Glasgow Jesuits Invite Anglican Female “Priest” To Deliver Romero Lecture…editor
Blogger Athanasius, aka Martin Blackshaw, emailed the following letter to the Jesuit priests in St Aloysius College, Garnethill, to rightfully challenge them on this latest scandal…
January 27, 2019
Dear Jesuit Fathers of St. Aloysius,
I note from your online newsletter that you have invited Joanna Jepson to be the “keynote speaker” at your forthcoming Romero Lecture (January 29).
I keep thinking that I can no longer be shocked by the unCatholic actions of modern Jesuits, then something like this crops up and I cringe at yet another wound inflicted on the Mystical Body of Christ by those who should know better, especially by priests of an order named after the Saviour Himself.
How far removed you are from St. John Ogilvie who returned to Scotland after ordination “to unteach heresy”. He came to counter the Protestant teachers you now promote because he knew and believed that salvation is not possible outside the Catholic Church.
In this regard, you will doubtless be aware that Anglican orders are invalid by declaration of Pope Leo XIII. You will also know that priestesses are historically a pagan phenomenon. At any rate, you cannot claim ignorance of the infallible dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Hence it would appear that by inviting this Anglican lady to address Catholics you are knowingly opposing the immemorial teaching of the Church as well as the unique Judeo/Christian tradition of a male only clergy. This is called rebellion and you may be assured that it is not the Holy Spirit who inspires it!
Speaking of which, I assume you are familiar with Miss Jepson’s previous public approval of sex before marriage. This is clearly an anti-Gospel approval of adultery that contradicts infallible Catholic moral teaching, yet you still invite this confused soul to address Catholics instead of exercising true divine charity in her regard by trying to correct her and lead her to the truth.
This begs the question: What has become of supernatural faith in your souls, that divine virtue that inspired and fortified Catholic clerics like St. John Ogilvie to preach the truth “in season and out of season”, as admonished by St. Paul?
I hope you will seriously consider the question in these times of moral relativism and religious indifference, times in which increasing numbers of “dead fish flow with the current”, to quote G K Chesterton.
If you would understand why all seminaries in Scotland, as well as in so many other towns and cities throughout the world, have closed in recent years, it is precisely because too many priests of God have abandoned their supernatural duty to teach and to sanctify souls, choosing instead a less hostile engagement with the secular world that distinguishes neither truth from error. Is it any wonder that young men dismiss the modern priesthood as little more than a politically correct form of social work?
Given the sheer scale of the liturgical abuses and doctrinal deviances since Vatican II, rebellious outrages that can by no means find justification in the texts of the conciliar documents, the following prophecy of St. Paul comes to mind:
“There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables”.
Ecumenism is one such fable, condemned many times by the pre-Vatican II Popes as “an insanity” that is “fatal to the Catholic religion”.
Sad to say, the Jesuit order, once the bulwark of Catholic orthodoxy against the so-called “reformers” of the XVI century, has been at the vanguard in promoting ecumenism and other Modernist errors since the turn of the 20th century, playing a particularly significant role during and after Vatican II.
Of course we know that Pope St. Pius X condemned Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”, a definition that fits perfectly with the post-Conciliar “auto demolition of the Church”, lamented by Pope Paul VI.
Yes, the Church is undergoing the most serious crisis in her history, a universal Modernist revolution led by Churchmen who seek more the approval of men than of God. Hence the obscuring these past decades of so many divine truths once preached with holy zeal and without fear.
Speculating on the possibility of such a future tragedy in the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine admonished that in the event of so great a crisis Catholics should ensure the safety of their immortal souls by cleaving to Tradition.
By the grace of God my family and I made that choice some 30 years ago, as have many others who have witnessed the destructive superficiality of the so-called conciliar reform. I hope you Jesuit Fathers will reflect on this and resolve henceforth to emulate Sts. Aloysius, John Ogilvie and so many other great Jesuits who sought to convert Protestants rather than confirm them in their errors.
And in respect to priestesses, altar girls and other manifestations of female invasions of the Sanctuary, you would do well to remember that the sexes were created by God to be complementary, not competitive. The modern Feminist movement is not Catholic, it is Cultural Marxism and it should be resisted as destructive of both Faith and family.
