Would you be more likely to join…

[Paidiske]

A woman seeking power from which she has not a right is not acting in humility

Anyone who imagines that ordination is about "seeking power," radically misunderstands the nature of ministry.

If she could do that, what benefit do modern women hope to gain by exalting themselves over God’s Church?

That is not what ordination is. Anyone who seeks ordination intending thereby to exalt themselves over the Church, is completely unfit for such office. The point of ordination is to obey God's call, to seek to offer oneself - one's gifts, talents, experience, intellect and so on - in the service of God and God's people. In a particular role, but only as called by God and affirmed by the Church.

As it happens, I preached this morning on Matthew 20:20-28; a passage worth reviewing if we are to understand what we are called to. Ministry is not about building oneself up, but about building up those around you.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Anyone who imagines that ordination is about "seeking power," radically misunderstands the nature of ministry.

That is not what ordination is. Anyone who seeks ordination intending thereby to exalt themselves over the Church, is completely unfit for such office. The point of ordination is to obey God's call, to seek to offer oneself - one's gifts, talents, experience, intellect and so on - in the service of God and God's people. In a particular role, but only as called by God and affirmed by the Church.

As it happens, I preached this morning on Matthew 20:20-28; a passage worth reviewing if we are to understand what we are called to. Ministry is not about building oneself up, but about building up those around you.

Again, in an ideal world. As you stated in your previous post, ambition can also transcends gender when one places self before vocation. Lots of examples in history.

 

[Paidiske]

Again, in an ideal world. As you stated in your previous post, ambition can also transcends gender when one places self before vocation. Lots of examples in history.

Sure. But the point I was making is that it's completely misunderstanding both ministry, and the women who offer for ministry, to try to make out that those women are seeking power or to exalt themselves. (And how come that's always the criticism levelled at women in ministry, or seeking ministry, but it's not automatically what we say about men in ministry? It's as if that's a convenient accusation to level at women, despite it being completely out of touch with reality...)

Bluntly, I could have had a lot more power, if that's what I wanted, in the secular world!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Anyone who imagines that ordination is about "seeking power," radically misunderstands the nature of ministry.

That is not what ordination is. Anyone who seeks ordination intending thereby to exalt themselves over the Church, is completely unfit for such office. The point of ordination is to obey God's call, to seek to offer oneself - one's gifts, talents, experience, intellect and so on - in the service of God and God's people. In a particular role, but only as called by God and affirmed by the Church.

As it happens, I preached this morning on Matthew 20:20-28; a passage worth reviewing if we are to understand what we are called to. Ministry is not about building oneself up, but about building up those around you.

Catholic dogma declared infallibly by Pope John Paul II says the Church has no authority to ordain women.

If women continue to seek ordination, they are seeking to tear down the Church rather than build it up. That is not a call from God, as a house divided against itself cannot stand. God would not call women to destroy what He has built up.

The proper role of women is to be devoted to Our Lady and imitate her humility. Paul says I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Also let women keep silence in the Church. To go against that and contradict the word of God is not called by God.

The words of the Bible are the words of God, there is no modern innovation. Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. Holy Orders is not a sacrament for women. To say that it is would be to invoke the sin of envy.

In a way, I know how you feel. I am a man, but I am not qualified for ordination and never will be, not even for the permanent diaconate as I am too old. I envy the ordained and religious class. There life and ministry to so appealing.

But alas I can never live a life in community of religious, due to circumstances in my life that disqualify me. I do not blame the Church and try to get it to conform to me. I have asked God for grace and He granted it to me.

Instead of trying to force the Church to allow me to be ordained, I seek to serve the Ordained and religious class. They need our prayers, not our contention. Ordination would serve myself not the Church. As a woman, seeking ordination would only serve yourself, not the Church around you.

The most that I can hope for is a Third Order vocation. I have to stay and work in the world, yet edify the Church. I chose Rose of Lima as a saint to which I can study and model my life.

She was a woman of great beauty and her family and friends wanted her to be married. She devoted her life to God instead. She was also offered a place in a convent, but remained a third order Dominican. She was part of the laity, and worked for her family and still became a Saint. She showed me that it is much more noble to humble ourself before God and accept the role God has given us, rather than demand the Church abandon its mission to serve our own self interests. I highly recommend you study Rose of Lima.

