Sunday, May 01, 2011

Rome embraces Mugabe for the beatification of Pope John Paul II


As the Blessed Pope John Paul II (‘the Great’) is officially beatified in a ceremony of great joy and religious fervour, there is a whiff in the air, if not something of a sickening stench. And His Grace is not referring to the bodily decomposition of the late Pope, who could doubtless be nosed after his unseemly exhumation, having been entombed for barely five minutes. No, the sulphuric odour emanates from the very-much-alive corpse of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who flew into Rome and was driven to the Vatican in order that he might attend the beatification ceremony.

Mugabe, a professing Roman Catholic, is subject to an EU-wide travel ban for more-than-a few human rights abuses. So someone must have pulled a few strings.

According to CNN, Fr. Federico Lombardi of the Holy See’s superlative press office ‘did not personally invite Mugabe to the Sunday event’. The reason he is present is because ‘a diplomatic relationship exists between Zimbabwe and the Vatican’.

Right. So you have a pleasant chat with the guy over a pizza and limoncello, and talk about saintliness and the weather. The Vatican ought to consider why such a relationship continues at all. The civilised world has imposed sanctions, instigated bans or ceased diplomatic relations altogether: it is the very least that morally-minded nations can do in response to murder, terrorism, oppression, starvation, genocide and a myriad of human rights abuses. The UK supports the EU’s travel ban and the Church of England has demanded an end to the regime.

But the Vatican is a sovereign state and not a member of the EU (despite continually desiring to foist it upon the rest of us). As a sovereign and independent state with its own sovereign diplomatic corps, its borders are secure and its sovereignty inviolable.

But Fr. Lomabardi explains: “The Vatican cannot tell Mugabe not to come if he wants to take part, just like it wouldn't tell no to Obama or Sarkozy, if they had wanted to come."

Curious, that. Because the Vatican is a sovereign state, and intrinsic to the notion of state sovereignty is control over one’s national borders (in the case of the Holy See, within Lateran Treaty confines). Someone clearly manoeuvred behind the scenes to circumvent the EU-wide travel ban which permitted Mugabe to fly into Rome. Who was that? It must have been some very senior Vatican official, colluding with the Italian government; conflating religion with politics; confusing the mind of God with diplomatic expediency; mistaking incarnate evil for one of the Catholic faithful.

It is not for us to judge the state of Mugabe’s soul or question his account before God. But it occurs to His Grace that the Zimbabwean President is about as Catholic as a certain German chancellor was.

Contrast Rome’s ‘normal diplomatic relations’ with the Church of England’s principled repudiation of the tyrant. The Most Revd and Rt Hon Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has heeded the cries of the Zimbabwean people for justice: “We can no longer be inactive to their call,” he said. “Mugabe and his henchmen must now take their rightful place in the Hague and answer for their actions. The time to remove them from power has come.” And he has pledged not to wear his dog collar again until Mugabe is removed from power. In cutting up his symbol of ordination, he said: "You know that identities are destroyed. As an Anglican, this is what I wear to identify myself that I am a clergyman. Do you know what Mugabe has done? He has taken people's identity and literally cut it to pieces."

And the Archbishop speaks for the entire Church of England on this matter.

What a great pity – not to say a very great tragedy – that Fr. Lombardi speaks for the Church of Rome.

207 Comments:

Anonymous CatholicTory said...

This is a nasty cheap shot at the Catholic Church, Cramner.

Sure, it's a mistake to allow him to attend, and they should refuse to give him the Eucharist, but the whole tone of this article is one of someone with a sneery attitude who's attempting to score points. For shame.

1 May 2011 12:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Has this not always been the case across the Tiber.

You mention the 'H' name, which will no doubt cause affront to those attached to Rome, yet all those who espouse that they are wed to this church, such as that German Chancellor and Mugabe, can find similarity between the actions of historic popes, 'who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and acknowledged as infallible by the clergy and the popes themselves', and their own tyrannical actions...for the betterment of their people, of course.

What exactly can Rome say to these fine dictaors that they have not engaged in themselves over the centuries, without confirming their own condemnation?

Our only hope appears to be that he dies soon and takes fewer innocent souls with him.

Or Africa can get a spine and deal with these types of people themselves, as they are destroying their own people on that continent and it is NOT by the hands of the colonialists.

E S Blofeld

Ps

Catholic Tory 1 May 2011 12:05

"Sure, it's a mistake to allow him to attend, and they should refuse to give him the Eucharist,"

Catholic Victim Rhetoric but no intelligent counter argument, of course..The Norm on this blog.

1 May 2011 12:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Catholic Tory,

The eminent, respected and enlightened Roman Catholic Mr Christopher Gillibrand has just tweeted:

"Mugabe should have been locked in Castel Sant'Angelo and let out when beatification was over"

and:

"Mugabe's presence leaves a very bitter taste given the heroic combat of JPII against communism"

Are these 'nasty cheap shots' as well? Or is it simply Anglicans who are not permitted to draw attention to this? You appear to be oblivious to the many thousands of your co-religionists who find Mugabe's presence utterly offensive. Perhaps you might like to stop sneering at Anglicans who dare to point this out, and take up the matter directly with Fr. Lombardi. Doubtless you have not yet informed him or other Vatican officials of their 'mistake', or demanded that Mugabe be refused the Eucharist.

1 May 2011 12:21  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

This was a well deserved shot at the Vatican. I abhor Catholic-bashing as much as anyone. But allowing Mugabe in is an outrage indeed.

Hell, the royals had more sense than that in writing up their Wedding invite list.

1 May 2011 12:31  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

I note the absence of Dawkins and his coterie of antiChristians from this scene though. Did they not consider obtaining an arrest warrant for the tyrant as he passed through an EU State on his way to and from the Vatican? Or do they reserve their spietful bile only for the Church?

1 May 2011 12:46  
Anonymous Paul Stead said...

Look! a Priest talking with a sinner! Crucify him! Crucify him!

Seriously Cranmer, is this the best you can do?

1 May 2011 13:10  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Whatever the diplomatic niceties, given that most people will see only the surface, this episode has the potential to undo much of Pope Benedict XVI's good work, particularly for those in the UK who welcomed his triumphal visit.
Christ mixed with sinners but the Vicar of Christ mixing with this unrepentant sinner sends out all the wrong signals. It is a great pity something couldn't have been done to avoid this unfortunate situation.

1 May 2011 13:20  
Blogger Albert said...

I think this post shows Cranmer's true colours.

Of course, one can disagree with allowing Mugabe to the Beatification, but why has Cranmer not stated some obvious reasons why he may have been allowed?

Pope John Paul II - whom Gorbachev credited as being crucial in the downfall of communism - used to meet with tyrants in the hope of calling them to repentance. This of course, is simply to follow the pattern of Our Lord, who also used to meet with sinners to call them to repentance. The Vatican is the Seat of the Vicar of Christ. When the Pope fails to behave as such, people like Cranmer are quick to point it out. Here, they criticise him for it. Can we have some consistency please?

Cranmer also misses that the Catholic Church works very hard throughout Africa dealing with the kinds of problems Mugabe creates. Of course one can make a principled protest against Mugabe, but it might be at some cost to the work on the ground.

To add to this, even if the Vatican and the Italians were pulling strings, why would the EU agree? Surely, they must see that there is some benefit to allowing him to come. Probably this is because, although the EU has broken diplomatic relations with Mugabe, the EU will still want to talk to him and influence him. The Vatican can be a very useful diplomatic service in this regard. Within the language of diplomacy, certain things follow from maintaining that relationship.

So yes disagree with the decision by all means. But recognise it is not as simple a situation as Cranmer makes out.

1 May 2011 13:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reuters reports the following:

"Mugabe will travel through Rome, but pacts between the Italian state and the Vatican stipulate that people heading to the Vatican cannot be impeded."

Reuters

carl jacobs

1 May 2011 13:31  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

What an uplifting post on this special day marking the Beatification of John Paul II. Very ecumenical and christian.

As you well know the Vatican had no need for behind the scenes
manoeuvring to permit Mugabe to fly to Rome. There is a treaty in place that permits anyone visiting the Vatican on official business to fly to Rome. No string pulling needed.

Whether he should have been invited is a more complicated question. As you point out it is a question of diplomatic links and is not an endorsement of him or the state of his soul.

God Bless John Paul II and may professing Catholics and other christians look to his life of humbleness as service as a model for their lives.

1 May 2011 13:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mugabe is using the Vatican to raise his international standing a little. One suspects the Vatican knows it is being used but I also suspect it is acting in the best interest of Catholics in Zimbabwe. The Vatican can't very well say this out loud because it would damage Mugabe's efforts. The specter of reprisal might be holding the Vatican's tongue. Perhaps some charity is in order.

carl jacobs

1 May 2011 13:49  
Anonymous len said...

I am amazed at the lengths (or should I say depths) that Catholics will stoop to defend their 'organisation'.
The stench of corruption does not come alone from rotting corpses.

Did the Pope rise again.......did he **** the Pope is just a man in need of a Saviour like anyone else.

To support your 'organisation'be it Catholic or otherwise regardless of the truth of the situation is to open oneself wide to deception.
If you do not have a 'love of the truth'God will give you over to deception.

All praise to His Grace who delivers the truth regardless, if others would only do the same!

1 May 2011 13:59  
Anonymous len said...

The Vatican also went along with another famous dictator (or two)what does it take for them to say no!.

Sometimes (most times)Dictators only see conciliatory moves as weakness and encourages them still further.

1 May 2011 14:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Could be just the angle but is Mugabe shiftily checking out the gold necklace on that clergy bloke in the picture?

1 May 2011 14:05  
Anonymous Plain Speaking of London said...

e s blofeld said 1 May 2011 12:20

I agree with blofeld..but the catholic bloggers are out in force, we see.

I find it unbelievable that all the RC's on here sincerely believe the pope and clergy are only allowing him to attend to stop him from some imagined atrocity, he may commit..

He is either there as the ruthless dictator of a secular state, comitting genocide against his own people and destroying a once prosperous nation or he is there as a roman catholic to participate and be feted by the Church of Rome..some consistency would be much appreciated for your simple separated brethren.

Maybe some common sense and discernment is in order?

Unadulterated double speak here!

London Calling.

1 May 2011 14:14  
Blogger Albert said...

I am amazed at the lengths (or should I say depths) that Catholics will stoop to defend their 'organisation'.

If you bother to read what people are writing you will see that they are not defending anything. They are simply pointing out that charity and intelligence require one not to judge (not to mention Our Lord - Judge not, that ye be not judged) because we do not really know what is at stake.

1 May 2011 14:16  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Plain Speaking of London wrote:

"I find it unbelievable that all the RC's on here sincerely believe the pope and clergy are only allowing him to attend to stop him from some imagined atrocity, he may commit."

Yes, about that.

1. I am a Reformed Protestant and not a Roman Catholic.

2. Most RCs would consider me a vociferous 'anti-Catholic.'

3. Mugabe's relationship to atrocity doesn't require any imagination - that being the reason people are exercised about his attendance.

We shouldn't criticize the RCC for exercising prudence regarding the lives of RCs under Mugabe's control. His attendance is a little thing. Getting people unnecessarily killed is a big thing.

carl jacobs

1 May 2011 14:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Lets read the full quote, Albert.
Matthew 7;1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It is clear from the context that Jesus was talking about people making personal judgments against others, when their own behavior was much more seriously compromised than the persons they were judging. I don't think Ernst is aware of committing genocide against his brethren. WHAT A BIG SIN!

Matthew 23:25-28
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

If Jesus wanted people to not be "judgmental" or judge other people's sin, He certainly did not take His own advice. In fact, Jesus often told people how to behave and specifically told them not to sin. If Jesus really did not want people to be judgmental, why was He that way Himself?
To judge or not to judge: that is the question, Albert.

So, what did Jesus mean when He said not to judge others, if He Himself was telling people how to conduct their lives? There are other sayings of Jesus that clarify what Jesus objected to when people judged each other:

John 7:24
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Luke 12:57

57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?

1 Corinthians 5:11-13

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Good advice!
E S Blofeld

1 May 2011 14:44  
Anonymous Paul said...

What would Jesus do if confronted with Mugabe Your Grace ??

1 May 2011 14:49  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The VAT-I-CAN like the YEWES is out to Taxus.

I have nothing more Valuable to Add in this Toxic debate.