Sincerely in Jesus & Mary
If any readers or bloggers would care to go along to hear this lecture, [Tuesday, 29 January, 7pm, entry free, 45 Hill Street, Glasgow, G3 6RJ], we would be grateful for your feedback. In particular, we would be interested to learn the identities of any priests or religious who turn up to support this event., or at least, an approximate number. All the better if you find an opportunity to ask them how they can possibly justify their attendance, and let us know because we’re just puzzled to death as to what possible rationale there can be for extending an invitation like this to an Anglican “priest” – and not just any old Anglican “priest” but a female Anglican “priest”…
Note: I have emailed the link to this thread to both Joanna Jepson and the Jesuits in Garnethill, with an invitation to participate if they feel that they can justify this scandal. This is not any kind of personal insult to Joanna Jepson. It is purely a matter of the exercise of our Confirmation duty to defend and promote the traditional Christian Faith, against the contemporary heresy of female ordination. This from 5th century Doctor of the Church – St Vincent Lerins:
“…in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.
“What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
“But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
“What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.” (The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434, ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
I doubt very much as you will too Ed that this E Mail will be read. Actually as a Man I find her quite a nice bit of stuff ( as we would say in Scotland) . Unfortunately this meeting is not as far as I can see yet a Beauty Contest although reading of the Jesuits recent history one can never be sure . Apart from the so called Novelty Effect what on Earth can this so called “priest” bring to a Catholic Meeting. Can she bring any Faith. Most certainly not as I assume she has a Degree in Christian Theology then one would think that She should know the Truth. Which is that there is no Salvation outside of the One True Church. Can she bring an extra audience av no doubt she can I can just see the Scottish Equivalent of Nuns on The Bus cheering her every word to the Highest Heavens . Or maybe in this case to the Lowest Point in Hell . Which going back to Christian Theology . I was working in a Protestant Church years ago and got to know the Minister ( who was a Man ) quite well . One day our discussion became a bit overheated about our Faiths . Of course he threw a bit of the Reformation in then I said to him ” Have You a Degree in Christian Theology ” he said that he had . I then said ” Then why if You know the Truth are You a Protestant Minister ” he walked away and I never ever got an answer from him . The point being Miss Church of England must as we all do know the Truth so what we then have to ask is the Real Reason for The Jesuits asking her to speak. ?
Speaking of being a “nice bit of stuff,” why do you suppose Miss Jepson is dressed like a bobby-soxer in the above picture, rather than a “priest” (or “priestess”, or perhaps she would like to identify as some other type of clergy…I’m sure the Jesuits would love to make up a new name for whatever she thinks she is).
Truth is, I think Miss Jepson is as much a victim of the modern confusion as so many other millions of younger people around the world. Let’s not forget (given her relatively young age) that she has been “conditioned” by liberal propaganda since childhood.
My congrats on an excellent letter to the Jesuits. No doubt they will simply fail to respond, rather than address the points you raise.
Sorry I forgot to say this in my original post on the thread.
Thank you. I reckon you’re right about me receiving no response from the Jesuits. I mean, apart from recanting their scandalous error, how else can they respond but by silence. It’s truly tragic.
I have just written another letter, this time to Cardinal Dolan in the U.S. Sorry I don’t have a copy of my letter to post here, having written it online as part of an archdiocesan web enquiry form.
The gist of it is that Cardinal Dolan has refused calls from leading Catholics to excommunicate the New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, who has just pushed through legislation decriminalising abortion up to full term. Cuomo, who claims to be Catholic, then went on to celebrate his victory by arranging a light display at the 9/11 landmark.
As a result of Cuomo’s evil actions, many in the Church, including some bishops, have called for his excommunication. Cardinal Dolan’s response to that call has been to say that he receives “barrow loads” of such requests every day but that he rejects excommunication because it wouldn’t change anything.
That, of course, is the Cardinal’s way of saying he doesn’t want to upset the elite. He has no trouble offending God and scandalising the faithful by his inaction in the face of evil, but he can’t possibly risk being blackballed by the high and mighty from future powerbroker dinner events. He is frankly a disgrace and I have told him so. His refusal to act makes him an accomplice by silence in a very great crime before God.
I’ll bet I don’t get a response to that one either! And to think how quick they all were to confirm Archbishop Lefebvre’s false excommunication in 1988. Hypocrites all!
It is just as Our Lady of Quito predicted for these times when Masonry would attack the Christian family: “those who should speak out will remain silent”. I think Cardinal Dolan should start thinking very seriously about where his soul is headed right now, unless he changes tack and starts behaving like a priest instead of a politician. Babies will die because of this heinous legislation of Cuomo and Cardinal Dolan thinks excommunication is too harsh a punishment!
