|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.”
“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.
“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).
The article below, from LifeSiteNews, presents the latest development from Satanic Vatican:
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.
Francis 1 Strikes Again: Received His“Esteemed Sister”—Lady “Archbishop,” Head of Insane Lutheran “Church” of Sweden
A “Feminized” Catholic Church?