Father Chandler Holder Jones at Philorthodox had a post on Roman Catholic Acceptance of ‘Womenpriests’.
Quite a few bloggers have been posting on this issue since the alleged ordination of a group of women outside Pittsburgh.
A caveat, Father Jones is a Continuing Anglican priest in the Episcopal Church so his post may be is colored by his watching experience of the headlong slide into wherever it is the Episcopalians are going.
What struck me about the post was not the issue itself, but the way the conclusion was drawn. The conclusion over-reached the facts as they were stated. This is one of the primary problems in the blogosphere. It is a problem I have – so this hits home with me.
On to dissecting the content:
The first issue that needs to be addressed on this whole woman as priests issue is the whole concept of the priesthood.
All sacraments require proper matter and form as well as a proper minister. It’s all very well and good that these women thought they were being made priests, but you can’t make a priest out of a material that cannot become a priest (i.e., a woman). It’s like trying to make the Precious Blood out of water. It’s kind of wet like wine, it goes in a chalice like wine, you can consume it like wine, but it is not wine… It cannot be made into the Precious Blood. The same for women, they are human beings like men, they can wear clerical garb like men, but they are not men… They cannot be made into priests. If there were a valid Bishop presiding at the ordination (I doubt it), in seventy-five layers of the most traditional vestments, the ordination would still be invalid. No Holy Spirit, nothing happening.
Calling oneself a priest, and actually being a priest, outside of the Faith and Tradition of the Church, are two different things.
OK, so these women aren’t priests, and any properly catechized Catholic would know that anyway (and as such making a big deal out of it is basically a lot of smoke and no fire – see the Young Fogey’s comment on the issue and on the posting).
The post goes on to infer that a Roman Catholic parish in the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is going to sponsor a ‘mass’ by one of these women. Thus the Roman Catholic stance against this sort of nonsense is crumbling and the R.C. Church is on the same greasy slide as the Episcopalians.
Fr. Jones states (emphasis mine):
Saint Joan of Arc parish of Minneapolis Minnesota, a parish ostensibly in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI, is sponsoring a ‘Eucharistic Celebration’ offered by Ms. Regina Nicolosi
and he concludes by saying:
Is this the beginning of a new revolution in the American branch of the Roman Communion? The echoes of the simulacrum which transpired in the Church of the Advocate Philadelphia on 29 July 1974, and subsequent events in the Episcopal Church leading up to 1976 and 2003, are ominously unmistakable.
Now, checking out the website for St. Joan of Arc (which the diocese does not link to) reveals the parish to be on the far outer edges of Catholicism. They wallow in some kind of sci-fi weird flower power religion that vaguely resembles Catholicism. However, nowhere in last week’s bulletin did it state that the ‘mass’ would be in their church or that they were sponsoring the event. They were advertising an event at which one of their parishioners was to speak (maybe they thought it was going to be a bratwurst dinner – yeah, right).
In this week’s bulletin Fr. Jim DeBruycker, the Pastor (do a Google on this fellow – you will be incredulous), quasi-apologizes for the bulletin insert. From what I’ve read, in two weeks of checking out their stuff, the good Father has a real problem with being patriarchal – perhaps he’s a father that doesn’t want to be a father?
The funniest line in last week’s bulletin (beside the phony mass thing – and I don’t mean ha-ha funny) was this from the good Father:
In another e-mail someone suggested I was returning St. Joan’s to archaic times. I’m pretty sure that is the controversy over the ‘lord I am not worthy’ phrase before communion. I know to some people that sounds like a surrender to power based on a fear of abusive dominance. I admit if it was me saying this to the church governance I would be reticent to say it, but to me it is admitting am not perfect before God. I can be the abuser, the breaker of the community. I need the help of God. It heartens me to know the pope, the cardinals and the archbishops have to say it too.
It’s almost good catechesis for his lost flock, if only he would have focused on sin and being a “breaker of community.” Instead, he took a teaching moment and used it to denigrate others. Shame shame, patriarchal and judgmental in sheep’s clothing.
Father, be a good patriarch, a good shepherd, and take a positive stand for something. Being against everything, except what you like, makes the Church of Christ into the church of me, myself, and I…
powered by performancing firefox