Here’s the link to the report: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/catholics-call-for-new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-to-be-excommunicated-for-abortion-bill
Yes Cuomo is a despicable individual and a hypocrite. At the tail end of 2018 he was advancing state legislation to remove the death penalty “in solidarity with the Pope”.
Dolan is a useless individual, a man who – like so many prelates today – has got his position due to “time served” rather than any holiness or good work. He doesn’t want to rock the boat incase he doesn’t get invited to the next NYC celebrity gathering.
Plus, his physique indicates that he only acts decisively when he finds himself at a buffet table.
A typical modern “celebrity” prelate whose actions indicate that the novus ordo Church stands for nothing.
I was learning a bit more tonight on Fox News about just how despicable a person Cuomo really is. The new law he has signed in permits abortion right up to full term and even allows for a failed abortion to be followed up with measures that ensure the baby doesn’t survive. How utterly evil is this man? I also discovered that no doctor is required to be present for these abortions.
Today he went on TV and said that priests who sexually abuse children should not be hidden by bishops and that they should all feel the full weight of the law.
I don’t disagree with him, but imagine a despot like that, a man who authorises the murder of children in the womb (and in some cases outside of it) taking the moral high ground against the Church. Of course he was only making his feigned moral speech because of the growing voices in the U.S. calling for his immediate excommunication. Shows the depth the man will sink to in order to justify his evil, using cases of clerical sexual abuse to deflect the just indignation of people over his child murder legislation.
Cardinal Dolan has no choice but to formally excommunicate this apostate. He’s in New York so he can go join the “church of Satan” they have there, which is more in line with his immorality.
Athanasius and Gabriel Syme,
I worked for a Federal agency back in the 90s when Cuomo was the Secretary of said agency. That was before I returned to the Church, and before I knew anything about him. But I could tell from his first speech to us that he was an empty suit full of empty sound-bite words, for sale to the highest bidder. I wondered who had arranged for him to get this appointment (his father Mario was a Governor of New York, a Kennedy-style Catholic and Democrat).
As for Cdl. Dolan, I have no doubt he will invite Cuomo (along with Hillary Clinton) to the next Al Smith Dinner in October, with the excuse that the dinner is a fund-raiser for disadvantaged children. That is, if there are any children left in New York by then….
I think the Masonic lodge may have played a part in Cuomo’s rise to Governor, it’s the only explanation for how an empty suit can climb the greasy pole. But what does it proffit the man….!
You’re right about Cardinal Dolan as well, his eyes are fixed on the guest list for the next Al Smith dinner, which will doubtless include all the rich unsavouries of U.S. politics. How he can square that circle of inviting baby killers to dinner for the sake of the poor is beyond me. In fact it’s beyond all comprehension.
I have learned some more about Dolan, the US Bishops and the Democrat Party, which seems to explain the lack of action against Cuomo.
The U.S. Catholic bishops get 40 percent — four-zero percent of their money — from the federal government, from federal contracts to serve mostly immigrants. Open borders, immigration, the welfare state are all the economic bread and butter of the Catholic bishops.”
Zmirak added, “If the Democrats were to really turn on the Catholic bishops, they could bankrupt them overnight, and the Catholic bishops — not all of them, just 90 percent of them — are much more worried about the financial bottom line than they are about unborn children.”
Zmirak continued, “Add into that 40 percent, four-zero percent, of Catholics born in America leave the church because the corruption, the gay takeover of the priesthood, the child abuse, the lackadaisical teaching of doctrine, all the things that make the Catholic Church just like mainline Protestant organizations that are dying like the Episcopal Church.”
Zmirak went on, “These things are all real, and they’re killing the Church. But the bishops are replacing us. They’re replacing native-born Catholics with immigrants. One out of five American Catholics is born overseas, virtually all of them in Latin America.”
So it seems that the Bishops, Dolan included, sit back in silence in order to protect their coffers which benefit from mass immigration of the type the Democrats love so much (importing voters). Of course, they will hold up this money making scheme as “helping the needy”.
As well as money, the flow of immigrants represent replacement Catholics for the Bishops. Hence they do not care about the losses caused by the slop they serve up in place of the Catholic faith.
So we see the Bishops have multiple reasons to cosy up to the Democrats and either overtly support, or at least fail to oppose, their policies.
With some noble exceptions, it seems the US Bishops are in the main a group of uncaring, worldly men for whom money is the chief concern.
