One must really be amused at the way the so-called Church of England works: on the one hand, they think – some of them pretend they do at least – that they have Apostolic succession. On the other hand, they have organs deciding with a normal majority vote fundamental tenets of their religion, like for example whether they should have male priests like the Christians or add priestesses like the Pagans.
At times, the democratic decision progress doesn't reach the results the very democratic bishops want to achieve, so when the organ of the laity culls the proposal for wymyn bishop the idea of accepting the democratic principle doesn't enten their minds for a second, rather they all start to whine and complain that the introduction of bishopettes has now been delayed at least two years.
It doesn't make sense to any sensible person, but then Anglicans aren't sensible persons so it's par for the course. This is why they accept that bishopettes are discussed in the first place, when twenty years ago they were told they would have priestesses but, God forbids, no bishopettes. Again, though, if one is so thick as to think a priestess is remotely compatible with Christianity, then one has richly deserved the bishopettes. Similarly, those not very bright minds who thought twenty years ago they could carve their own niche of conservatism and have things the way they like in their own backyard are now going to get what they deserve, so that they learn – albeit too late – that Christianity is more than having a parish life tailored to one's preferences.
In the meantime, one third of the Mickey Mouse “priests” – no holy orders, remember – are wymyn, which roughly suggest two thirds or more or the mickey mouse ordinations in the last two decades were of said wymyn. Add to this the tragic problem of homosexuality among the male clergy and you will have a clear idea of where they are.
Not that there is much to save, mind: around 3% go weekly to Mass, and one wonders why seen that these people change their mind every few years. Perhaps they want to keep current with the latest changes. In twenty years' time we will have the newly appointed Archbishopette of Canterbury getting drunk in a bar, desperately looking for an old divorced man willing to take her home for the night. The country will salute it as very modern. You see, this is an outfit of which its former boss has said that it must catch up with the civil society out there. Complete bending over to every fad and every fashion, even the most unchristian ones.
Now that's Anglicanism for you. Make no mistake, there's no salvation among this bunch of muppets.
Just to start the year with a piece of exciting news, here is another example of a bishop too concerned with not displeasing anyone to care for his own job.
Bishop Bonny of Antwerp is on record with the following piece of genius. The first part is reported only to give a context, what interests me is the second one:
I fully understand it. The Church can not avoid the debate about the criteria for ordination. Personally, I strongly believe in the value of the unmarried priesthood and a full availability for Christ and the Church community. But I also think that the ordination of a number of married men or deacons to the priesthood can be an enrichment for the Church. In the eastern Catholic Churches married priests are more the rule than the exception. That fact is therefore not unfamiliar for the Catholic Church. The ordination of women to priests is theologically far more difficult. In the west that concern is present in broad layers of society, but worldwide the support is extremely small. But I do think that there needs to be more discussion about the place and role of the woman in the Church. Women must be allowed to take on responsible duties in the Church, on all levels.
This way of thinking is covertly heretical and/or overtly cowardly in several elements. Let us see them:
The ordination of women to priests is theologically far more difficult
The ordination of women priests is not difficult in any way. It’s impossible. Im-pos-si-ble. A bishop must know this, because my grandmothers did. Bishop Bonny most certainly does. He is merely being a coward, because he can’t find in himself the very modicum of strenght necessary to be a halfway decent bishop.
I can’t imagine Padre Pio listening to such crap and not slapping him in the face, but then I reflect in padre Pio’s time bishops didn’t go around saying such things, and even illiterate peasants would be aware of the enormity of such words.
In the west that concern is present in broad layers of society, but worldwide the support is extremely small.
This is so wrong it’s embarrassing. Firstly, I do not know how female priesthood is seen among homosexual belgian priests (possibly the pool from which the bishops takes his idea of “support”), but among Catholics the “support” for such jokes is minuscule, and actually only coming from people who aren’t Catholics anymore, though they might be baptised in some cases. Secondly, the Church is not about support, but Truth. Thirdly, a bishop happily talking of theological matters as if they could be seen according to the “support” they have is an open scandal.
It gets worse…
Women must be allowed to take on responsible duties in the Church, on all levels.
Here, the typical doublespeak of our modern chicken bishops is apparent. “All levels” means, well, all levels; which must include, if words have a meaning, priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes. Therefore, the chappy first doesn’t have the gut of saying that about male priesthood there’s nothing to discuss, and one second later expresses himself in a way which – if words have a meaning – expresses support for the heretical agenda; without saying explicitly so of course, then a coward is always afraid of both sides of a controversy.
These are the sheperds of Catholic souls in the West: disgraceful cowards helping lies and spreading doublespeak wherever they turn. I am sure, no one will ever question their being in full communion with the Church, much less call them schismatics.
Bishop Bonny is an appointment of Pope Benedict XVI.
I have written already about the strange idea (entertained even by some people who, for reasons unknown to yours truly, define themselves as “Catholic”) that a cat should be allowed to bark or, if you want to put it more directly, that a woman should be allowed to be priest.
The very simple fact that a woman cannot be a priest more than a cat can bark (to become a priest it is necessary to be a male in the first place; to bark it is necessary to be a dog – oh well, a canidae – in the first place) appears to elude the ladies (of both sexes) who fight such an heroic battle against common sense and ridicule.
In the last days we had another example of this astonishing forma mentis, when a rather routine like announcement from the Vatican has been attacked again by feminists fringes looking for the usual self victimhood festival.
The Vatican has decided to promote the canonical crime of attempted ordination of a woman (attempted, mind: you can’t ordain a woman as priest more than you can make a cat bark) to the exclusive rank of the delicta graviora, which are the most serious category of canonical crime and attract, inter alia, exclusive Vatican competence.
The feminists reason that if you decide that a crime involving women should be considered with more severity, you are attacking women. One must love the logic. It is as if those deluded women attempting to obtain “ordination” were punished because born women, rather than because they offend a sacrament. The harsher rules apply, by the way, to both sexes, so that the argument of the feminists (of both sexes) that the Church is persecuting the foemina diaboli so dear to their imagination is, as always, devoid of any logic.
Logic or no logic, these news are always worth reading because they provide some very nice entertainment in these distressing times. For example, it may make your day to know that there are people around calling themselves “Roman Catholic WomenPriests” (last one is only one word I think; more progressive, you know……) and that these people demand that the Church “affirm women’s full equality in the Church, including priestly ministry”. I can’t wait for the demand that the Evangelists be referred to as St. Lucia, St. Joan, etc.
Incidentally, the women also complain because the Church dares to mention them in a document also dealing with paedophile priests. Here we see the height of delusion and paranoia. It is as if the paedophile priest issue were highly radioactive: if the Vatican wants to mention it, well of course no mention of women must be made in the same document… Document they haven’t read, because if they had they’d have discovered that it also deals with several other canonical crimes (simulated celebration of the Eucharist, say).
God forgive the poor deluded old girls. They are obviously pagan blasphemers worshipping the god of feminism. A god showing the signs of its age, as do the worshippers themselves.
Still, the infinite mercy of God might reach out, we are told, even to them.
I’ll remember them in my Fatima prayers. And plead for insanity on their behalf.