1 May 2011 15:00  
Anonymous Plain Speaking of London said...

Carl Jacobs said 1 May 2011 14:23

1. I am an ex Roman Catholic and not a Reformed Protestant.

2. Most RCs would consider me separated brethren now, despite my belief in Christ alone as my Blessed Saviour'

3. Mugabe's relationship to atrocity doesn't require any imagination - Nor does he need an excuse to commit them, whether he attends any functions put on by RCC if he were not invited to attend. He commits atrocities because HE CAN.

We shouldn't criticize the RCC for exercising prudence regarding the lives of RCs under Mugabe's control.
When has he threatened this..Is he not a roman catholic himself? It is a mere excuse put forward by bloggers, to give succour for his acceptance and attendance by Rome!
Getting people unnecessarily killed is a big thing.
Giving a visible blessing to his continued tyranny before the world stage is a big thing too, Carl.


London Calling.

1 May 2011 15:00  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"What would Jesus do if confronted with Mugabe Your Grace ??"

Mr Paul,

His Grace does not presume to know, beyond telling Mugabe to 'Go, and sin no more'. Has any cardinal, archbishop or bishop, speaking on behalf of the Vatican, said anything like that? Has His Holiness? Or is His Grace supposed to infer from your question that you believe that the Lord would be content to fellowship with Mugabe and diplomatically brush his murder and tyranny aside while the dead are beatified?

1 May 2011 15:08  
Blogger Albert said...

It is clear from the context that Jesus was talking about people making personal judgments against others, when their own behavior was much more seriously compromised than the persons they were judging.

Perhaps that would be an interpretation of Mt. But if you look at Luke it is clear that Jesus has a wider interpretation of judgement. In any case, what is clearly wrong (and is at issue here) is judging someone when one doesn't know all the facts and issues (hence Jesus himself is entitled to judge). Such judgement, may, if inaccurate, be bearing false witness - violating the commandment.

Speaking of which, Dr Cranmer:

Has any cardinal, archbishop or bishop, speaking on behalf of the Vatican, said anything like that? Has His Holiness?

http://www.caritas.org/newsroom/press_releases/caritas_and_catholic_church_warns_of_zimbabwe_catastrophe.html

http://www.dailynews.co.zw/news/34-news/2223-mugabe-disowns-roman-catholic.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200703300746.html

1 May 2011 15:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Albert,

Rebuking vicariously through the media is hardly the same as saying it to the sinner's face.

1 May 2011 16:01  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

What dashing attire, pink is the new black.

I have wondered for some time, if there was any link between men who wear skull caps and the goenocide of the white race.

Thank goodness the CofE has John Sentamu to speak out.

1 May 2011 16:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Cranmer:

Rebuking vicariously through the media is hardly the same as saying it to the sinner's face.

Is that the best you can do? After all, how else will anyone hear if the Church condemns him? If the Church condemns him to his face, it's hardly going to appear on Zimbabwe TV is it? Do you know that the Church's diplomats in Rome or in Zimbabwe have not condemned him to his face? If so, let's hear the evidence.

These days, most Christians spend a lot of time trying to convince the world that it would be a better place if it were Christian again. The answer we are given is that Christianity leads to bigotry, hatred and lack of charity. This post provides evidence of that. You do not know what the real choices faces the Church are, you do not know what is at stake. You do not know what the Church has done behind the scenes. And yet you condemn. In the discourse over religion and society, posts like this are part of the problem.

You should take it down.

1 May 2011 16:11  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"The answer we are given is that Christianity leads to bigotry, hatred and lack of charity. This post provides evidence of that."

'Bigotry', Mr Albert?

Is that the best you can do? O, please. Go and contribute unintelligently elsewhere. 'Bigotry' is the ultimate insult hurled by those who have invariably lost the argument. You would feel far more at home on The Telegraph's platform.

1 May 2011 16:38  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Mugabe, a professing Roman Catholic, is subject to an EU-wide travel ban for more-than-a few human rights abuses. So someone must have pulled a few strings.

You bet someone pulled some strings, although I can assure you they did not have to be pulled at all hard.

There is also little doubt in my mind that the Vatican is far and away the most powerful institution this world has, or has ever known.

The Vatican has the sort of absolute power that institutions like the UN and EU can currently only dream of.

Having said that, we must try to be fair to everyone.

Therefore it is worth reminding you all that our own government commits murder on a regular basis. Worse still it commits these crimes in our name. The murder of one of Gaddafi's children, and 3 of his, being a case in point.

Therefore if The Holy Father banned every politicians with blood on their hands, absolutely no politicians, and few others, would be able to attend.

Mugabe, to my knowledge is a X JESUIT Priest, therefore it is hardly surprising he gets invited to these kinds of gatherings.

1 May 2011 16:40  
Anonymous PJ Bryant said...

You say "Mr Albert, Rebuking vicariously through the media is hardly the same as saying it to the sinner's face"

How do you know that has not also been done?

1 May 2011 16:53  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Atlas shrugged

"There is also little doubt in my mind that the Vatican is far and away the most powerful institution this world has, or has ever known.

The Vatican has the sort of absolute power that institutions like the UN and EU can currently only dream of."

[Blink] ... [Blink Blink] ...

That substance you were imbibing. Was it legal or illegal?

carl jacobs

1 May 2011 16:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Definitely the day not to be a Catholic.

1 May 2011 17:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Definitely the day to be proud NOT to be a Catholic.

Fear not, it will all pass as usual and normal service will be resumed.

The Tiber faithful will be telling us tomorrow what a wonderful church it is and how it upholds the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, despite the glaringly obvious.

1 May 2011 17:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Is that the best you can do? O, please. Go and contribute unintelligently elsewhere. 'Bigotry' is the ultimate insult hurled by those who have invariably lost the argument. You would feel far more at home on The Telegraph's platform.

Lost the argument?! Really? I have not argued that you are wrong to disagree with Mugabe being allowed to attend. I have argued that it is wrong to condemn when you do not know all the facts. I have listed the facts you need to know in order to pass the judgement you have. Where is your evidence in response to that?

And while we're about that, let's look at this bit:

Fr. Lomabardi explains: “The Vatican cannot tell Mugabe not to come if he wants to take part, just like it wouldn't tell no to Obama or Sarkozy, if they had wanted to come."...Someone clearly manoeuvred behind the scenes to circumvent the EU-wide travel ban which permitted Mugabe to fly into Rome. Who was that? It must have been some very senior Vatican official, colluding with the Italian government

Have you any evidence to support that rather unpleasant passage? As far as I can see it appears in order to allow you to imply that the Vatican did not speak the truth and that instead, the Vatican went to considerable trouble to enable Mugabe to come.

And, as several commentators have pointed out, it is factually incorrect.

So have I really lost the argument? My argument is simply that you do not know what you need to know in order to make the unpleasant judgement you are making. The evidence is all over this page, from a variety of writers including at least one Protestant.

And rather than answer the charge, you have simply told me that I have lost the argument. How can I have lost the argument, when you haven't offered an argument?

1 May 2011 17:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Albert,

It speaks volumes for your sense if ethics that, instead of addressing the issue, you choose to call His Grace a 'bigot'. He is used to it: it is a puerile charge. The facts are these: 1) Mugabe entered the sovereign territory of the Holy See; 2) He did so via Rome. So, either the Italian government unilaterally decided to abrogate the EU-wide travel ban at the behest of the Zimbabwean government, or they did so at the behest of the Holy See. You may prefer to believe that Berlusconi acted unilaterally, a proposition for which you, too, have no evidence. Judging by Mugabe's ultimate destination, His Grace believes that the Holy See facilitated the request, since the world's media refer to Mugabe as a 'practising Catholic', and a cardinal was on hand to greet him. If this makes His Grace a bigot, then, by your own reasoning, so must you be also.

1 May 2011 17:56  
Anonymous Plain Speaking of London said...

Mr Albert 1 May 2011 17:32

"Have you any evidence to support that rather unpleasant passage? As far as I can see it appears in order to allow you to imply that the Vatican did not speak the truth and that instead, the Vatican went to considerable trouble to enable Mugabe to come."

Fact.1
The Vatican is actually the world's smallest independent sovereign state, established by the Lateran Treaties in 1929. It is ruled by the Pope and covers an area of just 108 acres / 43 hectares. Close to the right bank of the River Tiber, the Vatican City has its own civil and judicial systems, post office, bank, newspaper, radio station, supermarket and railway station..

Fact.2
Last time I looked, it had no airport but Rome has 2..
Fiumicino Rome International Airport and Leonardo da Vinci - Ciampino Rome Airport owned by the Italian state and who are members of the EU, with mugabe landing in Italian sovereign territory. Without Italian collusion and turning a blind eye, IMPOSSIBLE!

Fact.3
The Vatican does NOT own Rome and therefore has no jurisdiction over it.

Fact.4
The Lateran Treaty is one of the Lateran Pacts of 1929 or Lateran Accords, three agreements made in 1929 between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See. All succeeding Italian governments have all upheld the treaty.

The pacts consisted of three documents:

1 A political treaty recognising the full sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican City, which was thereby established.
2 A concordat regulating the position of the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion in the Italian state.
3 A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See following the losses of its territories and property.
4. Most Importantly, The Pope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically requested by all parties.

"And, as several commentators have pointed out, it is factually incorrect." Please help an ex catholic out and quote these factual corrections you refer to, as I have scoured the comments again but see them not, bless you.

London Calling.

Your Grace has beat me to it.

1 May 2011 18:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Plain Speaking of London said 1 May 2011 18:00

Well said, lad.

Very brave and honest too as an ex catholic.

E S Blofeld

ps

You'll need to be quicker than that on the keypad to beat Cranny.

1 May 2011 18:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mugabe is a madman who should be executed for his murderous tyranny.

The whore soils herself yet again by involving herself with this lunatic.

Is it just me or is digging up some dead bloke (and shifting another one to make room, too) a tad disrespectful?

Popiness is dirty, through and through.

1 May 2011 18:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer & London

Please help an ex catholic out and quote these factual corrections you refer to

Try anon at 1331. Here's the full quote from Reuters:

The leader of any country that has diplomatic relations with the Vatican can attend Vatican events.

Mugabe will travel through Rome, but pacts between the Italian state and the Vatican stipulate that people heading to the Vatican cannot be impeded.


Unless someone can show otherwise, it would appear that there was no need for someone to

clearly manoeuvred behind the scenes to circumvent the EU-wide travel ban which permitted Mugabe to fly into Rome. Who was that? It must have been some very senior Vatican official, colluding with the Italian government

An already existing pact between the Vatican and Italy allowed it.

But there are so many other points that have been made here (not just by me) that Cranmer hasn't answered.

And while we're about it, I did not actually accuse Cranmer of bigotry. I said:

These days, most Christians spend a lot of time trying to convince the world that it would be a better place if it were Christian again. The answer we are given is that Christianity leads to bigotry, hatred and lack of charity. This post provides evidence of that.

Why does it provide evidence of that? Because it is a judgement based (it would appear) on an incomplete knowledge of the facts of this matter. But if Cranmer knows more, let him say - I'm not trying to defend the Vatican on this one.

1 May 2011 18:21  
Blogger Albert said...

And just to add - as I've already said, if the EU did give special permission then that would seem to imply that they can see the value of the Vatican continuing to have diplomatic relations with Mugabe.

1 May 2011 18:24  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments Cranmer. In the previous thread I stated that the Catholic Church was corrupt, it is, as well as being morally bankrupt.

1 May 2011 18:25  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Albert

It is also worth noting that Mugabe can go to The USA whenever he wants to without fear of arrest as he did just last year and before that in 2007 to deliver a speech to the UN, Cranmer ‘conveniently’ omitted this fact from his polemic. I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice a lack of comparison or criticism of the US in this.

After you hand Cranmer’s head to him on a plate and knowing he has been soundly beaten, in retaliation he seeks refuge in ad hominem attacks often with a ‘who-me?’ subscript followed by an attack on your competence or even ability to comment intelligently, this is his modus operandi, I have seen it many times. His last defence, when embarrassed on his own blog, is to delete your post Albert so watch out for that.

Like many of his co-religionists Cranmer is locked into the inevitable Erastianism of Anglicanism, once you understand this his inability to discern the subtlety of the Vatican in world politics becomes a little more understandable, but no more acceptable.

The Vatican has served this country well more than once by keeping relations open with countries that the UK has broken with and leaders that you have to hold your nose to deal with. Heretics, Dictators, Kings and Queens come and go but the Catholic Church will be here until the end of time, this is and forever will be lost on the Cranmer’s of this world who choose to focus on the short game.