The situation – as with Catholic schools in Scotland – shows that Bishops should be very wary of engaging with secular politicians, as it inevitably leads to compromise and token Catholicism.
Says all that needs saying, does it not? They have chosen to serve mammon rather than God.
There is one flaw in Zmirak’s argument: if the USCCB’s Federal contract were terminated, it would be terminated by President Trump, not by their Democrat bedfellows. In fact, I’ve emailed Trump twice now, requesting that he do exactly that, since the Bishops are undermining his attempts to protect American sovereignty.
Speaking of money being their chief concern, it occurred to me this morning that when Our Lord drove the money-changers out of the Temple, he was not merely restoring it as a house of prayer. He was striking at the very foundation of the Pharisee’s power and prestige: money.
Interesting sidebar: all of the Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank (which is neither a Federal Agency nor a Reserve) are Jewish banking dynasties and their American agents. The dynasties are the London Rothschilds, Lazard Freres in Paris, Warburg in Germany, and Israel Moses Saif in Italy.
Thank you for that important clarification.
I had assumed that the contracts would be on a per State basis, such that Democrat Governors were in charge of Federal contracts in States which they hold.
This is an absolute disgrace. The Archbishop, of course, will shake off responsibility because the Jesuits is a Religious Order, but he cannot absolve himself of the guilt of this, potentially seriously harmful visit and talk from a female “priest”. The C of E is schismatic. Let’s not forget that. I am utterly scandalised at this news. The Archbishop is responsible for everything that goes on in his archdiocese. Has he written to his priests to warn them against attending this event? That is obviously not requiring an answer because we all know that the answer is “no way – he’ll probably attend himself”!
The Archbishop, like his counterparts in London and elsewhere, have been interacting with Anglicans for decades as equals. Not once have they stated the truth that Anglicanism is schismatic or that Anglican orders are invalid.
It’s a case of if you present the lie long enough people will begin to believe it. The really tragic thing about ecumenism is that the Catholic hierarchy are committing the greatest possible sin against charity by participating in it. True charity is love of divine truth and the speaking of that truth for love of souls. False charity is suppressing uncomfortable truths in order to get along with our neighbour in this world. The latter is false charity, a very great obstacle to the salvation of the souls of those in error. Ecumenism is the new humanist Gospel that contains neither religious truth nor error, which is why Stalin pushed it at every global summit while persecuting Christians at home. He understood the potential to neutralise religious truth through the Tower of Babel effect of ecumenism. It’s confusing and disingenuous spirit inevitably leads to mass indifference and apostasy.
I would rather debate with a staunch Protestant than an ecumenist because the staunch Protestant at least has religious principles he will not compromise easily, however eroneous they may be. That’s more honest than those who say let’s bury the difficult truths and move on together as though God is pleased with any and all religions. That’s the lie of Lucifer!
I absolutely agree about the Archbishop – he’ll do nothing to stop this scandal, as he did not stop the scandal of the ex-priest Thomas Groome, married with children, who was invited by the Jesuits to address an audience of priests and teachers. Not only did the Archbishop (I think it was Conti at that time) not try to end the scandal, he wrote to all of his priests to tell them to extend the hospitality due to a member of the “household of the faith”! This was to counter a letter from a young man, a new parent of a small child who was concerned at the implications of this for teaching in Catholic schools.
Archbishop Tartaglia is not likely to be any better. They’ve bought into the ecumenical lie and they will take it to their graves – and Judgment, IMHO.
I forgot to congratulate Athanasius on his excellent email to the Jesuits. I hope he sends a copy to the Archbishop of Glasgow.
I agree – an excellent email from Martin Blackshaw/Athanasius.
I notice that there is a Q & A at this event which means that Ms Jepson will no doubt be asked if she thinks the Catholic Church will ever ordain women. Is she likely to hear the truth – not a chance – from any of the Garnethill Glitterati who will form the audience, never mind the Jesuits, or any priest who attends?
This is just one more scandal emanating from the Jesuits in Garnethill. As Martin says in his email, they are now on the opposite side of the crisis now, at one time they were great defenders of the faith whereas now they are the Church’s biggest enemy.
It is shocking to think that Ms Jepson approves of adultery, has been invalidly “ordained” in a schismatic “Church” and yet will be lecturing Catholics in the city given the title “Special Daughter of Rome” by a pope centuries ago. Talk about how times change!
