St David's Day - 900 years on

The Dean of St Davids (second left) with cathedral clergy                                                                   source: Friends of St Davids

Friends of St Davids Cathedral will have received a message from the Dean, Sarah Rowland Jones, wishing all a 'joyful celebration of St Davids Day, and blessed and holy Lent'. 

The message begins:

"As St David’s Day approaches, I’m delighted to share with you details of two upcoming TV programmes, and a whopping 25 radio programmes, which are being broadcast between this weekend and Easter, wholly or largely about St David and aspects of the 900th anniversary of the papal recognition of Dewi as an 'international saint' and of two pilgrimages to St Davids being of equal value to one to Rome. I'm quite bowled over that BBC Radio Wales in particular have embraced the celebrations quite so enthusiastically."

The Dean enjoyed a jolly in Jerusalem to help her consider whether David may have made a similar journey. Wondering why she could not have contemplated the conundrum at her desk in the Deanery I listened to her broadcast on All Things Considered. In her 4 minute interview with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theophilos III, his opinion was that it was quite likely that David did visit Jerusalem. 

The Dean asked the Patriarch to explain 'Patriarch' and 'Patriarchate'.

Advance to position 22 of the All Things Considered video for the Patriarch's probably unexpected answer in which he explained that the patriarch is the "living  testimony to the Apostolic Succession. That is to say that the Patriarch of Jerusalem is the successor to the first bishop, not only of Jerusalem but of the whole Church of St James, the brother of Our Lord. This succession has been without any break throughout the ages."

 

That is something for the still absent bishop of St Davids to contemplate privately as she celebrates the granting of a privilege from Pope Callixtus II in Rome that two pilgrimages to St Davids Cathedral were equal to one to Rome.

In my 28 February 2019 entry Bishop steals clothes I reported how the bishop had high-jacked Credo Cymru's motto "Be joyful and keep the faith". 

It was ironic then, now even more so. The Church in Wales abandoned the received faith years ago.

The ordination of women closed any hope of unity with Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Now the Anglican Church is split by the decision of some western provinces such as the Church of England and the Church in Wales to bless same sex marriages.

We were warned by the apostles:

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.-  The Letter of Jude (17-19)

Mary Magdalene

The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene, Alexander Ivanov, c.1835                                                                                                               Source: WikiArt

Don't tempt me! 

Depending on how you read the painting, 'Don't tempt me!' could be a caption under Ivanov's painting of The Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene.

That is not the message conveyed by the bishop of Bangor who preached at a service for the feast day of Mary Magdalene, live from Bangor Cathedral on Sunday 22 July 2018. He emphasised these points:

• We know very little about Mary Magdalene.
• She is mentioned in the gospels at least 12 times.
• Often depicted in the past as a 'loose woman', we now recognise that label as wrong.
• She is one of the most loyal followers of Jesus witnessing his ministry, his crucifixion and his resurrection life.
• She is, perhaps, the best example in the Gospels of how love transforms everything.

"How love transforms everything"!

🎜All you need is love🎝 has become the anthem of Western Anglicanism. Today's Golden Calf. Rather than our traditional understanding of God's redeeming love it has become a means of absolving all manner of excess.

Bishop Andy referred to Mary Magdalene as "someone from whom evil spirits had been driven. She was a tormented person. She might have described her life as being ‘out of control’ or unsustainable....The Christian faith is good news for people like us. Because it begins with the conviction that God loves us. This love isn’t founded on the merits of our lives or the choices we’ve made or make. It’s simply in the nature of God whose love is inexhaustible and inextinguishable."

Of course God's love is inexhaustible and inextinguishable but it makes no sense to use the example of someone "we know very little about" as justification for re-writing our understanding of Scripture.

Developing his theme +Andy  said, "There is an irony that the women, those compelled to silence in public life, are now compelled to tell the ground-breaking news of the resurrection. Today it’s easy for us to miss the offense, scandal and drama of this in the ancient world. Women! The ones who had no voice, few rights and fewer privileges now elevated to the highest place. It’s as though we’re meant to see that all who feel on the margins, outsiders, are the very ones whom God calls and draws." [My emphasis -Ed.]

Ah, yes! Minorities rule.

The emphasis placed on the elevation of Mary Magdalene to the position of ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ included a reading of the poem ‘They have taken away my Lord’ by Janet Morley leaving the impression that the whole point of the service was to justify the rise of feminism in the Church in Wales and all the free love baggage that arrived with it.

Pity really. It spoilt an otherwise enjoyable service but that is the Church in Wales today.