It was Oscar Wilde who once quipped:

"The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone, For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do."

1 May 2011 18:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Recusant,

We all know why Oscar Wilde was keen on the cat-licks, eh?

All those choir-boys, and a helpful 'priest' to boot.

1 May 2011 18:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

Could you please provide evidence for His Grace deleting comments from those who do not agree with him or attack him personally. You are a liar, and it pains His Grace to say so. He very rarely deletes any thread comments, and when he does it is usually because they are gratuitously offensive or simply spamming his blog. Mr Arthur is welcome to continue his comments. You are welcome to continue your profound psychological analysis. His Grace will even permit you to continue lying.

1 May 2011 18:35  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

If I have correctly identified the right treaty, the appropriate reference is Article 19 found on page 9.

Lateran Treaty

"Art. 19 Diplomats and envoys of the Holy See, diplomats and envoys of foreign Governments accredited to the Holy See, and dignitaries of the Church arriving from abroad and traveling to Vatican City, holding passports of their States of origin, furnished with the visa of the Papal representative abroad, will be able to have access to Vatican City through Italian territory without any other formality. The same applies for the above-mentioned persons who, holding a regular pontifical passport, will travel to Vatican City from abroad."

carl

1 May 2011 18:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Recusant and Carl,

Thanks for your comments - especially to Carl since you are not a Catholic.

As far as I can see this can all be summed up in the shocking observation that the Vatican eats with tax-collectors and sinners. The Vatican really must be more biblical.

1 May 2011 18:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

Herod was a terrible sinner, and Christ would have nothing to do with him.

There is a world of difference between adulterers, hypocrites or drunks when compared to mass-murdering kings.

The blood of the dead cries out to heaven for vengeance, and they shall have it.

1 May 2011 18:56  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think it best to assume your grace may be somewhat contensiously making a point ,of the lack of any authority in in the Holy See as how to treat Mr Mugabe. This of course is a president who without any remorse has violently oppressed ,no doubt christians as well as those not of his poltics. He has run a marxist economy full of very rich cronies which is capable of doing more than campign to keep in him power when election time comes around .
Of course rebuking Mugabe the corrupt president ,is perfectly doable for the Holy See , but I can perhaps see there is a problem in what to say to Mugabe the Roman Catholic ,isnt the process one of confession in confidence and a then recommended penance. Assuming Mugabe does attend confession , does he do penance ?
Quite which side of violent marxism and christ Mugabe presents himself as ,your grace may be questioning that the Holy See should be more sure about in its dealings.
If he is avoiding trial ,whilst they are his sins ,the Holy See cannot absolve itself of its duty to the victims in his country , as the same justice is not dependent upon on political position.
I can see how such a position is theologically difficult requireing the holy See to rebuke his rule , condem or find him guilty for his rule , but not deny a break away from sin by communion just as practising member of the faith.This understanding of the faith is perhaps not new or alien ,as it has some basis in the repeal of the death penalty.
I presumme at 84 there is hope he will not be president much longer ,but a lot has happened since he was 80 .
I am carefull not to make too many links with how dictators may seem to fit in with unresolved christian theology , but our thoughts and actions are certainly sometimes condemable , and your grace makes a useful question to be answered in this age of the leftovers of history and global travel ,about standardisation of justice weigths and measures.

I am not sure if the AV campaign has reached its maximum , but the media went on Cameron and Clegg and only a brief snippet of Miliband ,who perhaps nearly blew the scam ,I cant recall verbatim but somthing like "it will give voters a chance to vote for other candidates ideas" .Ah Ha gottcha : surely one votes for the candidate who is accountable to his/her ideas and to you the voter , making other ideas a little extavagant .One person will take the seat ,therfore accountability via one vote is perhaps the best assurance of quality in the deal with the public.

1 May 2011 19:06  
Anonymous Plain Speaking of London said...

Lateran Treaty articles regarding Diplomatic Immunity.

Article 12

Italy recognizes the right of the Holy See to passive and active Legation, according to the general rules of International Law. Officials accredited by foreign Governments to the Holy See shall continue to enjoy, within the Kingdom of Italy, all the prerogatives of immunity enjoyed by diplomatic agents under International Law, and their headquarters may continue to be within Italian territory whilst enjoying the immunity due to them under International Law. Even in the event of their State not having diplomatic relations with Italy.
It is understood that Italy undertakes in all cases to allow the freedom of correspondence for all States, including belligerents, to and from the Holy See, as well as free access to tile apostolic See by Bishops from all over the world. The High Contracting Parties undertake to establish normal diplomatic relations between each other, accrediting in Italian Ambassador to the Holy See and a Papal Nuncio to Italy, who shall be the doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, in accordance with the ordinary practice recognised by the Congress of Vienna by the Act of June 9, 18 15. In consequence of the sovereignty hereby recognised and without prejudice to the provisions of Article 19 hereof, the diplomats accredited by the Holy See and the diplomatic couriers dispatched in the name of the Supreme Pontiff, shall enjoy within Italian territory.
Even in time of war, the same treatment as that enjoyed by diplomatic personages and couriers of other foreign Governments, according to the provisions of International Law.

Article 19

Diplomats and envoys of the Holy See, as well as diplomats and envoys-of foreign Governments accredited to the Holy See, and the dignitaries of the Church arriving from abroad and travelling to the Vatican City, provided with passports of the States whence they come duly furnished with the visa of the Papal representative abroad, shall be allowed free access to the Vatican City over Italian territory without formalities. The same shall apply to the above-mentioned persons who, being duly provided with a regular Papal passport, shall go abroad from the Vatican City.

However was Mugabe at Rome as a head of state on a state visit or as a Zimbabwean Roman Catholic?

Are official foreign stated diplomats and envoys different from a head of state, as they maintain the supposed open channel of talks as the official spokesperson?

Does this law take supremacy over EU Law? Very Interesting.

London Calling

1 May 2011 19:17  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

Fair point, well made but as we saw with the Royal Wedding the other day where the Dude from Bahrain, I dare say the Zimbabwean Ambassador (although they may have been booted out the Commenwealth) but other assorted riff raff and Blighty is at war in Libya; to convolute Church & state, ceremony & diplomacy is always a tricky wicket in these occassions.

Mugabe's attendance anywhere leaves a bitter taste in the air but that may just be syphillis or blood or corruption & blackmail, deceit and evil; better to have him attend than not, better to talk than not, better to see beatification than be blown up by a stealth bomber or Cruise missile. Talking never hurts.

I guess it comes back to the hierarchy of the Bishop of Rome, the fisherman; the cathcer of souls. I dunno, but yeah, am quite glad he was invited - had to be, really.

DtP

WV: choke - well, it's an option?

1 May 2011 19:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Herod was a terrible sinner, and Christ would have nothing to do with him.

Christ loved Herod and died for him. Just as he died for Cranmer's boss: Henry VIII.

I thought you were a Protestant. It seems you are a Pelagian.

1 May 2011 19:20  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I thought you were a Christian? Oh no, silly me; you're just a Catholic.

1 May 2011 19:24  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Engish Viking,

To be Catholic is to be Christian. His Grace is Catholic, as are all Anglicans.

1 May 2011 19:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

I'm afraid that the Roman variety do not meet the criteria for salvation, i.e repentance and faith in Christ alone.

I'm not an Anglican.

1 May 2011 19:32  
Anonymous not a machine said...

For some reason I keep thinking about Barrabus and render unto Caesar what is Caesers.

But then are the 10 commandemnts personal or collective ??

Very interesting , does anyone have anything on what Thomas Aquinas may have thought ? My understanding of christian justice is limited other than understanding personal sin.

very interesting though ,if we are missing "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but there were people of law even in Jesus time ,if anyone is up for playing the ball rather than denomination. Would be very greatful for some guidence.

1 May 2011 19:37  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm afraid that the Roman variety do not meet the criteria for salvation, i.e repentance and faith in Christ alone.

Yes, we do. But it was your earlier post that cast doubt that doctrine.

1 May 2011 19:40  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I'm so pleased you have decided to ditch the old chap in a dress. Even more that you have also stopped praying to dead women, Excellent news.

1 May 2011 19:48  
Anonymous len said...

I really do not understand this religion business.
All Anglicans are Catholics.So why call yourself an Anglican ?
And what`s the difference?.
Is an Anglican Catholic different in name only to Roman Catholics,or are there doctrinal differences( I thought there were.)
Why the 39 Articles if there is no difference?.What about the Pope (better not even go there)

I can only see that religion (in the most part)leads people away from Christ and not to Him.If my denomination( I haven`t got one)causes so much controversy is it part of God`s plan?(God is NOT the author of confusion and there seems to be plenty of that here!.

The True Body of Christ is not disconnected but a single unit united under the authority of the head(which is Christ.)

I am interested only in the truth and Catholicism seems( to me )to be severely lacking in that department)and have to many 'additions' to line up with Scripture.

Unity is great, and it would be nice, but how can there be unity when the divisions of Christianity are so far out of step with each other!

1 May 2011 19:56  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm so pleased you have decided to ditch the old chap in a dress. Even more that you have also stopped praying to dead women

I've not ditched anything - I'm holding the faith of the Holy Father. You think that asking someone for her prayers is an act of faith? I wonder how many of your Protestant conferes would agree.

1 May 2011 20:06  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

Communicating (or attempting to) with the dead is necromancy, and strictly forbidden in scripture.

Call no man father.

What makes you assume that I am a 'Protestant'?

1 May 2011 20:42  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thanks Be To God for the blessing that freed England from papists for so long. [And for Cranmer's part in the devolution].

Now we're no longer our own people the RCs apparently smell blood -- and we get to see how wonderful our fathers were for disempowering them. Their resurgence here also leads to understanding of my grandmother's story of what she contended against: she who married in the COE, and rejected RCism for her children. As she indicated, the resulting aggression is almost enough to 'make a parson swear and burn his Book.'

1 May 2011 20:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Communicating (or attempting to) with the dead is necromancy, and strictly forbidden in scripture.

It is not necromancy, and in any case, you need to show that asking for Mary's prayers shows we do not have faith in Christ alone.

My apologies if I misattributed Protestantism to you. What are you then?

1 May 2011 21:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

When all the dust settles and all this 'political' and 'religious' mud slinging ends, lets just remember Blessed John Paul for what he was.

A man, like others, given a great responsibility and commission by God. A servant of God who gave his life to Christ. Who acted with quiet humility and was an explemplar of devotion and service.

As Pope he recharged the church, for young people in particular, and shepherded Catholicism through the troubled waters of post-Vatican II.

Today is a great day for Roman Catholics and for all christians!

The Beatification of one of a great Pope. The Feast of Divine Mercy, approved by Blessed John Paul, and the beginning of the month of May, during which we recall and celebrate Our Lady's unique contribution to salvation history.

God Bless.

1 May 2011 22:04  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said ...

'English Viking' is a 'born again' christian and so far as I know is a member of no denomination.

Bit like 'len' in this regard. Neither acknowledges any authority over their reading and understanding of 'sola scriptura'.

1 May 2011 22:28  
Anonymous Plain Speaking of London said...

There appears to be no church more 'agressively loving' of its fellow men or more assured of it's own infallibility than Roman Catholicism.

"Today is a great day for Roman Catholics and for all christians!
" for ALL christians? How come if other christians believe ALL are called saints and need no religious ceremony to pronounce them so..please speak for yourselves as ROMAN catholics and not for separated brethren, unless they personally believe this doctrine. You presume too much, as usual. If anyone should be called a saint and pronounced one, it should be William Tyndale, who helped free a nation from man-made traditions and superstitious fables!

London Calling

By the way that you must be born again as a christian is biblical and from Christ himself;
"Jesus answered: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again. "

The term catholic is not found in the bible (first used in a letter of Ignatius of Antioch,)and has lost it's true meaning (if you must prefix it with the word Roman, how is it 'universal' and encompasssing 'fullness'), the same way that the word Gay has been hijacked.

1 May 2011 23:11  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

The Recusant; the Anglican Church is not inevitably Erastian, at least not in its best manifestations. Indeed it is the Roman Church, perhaps inevitably after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, which has claimed a spiritual and temporal authority that seems to combine absolute Pontiff with Emperor. This is not the role Peter gave to Christ, Peter was not absolute sovereign, spiritual and temporal, but the primus inter pater, or first among equals as was long the Pope's role in the early Church and always was in the East. Many Anglicans and Orthodox are more than willing to recognise the Pope's rightful position. This aggrandised position claimed by the Popes since at least Hildebrand though has caused much imbalance in the Western Church and was one reason for the Reformation.

