You are here . on the pale blue dot


Blog notes

'Anonymous' comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be on topic and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.


Showing posts with label priestesses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label priestesses. Show all posts

Thursday, 3 December 2020

Passing the Cup


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.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Sacred cow


Feminism: the sacred cow of the modern Anglican Church


Forget the golden calf -

 "We Christians must face it: The Bible is hugely misogynistic" so stop 'reading it like 'a car manual' and 'reconcile the Bible with the present day'. So says Jemima Thackray (a chaplain in Winchester) in the Telegraph (here). 

Holy cow! How many Christians have been labouring under a misapprehension for the best part of two millennia, not to mention all those poor Jews, misguided for thousands of years before that. Although prior to Jemima's intervention there is a rather good example of how to interpret the law in Christ's seven woes which denounced the false religion of the Scribes and Pharisees as "utterly abhorrent" to God and worthy of severe condemnation (read here).

Commenting on the General Synod vote to fast-track the legislative process which would allow women to be appointed as bishops, Jemima says "the proceedings started rather awkwardly when the Bible passage, which happened to be that day’s lectionary reading, conveyed a message that was utterly at odds with the goal of elevating women to leadership roles within the church. [My emphasis - Ed.] It went something like this:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)".

In the suppression of that passage of scripture the message has added weight. Had a passage been to their advantage it would have been claimed as the work of the Holy Spirit but at Synod the Holy Spirit has to have the approval of the sacred cow of feminism to speak. - If it doesn't suit, just drop it. The Telegraph is running a poll with Jemima's article asking: "Do you believe religious texts should be taken literally?" At the time of writing over 54% responded "No, they need to be read in the context of their time." 

Faith it seems is becoming irrelevant but as Christians this should be the basis of our belief. If religion has to be supported the spirit of the age there is no faith so the Bible gets discreditied or ignored. Of course many biblical stories illustrate a point as in the parables but where does this stop? Did Christ die on the cross and rise again or was it merely a 'conjuring trick with bones'. Academics who spend their lives pondering minutiae should be more guarded in their condemnation of those with a simple faith. We are the body of Christ, all Christians, including those who are being marginalised for remaining faithful to the Apostolic Church

It is understandable that feminists would prefer to ignore the facts. Otherwise they would have to accept that the world was full of priestesses at the time of Christ but "the astonishing thing was actually that they were absent from the community of Jesus Christ, a fact that in turn is a point of continuity with the faith of Israel" (Light of the World).

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Priestesses and fertility rites to save the Church of England?


Photo: Tradition in Action 


"The Church of England is trying to recruit pagans and spiritual believers as part of a drive to retain congregation numbers". So says an article in the Telegraph under the headline "Church of England creating 'pagan church' to recruit members." As bizarre as this may seem it is not without precedent. There are examples here and an explanation here

The Church of England is following the medical and teaching professions in becoming increasingly feminised so the notion of parity has become a contradiction. Perhaps female dominance will result again in celebrating the 'ess' of womanhood with the return of the priestess. However, it is important to retain a sense of proportion. Calls for more women to be involved in every sphere of public life simply for being women are nonsensical as Melanie Phillips reminded Tessa Jowell on Question Time after her sweeping generalisation that women have a moderating influence. Tessa Jowell was contradicted by Melanie Phillips who cited the female dominated Care Quality Commission debacle as a topical example. 

In pagan times the Christian church stood apart from sexual license and fertility rites dominated by temple priestesses but that is being overturned with demands for diversity to be celebrated in the church. In a speech in the Lords the Archbishop of York posed the question: "What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them?" The difference is, Your grace, that sheep and trees and the birds and the bees do what comes naturally!

There is something radically wrong when the basis of our institutions can be changed to mean what was never intended at the outset. In the Telegraph article Andrea Campenale, of the Church Mission Society, said: “Nowadays people, they want to feel something; they want to have some sense of experience". Some of us used to!

Postscript

How about a mid-service disco too? Andrew Brown thinks this vicar's disco dance gives hope to the Church of England.

Thursday, 13 September 2012

Respect!




So the bishops have capitulated. What little comfort was left for traditionalists in the Church of England opposed on theological grounds to the ordination of women has been watered down to one word: Respect. Archbishop Rowan says ‘Respect’ means taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think, who they are. It means trying to find a settlement that allows them to recognise in whatever emerges that their views have been taken seriously. Archbishop Rowan may very well think that but few have the capacity of His Grace for treating their opponents with the same respect. Across the border in the Church in Wales even their Archbishop has difficulty in showing respect for those he disagrees with and far from 'taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think', he obstinately refuses even to appoint a replacement Provincial Assistant Bishop preferring to tell traditionalists what they must accept while, tomorrow, making another bid to allow women to be ordained into the episcopate on his own terms in his vanishing church. 