A masterful letter from Athanasius, though I fear he has cast his pearls before swine, and perhaps the length of his letter gives the Jesuits undue credit for being able to think like Catholics and act accordingly. The Jesuits, with their sound-byte, mealy-mouthed cultural Marxism, have been in the forefront of rebellion for a long time, and now have the dubious prestige of having one of their own at the top, to empower and amplify their rebellion.
At least the publication of this letter on this blog will give Catholics some solace – that is, those Catholics who are gravely concerned about the accelerating demolition of the Church. As for those “dead fish flowing with the current,” this is just another warm-and fuzzy to be celebrated by them. A milestone in the noble quest for unity!
And all the people said, “And also with you.”
Who was it said (? Malachi Martin) if ever a Jesuit is elected pope, run for the hills!
Makes sense to me !
I remember recounting those words of Malachi Martin from an interview I listened to, but maybe others have also mentioned it.
According to the rule of the Jesuit founder, St. Aloysius, no Jesuit is permitted to seek or receive high office unless dispensed by the Pope to do so. That dispensation clearly cannot extend to a conclave since there is no Pope in place to dispense a Jesuit chosen to be Pope. So Cardinal Bergoglio, in effect, broke the rule of his Order, the rule put there by St. Aloysius himself (still applicable), when he accepted the papacy.
At any rate, we can see how accurate Malachi Martin was. He knew the modern Jesuit Order inside out and he knew it to be completely Modernist from top to bottom. Our Jesuit Pope, tragically, is testimony to this truth, especially in the sphere of the Church’s moral teaching.
You have a special gift for putting things so very succinctly. I loved the final line. Hilarious!
I have received the following email
From Joanna Jepson…
Thanks for sending the link to the blog. May I ask that you change the description from priestess to priest; there is no such thing as the former.
The Revd Joanna Jepson
I appreciate that the dictionary definition of a priestess is “a female priest of a non-Christian religion” but that was my nod to feminism – I thought you’d be pleased! I’ll certainly post your request on the blog. It’s really a non-issue though, because, with respect, there is no such thing as an Anglican priest either; the Church, you will know, through Pope Leo XIII (with deep sadness), declared a negative judgment on Anglican Orders: “… we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”
God bless you.
I forgot to mention that I would, in a spirit of compromise, remove “priestess” and replace it with Female “Priest”, so I rely on a return visit for her to witness my liberalism… I know, I know, I’m going soft in my old(er) age… 😀
And would our many critics take note: this is the first time I’ve changed a headline and why? To please an ecumenical friend – what am I LIKE?! 😀
Great to send her the link to Apostolicae Curae. I hope that helps her to think through her “ordination”.
Editrix…I mean Editor,
The standard and predictable reply to a citation from Catholic reality – i.e. Tradition – is, “Don’t you dinosaurs know we’ve moved on from that? That was what Vatican II was all about!”
I’m just dazed at finding so many Catholics who fit your description. It’s beyond belief the way the Faith has been squeezed out of Catholics; I’ve had conversations recently that include the most amazing assertions, e.g. that attending an ecumenical “Mass” on a Saturday will “cover” [my] Sunday Mass because it was around 4pm.
Could you, I mean COULD you make this stuff up? And the classic response to my undisguised shock horror is a knowing smile and a remark to the effect that I am, almost forgot, pre-Trent.
God knew what He was doing when he blessed me with a sense of humour!
Just tell them they are now Protestants, and head back to the pub….
What else is a female priest if not a priestess? Historically there is no such thing as a female priest, just priestesses in pagan cultures. So now we have to deny the evidence of history because it obstructs the Cultural Marxist agenda?
Oh well, they have already changed history with “gay marriage” so why not eradicate gender further by calling priestesses priests? The proper feminine derivation of a male priest is priestess. This may be objectionable to some but I won’t lower my education standards just to please them.
Anyway, as you so aptly point out, there is no such thing as an Anglican priest (male or female) according to Catholic teaching. The Apostolic succession was lost following the 16th century revolt against Rome. So the question is entirely academic, or non-academic if history and the dictionary are to be believed.
I agree totally, but it is a fact that dictionaries tend to say “pagan non-Christian female priests” – I double checked just now.
Whatever the definition, they don’t exist, LOL! You can’t have a female priest in the Christian Tradition – it just cannot happen and it’s no charity to Mrs Jepson to pretend otherwise.
If she’s reading this, no offence intended, but there are few sights so ridiculous, IMHO, as a woman wearing a clerical collar, not least because the radical feminists fighting for ordination complain about the trappings of priesthood etc. The whole thing is ridiculous.