No, the Anglican tradition at its best, with Hooker, with Laud, the Caroline divines, with Burke, Coleridge and the Tractarians, achieves that sublime division of the spiritual and temporal which is the truest Christian commonwealth and characteristic of the Christian East, particularly Byzantium.

2 May 2011 02:05  
Anonymous len said...

The Roman Church is certainly not 'universal'it is extremely selective and encompasses those within its clutches,and uses control and manipulation to ensure none escapes! . Catholics by their denial of the appalling history(past and present) of the Catholic Church bear testimony to this!!
Catholicism cannot speak for Christians only for Catholics.

Dear me Dodo,
I am a member of the Body of Christ,you cannot 'join'the Body of Christ you are born into it.
I come under the Authority of Jesus Christ who is the Head of the Body.
I owe no allegiance to any religious organisation set up by men for their own financial gain or just pure lust for power and prestige. In fact when I see the Pope usurping Jesus`s place it makes me feel physically sick.
You must be spiritually blinded not to see this.

I pray that you( and the others) escape from the bondage of the religious system you are entrapped within.

2 May 2011 08:22  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2011 10:39  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"The Roman Church ..."

And I pray that you are released from the stubborn, rebellious individualism and self rightousness you are trapped in.

You appear to accept no authority but your own understanding scripture. A boastful and hazardous place to be.

2 May 2011 10:44  
Anonymous len said...

Oh Dodo, Oh dear,
Don`t get in a flap.


Have I made you my enemy by telling you the truth?

I would rather tell you the truth(in love ) than lie to you and have you for my friend.

Bless you.

2 May 2011 10:58  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Dodo,MrDodo,
You have clearly not understood any thing I have said(past or present)

My righteousness is as 'filthy rags' to coin a phrase............I reject it!

My righteousness is HIS Righteousness!

2 May 2011 11:01  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said ...

And to think you believe the field of Roman Catholics is ripe for harvesting! Not with the patronising and, I repeat,self-rightous attitude you consistently adopt!

Like you, I believe in speaking the truth as I understand it. Speak yours but show a tad more humility and do please demonstrate a better understanding of the views of those you seek to 'convert'.

Roman Catholicism is a rich and complex profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Stop caraturising this and the church's history in simplistic and offensive ways.

2 May 2011 11:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

If attempting to communicate with the dead is not necromancy, what else is it?

Has Mary some divine attribute, that she can hear the prayers of (presumably) 100,000's of simultaneous cat-lick supplications at any one time? (even though her corpse moulders in the grave?)

What about all those prayers to long dead-saints?

Dodo,

One is either born again, and therefore a Christian, else one is not, and is therefore not. Born again is not a denomination, it is the very essence of salvation. cf. John 3.

BTW You're wrong about who I am willing to defer and even submit to, in matters biblical, but not one of them wears a ludicrous and frighteningly expensive dress (to cover his tail) a special shaped hat (to cover his horns) or lives in a palace, with his own personal army, declaring his little patch of garden to be his very own little country. The vicar of Christ? Pah.

The foxes have their holes, and the birds of the air have their nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head.

2 May 2011 11:43  
Blogger Albert said...

If attempting to communicate with the dead is not necromancy, what else is it?

The charge is yours, it is therefore down to you to define and defend the charge. I cannot answer the charge unless you tell me what I am charged with.

Has Mary some divine attribute, that she can hear the prayers of (presumably) 100,000's of simultaneous cat-lick supplications at any one time?

Do you think Our Lord hears our prayers in his humanity or just his divinity?

(even though her corpse moulders in the grave?)

As a Catholic I do not believe that God is so unjust as to overlook her work and the love which she showed for his sake, as you imply. But the charge is ironic for the etymology of necromancy has to do with raising dead bodies. If we have raised her body, she is not in the grave.

2 May 2011 12:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

It has to do with the raising of the spirit, not the body.

cf The witch of Endor, and Samuel's disturbed sleep.

Do not attempt to deflect questions you do not like. We all know of Christ's powers.

Does Mary possess any of the same? How does a dead woman answer your call for assistance and where is this call sanctioned in the Bible?

Just to be clear, I think that Mary was a special woman. She must have been, she was selected to mother Christ. I'm sure God has something very special lined up for her. But at this moment she sleeps and her body rots, awaiting resurrection AND judgement of service, just like other believers. No more, no less.

2 May 2011 12:52  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

E.V, lets go back to the very beginning. Where does the Bible gets it authority from? Why do you believe only the bible has any Christian authority?

2 May 2011 13:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Do not attempt to deflect questions you do not like. We all know of Christ's powers.

Where have I deflected a question? Your previous post implied Christ was not omniscient in his humanity. Is that your position?

It has to do with the raising of the spirit, not the body.

In which case, asking the prayers of Mary is not necromancy.

Does Mary possess any of the same? How does a dead woman answer your call for assistance?

Since Mary is alive in Christ, it seems she must have at least some of Christ's powers - by grace.

where is this call sanctioned in the Bible?

Among other things, it just follows from the fact that Mary is alive in Christ - whether we live or whether we die we are the Lord's, after all. As we can ask the prayers of the living, we can ask for the prayers of those who are alive in Christ.

Where is your doctrine that only what is sanctioned in the Bible may be believed, sanctioned in the Bible?

2 May 2011 14:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

WCM,

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works'.

2 Tim 3 v 16,17

How can I be perfect, and completely fitted for ALL good works, when I reject your so called 'church's' tradition, sacraments (in the form they are taught by the cat-licks) you 'papa' and your extra-biblical writings? I reject your shrines, your graven images of wood and stone, your 'madonna', transubstantiation, the Vatican, men in dresses and silly hats, the (un)holy see, nuns, monks, pergatory and the ludicrous idea that I am able to atone for my own sins there, and a multitude of other clap-trap that serves no purpose other than to pander to the flesh of fallen men and women, teaching them lies about salvation and dragging untold numbers to hell.

I can be complete because the Bible says so. That'll do me. After all, I'd rather takes God's word for it than that of Satan's little helper.

2 May 2011 14:24  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2011 14:33  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

So the Bible's authority comes from the inspiration of God. This inspiration comes from God. Why is it limited to the bible though? Can God not inspire in any other way? Is his whole power limited by the Bible? Does it constrain him, lessen him or add to him? At Pentecost was it the bible which infused the Apostles with Holy Spirit? On Mount Sinai was it the Bible through which God spoke to and inspired Moses? Was it through the Bible that God created and ordered the cosmos? Is it through the Bible that we are saved?

2 May 2011 14:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

You deflect questions by not answering them and then asking me a different question. One can peruse the thread for clear evidence of this.

I have not impugned the deity of Christ, nor His powers in the flesh. You are merely being obtuse in a vain attempt at painting me unitarian. It won't work.

Communicating with the dead is necromancy, regardless of what you say, and is forbidden in scripture. That you wish the blessing of the dead 'Queen of Heaven' (Frigg, Isis, Mary, which one?) is evidence of the inner corruption you suffer from.

Deut. 18 vv10-12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy

You appear to attribute the powers of deity to Mary.

Do you think she is 'co-redemptrix'? Careful now, you wouldn't want to contradict papa, would you?

Come on, openly declare the blasphemy, if you believe it, else reject it, and with it the myriad of other lies successive charlatans have spewed in the papal 'bulls', (emphasis on bull).

Psalm 118 v 8, the literal centre of the Bible, warns about trusting men.

[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

2 May 2011 14:42  
Blogger Albert said...

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto ALL good works'...How can I be perfect, and completely fitted for ALL good works, when I reject your so called 'church's' tradition

Your conclusion does not follow from the passage. It simply says it is profitable for teaching, so that we may be perfect. This does not exclude other forms of knowledge and does not guarantee perfection. The passage is perfectly consistent with a view in which scripture is commended to us as a particularly good way to be perfect, among others.

Secondly, you give no answer the question of how you know what's in the Bible.

Thirdly, you do not tell us how you know your interpretation is correct/exhaustive.

2 May 2011 14:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

WCM

Got is not restrained by anything nor anyone.

You show me some occurrences of spiritual inspiration that do not contradict Biblical teaching, lead to confusion or sin and I will say Praise God.

My point is that if such thing contradict the already revealed inspiration of God, then they are no such thing and should be immediately rejected. Hence my rejection of popiness.

2 May 2011 14:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

'God', obviously.

2 May 2011 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

You deflect questions by not answering them and then asking me a different question...I have not impugned the deity of Christ, nor His powers in the flesh. You are merely being obtuse in a vain attempt at painting me unitarian. It won't work.

Not at all. What is at stake is your Christology, not your doctrine of God. You want to know how Mary can hear lots of prayers at once, being a human being. Whether that is an objection or not turns on whether Christ in his humanity can hear lots of prayers at once. If he can, it is not humanly impossible. What's your answer?

Communicating with the dead is necromancy, regardless of what you say.

So Christ was guilty of necromancy on the Mount of Transfiguration.

and is forbidden in scripture

Necromancy is a word of Greek, not Hebrew origin. I think we need to see the biblical condemnation in order to discuss what is meant by scripture.

You appear to attribute the powers of deity to Mary.

Jesus said,"Truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do"

Do you think she is 'co-redemptrix'?

The doctrine of co-redemptrix is not defined as part of the Catholic faith. For myself, I would say that, by grace, Mary is essential to the story of salvation, but she contributes nothing without the grace of Christ.

[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

No one denies that. What's at stake here is whether your reading of scripture and your condemnations come from God or man.

2 May 2011 14:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I know what's in it because I read it. You should try it some time.

No person can claim to have a monopoly on truth, and I am no so vain as to think myself an exception. All I can do is take scripture at face value, pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in it's interpretation and try to be as honest with myself and others in this matter as possible. As I have gone through this process with regard to the claims of the cat-licks (amongst others) and found them not only lacking but downright false.

I fear HG may tire of the hi-jacking of his blog and I also have a job to do, so you'll have to excuse me for a while.

2 May 2011 14:59  
Anonymous len said...

I have asked this question before but no Catholic will give a straight answer to it.

If you(Catholic person) totally rejected Catholicism would you still be saved.? A straight yes or no will do!


Jesus said "You MUST be born again" Also we must keep His commandments which are to love God ,and love your neighbour(as yourself.)


There seems to be some/a lot/ of 'hair splitting' on Catholic doctrines.
Why pray to dead people? What are you expecting them to do?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God ..

2 May 2011 15:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

Last one, just seen your latest post.

The difference between Christ and Mary is that Christ is both fully man AND fully God. Mary is just a dead woman with no ability to redeem or sanctify, contrary to what Popey JPII thought. And taught. On at least 5 occasions.

The commands that God has given men are not binding upon Himself. He can raise (or strike down) whomsoever he wishes, and often does. So, no, Christ was not a necromancer, and may He forgive you for implying so.


If wish to object to words in the vernacular because they are not of Hebrew origin, you're going to have to ditch a whole load of Latin. Think a little bit, before spouting rot, eh?

Mary is not essential to salvation, that's is the crux of the matter. She is totally and utterly unnecessary. The fact that you cloud your answer in waffle is either evidence that don't really know what you're talking about, else you do, and are ashamed of it or, more likely, concerned you will proven completely wrong in 5 seconds flat by anyone with the merest acquaintance with the biblical doctrine of salvation.

2 May 2011 15:12  
Blogger Albert said...

EV,

I know what's in it because I read it. You should try it some time.

You really do think I don't read the bible don't you. I read several chapters each day.

No person can claim to have a monopoly on truth

Exactly, so it may be that someone else, in reading scripture has found something you haven't found.

As I have gone through this process with regard to the claims of the cat-licks (amongst others) and found them not only lacking but downright false.

Indeed, but no one has the monopoly on the truth as you said. So you may be mistaken. After all, scripture says:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Doubtless, those who twisted the scriptures, believe as you do that they are interpreting them aright. But scripture says:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

And therefore, a little generosity on your part towards others might be a good thing.

Len,

If you(Catholic person) totally rejected Catholicism would you still be saved.?

As you've expressed the question, and assuming you mean such a state of rejection was never repented of, the answer would be a straight no, as a total rejection of Catholicism would entail a total rejection of everything Catholicism believes. Including Christ.