You should also avail yourself of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, as well as start a disciplined prayer life

 

[Paidiske]

If women continue to seek ordination, they are seeking to tear down the Church rather than build it up.

An accusation without any substance. Where women have been ordained, we've been no worse than the men in building up the church.

God would not call women to destroy what He has built up.

In which case, perhaps the catastrophising is misplaced.

The proper role of women is to be devoted to Our Lady and imitate her humility.

The proper role of women - as for men - is to use the gifts God has given each of us, in loving God and our neighbour, and in furthering the mission of the church. Not all of us are given the same gifts, but all of us has a part to play in that work.

Paul says I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Also let women keep silence in the Church. To go against that and contradict the word of God is not called by God.

It's not usurping authority if the church gives it to us. Nor is Paul's instruction absolute, as he elsewhere speaks of women praying, prophesying, teaching, and otherwise contributing to worship.

Holy Orders is not a sacrament for women. To say that it is would be to invoke the sin of envy.

My tradition would say it's not a sacrament at all, so there's that...

In a way, I know how you feel.

I very much doubt that. I am a priest. I am a woman. And I am very, very tired of arrogant random men on the internet thinking they know better than I do about my own vocation, my own prayer life and relationship with God, my own church or my own ministry; or thinking that reposting the same shallow tired arguments that have been posted a thousand times is somehow some sort of meaningful contribution to the discussion. As if they think I have not read these arguments, carefully considered them and many others, or have somehow pursued this path on a whim.

I envy the ordained and religious class. There life and ministry to so appealing.

There's little to envy. The work is demanding (in all kinds of ways) and the tangible rewards are few. The parts of this life that are enviable are, in truth, open to anybody who is willing to devote themselves to prayerfulness and service.

Instead of trying to force the Church to allow me to be ordained, I seek to serve the Ordained and religious class. They need our prayers, not our contention.

I do hope you see the irony of this statement, in this thread.

As a woman, seeking ordination would only serve yourself, not the Church around you.

I am grateful to be in a church which disagrees, and has given me the opportunity to serve.

You should also avail yourself of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, as well as start a disciplined prayer life

I think this illustrates my above point most eloquently.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Have we considered, for sake of argument, that what one holds a"correct" for them may be interpreted as heterodoxy or heresy by others? That is what is happening here. I think we have drawn lines, way back in the thread, and as was evident a week ago, some of us got sucked into the my way or the highway.

Bottom line is that if you can not in good conscience reconcile yourself with a particular "confession", go somewhere that you can.

Me, I would love for the confessional Lutherans of today actually return fully to the worship forms, practice, dogmatics of the age of orthodoxy, but that ship sailed 300-400 years ago. I can accept that because there is so much that is good in my Church compared to that which I have seen in many, many other Churches.

Maybe we all need to be content instead of searching for ways to change something that is immovable.

 

[The Liturgist]

You know @Love365 , I really don’t think your arguments are landing, considering that you have both those who support women priests and those who are not in favor of women priests, at least in their own denominations, objecting to your arguments, and for diverse reasons. In particular, it seems absurd to suggest that introducing a female hierarchy in the RCC would instantly stop all abusive behavior given that the presence of female hierarchs in the mainline Protestant denominations has not had that effect.

Rather the best way to prevent abuse is to implement safeguarding programs, such as the really excellent safeguarding initiative run by the Church of England, which has women priests and women bishops. And every parish in the C of E, even those which are aligned with groups which do not support women priests, participates vigorously in the safeguarding initiative, because safeguarding parishioners and vulnerable people from abuse is not only morally right with urgency, but which also has the important secondary effect of safeguarding the church, because the church is harmed when it is abused by leaders by being used as a vector to inflict harm on someone else.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

An accusation without any substance. Where women have been ordained, we've been no worse than the men in building up the church.

In which case, perhaps the catastrophising is misplaced.

The proper role of women - as for men - is to use the gifts God has given each of us, in loving God and our neighbour, and in furthering the mission of the church. Not all of us are given the same gifts, but all of us has a part to play in that work.

It's not usurping authority if the church gives it to us. Nor is Paul's instruction absolute, as he elsewhere speaks of women praying, prophesying, teaching, and otherwise contributing to worship.

My tradition would say it's not a sacrament at all, so there's that...