The reason why dictionaries define as they do is because, until now, priestesses were a purely pagan phenomenon, as you correctly point out.
The Christian Faith, however, as we all know, records no women priests in either the Old or New Testaments. There are many holy women cited in Sacred Scripture, often blessed above men to carry out certain duties given them by God, yet never the priesthood. The Divine ordinance is very clear from this fact.
Indeed, if any woman was worthy of the priesthood, should God have so ordained (no pun intended), then the Blessed Virgin would surely have been the candidate par excellence for the priesthood. Yet even the Mother of God herself was not a priest. She is in fact much greater, she is the Mother of all priests, all sons like her Divine Son, the High Priest.
It is therefore contrary to reason to deny Biblical and historical evidence for relativist reasons. Just because most today recognise women priests within Protestantism doesn’t mean they are legitimate before God. What is legitimate before God is what He has established and maintained for thousands of years, a male only clergy.
As an aside, it is strange in the extreme that Feminists who want to be women priests resent being called priestesses. It’s almost as if they are ashamed to be feminine. Either that or they feel inferior to men and must therefore insist on the comfort blanket of being called priests. Who knows, it’s all so very irrational today.
You won’t find me disagreeing with any of that but I decided to “lower my education standards” in anticipation of any number of outcomes, failing a gracious acquiescence on my part; I could foresee an endless exchange of increasingly acrimonious emails in my inbox, involving links to ancient documents and goodness knows what else, so I thought, Patricia, I thought, pick your battles. This one is way down the scale when your inbox is already overflowing (and not with milk and honey)
In the end, on perusal, I decided that the point is made by Pope Leo XIII who said, albeit not in these words, that there is no such thing as an Anglican priest, male OR female, any more than there is a Car Fairy about to deliver my longed for Mercedes-Benz. As I said, Pope Leo, but not exactly in those words 😀
So, making that point to Ms Jepson, I decided to rest my case. It really is important these days to pick one’s battles and not get bogged down in too much detail…
I understand your motive and I agree with you that it’s better than getting bogged down in theological argument when the fact is there’s no such thing as an Anglican priest anyway, man or woman. So yes, I can see your reasoning.
I’m so glad that you agree with me on this. Still, I’ll post the list below, in case you need it for future reference…
I’ll try to remember that list but I feel sure it will all become blank in my mind when I need it most.
A wise move, though I doubt you would have actually received an “argument,” since liberals are incapable of such. They can only defend their positions by ad hominem remarks and/or intimidation.
Yes, there is that… intimidation… best to give in gracefully…(just in case) 😀
Perhaps Miss Jepson would also like to dispute the title of “Mediatrix”….and instead call Our Lady “the Mediator of all graces”?
I’ve noticed this desire to eradicate the feminine from language, and hence we now have “actors” instead of “actors and actresses” and so on. I am only now beginning to understand this apparently irrational development; it’s clear now from the so-called “transgender” movement that the underlying aim of the entire LGTB+++ lobby is to eradicate gender altogether. Crackers.
Yes, and out with the masculine as well. Have you heard about the latest ad campaign from the Gillette razor blade company, which warns about “toxic masculinity”?
Here is a short list of reality-based identities that are now toxic and to be condemned and/or replaced:
1. European extraction (aka “white privilege”)
3. Trump supporter (“racist,” “fascist,” “white nationalist,” etc.)
4. Male and female
1. Indigenous peoples
3. Democrat Party voters
4. Ummm….I believe there are now about as many “genders” as there are Protestant sects.
Yes, I’ve watched in amusement as “commentators” with straight faces discussed the Gillette “toxic masculinity” nonsense.
Reminds me – in the contest of the current discussion on women “priests” – of a female “priest” who announced that her “sermon today will be on Eve and Adam” 😀
You mean you didn’t know that Adam was made from Eve’s rib?
It’s true! And that’s why, over time, they dropped the “M” from the beginning of his name!!
The feminists may have stepped in it big time, if they think Eve came first. That would mean that it was she who was made from the slime of the earth!
You should have donned the tin hat before posting that comment!
I think the general plan of cultural Marxism is to eradicate all gender identification in every sphere of life, hence the equality movement!
But God did not create men and women equally; He created them complimentary, each with their own gender-specific strengths and duties. That’s why we call the man the head of the home and the woman the heart of the home. As the old adage goes: “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, and “behind every great man there is a great woman”.
