R.I.P. Church of England

I spotted this article earlier today and would have said something about it at the time, but I was at work, and of course Vox Day beat me to the punch. That still doesn't stop this idea of ordaining not just female pastors, but female bishops too, from being the stupidest act of self-immolation that a religious institution could possibly commit:
The Church of England finally voted yesterday to let women become bishops – to the anger of many traditionalists. [Didact: No doubt the Big Fella Upstairs is positively thrilled to bits at the idea that His Word is now being interpreted via representative democracy...] 
The move was passed by a comfortable majority at a tense gathering of its parliament, the General Synod, in York. 
It ended 14 years of hand-wringing and faction-fighting, delighting Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and almost all of his fellow bishops. 
The decision freed the Church from the risk of intervention by politicians. 
MPs had threatened to step in to force the Church to accept women bishops in 2012, after a disastrously botched vote saw traditionalists narrowly block reform
David Cameron described yesterday’s vote as ‘a great day for the Church and for equality’. Ed Miliband said it was ‘wonderful news’, while Nick Clegg called the decision a ‘long overdue step’. 
But some evangelical conservatives and Anglo-Catholics – a branch of the Church which affirms its Catholic heritage – were left divided and angry, having long argued that the Bible and tradition do not permit women to become bishops. One said he had ‘betrayed’ his supporters, while others accused Synod members of being too worried about outside reaction. 
Their comments provoked protests from Church liberals and left the Synod chairman, the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, calling for quiet, telling its members not to behave like rowdy MPs.
Oh but wait,  it gets worse:
Yesterday’s vote came nearly 20 months after the Church’s last attempt to approve a law allowing women bishops. The lost Synod vote in November 2012 left the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, humiliated and apparently with little hope of reviving the cause for several years. 
But a new compromise, which allows scope for traditionalists to challenge the appointment of a female bishop in their parish, was brought to the vote in record time. 
The plan is based on the hope of compromise between opposing liberals and conservatives. 
Archbishop Welby said CofE members must ‘continue to demonstrate love for those who disagree on theological grounds’. 
He added: ‘As delighted as I am for the outcome of this vote I am also mindful of those within the Church for whom the result will be difficult and a cause of sorrow.’ 
During the debate, Guildford traditionalist Adrian Vincent said he would reverse his position from 2012 and vote in favour. 
‘By doing so, I am betraying what I believe, I am betraying those who trusted in me,’ he said.
I am hardly a theologian. To call my knowledge of Scripture "spotty" is to be almost absurdly generous. Yet even I know something about the story about a chap named Judas Iscariot, who betrayed those that loved and trusted him, betrayed everything that was right and good, in the name of that which was simple and expedient.

There is a truly tragic irony involved here. The Church of England was created originally for political reasons, to allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon- an act that the Catholic Church in Rome flatly refused even to contemplate, for reasons both theological and markedly political. The reforms introduced by the Tudors resulted in a Church that seemed to be following a doctrine that made more "sense", that was "easier" to deal with, and that was more "flexible" than the rigid and absolutist traditions of the Catholic Church.

Yet, some 600 years later, we see the circle close, as what some would no doubt call a heretical sect that was created for political reasons, now faces imminent collapse due to political reasons.

The CoE has been losing members for decades, precisely because it has adopted the sort of woolly-headed, gentle, feel-good doctrinal nonsense that has afflicted so many "progressive" Protestant denominations for so long. Instead of interpreting the Scripture the way it was originally written- to uplift and enlighten Mankind, to provide hope and succour and faith in a world of darkness and evil, to guide Mankind to a better future in spite of Man's own failings- they interpret the Holy Word in ways that suit their agenda.

And in so doing, they become the very evil that they claim to fight.

The Tradition Established by Christ Himself 
Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women's ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 1577) states: 
"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Priesthood Not a Function But an Indelible Spiritual Character 
Still, the argument continues, some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests. 
The Impossibility of Women's Ordination

In other words, it's not simply that the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained. If a validly ordained bishop were to perform the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Orders exactly, but the person supposedly being ordained were a woman rather than a man, the woman would no more be a priest at the end of the rite than she was before it began. The bishop's action in attempting the ordination of a woman would be both illicit (against the laws and regulations of the Church) and invalid (ineffective, and hence null and void).
It cannot be put more clearly than this. A woman can no more be a priest, or a bishop, than a tail can be called a leg. No matter how fondly the equalitarians might wish it, a female priesthood is nothing less than a fundamental betrayal of the Church and the Scripture of the Lord Christ. And that is precisely why any denomination that persists with this wretched folly will be destroyed- not through the wrath of the Lord, though it is thoroughly deserved at this point, but through its own stupidity and laxity and lack of faith in the very Lord that it claims to serve.

This folly is beyond stupid- it is a desecration.

It is now only a matter of time before the Anglican Church dies a long-overdue and thoroughly-deserved painful death- and despite all of the great good that it has done during its time, I, for one, will certainly not mourn its passing.



Comments

Popular Posts