I very much doubt that. I am a priest. I am a woman. And I am very, very tired of arrogant random men on the internet thinking they know better than I do about my own vocation, my own prayer life and relationship with God, my own church or my own ministry; or thinking that reposting the same shallow tired arguments that have been posted a thousand times is somehow some sort of meaningful contribution to the discussion. As if they think I have not read these arguments, carefully considered them and many others, or have somehow pursued this path on a whim.

There's little to envy. The work is demanding (in all kinds of ways) and the tangible rewards are few. The parts of this life that are enviable are, in truth, open to anybody who is willing to devote themselves to prayerfulness and service.

I do hope you see the irony of this statement, in this thread.

I am grateful to be in a church which disagrees, and has given me the opportunity to serve.

I think this illustrates my above point most eloquently.

Considering God ordained one Church, and the founder of your Faith group rebelled against it. Henry VIII had Catherine of Aragon killed and St Thomas More put to death for treason. Those are historical facts. How is that not tearing The Body of Christ, God’s Church, apart?
God did not ordain Henry VIII to form a church. It was the king’s decision alone, so that he could get what he wanted. That is not humility, it is pride in the extreme. Not God’s will but mine be done. You can say that he was just fighting a tyrannical Pope.
If that is all that it was, the it should have defended the faith once delivered to the saints. That is not what happened.

The Lambeth conference of 1930 was the first conference that carried the name Christian to Christianise lust in the form of contraception. For 1900 years, all who named the name of Jesus agreed that contraception is sin. The marital act is ordained by God for the procreation of children, yet now it held forth as an act of pure pleasure. Fornication is no longer a sin from which to flee, but is embraced.
What were the fruits of that ruling? Ninety three years later, we have a vivid picture. First came divorce, then “free love” and the “golden age of porn”, then homosexuality and bestiality, blow up dolls and now robots, and AI girlfriends, pedophilia is entering the main stream and we are told now that we cannot know what a man or woman even is anymore.

Do you not see the consequences prophesied by Paul when we leave the “natural use of the woman” ? The natural use of the woman is child rearing, not pleasure object. A man is a father and head of his household, but the modern sexual culture has turned them into boys degrading themselves in the quest for sexual pleasure.

How can your group claim to preach as Christ did, deny yourself take up your cross and follow me, when at the same time you tell followers to indulge themselves? It doesn’t make sense. Lust is a desire of the flesh that needs to be mortified, not indulged, yet the Anglican communion says it is no big deal and most Protestant groups concur. This should not be

It seems your ministry has clung only to what it thinks is important, which is the second great commandment. Love your neighbor as yourself. They say look at all the people that I have helped.
I am for the poor and widows, I bind up the broken hearted. Ok so what?
Do you not remember that there is a first commandment? To Love God with your whole mind, whole heart and whole soul? We love God by keeping His commandments, not watering them down and telling people “it’s ok God loves you the way you are, be proud of who you are” paraphrase

True Christianity is standing for the truth and calling everyone to repentance and belief in the Gospel. The truth is that heterosexual sin is just as evil and homosexual sin, as both profane the marital act. The two cannot become one flesh in either willful act. We call all people to repentance and to use the marital act for its divinely ordained purpose. There is no gay nor straight, trans nor cis in Christianity. There are the chaste and the unchaste. The chaste deny themselves and follow Jesus. The unchaste indulge themselves and follow self which leads to misery. My heart breaks for the unchaste because they do not know what they are doing. Appeasing them does not help them as it encourages them in sin, only self denial and repentance can save them.


I suspect that you will find some snappy answer to tell me that I am wrong. It does not bother me. I follow my Lord, and His teaching held for 1900 years, then your group sought to change it. The teaching still holds, but you probably won’t believe it unless the Holy Spirit opens your eyes. Scripture condemns sexual sin, your group does not. Who will you follow?
Is it any wonder that the group that ordains women was the first to discard Christian teaching on human sexuality? God forgive you, because you don’t know what you are doing.

 

[Valletta]

My answer to the OP is NO.

I have no trust in streams of Christianity like the Catholic Church or Southern Baptists that have such terrible recent track records on protecting congregants from predators. The way both place essentially all power in the hands of men might be part of the problem, so perhaps allowing women priests might help. But I still wouldn’t trust them.

Actually the Catholic Church has had new credible accusations per year in the U.S. in the single digits for a number of years. Ideally it would be zero, and one is too many, but the system in place is effective and should be adopted by other religions and public organizations. Unfortunately others have been slow to act.