The Gospel of the Lord

Commissioning the Twelve Apostles depicted by Domenico Ghirlandaio, 1481.                                                                                                         Wikipedia

The Twelve Apostles

13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons. 16 He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Mark 3:13-19

To suggest that Jesus was a man constrained by the customs of the day ignores the reality that Jesus rose from the dead and that He called to him those whom he desired, consciously choosing the Twelve including the one who betrayed him.

Now, "1,000 years on, girls sing at Canterbury Cathedral" is being trumpeted around the world as if to suggest that the heart of the Anglican communion has finally caught up with the real world: Canterbury is not the first British cathedral to set up a girls' choir, but as the mother church of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion — one struggling to define the role of women in its ranks — its move has special resonance. It is understandable that the difference between girls singing in the choir and a woman standing at the altar in the person of Christ would be lost on those constructing media reports but for practicing Anglicans who recite the Nicene Creed the difference should be obvious. 

Let us be clear about this. Only a minority in the Anglican Communion is 'struggling to define the role of women in its ranks' and it is a shame that what is undoubtedly a valued opportunity for these girls should be represented as part of 'the struggle'.  In reality it has nothing to do with the role of women in general but the role of a vociferous, power-seeking minority who persuaded others to depart from the centrality of the Gospel and define their own rules to adapt the priesthood to their own liking. I wonder what their response was today to 'The Gospel of the Lord'?

Llandaff Cathedral bucking a trend

Llandaff Cathedral with the Archbishop of Wales (also Bishop of Llandaff), Archdeacon of Llandaff and the still vacant Deanery

Among the dismal, declining attendance figures in the Church of England (CofE) there has been a ray of hope where cathedrals have bucked the trend with an increase in attendance over the last decade although the CofE report cautions that "almost all the increase in attendance in the past decade is due to increased midweek attendance rising from 8,900 in 2002 to 16,800 in 2012". Nevertheless there is a glimmer of hope amidst the gloom; analysis here.

Not so in Wales where Llandaff Cathedral has bucked the trend but in the opposite direction. As predicted, seven professional members of Llandaff Cathedral choir have lost their jobs in a bid to save £45,000 as part of the cost-cutting measures to reduce the £81,000 deficit. Having a mathematician in the Deanery and a chartered accountant in the Archdeaconry may have aided the cathedral's acquisition of a magnificent £1.5 million organ but has resulted in a severely depleted choir which it accompanies. Story here with comments from 'Let nothing you dismay' here.

Much has been made in news items about the timing of the sackings but should anyone be surprised? After all the Archbishop believes that the church should reflect society where sackings in time for Christmas are not uncommon. But why the choir? Take a look at the diocesan information page which lists personnel including an Archbishop, an Ass Bishop, three Archdeacons and 28 others in support excluding a Dean. - Apparently nobody wants the job and who could blame them.

According to published figures the minimum figure for stipends for three Archdeacons is over £101,000, while the Archbishop receives (minimum figures) of £44,254 and the Ass Bishop £37,616. When the Church in Wales Archiepiscopal See Working Group looked at stipends in 2006 an Ass Bishop's stipend was £31,079 but the total cost including employers NI and pension contributions and secretarial support was £58,246. If this figure is uprated by the same movement in the Ass Bishop's stipend that is around £65,000 today plus significant housing costs. The absence of a Dean, covered first by the Archbishop and then by the Archdeacon, shows that there is spare capacity at the Cathedral where savings could be made among senior staff and most probably in the supporting structure so why sacrifice the choir in what Dr Morgan described as "the diocesan church par excellence"?

Last Sunday the Archbishop preached, somewhat nervously I thought, at a service in Swansea which was broadcast on BBC Radio 4' Sunday Worship. His subject, The Coming of Christ as Judge which may explain his delivery. As usual he managed to insert 'gender' into his Address: "And Jesus’ whole life was spent ministering to those on the margins of His society because of their gender, occupation, race or illness." If only Jesus had completed His work by appointing women Apostles and handing the keys of heaven to one of them the Archbishop would not have such an onerous task convincing people that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years.

Instead Dr Morgan and others like him have been able to carve out careers for themselves doing what Christ did not do. The consequences are plain for all to see.

