 |
| Francis embraces a Lutheran female "clergy". |
Yesterday I pointed out to friends that the reason why it is
very difficult for people to understand the Bible in today’s world (I mean
those who depend on church leaders for correct interpretation) is because the
majority of contemporary Scripture scholars and theologians—as well as the
church leaders themselves—have actually discarded the Bible. They do this systematically by treating the various
books that make up the Bible as separate books, and holding the view that each
of these books should be studied according to their writers’ “cultural
contexts”! So the idea of an inspiration
from God the Holy Spirit is simply discarded. The result is that today
everything in theology becomes subjective. The Bible, like other (secular)
literature, or other "holy books" of other religions such as the Koran, is understood as a record of human “religious experience” and as
such it can hardly claim uniqueness but must be put alongside these other literatures which testify to “similar” experiences of what one may call the religious
dimension of human life. Thus what we call Catholic Christianity now becomes
one of the many varieties of religious experience and its truth-claims are set
aside on the ground that they arise out of particular “cultural contexts”! Hence
the reason why ALL Vatican II popes simply scorn the idea of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus—outside the
Church there is no salvation—teaching unambiguously that there is indeed salvation in non-Catholic religions. (Note: what this shows clearly is that they
reject some teachings of the Bible since the Bible makes it clear that no one
can be saved outside the Church). Then of course, no time here to talk about the numerous FALSE Bibles used by Novus Ordo priests!
When
we turn to the early Church—particularly to a great Scripture scholar like St.
Augustine—we see the stark difference. In his work De
Consensu Evangelistarum St. Augustine writes (referring to the Bible):
“What are we therefore to understand except that these things were done
under the hidden direction of the Providence of God, by which the minds of the
evangelists were governed?...The memory of the sacred writer is itself directed
by the Holy Spirit...Thus the Lord himself determined that such and such be
written...All our holy prophets, therefore, manifest a wonderful assent among
each other, because they are spoken by the one and same Spirit. ...And hence
without hesitation or doubt everything is to be accepted which the Holy Spirit
spoke through them. ...This is therefore especially to be understood concerning
the holy prophets, and especially to be taught, that we should receive the
books of all of them as one single book, in which no fundamental disunity or
disagreement is to be found, and in which a greater consistency of truth is
present, than we grant in the books composed even by the most learned of men.
Hence whatever argument unbelievers or unlearned men seek from this source of
disagreement or inconsistency, as if to show the disharmony of the holy
Gospels, ought to be taken by the faithful and learned men as an opportunity to
show the unity of the Sacred Scriptures, even including the prophets of the Old
Testament”. (De Cons. Ev., III, 7 (30); P.L. 34, 1175-76).
Here St. Augustine—quite contrary
to the attitude of many modern theologians and “Scripture Scholars”—tells us
that both the Old and New Testaments convey one intelligible message to the
mind of man; this unity of the two Testaments provides the fundamental succession
in human affairs, the New Testament succeeding the Old, which gives St.
Augustine the basis for the understanding of human history. In St. Augustine’s time the Bible was
read and understood in the context of the church’s prayers and songs, its teachings
and beliefs, and its disciplines and habits. Now it’s quite the opposite! As one anonymous writer, commenting on
St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana,
puts it—contrasting St. Augustine with modern “theologians”, “scripture
scholars” and church leaders: “Augustine’s
view gives much more emphasis to the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit
to every word, every ‘jot and title,’ of the Old and New Testaments than most
historical critics.”
He continues:
“Augustine viewed the
Bible as a single communication from God, not a collection of separate Holy
books. If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then every word of the Bible
is part of that revelation. Even his outlandish allegories pointed to his
stance that there were no throwaway lines in Scripture. Every single word in
every single sentence was put there by the Holy Spirit for a reason, to reveal
on at least one level---and possibly many others---the Creator’s will for his
people. Therefore, the whole of Scripture should be read thoroughly. Augustine
himself only began serious study of the Bible after his thirtieth birthday, yet
by the time he became a bishop in his early forties he could quote from memory
virtually every book of Scripture. He didn’t memorize the entire canon. But he
had no trouble memorizing those things he found significant.”
Again, he writes:
“De Doctrina Christiana (Augustines’s great work)
describes Scripture as “a narrative of the past, a prophesy of the future, and
a description of the present.” There’s no room to leave any of it out.
 |
| St. Augustine |
“Of course, this clashes with the current historical critical ways to
interpret the Bible. Modern commentators try to reconstruct the train of the
writer’s thought---what was he saying to his particular historical reader at
that particular historical moment in time?---without much comparison to other
biblical texts and maybe even less reflection on related biblical topics.
Augustine, though, maintains the thread of every word of every verse he’s
studying with that passage’s relationship to a broad view of the Old and New
Testaments. The Old points to the New while the New reveals the Old.
“This view of Scripture also makes it difficult to interpret the Bible in
light of current cultural or social trends or practices. It seems very easy for
us to pick and choose what we believe in the Bible is imperative for God’s children today and what was only figurative speech or a cultural
reference to Roman Empire society in the first century. The decisions we make
on adultery, fasting, modesty, or women’s roles in the church don’t necessarily
come from Scripture. They come first from what our culture deems acceptable and
comfortable, and then that viewpoint is read back into our interpretation.”
He then quotes St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana (Book III,
chapter 15), where the Saint states:
‘As men are prone to
estimate sins not by reference to their inherent sinfulness, but rather by
reference to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man will think
blameable nothing except what the men of his own country and time are
accustomed to condemn, and nothing worthy of approval except what is sanctioned
by the custom of his companions. And thus it comes to pass that if Scripture
either enjoins what is opposed to the custom of the hearers, or condemns what
is not so opposed, and if at the same time the authority of the Word has a hold
upon their minds, they think that expression is figurative.’