Do you believe someone who totally rejects Protestantism can be saved?

2 May 2011 15:17  
Blogger Albert said...

The difference between Christ and Mary is that Christ is both fully man AND fully God.

Well obviously, but Christ's divinity does not abolish his humanity so my quesiton remains.

Mary is just a dead woman with no ability to redeem or sanctify

She is alive in Christ, and therefore her prayers can be sought without prejudice to the redemption of Christ.

So, no, Christ was not a necromancer, and may He forgive you for implying so.

No, according to your definition, Christ was a necromancer. I think the point you mean is that Christ was allowed to do it as he is God. But how do you know he isn't setting us an example, which was impossible in the old dispensation?

If wish to object to words in the vernacular because they are not of Hebrew origin

I'm not objecting to anything. I'm merely asking for the scriptural basis of your confidence that asking the prayers of Mary is condemned by scripture.

She is totally and utterly unnecessary.

Christ needed a mother in order to be born, without a mother he could not become man. True, perhaps another woman could have been his mother, but some mother was necessary for salvation in Christ.

2 May 2011 15:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

If your final paragraph is as far as you go in your idea that Mary was necessary for the plan of salvation to bear fruit then we agree.

But we both know that you go further.

I would be interested in what your local 'priest' thought of your ideas of Christ being the pattern for a renewed interest in spiritism and seances within Christian circles.

2 May 2011 15:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert

Many thanks for responding to the flood of challenges to Roman Catholicism coming from 'English Viking' and from 'len'.

In my experience, these same questions are repeated put with a complete refusal to engage with the replies

My answer to 'len's' question on Catholicism and salvation was a bit more qualified:

"And, yes, again as I understand it, if one wilfully and with full understanding leaves the Catholic church salvation will be denied."

Let us pray that those brothers and sisters who have abandoned the faith are inspired to return to the fold.

As for Our Blessed Lady, let's not forget it was her humble and willing submission to God's plan, with all the fear it must have entailed, that resulted in the birth of Our Lord. She was chosen for her sanctity and her free acceptance to be the mother of Jesus, God made man, was surely essential.

And Catholics believe she is the Mother of the Church:

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!'. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!’" (Jn 19:26-27).

May God forgive those who insult or diminish her.

2 May 2011 15:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

May God forgive those that elevate her to deity and profane her memory with vile idolatry.

2 May 2011 16:34  
Anonymous len said...

Albert,
Ha,(response to 15:17)

The only reason that one can lose their salvation is to constantly revoke Christ , to deny HIM.
Our salvation, Eternal life,is IN HIM,
not in the Church , not in our works,not even in our denomination(gasp,shock, horror,) I believe the ploy of salvation only being in the Catholic Church is exactly that, a ploy to keep people from leaving!

So the 'qualifier 'for Eternal life is being 'in Christ',not being in the Church!.In fact quite a few in the 'church ',of whatever denomination ,will be disappointed if they are not'In Christ.'

Mary has been elevated to a position in the Catholic Church which is unbiblical, Mother of God, co redemptrix etc.Mary was highly favoured by God but would probably be horrified to learn she had been elevated to be an equal with the Son of God.
This elevation Of Mary as the 'Queen of Heaven 'has some very sinister origins!.

2 May 2011 16:58  
Blogger Albert said...

EV

If your final paragraph is as far as you go in your idea that Mary was necessary for the plan of salvation to bear fruit then we agree.

No, giving birth to Christ is the only way Mary is necessary to salvation.

I would be interested in what your local 'priest' thought of your ideas of Christ being the pattern for a renewed interest in spiritism and séances within Christian circles.

You think our Lord was engaged in a séance on the mount of Transfiguration? I think it was an expression of the communion we share in Christ.

May God forgive those that elevate her to deity and profane her memory with vile idolatry.

Absolutely!

Thanks Dodo,

these same questions are repeated put with a complete refusal to engage with the replies

Well there do seem to be a lot of unanswered points, but I suppose time is limited!

Len,

I believe the ploy of salvation only being in the Catholic Church is exactly that, a ploy to keep people from leaving!

Then I believe you haven't understood the doctrine.

So the 'qualifier 'for Eternal life is being 'in Christ',not being in the Church!.

Given that the Church is the body of Christ, you cannot be in Christ without being in the Church.

Mary has been elevated to a position in the Catholic Church which is unbiblical, Mother of God, co redemptrix etc.Mary was highly favoured by God but would probably be horrified to learn she had been elevated to be an equal with the Son of God.

(i) If you deny Mary is Mother of God, you deny Jesus is God. You might like to consult the Reformers on that one.
(ii) The doctrine of co-redemptrix is not Catholic dogma, and even if it were, whatever role Mary has in our salvation is only by the grace of Christ.
(iii) Why do you think she has been elevated to being an equal with Christ? As she can only do what she does by grace (whereas Christ does what he does by nature) Mary is infinitely below Christ.

This elevation Of Mary as the 'Queen of Heaven 'has some very sinister origins!.

This elevation of private judgment in matters of faith has some pretty sinister origins too!

2 May 2011 17:17  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Mary was highly favoured by God but would probably be horrified to learn she had been elevated to be an equal with the Son of God.

Nowhere in Catholic doctrine is Mary equal with Christ. Every honor given to her is due her, not though her own greatness, but due her unusually close association with Christ and her resultant role as a role-model. Mary is not a god, she is a saint, and like all saints, she can intercede with God on our behalf.

2 May 2011 17:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

...'You think our Lord was engaged in a séance on the mount of Transfiguration? I think it was an expression of the communion we share in Christ.'...

No, you do. You as good as plain stated it.

You appear at odds with numerous pronouncements made by your (but not my) betters on your opinion of Mary.

http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/04/26/rome%E2%80%99s-mary-on-the-cross-and-on-god%E2%80%99s-throne/

http://biblelight.net/mary.htm

Perhaps you need to speak to your 'priest', to find out what to think, as you appear un-willing to do so for yourself?

2 May 2011 19:21  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bellamine,

You are either ignorant of catholic doctrine, else a liar, if you affirm that it does not plainly encourage the worship of Mary and show her as necessary for salvation on a personal level.

Please confer with links I gave Albert in the above post.

2 May 2011 19:25  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Please confer with links I gave Albert in the above post.

Monsieur, your own links support my assertion.

"We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace--a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us "de congruo," in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us "de condigno," and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces." - AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM

"St. Anselm reminds us that we may obtain mercy more quickly from Mary than from Jesus, because Jesus is also a judge who can punish, while Mary exercises mercy as a patroness. It is not as if Mary were more powerful than Jesus, for we know that Jesus Christ is our only Savior, and that He alone by His merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us." - The Glories of Mary

None of the statements you have quoted (or rather, linked to) have stated that Mary is on an equal footing with God and many state that her explicitly that her authority is completely subordinate to his.

2 May 2011 20:04  
Blogger Albert said...

No, you do. You as good as plain stated it.

Where? You have defined necromancy as:

Communicating (or attempting to) with the dead is necromancy

It is plain that in the Transfiguration Christ communicated with the dead. Therefore, by your definition (but not mine) Christ was enaged in necromancy.

You appear at odds with numerous pronouncements made by your (but not my) betters on your opinion of Mary.

Not in the slightest. You asked me what was necessary for salvation, and I answered that the only way Mary was necessary was that Mary gave birth to Christ. Nothing you have posted contradicts that.

But now you are asking, whether, in addition to the way in which Mary was necessary for salvation, grace is in fact communicated to us through her (e.g. through her prayers, suffering etc.). Here we answer firmly yes.

You said to Bellamine:

You are either ignorant of catholic doctrine, else a liar, if you affirm that it does not plainly encourage the worship of Mary and show her as necessary for salvation on a personal level. Please confer with links I gave Albert in the above post.

No, Bellamine is exactly right. Where do we encourage the worship of Mary?

2 May 2011 20:06  
Anonymous len said...

Albert,

'Given that the Church is the body of Christ, you cannot be in Christ without being in the Church.'
.........
I cannot figure out whether you have just been brainwashed into Catholic doctrine or you are being deliberately evasive.

However;
The ekklesia of Christ describes the most beautiful relationship known to man. The word was chosen by the Savior and man certainly cannot express it better. When Jesus said "I will build my ekklesia", he was not talking about an institution or institutions. What He promised to build was His assembly, His group, His gathering, or His people. It is a collective term that applies to all those who decide to make Christ first and serve Him with their life.

2 May 2011 20:12  
Blogger Albert said...

I cannot figure out whether you have just been brainwashed into Catholic doctrine or you are being deliberately evasive.

So you think you can be in Christ without being in the Church?

You talk about the assembly in contrast to the "institution". What do you mean by this distinction?

2 May 2011 20:25  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said ...

Rather narrow definition of the role of the church established by Christ.

The Biblical passages below suggest the need for some form of collective organisation.

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23)

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:13-19)

There are many more Biblical passages particularly in Acts supporting the development of the church as an organisation and the teaching and leadership role of the Apostles.

2 May 2011 20:41  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Not knowingly Erastian or Roman Catholic bashing, but concurring with Blofeld (12:20)and now adding: The attendance of Mugabe seems to disgust RCs and others alike; but it is at least as difficult to comprehend how credibility can be given to any part of the Vatican's process of promoting the cause for declaring a person a saint, whether it be John Henry Newman or a recently deceased Vatican Ruler. Seriously, is that not also a stumbling block for Roman Catholics today, or at least a considerable number of them who have not yet lapsed or returned?

Dodo (10:44) .."I pray that you are released from the stubborn, rebellious individualism and self rightousness you are trapped in." This sort of thing from someone who takes enough interest to comment here is also near incomprehensible (but not in the same way as this word is used in the Athanasian Creed, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer).

Also concurring with EV 14:59 "No person can claim to have a monopoly on truth, and I am not so vain as to think myself an exception."

2 May 2011 20:48  
Anonymous len said...

Catholics believe that Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus. In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV's (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. Pope Pius XI officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." The Bible specifically states that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary is a co-redeemer. (John 14:6) God speaks out very clearly against the "Queen of Heaven". (Jeremiah 7:17-19)

And if you believe in the 'infallibility' of the Popes you must obviously believe this.
And the 'infallibility of the Pope and the very foundations of Catholicism or( should that be Constantinism as he initiated it)we haven`t even touched on them yet!

2 May 2011 20:54  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

And if you believe in the 'infallibility' of the Popes you must obviously believe this.

The infallibility of the pope does not mean every utterance or teaching of a pope is Catholic teaching. It does mean that the pope, in certain very specific contexts, can make pronouncement that must be accepted as dogma by Roman Catholics. There have been six instances of this in Catholic history, none of which you have referenced.

There are, however, two infallible proclamations which are relevant to this discussion:
Ineffabilis Deus - The Imaculate Conception - 1854
Munificentissimus Deus - The Assumption of Mary - 1950
Neither of which state that Mary is equal to God in dignity or responsiblity for salvation/grace.

Catholics believe that Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus

Mary's role as co-redemptrix is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is however a popular teaching and not contrary to any doctrine. It is important to realize that by 'co-redemptrix' Catholics do not mean to impy that Mary's role is salvation is equivalent in any way to God's or Christ's. Only that she is also responsible in a qualitatively lesser sense due to her association with Christ.

2 May 2011 21:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len Old Boy 2 May 2011 20:54

My boy, you show great stamina and patience but is it really worth it?

I have read previously where Preacher, Kingofhighcs and yourself spent a great of time and space answering the papal faithful but to no real avail. It never sinks in, does it?

They never really answer questions posed and even give answers to questions nobody ever put to them..no wonder the RCC has diplomat's, they are quintessentially a church that lusts after ruling mankind through political and religious means.

Old Ernst thinks they would be horrified if Christ returned and ruled instead of them. Their motto should be ' VICARIOUS AND LOVIN IT'.

(MrJ 2 May 2011 20:48) It is not catholic bashing but that history and the lack of evidence proves that they argue without a firm basis of biblical or historical truth regarding their claims as the one true earthly church established by Jesus Christ and apostolic succession. There is no such thing!

A bit of honesty and humility would be nice from them as well as respect for an opinion different from their's....(Then the recusant @ 2 May 2011 22:03 comes along and proves the point.LOL. They appear to prove the point, glad they are not still in charge of this country..they'd burn me like a marshmallow on a stick).

You have my genuine admiration, old boy.

Ernst.