Bishops encourage sin

As a child I was taught that Anger, or Wrath (Latin, ira), also known as "rage", was one of the seven deadly sins. It is described in Wikipedia as "inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. Wrath, in its purest form, presents with self-destructiveness, violence, and hate that may provoke feuds that can go on for centuries. Wrath may persist long after the person who did another a grievous wrong is dead. Feelings of anger can manifest in different ways, including impatience, revenge, and vigilantism.
Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest, although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy (closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". In its original form, the sin of anger also encompassed anger pointed internally as well as externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of hatred directed inwardly, a final rejection of God's gifts."

I see that the Diocese of Lichfield is to hold an open Women Bishops meeting, announced here, at the express wish of the four bishops of the diocese in the wake of the defeated legislation at General Synod last November. Standing orders will be suspended so that non-members can "speak and express their own views about two key issues:
1) What we can do in this diocese to help General Synod pass legislation that enables women to be consecrated as bishops – as has already been agreed in principle – while acknowledging and respecting those who oppose the change.
2) What steps we need to take to recover the credibility of synodical governance."

Widespread anger has already been reported by the House of Bishops without rebuke so it is no surprise that the Synod will also consider this motion:
 “Hodnet Deanery:
1) is shocked and angry about the General Synod vote which prevented the consecration of Women Bishops.
2) Reaffirms our strong conviction that it is God’s will that women be ordained as bishops in the Church of England.
3) Calls on the House of Bishops to explore, as a matter of great urgency, every possible avenue to effect the will of the Church on this issue.” 

What is it about this current generation that after two thousand years of apparent ignorance they think they know God's will above all who have gone before including the Apostles and even Christ Himself? They don't. The Anglican church here and in the US is being taken over by self-promoting clerics who have no interest other than self advancement. If any have a right to anger it is those who remain true to the faith but vengeance is mine saith the Lord!

More feminist claptrap

Have you ever wondered why there is no Feast of the Female Genital Mutilation of our Lord? 

Could it be that, fortunately, Jesus "had a body which appeared externally to be unremarkably male" even if He had "one of the intersex conditions which might nonetheless have had some 'hidden' female physical features"?

Dr Susannah Cornwall writes that her extraordinary claim that Jesus was not fully male was made in the context of the current debate surrounding the consecration of women as bishops in the Church of England.  That makes her comments even more suspect, along the lines of my previous blog about female clergy claiming that "women priests are treated as "second-class Christians, suffering from institutionalised sexism and racism within the Church of England", contrary to evidence submitted to Parliament.

These women continue to demonstrate that Jesus clearly knew what He was doing in appointing only male Apostles into positions of authority. The Rev Dr Peter Mullen gives a crisp response to Dr Cornwall's claim here. 

Steps

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

After man first set foot on the moon, mankind was left with the historic statement, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". Everyone understood that the statement was not intended to exclude women but to encompass all humanity in the technological advancement of mankind which has seen men and women astronauts venture into space, part of a sequence of small steps that led to Kennedy's vision of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth".

Around the same time people in the Anglican church were taking what were represented as small steps, not towards a giant leap for mankind, Christ did that, but in what now can be seen clearly as a secular policy in furtherance of gender politics in the church, a process which is about to destroy the faith of many Christians in the name of feminism, one which already has done for many. In my previous Blog entry I referred to a Guardian article by Andrew Brown. One paragraph continues to rankle:

   "... there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears." [My emphasis.]

What was initially regarded as an honourable position in the Anglican Church, a church which assured traditionalists that they would continue to have a place, has been turned into one of having to suffer accusations of misogyny, prejudice, discrimination and, now, a "a belief that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears". How crass. God made man and woman in his own image, not hermaphrodites but both male and female, equal, neither superior nor inferior but with different roles in creation. Perhaps Mr Brown doesn't realise that both men and women, male and female, are equally opposed to the ordination of women priests and bishops, woman more vehemently in my experience but more prone to suffer in silence as they do not possess the strident streak exhibited by those who presume to speak for them as implied by the incorrectly named WATCH - Women and the Church. Women's authority does not depend on being a priest or a bishop. In Britain women are rightly employed at all levels in society, but 'authority' in the Anglican Church has become a banner used by people who have sold their souls to secularism in direct contradiction to Christ's example in choosing male Apostles, a tradition handed down in His Apostolic Church from a time when pagan priestesses were common.

The 'small' steps that turned deaconesses into deacons thus permitting their ordination as priests have now become that giant leap for the Church of England with the proposals before Synod to ordain women as successors to the Apostles in defiance of the wider Catholic and Orthodox Churches with whom we share our creed. To brand men and women  who oppose this innovation and whose only desire is to keep the Apostolic faith as 'undermining women's authority' is as absurd as it is offensive.