“It’s why you never hear sermons against
“mixed-bathing” in Florida,” says the
writer, “or against cigarettes in North
Carolina...”
And I add: It is also the reason why we observe today that there is no longer any dress code for women in the Catholic Church. Apart from putting on men’s clothes like
trousers (condemned by God in Deuteronomy 22: 5: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God") women of this era can, in fact, even come to
church naked and receive the priest’s blessing even though St. Paul clearly
stated: “Likewise, I want women to
adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with
braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments but rather by means of good
works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.” (1 Tim.
2:9-11; see the article: What’s wrong with women wearing trousers?).
It is the reason why we observe that the Vatican and the majority of Vatican II
church leaders (and even some so-called “traditionalists”) are encouraging
women to come to church with their hairs uncovered—even though this is clearly
condemned in the Bible, as St. Paul states, “You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God
uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16). (See: WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!).
And finally, it is the reason why we see “Pope” Francis and many of the
clergy today clamouring for women priests even though St. Paul stated clearly
in his First Letter to Timothy, “Let a
woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (1
Tim. 2:12). And in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the
churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves,
just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask
their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in
church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only
ones it has reached?...If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he
should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If
anyone does not recognise this, he is not recognised.” (1 Cor. 14:33-37).
In early August 2016 “Pope”
Francis named American Feminist
scholar Prof. Phyllis Zagano (who has long championed the ordination of women
to the priesthood) to a new commission to study the idea of women deacons. The “Special Commission for the Study of the Diaconate
of Women”, headed by Spanish Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, included
13 members, some of whom were, like Zagano, advocates of women ordination to
the priesthood. (See: Francis
taps pro-women priesthood advocates to new commission).
Excommunicable under previous popes, women priests now open for
discussion
by Jan Bentz
VATICAN, February 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) --
Arguments for the ordination of women are being presented in the oldest Jesuit
Journal of Italy; a journal which is reviewed by the Vatican prior to
publication.
Though in the recent past the “belief in” and “public support for”
female ordination, as in the case of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, led
to a clear reproach from the Vatican in the form of “canonical warning” and the
threat of excommunication, today one of the highest ranking Catholic journals
lists “arguments” for it in an article by a priest.
“Civiltà Cattolica,” which takes pride in printing
with “beneplacito,” – consent – of the Holy See, has published an article
by Fr. Giancarlo Pani SJ suggesting that the admission to the priesthood of
women should undergo re-examination. The author lays out arguments in his
article in issue 3999, as Vatican specialist Sandro Magister reports.
Pani maintains that the exclusion of women from holy orders does not
take into consideration the “developments in the 21st century, the presence of
woman in the family and in society.” For him these “developments” – which he
leaves unqualified and unexplained – need to be increasingly reflected by the
inclusion of women in clerical undertakings as a matter of “ecclesial dignity,
responsibility, and participation.”
LifeSiteNews spoke with Prof. Dr. Thomas Stark, professor of
philosophical anthropology at the Benedict XVI Institute of Philosophy and
Theology at Heiligenkreuz, in Austria about Fr. Pani's views on February 8.
“Sacraments were instituted by Christ in a very exact, concrete way and must
therefore be administered in the same exact concrete way in which they were
given," said Prof. Stark. "Therefore the bread in the Eucharist cannot
be exchanged with meat of a lamb with the argument that this matter better
symbolizes that Christ is the Lamb of God.”
“Christ chose twelve apostles. If He had wanted women to be ordained,
then He would have instituted a mixed college of apostles.”
Last November statements by Pope Francis seemed to indicate that
the possibility of women priests was closed. "On the ordination of women
in the Catholic Church, the last word is clear," Pope Francis said at the
time. "It was given by St. John Paul II and this remains."
Nevertheless, in 2016 Pope Francis set up a commission to
study the role of female deacons in the early church after his exchange with
some 900 members of the International Union of Superiors General, a global
umbrella group representing about 500,000 women religious in about 80
countries. At least one of the women on the commission was a proponent of
ordination of women deacons who has spoken at conferences held by women priest
advocates.
Fr. Pani argues that the common faithful do not have “belief” in the
restriction as reason for its negation. Fr. Pani entertains the thought that
“it remains true that a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood
by the believing intelligence.” In the case of woman’s ordination, he says,
that is not the case. “Today there is unease among those who fail to understand
how the exclusion of women from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the
affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity,” Pani adds.
According to Stark, the argument that a Church doctrine needs to be
believed by those who call themselves Catholic in order to be held true does
not fit. “The consensus fidelium cannot be identified with the
consensus that reigns in society at any given time. The consensus
fidelium in the second century was for example in no way identical
with the consent of society of the believers surrounding Roman-Hellenistic
society and culture.”
“Is it not true today that the reigning opinion is in essential points
contrary to the consensus fidelium and threatening to the
faith of many Christians? It is the consent of the faithful and not the consent
of those who pay church tax or those church tax funded functionaries of the
Church,” Stark added.
Stark sees Pani’s argument as rooted in something else: “For a few years
now the illuminist and vulgar-Hegelian way of thinking has gained influence in
the Church. According to this way of thinking, the development of culture is a
constant movement upwards, to ever more illuminated heights of the spirit,
along with the conviction that every later development must be correct when
compared with an older one. Did anyone in the recent past ever consider that
there are also cultural processes of degeneration and spiritual decline?”
“I find it relatively laughable that La Civiltà Cattolica puts the
‘great developments’ of the 21st century – which are barely 16 years old –
against the rest of the history of mankind and cultures,” he said.
Related articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment