Thursday, 22 November 2012

Bishopettes and the return of "liberal" hypocrisy and cant...

Yesterday, the Church of England Synod voted down the proposal for women bishops. The reaction has been even more fatuous than one could have imagined. Once again the allegedly "liberal" hit-men who rule our society have intolerantly and arrogantly condemned the decision of the Synod in fanatical terms. What is most alarming is the way in which these so-called "liberals" simply will not accept any dissent from their views and when a vote goes against them, for all their supposedly liberal and democratic views, they rail against the voters for daring to disagree!

But the problem is even worse than that.

The supporters of women bishops seem to think they know better not only that the voters but than other churches, than 2,000 years of Christian tradition, than almost all theologians in the history of Christianity and even than Christ Himself.

Apparently Christ got it wrong when he only ordained men.

Naughty Christ for daring to disagree with modern "liberals"!

But these people are not only not liberal, they are also hypocritical. They seek to impose an entirely eccentric and theologically false view onto the rest of the Church of England.

If you are an Anglican who does not agree with women clergy you will be imposed upon and forced to accept this entirely novel, false and fatuous theology, against your will.

If you are an Evangelical who says it is unscriptural, or an Anglo-Catholic who says that it is unscriptural and contrary to the Catholic tradition and to a proper understanding of both ordination and the paternality of the clerical ministry, then your view will simply not be tolerated.

And yet these intolerant, so-called "liberals" claim that tolerance is their chief virtue! What priceless hypocrisy. They are simply intolerant of any view but their own and their own view is entirely without merit, tradition, theology or reason.

They have nothing by way of rational argument but only fatuous and emotional bleating of the most irrational kind.

Campaigner: "Boo, hoo, hoo...those horrid people in the pew won't let me be a bishopette and are stopping me fulfilling my brilliant career. Don't they know that it is ME who is the most important person in the world?"
"Bishop": "Don't worry, dear. We won't let reason stand in the way of your ambition to be top dog. I suggest you play on people's natural sympathies by boo-hoo-hooing in public as much as you can. Emotional manipulation is always a great political ploy!"

They simply do not know what ordination is, what human sexuality is for, what the gender differences are for, what the Church is for, who Jesus Christ was, or what Christianity is.

Their "god" is some vague and spurious notion of equality which, in fact, has nothing to do with ordination and everything to do with their own selfish and corrupt ambitions to dominate and oppress their fellow man. This they intend to do by imposing upon an unwilling church the cock-eyed and destructive values of a secularism that, in civil society, are being equally intolerantly imposed by atheism, and by atheist and secular fundamentalists.

We are told that the Prime Minister’s “personal view” is that women should be able to hold the highest offices in the Established Church.

Who cares what the PM's private theological view is? Is he God?

It is already ridiculous enough that a "synod" of clerics, clergy spouses and a select few laity should think that they can tell God that He got it wrong for most of history.

It was equally ridiculous when, before the Church Assembly and Synod were invented in the early 20th century, the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England were devised by a Parliament which had many unbelievers in it.

"In the name of the Mother, and of the Daughter, and of the Holy Woman Spirit..."

Here is a question: does the "Synod" claim the right to reverse its decision to ordain women? Could it do so in the future?

If it can reverse centuries of tradition in one vote why, then, can't it reverse its reversal in a further vote?

Could the "Synod" also vote down the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity and any other central doctrine of Christianity? If not, why not? If it can vote to pretend that women can be bishops, contrary to Scripture and tradition, then why not vote down all other doctrines?

This question swiftly exposes the fatuity of the so-called "Synodical system" in the Church of England.

Downing Street says there were no plans to change the law to force the Church of England to comply with equality legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex.

Well, well.The government is not (yet!) planning to impose secular fundamentalism on the churches but - hey! - don't get too cocky. We might decide to shove it down your unwilling throats any time we like.

After all, remember what we did to the Roman Catholic Church in Britain? We forced them to give up Catholic babies to same-sex couples, contrary to the Catholic religion, or to close down their adoption agencies! The Church chose to close their adoption agencies and give them to secular agencies (a transfer of some £200 million of Catholic money - the pennies of the Catholic poor - into secular hands).