So this Feminist rubbish today is actually invented to stir women into rebellion against the order established by God. We see this painfully clearly today in the destruction of marriage and the family as more and more women put career before marriage and children. It is destroying Christian civilisation, which is precisely what it was intended to do. I’m only surprised that so many women, usually more alert to falsehood than men, have fallen head over heels for so-called Feminism.
If we look at the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary or any of the army of female saints throughout history, there is not one example of any of them demanding equality with men. They were all very comfortable as women with their own unique gifts and strengths. In the latter case, it is worth observing that only St. John, symbol of the celibate male priesthood, was found faithfully at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. All the other faithful souls were non-ordained women whose fidelity to God precluded ever questioning the divine establishment of a male only priesthood.
Yes, and I think that between evolution and the leveling-down process of collectivism, both of which have been introduced into the Church since Vat. II, our Catholic heads have been placed in a Satanic vice.
And who promotes “Collectivism” and “Evolutionism”? The Communists. It’s just as Our Lady predicted at Fatima, the spreading of Russia’s errors throughout the world.
Ecumenism, such as it is practiced, what does this lead to? Response: to relativism and consequently to apostasy…
I do not believe in the concept of « evolutionary Truth ».
You won’t have to, because there’s no such thing as “evolutionary truth”! But the whole foundation of Modernism – and thus the modern Church – is evolution.
I fully share what you write.
“I do not believe in the concept of « evolutionary Truth ».”
You are quite right not to believe in it. Evolutionary truth means no fixed truths at all, otherwise known as “relativism”. Man becomes his own God making truth subject to the various stages in his development towards full divinity (the Omega point, as they call it). St. Pius X condemned this error, also known as “vital imminence”.
‘I will not come in wrath’ (Hos 11:9)
A NEW TOWER OF BABEL: without certainties nor rectitude, religion has no meaning; it is no longer in the economy of salvation. It constitutes, at best, a simple fraternal community from which all perspectives of eternity are evacuated, and this does not necessarily correspond to what the faithful aspire… Is it not simply a matter of a spiritual misappropriation?
What a load of nonsense this event is.
Why should Catholics go along to hear a protestant speaking about a marxist?
The implications is, of course, that Anglicans have no-one worth talking about, and Catholics have no-one worth listening to.
Another great ecumenical triumph!
its like how Justin Welby recently said he “doesn’t care” if Anglicans become Catholics. This complements the Catholic hierarchy’s great horror at the notion of Anglicans converting to be Catholics.
So, the message for people trying to be Christian is that “no-one wants you, so why bother?” – another scintillating message for 21st Century Christianity.
We can at least take comfort from the fact that such events only draw ageing audiences of no-marks, so there will be precious few (if any) Catholics present to corrupt.
I think a couple of our readers are going to try to go along just to listen and take note of who is there, what is said etc. If they manage (despite the bad weather forecast) I will report back here, rest assured.
I take it you can’t be present yourself – that would have been an interesting report to read, LOL!
Unfortunately, I had prior arrangements to be in another of our fair Scottish cities today or I’d have been very tempted to go along.
To my surprise, a correspondent mentioned this thread in an email to me earlier today, expressing her concerns about the discussion. She finds the term “priestesses” pejorative when applied to C of E female “priests” because she has “close friends who are C of E clergy and they are both fine women, so much so that I wish that the majority of our local Catholic priests were more like them!
I have perhaps failed to make the important distinction (rather, I’ve taken it for granted) between the person and the objective truth. I’m sure Joanna Jepson, like my correspondent’s friends, is a very nice person, a fine woman – but she is not a “priest”. The issue is theological and ecclesiastical. Either Pope Leo XIII was right to declare Anglican Orders null and void – after a great deal of study and heartache: I believe he was hopeful of being able to rule the other way – or the Church is in serious error. Christ has failed in HIs promise to preserve the Church from teaching heresy in His Name.
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find a Catholic who is free of the Modernism gripping the Church today. It is very dispiriting. The above mentioned correspondent, by the way, is, herself, a very fine woman, a lovely person, so go easy on her, as she is really only one more victim of this horrendous crisis and loss of the Catholic sense.
I’ve promised to attend a meeting on Thursday which will be populated by such diocesan Catholics: although I know they will all be lovely people, fine men and women, I am anticipating that very few, if any, will have a grasp of what it means to be a Catholic. And I do get tired of being the Bogey Woman… So please pray for me on that day – Feast of St John Bosco, no less. A very promising omen!