 

[The Liturgist]

Considering God ordained one Church, and the founder of your Faith group rebelled against it.

That’s a bit unfair, especially considering the status of the Orthodox, who were never under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and indeed when we were excommunicated by your Papal legate, it caused a schism in the Catholic Church, and since that time Roman Catholicism has moved in a theological direction causing its Western Rite to resemble Orthodoxy less and less.

Furthermore, as any Western Rite Orthodox can tell you, Saxon England was an Orthodox hold-out in Western Europe until the Norman Conquest.

Also, Anglicanism cannot be defined by the actions of Henry VIII; he may have been responsible for the initial separation, but by the reign of King Edward VI, the Church of England had become somewhere in between Lutheranism and the Reformed churches, and then took an increasingly Catholic position during the reign of King James I and his Stuart successors, before reacting the other way in the 18th century and then snapping back with Anglo Catholicism in the 19th century.

Contemporary Anglicanism is a synthesis of multiple influences and in terms of consisting of a distributed system of autonomous provinces and collegial bishops, more closely resembles the polity of the Early Church before the Western church transitioned to a model of Papal supremacy and Ultramontanism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually the Catholic Church has had new credible accusations per year in the U.S. in the single digits for a number of years. Ideally it would be zero, and one is too many, but the system in place is effective and should be adopted by other religions and public organizations. Unfortunately others have been slow to act.

Indeed, if the SBC had implemented the kind of safeguarding system that the RCC or C of E has, there would not have been a problem.

 

[Paidiske]

Considering God ordained one Church, and the founder of your Faith group rebelled against it. Henry VIII had Catherine of Aragon killed and St Thomas More put to death for treason. Those are historical facts.

Henry was no saint and there's plenty to criticise Anglicanism about (I'm quite a willing critic from within it), but if you're going to try to make this argument, please at least get your facts right. Catherine of Aragon wasn't murdered. Her cause of death was probably cancer. And Anglicanism in its current form doesn't date to Henry anyway, but to the restoration after the English civil war.

As for one church, I believe in one Church; but I believe it consists of all those who are validly baptised. Our institutional divisions disfigure but do not destroy that.

Do you not see the consequences prophesied by Paul when we leave the “natural use of the woman” ?

I see that this whole argument has nothing to do with the ordination of women.

How can your group claim to preach as Christ did, deny yourself take up your cross and follow me, when at the same time you tell followers to indulge themselves?

If you can find one single instance - in a forum post (I've made over 34,000 of them here, apparently, so there's quite a back catalogue to wade through), or online in any of the several places that my sermons and other musings have been shared - where I have told people to "indulge themselves," you will demonstrate that your argument has some merit. Until you come up with such evidence, I suggest you leave off the flood of accusations.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That’s a bit unfair, especially considering the status of the Orthodox, who were never under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and indeed when we were excommunicated by your Papal legate, it caused a schism in the Catholic Church, and since that time Roman Catholicism has moved in a theological direction causing its Western Rite to resemble Orthodoxy less and less.

Furthermore, as any Western Rite Orthodox can tell you, Saxon England was an Orthodox hold-out in Western Europe until the Norman Conquest.

Also, Anglicanism cannot be defined by the actions of Henry VIII; he may have been responsible for the initial separation, but by the reign of King Edward VI, the Church of England had become somewhere in between Lutheranism and the Reformed churches, and then took an increasingly Catholic position during the reign of King James I and his Stuart successors, before reacting the other way in the 18th century and then snapping back with Anglo Catholicism in the 19th century.

Contemporary Anglicanism is a synthesis of multiple influences and in terms of consisting of a distributed system of autonomous provinces and collegial bishops, more closely resembles the polity of the Early Church before the Western church transitioned to a model of Papal supremacy and Ultramontanism.

That still does not explain their failure to maintain Christian Doctrine.
The situation you describe reads like an organization formed by men, rather than a Church of God. God’s people seek eternal truth, we are not a synthesis of multiple influences, rather multiple peoples convened by a single influence, the truth.

Orthodox have drifted in the finer points of theology. They seem to make good arguments according to human reason, but when inspected closely, original sin is denied and a hierarchy in the Trinity is taught. This is in contrast to the truth that all men bare the guilt of Adam until regenerated and the Trinity is co-equal and co-eternal. There is no imperfection or inconsistency in God.