Poor old Erasmus, vilified by Roman Catholics and all he ever did was give the world a true rendering of the Holy Bible and refused to be pressured to put anything in the text that was not there, for anyones denominational benefit. Actually St Jerome did the same with St Augustine regarding translating the Apochrypha as he viewed it as uninspired but relented near the end of his death.. He did not have the conviction or integrity of Erasmus!

2 May 2011 22:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

of his life..oops.

2 May 2011 22:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Well Done Your Grace.

Some people abuse the right to put sensible, balanced comments on this blog of your's, reverting to spite instead.

Old Ernst

2 May 2011 22:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The key point to understand in this question of Mary is that in Catholic doctrine, Mary is redeemed by Christ herself. Once this is understood, any suggestion of co-redemption is no more objectionable than this passage of St Paul:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

What do you understand by that passage?

Mary clearly suffered at the foot of the cross, and so far as it was within her power, freely gave up her Son in obedience to God's will. She did this by grace, and "God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake".

So I cannot see which scripture texts are contradicted by this opinion.

Ernst,

They never really answer questions posed and even give answers to questions nobody ever put to them

Which?

2 May 2011 22:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert 2 May 2011 22:31

"They never really answer questions posed and even give answers to questions nobody ever put to them"

Go back and read them by Chancellor More and Mr Eman..or are you different regarding the basis of which Roman Catholicism define's its dogma...

"The key point to understand in this question of Mary is that in Catholic doctrine, Mary is redeemed by Christ herself. Once this is understood, any suggestion of co-redemption is no more objectionable than this passage of St Paul:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church

What do you understand by that passage? (Mary was no more a co-redeemer than St Paul was!)

Mary clearly suffered at the foot of the cross, and so far as it was within her power, freely gave up her Son in obedience to God's will. (HE laid down His Life 1John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love [of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.")

She did this by grace, and "God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake"." ....It appears not!

Tiber Doublespeak..Forever the Politicians of the religiously inclined.

Are you ' VICARIOUS AND LOVIN IT'.


Ernst.

2 May 2011 22:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

To all the popey defilers:

You will answer for your lies, one day. It is a sin to lie to others, but doubly so to oneself.

Mary lies dead in the grace. She is not a 'channel of grace'. She does not 'intercede'.

The foul graven images of her, and of Christ as a pathetic child in her arms, are an affront to God, HIs word and His truth.

She has probably stopped stinking by now. Unlike the other dead person you dug up recently, to also idolise.

I have learned something new, though. Not only are popey idolaters ignorant, they are inveterate liars too.

2 May 2011 22:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

'dead in the grace'.

Went a bit Freudian there.

Grave, obviously. Replete with maggots and mould.

2 May 2011 22:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Go back and read them by Chancellor More and Mr Eman

I haven't the faintest idea what this refers to.

Mary was no more a co-redeemer than St Paul was

That's not what it says. But the point is surely to show that it is possible for a creature, in some sense to share in "the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of the Church" without violating the doctrine of Christ as the only mediator.

Of course Christ freely laid down his life - but Mary spiritually consented to that. It would have happened anyway of course, but she could have freely consented or rejected God's will in that moment.

Tiber Doublespeak..

Again, I don't know what that means.

EV,

There doesn't seem to be any content in there to reply to (apart from an almost triumphalist hatred of our Lord's mother - I wonder what he thinks of that - honour your father and your mother).

I have spent a good deal of time carefully trying to reply to your comments, and all I have received in return is vitriol. "Speaking the truth in love" is what it says in my Bible.

2 May 2011 23:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

'Abhor that which is evil' is what it says in mine. This obviously includes all things popey. Vile filth. Nothing less. Made so much worse by those that apologise for it, nay encourage the idolatry.

Abhor it I do.

Romans 12 v 9

Mary is not my mother, so I owe her no more respect than any other mother. Except my own, obviously.

You complain of the lack of something to reply to: then shut up.

2 May 2011 23:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Tiber Doublespeak - Making false assumptions by taking something out of it's context..Quote a verse, give it a twist ...

"That's not what it says. But the (point is )(surely to show) that (it is possible) for a creature, (in some sense) (to share) in "the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of the Church" (without violating) the doctrine of (Christ as the only mediator)." Et VOILA!

"Of course Christ freely laid down his life - but Mary spiritually consented to that. It would have happened anyway of course, but she could have freely consented or rejected God's will in that moment." Dogmatic assumption, not based on scripture. How can Mary spiritually consent to Christ laying down His life for all, sorry Albert, makes no sense whatsoever...'but she could have freely consented or rejected God's will in that moment' and then you excel yourself with gibberishness, assuming Mary has some supernatural power..No Miracles EVER mentioned in scripture from the hands or words of Mary..

"Tiber Doublespeak..Again, I don't know what that means."

I have just shown you.

You are so lost in catechism ifs, buts and maybe's, that you swallow a camel but choke on a gnat.

So glad Ernst is not from across the Tiber but his hope rests solely on the truth borne in hymn;

Christ alone is our salvation,
Christ the rock on which we stand;
Other than this sure foundation
Will be found but sinking sand.
Christ, His cross and resurrection,
Is alone the sinners' plea;
At the throne of God's perfection
Nothing else can set him free.

Ernst.

ps

"Speaking the truth in love" is what it says in my Bible.

It appears your own don't believe in this, as shown by the recusant's vile attack on His Grace earlier..

2 May 2011 23:45  
Blogger English Viking said...

ESB + Tiddles,

Your stock just rose a few points with me, on the back of that lovely hymn.

For what my opinion is worth.

3 May 2011 00:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

EV

I will not cast pearls before swine but I hide the true ME from people who care not for the things of The Lord.

Tis truly a great hymn..Ernst's favourite is My Song Is Love Unknown..
My song is love unknown,
My Savior’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take, frail flesh and die?

He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.

Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight,
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.

They rise and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they saved,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.

In life, no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say? Heav’n was His home;
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.

Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.

Ernst

3 May 2011 00:16  
Anonymous Grammer Nazi said...

ESB + Tiddles:

If.. more.. sentences, completed (These words) would more sense.. be comprehendable. It should be used properly (The English language!) Else, we read like... William Shatner!

-nazi

3 May 2011 00:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Nazi

"“One of the advantages of being Captain is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it.”"

or

"We have them just where they want us.”

Thanks for the laugh.

Ernst (Stavro)...Blofeld

Lange zu leben und gedeihen

3 May 2011 00:34  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 00:36  
Anonymous MrJ said...

EV writes with a certain vehemence but the reasons he gives (beyond words akin to the old-fashioned pronouncements of anathema) are plain enough, while much of Albert's reads to my mind as what Blofeld has neatly called Tiber Doublespeak. It is amazing the patience some have in going on with a discussion with those who have demonstrated a decided preference for being "lost in catechism ifs, buts and maybe's".

While this was being written Ernst aka Blofeld presented the words of a hymn which a netsearch informs was by Samuel Crossman, 1664. Thank you for introducing this (now heard also sung to the John Ireland setting).

3 May 2011 00:51  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Quite a hostile response to Albert's patient and balanced attempts to clarify points raised.
However, what he runs into is unbelievable hostility towards all things Roman Catholic.

The verbal abuse, sneering, and scorn displayed towards the church is surely not of God. It is certainly unchristian. And such smugness and mutual back-slapping too for having teamed up against Rome.

Well done boys!

3 May 2011 00:51  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

As you didn't answer my questions E.V I'm ask them again.

So the Bible's authority comes from the inspiration of God. This inspiration comes from God. Why is it limited to the bible though? Can God not inspire in any other way? Is his whole power limited by the Bible? Does it constrain him, lessen him or add to him? At Pentecost was it the bible which infused the Apostles with Holy Spirit? On Mount Sinai was it the Bible through which God spoke to and inspired Moses? Was it through the Bible that God created and ordered the cosmos? Is it through the Bible that we are saved?

I also have a few more questions;

Also what determines what is Scripture? Why is the gospel of St.John true Scripture but the gospel of St.Thomas not? Also what is inspiration? How does it operate? What part of a person is inspired?

To simply quote Scripture, let alone challenge others to simply find Scripture against your opinion is obviously not an answer to any of these questions.

3 May 2011 01:05  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 01:09  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

Dodo and Albert, no offense but you're going about this the wrong way. E.V is a wind-up merchant, he needs to be taken on systematically and or he will dance around as if one cannot tie one's shoelace unless Scripture tells us how to do it. One must question the very roots of his absurd bibolatry.

3 May 2011 01:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Why is the gospel of St.John true Scripture but the gospel of St.Thomas not?"

An Example;

In the Gospel of Thomas saying 3, Jesus says,

...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.

or saying 77:

I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.

Even Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics" Church History (Book III), Chapter 25:7 and Eusebius.

It does not even mention how many were numbered as Jesus' Disciples whereas the accepted 4 gospel's correctly state 12.

The Gospel of Thomas also lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection.

Simples *squeak*

Ernst

MrJ said 3 May 2011 00:51 Thanks my lad, tis is a fine hymn, stating the core of belief in simple terms that save sinners for all eternity.

The Last Dodo

"However, what he runs into is unbelievable hostility towards all things Roman Catholic. "

Do 'Man Up' lad, you and others give plenty on this blog and some personally attack His Grace, then you all boo up when we challenge your points.

3 May 2011 01:17  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Westcountryman, I think that you are mistaken. Attempting to actually convince EV or anyone posting FUD on this thread is a waist of time. They already have their minds made up. But one can correct all of the missinformation which they spread. When your opponent starts flatly contradicting you without providing counter evidence, or quoting tangential bible verses, or simply dismissing your arguments as 'doublespeak' which they admit that they cannot understand, they have already demonstrated that they have lost the 'logical upperhand.' There is no need to engage them any further. Any reasonable person reading their words can see that they are fools and there is no point in getting emotionally invested in their opinions.

3 May 2011 01:20  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.

Even Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics" Church History (Book III), Chapter 25:7 and Eusebius.

It does not even mention how many were numbered as Jesus' Disciples whereas the accepted 4 gospel's correctly state 12.

The Gospel of Thomas also lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection.'

This doesn't really answer the question. You're simply stating that Scripture and what is in Scripture decides what Scripture is, which is simply a circular argument. Why is it John's gospel and not Thomas' that is most to be believed.

3 May 2011 01:21  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Even Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics" Church History (Book III), Chapter 25:7 and Eusebius.

It is worth pointing out that this falls under the category of 'Tradition.'

3 May 2011 01:29  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

I suppose you are correct Bellarmine, but you might as well get to the root of his misunderstandings, it will at least make him look even more stupid and lacking in answers. It will also keep us at a distance from his bibolatry and the various nominalist, modernist and individualist assumptions he holds.

3 May 2011 01:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bellarmine

Why you fail in your stated objective.

elucidate:

To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.

Hope this helps our Roman Brethren understand why their 'doublespeak' does not hit the target.

You sound similar to those Health and Wealth charlatans on the God Channel.

Ernst.

"The Gospel of Thomas also lacks any mention of Jesus' birth, baptism, miracles, travels, death, and resurrection." The 4 gospels in New Testament DO.

There are no quotes or parts from this book EVER mentioned in correspondence between early church believers as accepted true inspired writings/what they were taught and knew and THIS was the proof of what was accepted as true canon in forming and codifying the Holy Bible.

Parlez-vous Doublespeak, Westcountryman.

Bellarmine.
"It is worth pointing out that this falls under the category of 'Tradition.'" Eusebius used the inspired to contrast what was uninspired.
You abuse the term tradition. It is not proof that something is inspired but only can be used IF the tradition was handed down by the INSPIRED person.i.e St Paul as oral tradition in preaching, then put this into writing..He established the early church and preached to them, then wrote letters. 1st and 2nd Corinthians for example.

Hope this helps elucidate, boys.

3 May 2011 01:45  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 01:59  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 02:01  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

'There are no quotes or parts from this book EVER mentioned in correspondence between early church believers as accepted true inspired writings/what they were taught and knew and THIS was the proof of what was accepted as true canon in forming and codifying the Holy Bible.'

So then we may take the early Church as proof for what is inspired? Is this limited only to telling us what is correct Scripture and if so why is it?

'"It is worth pointing out that this falls under the category of 'Tradition.'" Eusebius used the inspired to contrast what was uninspired.
You abuse the term tradition. It is not proof that something is inspired but only can be used IF the tradition was handed down by the INSPIRED person.i.e St Paul as oral tradition in preaching, then put this into writing..He established the early church and preached to them, then wrote letters. 1st and 2nd Corinthians for example.'