Consider also the attitude already displayed in England by proponents of the ordination of women in the Church and in Parliament - "No promises were broken, says GRAS" and "Essentially everyone knew that when you had the ordination of women as priests that this would lead to the ordination of women bishops after a decent length of pause. Some would say it has now been an indecent length of pause" said Peter Bottomley. Where is there any evidence of respect? When the House of Bishops proposed an amendment to the legislation which would have "strengthened somewhat the provision for the minority, in the hope that this would allow people in the minority to feel that their position was respected, that they were allowed to flourish, and that they were welcome in the Church of England" Women and the Church (WATCH) found it "deeply offensive " claiming that the vision of women as bishops, and the dignity and security of the position of women when they were ordained as bishops would be undermined.

So what is in a word? Personally I find it offensive to be branded as one of those "whose consciences gave them difficulties with the idea of women as bishops, and would find it difficult to receive their ministry." I would have no difficulty with the concept of women bishops or of receiving their ministry if it were simply a matter of debate or if it were accepted throughout the Church Catholic but it cannot be for the simple reason that in conscience we remain faithful to Christ's example rather than synodical persuasion. Whatever arguments are advanced in support of the ordination of women they can only be opinions not supported by historical fact. They condemn Jesus as a failure for being a captive of His time in not appointing women Apostles but in an age when there were numerous priestesses, Christ showed us a new way which honoured men and women equally, different but complementary. What is difficult about that?



Saturday, 1 October 2011

Women in dog collars


Photo: Jane Mingay

How sad that this is what the Anglican church has come to. Dominated by women in dog collars desperate for purple shirts as though they have a God given right to be bishops. Such is the force of their feminist movement in the Anglican church they now dominate debate in England and Wales bringing with it all the equal rights baggage of parity, same sex partnerships and their pension rights.

The latest news from the BBC will give women clergy even more courage to oust all those who oppose their feminist strategies, faithful Anglicans or not, putting all their trust in synodical governance over the faith and tradition of the Universal church using their preposterous claim that their manipulations are the work of the Holy Spirit.

In our Creed we still claim to be members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but unilateral decisions of Synod have separated us from the wider church of East and West at a time when great strides are being made towards unity. Putting religious differences aside, this dialogue from "Light of the World" [ISBN 978-1-86082-709-9] on 'Overdue Reforms?' sums-up the position of women's ordination in the Universal Church:

"The impossibility of women's ordination in the Catholic Church has been clearly decided by a "non possumus" of the supreme Magisterium. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith laid this down under Paul VI in the 1976 document Inter insigniores, and John Paul II reinforced it in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis. In this document, speaking in virtue of his office about the "divine constitution of the Church", he writes —and these are his exact words—"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". Critics see this as a form of discrimination. The only reason Jesus did not call women to be priestesses, it is said, is that this would have been unthinkable two thousand years ago." - Peter Seewald.

"That is nonsense, since the world was full of priestesses at the time. All religions had their priestesses, and the astonishing thing was actually that they were absent from the community of Jesus Christ, a fact that in turn is a point of continuity with the faith of Israel. John Paul II's formulation is very important: The Church has "no authority" to ordain women. The point is not that we are saying that we don't want to, but that we can't. The Lord gave the Church a form with the Twelve and, as their successors, with the bishops and the presbyters, the priests. This form of the Church is not something we ourselves have produced. It is how he constituted the Church. Following this is an act of obedience. This obedience may be arduous in today's situation. But it is important precisely for the Church to show that we are not a regime based on arbitrary rule. We cannot do what we want. Rather, the Lord has a will for us, a will to which we adhere, even though doing so is arduous and difficult in this culture and civilization. Incidentally, women have so many great and meaningful functions in the Church that there can be no question of discrimination. That would be the case if the priesthood were a sort of dominion, whereas it is actually intended to be pure service. If you look at the history of the Church, women—from Mary to Monica and all the way down to Mother Teresa—have so eminent a significance that in many respects they shape the image of the Church more than men do. Just think of major Catholic feast days such as Corpus Christi or Mercy Sunday, which originated with women. In Rome, for example, there is even a Church where not a single man can be seen in any of the altarpieces." - Pope Benedict XVI