See how that works, folks?

And see how "tolerant" and "liberal" they are?

It is priceless humbug.

"Bless me, Mother, for I have sinned..."
In Catholic theology, Sacramental confession requires a validly ordained priest, not someone pretending to be a priest...

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said the Synod vote was “disappointing” and had left the Church of England “in crisis”.

How would he know?

And who gave him any authority to tell the churches what to believe?

He even suggested it would be “difficult” for the Church to “project moral authority” after the vote. I suppose Mr Hammond thinks that his party is, on the other hand, able to lecture the churches on what moral authority is?

Perhaps Mr Hammond thinks that he can similarly lecture God about morality?
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of people pretending to be "liberal" and "tolerant" is what has really been exposed by the debate surrounding this Synod vote.

The theological position is simple enough. The clerical role is a paternal role, a fatherly role. It is not a maternal role. Sacramentally, any attempt to "ordain" women is a nullity, a pretence and a lie. Just as a man cannot fulfil the literally vital maternal role, so a woman cannot fulfil a role that is paternal. No more can fathers give birth than mothers can generate seed. Men are men and women are women. As Scripture says: "Male and female He created them" and for a reason. Each sex represents a part of the Divine. Together they make up the whole. On that footing, they are already entirely equal.

To give paternal roles to women, or maternal roles to men, is to abuse those roles and to dessicate, and ulitmately to destroy, those roles.

To do this in a spiritual context is little more than a form of spiritual transvestitism.

What next? Will the government compel nunneries to have a male Reverend Mother Abbess and male religious houses or abbeys to have a female Reverend Father Abbot?

Isn't it "sexist" to have only men in a male religious house, or women in a female religious house?

That's what could be coming up next, folks!

"The new Reverend Father Abbot arrives to take charge of the Abbey..."



Physiocrat said...

A further difficulty is how does any of this square with Apostolae Curae and the Anglican view of "priesthood"?

Tribunus said...

Well, of course, it doesn't, but the Anglicans are not worried by that since they do not recognise Apostolicae Curae.

The wider problem is that of the Anglican's idea of the authority of the Synod - can this motely collection of Anglican clergy and clergy wives declare the Incarnation and the Trinity no longer to be Anglican doctrines? - and the "liberal dilemma" which is to refuse to tolerate those who reject bishopettes whilst, at the same time, claiming to be "tolerant" and "liberal"?

They fail on both counts and thus become a fatuous self-contradiction.

Supertradmum said...

Of course, priestesses and witches were common in the Old Testament order and most early societies were matriarchies, which is why Christ continued the patriarchal system which the Trinity had set up in the Old Covenant. It is totally a break with both Old and New Testament Teaching as well as the Tradition in the Teaching Magisterium of the Church to allow women priests and bishops. It the Anglicans accept the whole ball of wax, they will have removed themselves totally from any pretence of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Really, should we care at all, with their "Archbishops" and "Bishops" appointed by Cabinet? Ecumenism is a sick joke. The sooner they disappear down the plughole the better, and the sooner the private joke of Anglicanism becomes a public joke, the better we will all be. They chose their path in the 16th Century, so let them enjoy their destruction. It is well overdue and may well be God's will, so I say let it be done. Considering the blood of millions of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are on their hands, so be it.

Tribunus said...

Well, anonymous, in one sense you are, of course, right but in another sense, I think we have to be careful about wishing for destruction.

The C of E still occupies an important place in the life of the nation and has a lot of influence.

That influence can be for good and it can be for ill.

Just because the C of E is making itself look ridiculous does not mean that it will disappear. It could go on and on and, in place of exercising at least some good inlfuence, instead exercise largely a bad influence.

Don't forget that there are still a lot of good people within the bosom of the C of E and their influence can still be for the good in both the C of E and in the nation.

And I think that Ecumenism, properly understood, is good, that is, the working together for the common good of Christian denominations.

And do not make the elementary mistake of blaming today's Anglicans for the mistakes of people in the 16th century.

That is the "sins of ancestors" heresy.

So far as I know, Rowan Williams has not murdered anyone!

The collapse of the C of E would be another nail in the coffin of society as a whole.

So - be careful what you wish for!