have been made around this issue by Anglican dissentients; not every Anglican Christian believer has opportunity for, or even interest in, the specifics of theology and ecclesiology - nor, necessarily, should they. But once - long ago! - that was my area of study and I felt that his plea merited as informed and reasoned response as I could offer.
But I acknowledge that in other threads on this site I have set out my own grounds for objection, and maybe you had those contributions in mind when you posted. To make my own position clear in the context of what I've written today, I wasn't an 'absolutist'; but I did absolutely hold that, in the absence of any wider consensus on the matter from ecclesial communities which have maintained catholic faith and order, Anglicans simply could not unilaterally ordain women to the priesthood and to the episcopate without abandoning their long held claim to be an authentic part of the Church Catholic.
In my view what they decided on meant that Anglicanism henceforth was going to be modelled on the precedent of the Swedish Lutherans, who quite a while ago, while maintaining a superficially traditional polity, struck out on their own in terms of church order. For Lutherans that was a relatively small step, since Lutherans in other parts of northern Europe had done the same thing long ago. But for Anglicans it was a novel, unprecedented and singular step which flatly contradicted what they'd taught me when I first explored faith as a pretty secular neophyte in the very early '60s, and I knew that I could no longer remain in that communion.
Thank you John Ellis for your careful, considered reply. Yes, I have have weighed both arguments long before, though I don't suppose they would cut much ice with today's aggressive tv interviewers. Now that we have seen some of the ordained women, the argument that females are not a proper icon for Christ is greatly strengthened and convinces more than it did, although it is still unlikely to be given much credence in the secular world.
ReplyDeleteI dare say that the bishops of the CinWs will read all this and continue on their merry way. But where is Christ's specific sanction for their actions? And what kind of 'vocation' are these women receiving?
1549
@ 1549:
DeleteWhile the Church must always engage with the secular world, as it always has needed to do, both in the early days - say up to the mid 4th century AD - when its message was eccentrically counter-cultural and later, when for centuries Christianity had prevailed and was in a stronger position to call the shots.
But I don't think there's any constructive way forward in worrying too much about how much 'ice' or credence the secular world would accord to Christian teaching; I seem to recall, though I can't now trace the quote, that an ancient Roman writer, doubtless based on second or third hand information about what he'd heard of Christian teaching, scornfully described Christians as 'inimici generis humanae' - enemies of the human race! The same may well be true of secular commentators today.
Christian belief is rooted in the Gospel and in the accumulated experience and teaching of the Church over two millennia. It's that which should shape the Church's message in every age. And it's that with which contemporary Anglicanism seems to have lost touch.
Thank you - that's very helpful and apologies if I misunderstood your position.
ReplyDeleteNo apology necessary. In a face to face discussion it's much easier to probe and penetrate your interlocutor's stance in the moment. In a forum such as this one when we're both at a distance the process is inevitably more laborious!
DeleteA special treat today: on pages 22 & 23 of the Daily Mail, pictures of five female clerical cuties luxuriating in their femininity. Oh how blessed and fortunate we are! How nice to have such fun loving lassies to inspire us!
ReplyDelete1549
And note the vulgar, gimmicky, ignorant use of the term 'vicaring' and 'vicar' as a verb.
ReplyDelete1549
It's the 'Daily Mail', remember. Never wise to expect too much from tht quarter!
DeleteIf female ordination is wrong, in part because the Church universal is still opposed to it, what is the reason for that continued opposition? So it's back to the original question raised 1549
ReplyDelete1552
PP. What of other UK denominations that appear to have a good track record of women ministers. Are they engaged in some conspiracy theology?
ReplyDelete