You dirty Papist you. ;)

So the tradition of inspired individuals is to be trusted. What makes a person inspired? Why would this be limited only to what they wrote down? If Christ and the Holy Spirit can inspire the Apostles, why are they apparently only able to inspire through Scripture after them?

3 May 2011 02:03  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Why you fail in your stated objective.

elucidate:

To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.

Hope this helps our Roman Brethren understand why their 'doublespeak' does not hit the target.


Not really; you'd do better to use full sentences.

Actually, I believe it is quite clear what you mean by 'doublespeak.' You believe that the precise wording used by Catholics in describing their beliefs is designed to make incompatible concepts seem compatible, or distringuish between concepts between which their is no distinction. That is, you are accusing us of sophism.

This is all well and good, but sophism is best combated by directly pointing out the false assumption or logical fallacies employed. For example, a Catholic might say something like:

"Mary is co-redemptrix with Christ, but that does not make her His equal."

And a protestant might respond:

"But the term co-redemptrix implies that her sacrafice is somehow on par with Christ's and thus you are being disingenuous."

Such an argument, would be wrong, but it would elucidate your position much better than anything I've so far read from you and would allow us to take the discussion to a deeper level, (ie. what is meant by meant by the word 'co-redemptrix'.) Your tactic, to write the 'doublespeak' coupled with confusing sentence fragments is no better that shouting "You Lie!" You have neither proved anyone wrong, nor right, but have merely abdicated argument.

3 May 2011 02:12  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Aye :(

That last sentence should read:
Your tactic, to write the word 'doublespeak' coupled with confusing sentence fragments is no better that shouting "You Lie!" You have neither proved anyone wrong, nor right, but have merely abdicated argument."

And the word "distringuish" should be "distinguish."

And I just accused some else of being unable to communicate! Oh, the irony. Clearly pride is the greatest of sins.:)

3 May 2011 02:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

So then we may take the early Church as proof for what is inspired?

Are you saying the Apostles were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and the writings of eusebius, augustine etc are inspired as truth..Did they see Christ and receive their commission as apostles directly from Him.

So the tradition of inspired individuals is to be trusted. YES!
What makes a person inspired? The Holy Spirit!

Is this limited only to telling us what is correct Scripture and if so why is it?
Again, what they were taught and knew and which established the early church like corinth and Antioch and was preached to them, St Paul wrote letters to such and others he visited... 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians for example.'

Why would this be limited only to what they wrote down? The Apostles are in hevaen with our Lord, their work finished and the race run.

The work is finished and no NEW revelation or doctrine is needed other than what was given by the Christ appointed Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

You dirty Papist you. ;) Ernst never said you were but you are either sincerely or insincerely mistaken in what you preach as truth.

Ernst.

3 May 2011 02:16  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

How do you know that all the products of inspiration among the early Church was vested in Scripture?

Why is revelation only a matter of written words of the Apostles? How can the Second Person of the Trinity, the very image of the infinite and absolute Father, be reduced to the physical and written words of Scripture? Is not true grace and the power of the Holy Spirit an inspiration? So how then is this limited to the Apostles?

3 May 2011 02:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

bellarmine 3 May 2011 02:16

If Ernst has to comment on spelling or grammatical errors you make then he will have plumbed the depths of puerile commenting. Look elsewhere lad for that behaviour, not my style.

We all make mistakes lad.

"This is all well and good, but sophism is best combated by directly pointing out the false assumption or logical fallacies employed."
However Romanism has three prongs it employs,by adding Catechism and tradition to a par with Scripture, then either elevates or depresses, depending on the context concerned.

Wheras Ernst is like non roman catholics, that believe solely in Scripture as Divine Revelation and not the writing of men, whoever they are and however well intentioned.

'doublespeak' means you add things into the conversation that have no right to be included and divert attention away from the argument..That co-redemptrix means something to you but is different in meaning to us is not OUR fault.

Pope Leo XIII noted that in her Annunciation, “in a sense, she stood in place of all mankind.” 'Mary suffered willingly under the cross', said Pope Benedict XV, and, 'in a sense, offered His sacrifice to the Eternal Father', further stated Pope Ven. Pius XII.

Completely at odds with scripture.

Ernst.

3 May 2011 02:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"How do you know that all the products of inspiration among the early Church was vested in Scripture? "

"Why is revelation only a matter of written words of the Apostles? How can the Second Person of the Trinity, the very image of the infinite and absolute Father, be reduced to the physical and written words of Scripture?" He will not state one thing then state something differently and we are commanded to discern Him.

Acts 17;11

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Great Commission

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.
17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey 'everything I have commanded you'. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Is not putting something in writing teaching also equally as speaking is and therefore not requiring memory, which can trick us. You do it every day yourself by picking up a book and studying what you THOUGHT it might have said but confirming what it had exactly said.

"Is not true grace and the power of the Holy Spirit an inspiration?"..Yes but you err if you think this means he will inspire you differently from what He has stated via the Apostle's..It must be another spirit then if this occurs and not Him.

Act 5;29-32

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!
30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Ernst

3 May 2011 02:58  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

"That co-redemptrix means something to you but is different in meaning to us is not OUR fault."

That is nobody's fault, but if we are to have any meaningful conversation, we be able to communicate and use the same language. If someone were to use a word in a way with which I am not used, and I were to impose my usual meaning on that persons words, I would be in the wrong for deliberately misinterpreting him, especially if he were to clarify his position.

As such, to state that this pope, or that pope meant something which that pope did mean, is the same as lying. If what the pope says in not in scripture (in your opinion,) make that point, but do not misrepresent what the pope, or any man has said. I should hope that as Christians we at least have this in common.

However Romanism has three prongs it employs,by adding Catechism and tradition to a par with Scripture, then either elevates or depresses, depending on the context concerned.

Which would be a very good sophism to expose, if you could present an example of it.

3 May 2011 03:13  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Wheras Ernst is like non roman catholics, that believe solely in Scripture as Divine Revelation and not the writing of men, whoever they are and however well intentioned.

Actually, Ernst is also unlike Assyrian Christians, Malabar Christians, Oriental Orthodox Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and, in fact, all Christian denominations which trace their roots to before the Protestant Revolt. This however, is beside the point. Unless you are going to claim that interpretation of scripture bypasses logic and normal modes knowing, then scripture must be interpreted and the writings of men are very helpful in this. (I strongly doubt that even you have never listened to another's opinion on a passage in the Bible.)

3 May 2011 03:16  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 03:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Tradition! Not fiddler on the roof!

part 1

Pope Leo XIII noted that in her Annunciation, “in a sense, she stood in place of all mankind.” 'Mary suffered willingly under the cross', said Pope Benedict XV, and, 'in a sense, offered His sacrifice to the Eternal Father', further stated Pope Ven. Pius XII.

Co-Redemptrix ;
The title is approved by the Catholic Magisterium as bringing about all particular post-assumption graces by way of intercession. The latter concept of intercession is included in the concept of Mediatrix which is a separate concept but regularly included by the faithful who use the title of co-redemptrix.

Pope Ven. Pius XII then in Munificentissimus Deus, the bull defining the Assumption dogma, used the alternative expression “the revered Mother of God, [...] joined [...] with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination [...] as the noble associate of the divine Redeemer.

Doublespeak as Mary is NOT the Mother of God but the mother of Jesus.

Further;

“It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall.” Pope Ven. Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis.

As The Bible is the only source which records truthful reference about Mary’s life, we need to read and study the account of Mary’s life which will shed light upon the truth of what is written about her.

it was impossible for Mary to have been sinless because under Jewish law a woman who gave birth to a first born male was required to offer a sacrifice for sin. These Jewish laws were still in effect during the time of Jesus’ birth and ministry. The apostle Paul says,

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Ernst

3 May 2011 03:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Part 2

Luke 2:21-23

21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

Jesus was born under the law of Moses, therefore, according to the Law of Moses every
Jewish mother that gave birth to her first male child had to offer sacrifices to God.
One of the sacrifices was a burnt offering, and the other was a sin offering.
This is in accordance to the Talmud (law of Moses) found in the book of Leviticus chap 12.

By offering the required sacrifices according to the law, Mary admits her sinful state and
offers those sacrifices according to the “ ... law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or
two young pigeons” one a burnt offering, and the other a sin offering (Luke 2:24).
Luke’s record in conjunction with Leviticus 12 says “And if she be not able to bring a
lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt
offering, and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8).

Mary had a large family to her husband Joseph. Reference of this is found in Matthew 13:55, 56.

Matthew 13:55

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Co-Mediatrix..No!

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

The Bible makes clear that there are three that bear record in heaven, and not four, that is
if Mary is to be included:

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

Ernst

3 May 2011 03:57  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

None of those references states that Scripture alone is how God will inspire us. Also it is a circular argument to use Scripture alone to prove its validity.

Also you have already admitted we know what is Scripture and what is not, from the inspired Tradition, so presumably we may investigate the Traditions of the early Church, including but not limited to Scripture, and consider them authoritative. The assumption that written word is better than tradition is a very modern one. For what it makes up in preciseness it looses, partly due to its very preciseness, in depth, being a limiting process; particularly if only used in a literalist and rationalist way. The scientist's description of a chair or the law of gravity is not the law of gravity or a chair, but a communicable description of it which must by its very nature exclude much of the essence of these objects/forces, how much less is Scripture the totality of Christ, the very image of the infinite and absolute Father, or his revelation. In this sense you could reverse the relationship of Tradition and Scripture that you give and say that the genuine Tradition, which we can trace to the early Church, is most authoritative, particularly the more immersive and initiative branches of Tradition, because it carries with it more of the essence of Christ's revelation or a part of it, not being a written word. In a real sense the Eucharist could then be said to contain as much of Christ as Scripture itself, because the Eucharist carries Christ directly into the heart of the willing, qualified Communicant in a way far less mediated by the simplifying, human nature of written language. Maybe, to simplify greatly and slightly distort the Tractarians, it would be better to have less Bible study and more taking of Communion?(I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here!)

We see this relationship with language itself. Many times the short expression of something can be better than the longer, more detailed one, if the shorter one carries greater meaning and depth. Poetry is an excellent example of this, a relatively small poem can be more insightful than great tomes of academic prose. It is a very modern preoccupation to always prefer the longer, less synthetic but more analytical expression. In Scripture Christ again and again expresses himself in such a elliptical way.

Surely it is not simply what Christ stated, in its most literal and rationalist meaning, that was their inspiration? Surely that inspiration cannot be limited to the written word? Through Christ and the Holy Spirit something or some image of the fathomless, inexpressible nature of the Father entered, or was rekindled, in them? That is suggested in the very nature of the Trinity and Christ's revelation. It seems close to idolatry to say that this was all contained in a literalist and rationalistic reading of the written Scripture. Surely Scripture is but an image or prolongation of this inspiration? Well is not all their Christian work(if not all their lives from that time onwards.) just such a prolongation as well, such as their ordering of the Church? Surely also that when Christ's grace and the Holy ghost enters any Christian they feel something of this same inspiration? Certainly you would not expect the products of this to have the same importance to Christians as that of the Apostles, but surely it may an echo of it and therefore those who are truly inspired may be said to be prolongations of the Apostles?

3 May 2011 03:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Catechism If, Buts and Maybe's

part 3

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess
Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son
of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s
virginal integrity but sanctified it. ’And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin’” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), # 499

The Vatican teaches,
“...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the (Roman Catholic) Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, No. 28, Lumen Gentium, 21 Nov. 1964, Austin Flannery, O.P., Editor, 1981 edition (Northport, NY:Costello Publishing Co., 1975) Vol. I, Para 60, p.418

Vatican Council II Documents,
“In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: ‘for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all’ (I Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God....” above Para. 62, p. 419
And again,
“...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the (Roman Catholic) Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994),
#2677
“By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All Holy One.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994),#2030.

Which would be a very good sophism to expose, if you could present an example of it. DONE!

All completely at odds with scripture.

Ernst.

Goodnight my fine papist.

3 May 2011 04:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Apologies for hogging your comment section but a little space was required to assist some brethren regarding

2 Timothy 3;16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is Finished.

E S Blofeld

3 May 2011 04:21  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 04:42  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 04:43  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

Was there an reply to my points in these posts Blofeld? I can't really see one. The quote from Timothy is a quote from Scripture, which can hardly prove its singular validity, but may be instructive once we have recognised what gives Scripture validity(as we have.), but does not state any such singular validity for Scripture. I have the greatest respect for Scripture, I do not think it is not inspired, I simply reject the idea that it alone is inspired.