I was once excommunicated and could not receive the sacraments. I know how it feels. The first instinct is to blame the other and justify oneself. That seems to work for a while. The concupiscence of the human mind is well versed in self justification, When I looked at my life and my actions I tried to repent, but could not. It was when I admitted my sin of pride, humbled myself and submitted to the full authority of the Catholic Church that the sin that so easily beset me was gone. The sacraments are real and God does what He says He will do, if we just ask Him
Excommunication is no excuse to start another Church, it is a call to repentance.

From the Liturgy of the Hours, yesterday

Responsory


2 Co 7:9-10


℟. The sadness that is used by God brings a change of heart that leads to salvation, and there is no regret in it,* but worldly sadness causes death.


℣. Our sadness is used by God, and so we suffer no harm,* but worldly sadness causes death.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Henry was no saint and there's plenty to criticise Anglicanism about (I'm quite a willing critic from within it), but if you're going to try to make this argument, please at least get your facts right. Catherine of Aragon wasn't murdered. Her cause of death was probably cancer. And Anglicanism in its current form doesn't date to Henry anyway, but to the restoration after the English civil war.

As for one church, I believe in one Church; but I believe it consists of all those who are validly baptised. Our institutional divisions disfigure but do not destroy that.

I see that this whole argument has nothing to do with the ordination of women.

If you can find one single instance - in a forum post (I've made over 34,000 of them here, apparently, so there's quite a back catalogue to wade through), or online in any of the several places that my sermons and other musings have been shared - where I have told people to "indulge themselves," you will demonstrate that your argument has some merit. Until you come up with such evidence, I suggest you leave off the flood of accusations.

If your group teaches that contraception is not sin, then it tells its followers to indulge themselves rather than flee the sin against their own body.
I have shown you facts, the Lambeth conference of 1930, and we see the consequences to society over the last ninety three years in response to that. Those are not accusations, those are facts

I made a mistake about Catherine of Aragon, my apologies. Henry divorced her. He had Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard beheaded. Of Henry’s six wives, their fate is remembered by the rhyme: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. Still does not sound like a great church founder.

Women’s ordination is problematic because it rebels against the roles ordained by God for the sexes. In scripture we see that the man loves the woman as Christ loves the Church and the woman is subject to the man. Subject does not mean inferior and most modern men would rather be subject to women. That is the sin of Adam, blame the woman and thereby blame God instead of talking responsibility. The woman that you put here with me gave me the fruit and I did eat. Women’s ordination does not edify a man in his proper role. It allows men to abdicate their responsibility and be ruled over by women.

Isaiah 3 sounds so much like modern society

12.As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them. O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive thee, and destroy the way of thy steps.

13.The Lord standeth up to judge, and he standeth to judge the people.

14.The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and its princes: for you have devoured the vineyard, and the spoil of the poor is in your house.

15.Why do you consume my people, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord the God of hosts.

16.And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Sion are haughty, and have walked with stretched out necks, and wanton glances of their eyes, and made a noise as they walked with their feet and moved in a set pace:

 

[Paidiske]

I have shown you facts, the Lambeth conference of 1930, and we see the consequences to society over the last ninety three years in response to that. Those are not accusations, those are facts

It is not a fact that everything that has unfolded since 1930 is a consequence of the Lambeth conference. I'd like to think we have that much influence, but realistically, we don't.

Let's be real here; your own denomination has tried to tell its members that contraception is a sin, and yet most Catholics cheerfully use it. You can hardly blame Anglicans for that!

And I note, again, that this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Women’s ordination is problematic because it rebels against the roles ordained by God for the sexes.

Well, that's just where we disagree.

 

[The Liturgist]

They seem to make good arguments according to human reason, but when inspected closely, original sin is denied and a hierarchy in the Trinity is taught.

That’s completely untrue. We teach the doctrine of original sin, reject the teachings of Pelagius and believe the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal; we do adhere to the original version of the Nicene Creed but that is because we feel it better expresses the unique personhood of the Holy Spirit. Please don’t tell us what we believe.

As I am neither the best Orthodox theologian on the forums nor feeling well enough for an extended theological debate I would encourage you to ask @prodromos or @FenderTL5 or @HTacianas if you have any doubts concerning our doctrinal Orthodoxy*.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have shown you facts, the Lambeth conference of 1930, and we see the consequences to society over the last ninety three years in response to that.