If those people start to argue that Apostolicae Curae was before the Council etc, etc, you can remind them that the Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, signed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger – found on the Vatican website here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html dated June 29, 1998, states: “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.37… ”
So it clearly states that Apostolicae Curae has to be held definitively in order to be a Catholic.
You are absolutely right about the confusion amongst Catholics today, they really do not have a theological clue about the Faith they profess because they have never studied the teaching of the Church on critical doctrines.
They may well be very nice people but their ignorance does a lot of damage, not only to the Church but to poor souls attached to false religions. The term “priestess” is perfectly fitting and legitimate because it is the only term used throughout history to describe women priests in pagan religions. As I mentioned previously, there is no precedent for clerical women in the entire Judeo/Christian history of thousands of years, only in paganism. We cannot alter the truth just to satisfy modern society’s unease with truth.
Like you, I am quite sure that Joanna Jepson is a very nice and well intentioned lady. But for Catholics the fact remains that she is no priest (or priestess for that matter) according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Neither is she theologically sound given that she adheres to schismatic Anglicanism. And then there’s the problem with her support of sex before marriage which puts her clearly at odds with infallible Catholic moral teaching. Can’t sweep all that under the carpet just because she’s a nice person. That would not be true charity but rather to sin against charity by confirming our neighbour in their error.
I totally agree – and the more I reflect on this, the more I see that there is just no way that Catholics who attend the novus ordo can ever truly grasp -and / or won’t really return to the Faith entire and true. It’s the drip-drip effect – without realising it, they are imbibing all the errors of Vatican II, including the ecumenical mindset. It really does translate into the belief that one religion, and one “Christian denomination” is as good as another, that Tradition is really not central, we must “move with the times” even if they would verbally deny that – it’s clearly what they believe deep down. It’s very sad, indeed.
one “Christian denomination” is as good as another
I think the bulk of novus ordo clergy and lay people do believe that.
Despite the absurdity of the pretence that people with starkly different values and beliefs somehow have things in common, they believe it.
The doctrines and practices of the Church have been jettisoned and now the only qualification for a Christian is just to state “I believe in Jesus” protestant-style.
Editor and Athanasius,
They may think they are “moving with the times,” but I think that the times are about to come crashing down on them.
Regarding this nice priestess, I also wonder how much of her un-Catholic background has been swept under the rug by the Jesuits, or the Diocese, or whoever else promotes this woman. That’s a favorite tactic of the propagandists: hide the past of their heroes. You know, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama….[fill in your most notorious Euro politicians]…
It’s incredible to think that a female “priest”, who advocates sex outside marriage (adultery) is the invited keynote speaker at a Catholic event in a Catholic hall in Glasgow, named “Special Daughter of Rome” by a pope. It really is hard to imagine what more these Jesuits can do to attack the Mystical Body of Christ. Over the years, reading about them in Catholic Truth (but nowhere else) I’ve been completely scandalised at the things they advertise, it’s tragic, given their noble history.
“Tragic” is the word. Shocking and tragic. And, if you’ve ever been in their church, St Aloysius, it is absolutely beautiful, complete with altar rails. So very sad.
I’ve just had a telephone call from one of the readers who attended the Lecture last night.
He said there were around 70-100 people there but they could only see one priest – possibly/likely one of the Jesuits, so that would be good if the diocesan clergy stayed away.
Joanna Jepson’s talk was, our reader said, very interesting, centred on work in which she had been engaged with prisoners.
There was nothing controversial, he said, so that is all good.
The only scandal, as he reminded me, is in the fact that, by inviting an Anglican female “priest”, the Jesuits signal that women’s ordination is.. well… at least not a bad thing… And possibly giving false hope to the ignorant who think the Church can and will change its teaching on male-only ordination. Wrong. The Anglican move to “ordain” women represented an end to all hopes of organic unity, and while they can hold all the “Christian unity” weeks and meetings and services they want to hold, that is the fact of the matter. Very sad.
Still, pray for Joanna Jepson. She seems to be a sincere person, and perhaps some of the reading material now in her possession might make her think long and hard about whether she really wants to meet her Maker wearing a clerical collar 😀
Glad to hear the event was low key and not more scandalous than feared.
there were around 70-100 people there
Probably the average age was higher than the attendance!
I have a sneaking suspicion the Jesuits invited a female Anglican ‘priest’ only to make their own claim of being Priests more believable (given you do wonder, when you listen to them).
Comments are closed.