You have not shown any evidence that the societal collapse was actually caused by the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

Considering that even in England the Church of England was unfortunately not at the time powerful enough to change its own liturgy (see the debacle where dissident low churchmen conspired with non-Anglican members of Parliament to block the 1928 Deposited Book, which is vastly superior, in my opinion, to the 1662 BCP in every conceivable way), and that the C of E was the most influential and powerful Anglican church in 1930, the idea that the Anglicans orchestrated the counter-cultural revolution and the legalization of abortion is frankly incredible.

 

[The Liturgist]

Excommunication is no excuse to start another Church, it is a call to repentance.

No new Church was started, rather, a legate of the Pope caused a schism, one which is deeply regretted by a great many Catholics and Orthodox who have spent many decades of ecumenical dialogue in recent years seeking to rectify it, by attempting to wield a power he did not have according to canons 6 and 7 of the council of Nicaea, and in defiance of other canonical legislation.

The correct procedure, if he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was in error, would have been to call an ecumenical council, which is what was done with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. Pope St. Celestine positively regarded Patriarch Nestorius as a heretic, but he did not depose him, rather, he worked with St. Cyril the Great, the Pope of Alexandria, to get Patriarch John I of Antioch to agree that Nestorius needed to be removed, and once that was arranged, an ecumenical council was convened and Nestorius was deposed. This was the canonical precedent. Nothing changed between 433 AD and 1054 AD to give a representative of the Pope the power to unilaterally excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople (and furthermore, if the Patriarch were actually in error, he should have been deposed, and not excommunicated; also, according to ancient canon law, under most conditions, clergy could not be excommunicated but rather could only be deposed, since excommunicating clergy violated the principle that one could only be punished once for a given offense - the exceptions were doctrinal points agreed at the councils which were enforced by anathemas, but the legate did not anathematize the Patriarch, rather, without warning, he placed a writ of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia while the clergy were preparing to celebrate the liturgy, and then left the city.

And since your church now permits Orthodox to receive the sacraments, and allows its members to receive the sacraments from us (although most Orthodox churches neither allow their members to receive the sacraments from Catholic clergy nor allow Catholics to receive the sacraments without converting), well, the argument that we were rendered excommunicate falls apart.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also, by the way @boughtwithaprice , at no point has my friend @Paidiske ever called for anyone to engage in self-indulgence anywhere on the forums. I’ve been a friend of hers for almost five years, since I joined the forum, and I can definitely say she is not someone who promotes what one might regard as decadence.

Regardless of what your feelings are on the issue of women priests, there is no possible justification for criticizing @Paidiske in this thread on a personal level.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Also, by the way @boughtwithaprice , at no point has my friend @Paidiske ever called for anyone to engage in self-indulgence anywhere on the forums. I’ve been a friend of hers for almost five years, since I joined the forum, and I can definitely say she is not someone who promotes what one might regard as decadence.

Regardless of what your feelings are on the issue of women priests, there is no possible justification for criticizing @Paidiske in this thread on a personal level.

It is not a personal level. It is the Anglican position of which she is a representative that encouraged self indulgence rather than to continue to flee fornication. It was the Lambeth conference that started it. I grant you that it was not the intention of Lambeth to start the sexual revolution, but it is hard to deny that it gave it much more traction than it otherwise would have and continues to have today.

Lambeth compromised Christian doctrine in place for 1900 years, then all the Protestants followed suit, and some even try to justify abortion and minimize its import.
Granted, there were many Catholic theologians in the 1960s that thought the Church would follow and relax its views on contraception; however, since the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and not men, Pope Paul VI infallibly issued Humanae Vitae, which upholds Christian doctrine.

The consequences were wide spread rebellion by some Bishops. Canada issued the Winnipeg statement. People like Hans Kung and Fr Charles Curran taught against Christian doctrine and Papal authority, but were stripped of their teaching authority by the Church.

The rebellion has lasting consequences in that some reports say up to 90% of Catholics practice contraception, but the Church’s teaching has not and will not change. The people must be called to repent.

Anglicans? Orthodox? Protestants? They don’t understand the problem, to which we say Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing. Well the Orthodox are not as lax as the rest, but what I have read does not fully condemn contraception.

It’s not personal paidiske, it’s doctrine or lack thereof