I'm not, by the way, a Roman Catholic. I'm not defending any particular Roman Catholic doctrine but that of the Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Celtic Christians and many an Anglican that Scripture is inspired but sola scriptua is nonsense.

3 May 2011 04:46  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

Doublespeak as Mary is NOT the Mother of God but the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is God. If Mary is the mother of Jesus, then she is the Mother of God.

Scripture says:

"And she [Elizabeth] cried out in a loud voice, and said: Blessed art though among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

It was impossible for Mary to have been sinless because under Jewish law a woman who gave birth to a first born male was required to offer a sacrifice for sin. These Jewish laws were still in effect during the time of Jesus’ birth and ministry.

The uncleaness or 'sunfullness' of Talmudic law is only ceremonial sinfulness. This different from sin as it is concieved by Christians when they speak of Mary being sinless. The Christian conception of sin refers to actual wrongdoing on the part of the sinner not mere convention. About Mary, the scripture says:

"And the Angel being comein, said unto here: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28

How can one be full of grace and still be 'sinful?' Nonesense.

3 May 2011 05:09  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. - 1 Timothy 2:5

And yet at the beginning of the passage:

"I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men:" - 1 Timothy 2:1

When Catholics say that Mary is Mediatrix, they do not mean that she is Mediator, in the same sense that Jesus is Mediator; they mean that she intecedes for us just as all saints do, and all living Christians should.

In, fact, your quote of the Second Vatican documents clarifies this:

“In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: ‘for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all’ (I Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God....” above Para. 62, p. 419

How can you claim that they are making a claim when they explicitly reject that claim as a claim which they are making? This is a strawman and the sophism is yours.

All completely at odds with scripture.

Not at all.

3 May 2011 05:31  
Anonymous Bellarmine said...

That first scriptural quote of mine is Luke 1:42-43

3 May 2011 05:33  
Blogger William said...

It seems very odd to me that someone would ask Mary to intercede for them when they already have direct access to the creator of the universe!

Particularly, after He has shown that He is prepared to die for their salvation. What more of an advocate could anyone want?

3 May 2011 08:36  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Catching up after dawn this morning with the discussion of the night hours...

How brave to write of one of the commenters here as "a wind-up merchant" in the context of W-c. 01:14!

If it is meant to denigrate, it fails. If it is thought Dodo and Albert need to be advised, it is preposterous. If it is meant as anything, it risks lapsing into banality.

But the discussion could have been profitable to any who have been attending to Blofeld's exegesis.

Braver still, perhaps, to announce that those whose reasoning has been rejected ab initio "are fools and there is no point in getting emotionally invested in their opinions" (Bellarmine1:20).

...and what abou the notion of trying to make a commenter "look stupid", which W.c. (3 May 01:33), a provocation that seems to be using as if he wished to be seen as a "wind-up merchant"?

"pride is the greatest of sins" (Bellarmine 2:16), an epitome of "Paradise Lost, and Regained".

..but an hour later comes another giveaway expression "Protestant Revolt" (Bellarmine 3:16).

Could the RC dogmas, doctrines and teaching from the 19c. and on be seen as a brave (if misguided) attempt in hostile crcumstances to reconcile the way in which the gospel was offered in the books commonly called the New Testament with the lost art of reasoning practised (in Latin) by the Scholastic clergy in quite a different ecclesiastical ambience?

Is anyone on either side of the Tiber willing to give a seemly response (free from point-scoring) to the bona fide question about "the Vatican's process of promoting the cause for declaring a person a saint, whether it be John Henry Newman or a recently deceased Vatican Ruler at" 2 May 2011 20:48?

3 May 2011 09:00  
Anonymous MrJ said...

...and what about the notion of trying to make a commenter "look stupid", a provocation which W.c. (3 May 01:33)seems to be using as if he wished to be seen as a "wind-up merchant"?

3 May 2011 09:03  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

MrJ, note how I did not call you or Blofeld or Len a wind-up merchant. I called E.V one. He is extremely abrasive and often insulting and does aim to avoid reasonable discussion. I can give you ample evidence of this from recent comments thread from this site if you wish?

Having witnessed the impressive patience of Dodo in being showed with rudeness and insults by E.V. I applaud him and will leave it to him and Albert to judge for themselves the justice of my comments, as I leave you to look to the justice of your supporting such a person simply because he shares your viewpoints.

Myself and the Roman Catholics on this blog are reasonably civil, as far as I can see, though we are not perfect no doubt. The more strict Protestants are seemingly those more given to rude and insulting behaviour. I was recently told to check into a mental hospital, in quite a detailed way, for simply objecting to one strict Protestant's comments and trying to investigate some of his assumptions. One wonders if this is helpful, either for convincing others of the validity of their viewpoints or indeed for their own spiritual wellbeing.

That said I know that I'm not above reacting harshly, even rudely, when pressed. I do not know the correct relationship for harshness and Christian meekness and humility that is appropriate for Christians. I do apologise to you, to E.V and other posters if I have said anything out of place.

3 May 2011 10:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...
The Last Dodo
"Do 'Man Up' lad, you and others give plenty on this blog and some personally attack His Grace, then you all boo up when we challenge your points."

Case in point. You ommitted the salient point:

"The verbal abuse, sneering, and scorn displayed towards the church is surely not of God. It is certainly unchristian. And such smugness and mutual back-slapping too for having teamed up against Rome."

If to 'Man up' means returning abuse with abuse, I'd prefer not to when discussing Christ and His church - except in the case of English Viking whose sheer bigotory and rudeness I can't believe to be 'real'!

3 May 2011 10:45  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Oh, it's real alright. Repent.

BTW Being called a bigot by a cat-lick make me feel all warm inside!

WCM,

You have had your answers to your questions, both from myself and most eloquently from Ernst and Tiddles.

The answers are plain enough, but you just childishly repeat the question, after feigning incomprehensibility, because you don't like the answers, like fact that your apocryphal myths and legends don't stand scrutiny, and your very religion itself is a sad, sick shadow of true Christianity, your church is a brood of vipers, your clergy white-washed walls (and pædo's) and your 'mother' a false god.

Hardly surprising, as it has it's roots in Babylonian mysticism.

BTW You should have been taught in Sunday School that apologies which contain the clause 'if' are no such things.

3 May 2011 12:16  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

For those challenging the establishment of a church that would develop doctrine and have teaching authority, please explain the following passages of the New Testament:

"These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." (John 14:25-26)


"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 16: 12-14)

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23)

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:13-19)

There are many more Biblical passages particularly in Acts supporting the development of the church as an organisation and the teaching and leadership role of the Apostles.

3 May 2011 12:43  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

Mr.J surely you need no more proof that E.V is a wind-up merchant?

His post is not only rude and insulting but he deliberately aims to frustrate discussion by pretending he has given full answers to legitimate queries when he clearly has not.

I asked him this;

'So the Bible's authority comes from the inspiration of God. This inspiration comes from God. Why is it limited to the bible though? Can God not inspire in any other way? Is his whole power limited by the Bible? Does it constrain him, lessen him or add to him? At Pentecost was it the bible which infused the Apostles with Holy Spirit? On Mount Sinai was it the Bible through which God spoke to and inspired Moses? Was it through the Bible that God created and ordered the cosmos? Is it through the Bible that we are saved?'

He answered thus

'Got is not restrained by anything nor anyone.

You show me some occurrences of spiritual inspiration that do not contradict Biblical teaching, lead to confusion or sin and I will say Praise God.

My point is that if such thing contradict the already revealed inspiration of God, then they are no such thing and should be immediately rejected. Hence my rejection of popiness.'

This was clearly no answer to any of my questions. Is not his claim he answered the questions(or Blofeld, who has been reasonable and civil but whose only proper answers have been admissions towards the traditional Christian position I put forward.) the very definition(if it had one.) of a wind-up merchant? Of course it is! To act rudely and insult, to make assertions but to avoid all real discussions of them through ruse and through feint is the essence of winding up. The internet works in favour of such nonsense, he knows that, he can do this indefinitely and knows he must frustrate the sincere and the decent person's wish to see satisfaction in defeating him because of the nature of the format. All they can do is unmask him and then ignore him.

You appear to be an Anglican and he defames our Church in his above post(unless he doesn't realise I'm an Anglican.). You seem sensible and indeed sincere, Mr.J. You must realise that he does not act decently and sincerely.

By the way my questions go largely unanswered;

'So the Bible's authority comes from the inspiration of God. This inspiration comes from God. Why is it limited to the bible though? Can God not inspire in any other way? Is his whole power limited by the Bible? Does it constrain him, lessen him or add to him? At Pentecost was it the bible which infused the Apostles with Holy Spirit? On Mount Sinai was it the Bible through which God spoke to and inspired Moses? Was it through the Bible that God created and ordered the cosmos? Is it through the Bible that we are saved?

3 May 2011 12:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

WCM

It clearly was an answer to your question. Just because I refuse to allow you to dictate terms, you spit your dummy.

Bite me.

BTW Do you suppose that you will heard through your many words, or your vain repetition?

3 May 2011 13:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Wow! 24 hour blogging! I hope some of you are in a different time-zone! You’ll forgive me I hope if I haven’t had time to read the fifty comments that have appeared since I last posted.

EV,

Mary is not my mother

My point was that she is Our Lord’s mother and he was born under the Law and thus he honoured her in accordance with his own commandment. You have serially insulted the woman God as man honours. Part of honouring someone involves protecting them from insult. You might like to think about that.

Ernst,

How can Mary spiritually consent to Christ laying down His life for all, sorry Albert, makes no sense whatsoever

What God wills happens. You can accept it or reject it. To accept it, especially at the risk of suffering, is good. To reject it is bad. Mary accepted it, evne though it meant a sword pierced her own soul – that is good and so, my point makes perfect sense.

That co-redemptrix means something to you but is different in meaning to us is not OUR fault.

If you want to fault us for believing something, you do rather need to engage in what we believe, not what you take us to be believing. Correcting your misapprehensions is a sign of patience, not double-speak.

But the crucial point remains: St Paul says he makes up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. If you found that said of Mary in a papal text, you would very likely say it denied salvation by Christ alone. In fact, co-redemptrix implies no such lack in Christ’s sacrifice. On the contrary, it means that his redeeming grace is so super-abundant, and so fruitful in Mary, that he can choose to associate her in his own work. It is not necessary for him to do so, it only happens by grace, and there is no claim of condign merit here. He is simply crowning his own merits bearing fruit in his creature.

3 May 2011 13:01  
Blogger Albert said...

vain repetition

Repetition is not necessarily vain repetition - see Psalm 136

3 May 2011 13:04  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Westcountryman_ I regret I would find it more than a little difficult to accept a formal apology from one who is persisting in using here the expression "wind-up merchant"; and that is irrespective of whether the person to whom it is being applied could justly (in my opinion) be considered to be of the kind of which that is offered as a description.

Further, I would be reluctant to give the benefit of any doubt to a proposition being advanced by a person using here the expression "wind-up merchant", in the course of a discussion such as this. Nor do I propose to enter into arbitration with such a person.

Others, of course, may answer for themselves.

3 May 2011 13:06  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

You cannot have it both ways. Either you answer the questions or you don't let me dictate terms and therefore do not properly answer them(as you have done.). Your claim to be able to do both is an indication of you being a wind-up merchant.

To act like something out of Yes Minister, to deflect a question by turning it back on the questioner is one thing. However there is a reason why the audience laughed at such games, because the ruse is frustrating but obvious.

3 May 2011 13:11  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2011 13:24  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

I can quite understand MrJ. After all it is not a phrase one hears before the watershed, even these days. If I had used it in the supermarket, even ASDA, I would have undoubtedly been ejected forthwith. I can hardly understand what has come over me. Just see how others here come up with such mild and beneficial chastening, while I come out with the rankest filth like 'wind-up merchant', such as that superlative Scandinavian immigrant, Norway's loss, who gently rebukes our English Church thus;

'your very religion itself is a sad, sick shadow of true Christianity, your church is a brood of vipers, your clergy white-washed walls (and pædo's) and your 'mother' a false god.'

To think that I could dare hold my head up here, when all I can muster is infamous profanity like 'wind-up merchant'. Oh shame.

3 May 2011 13:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

WCM,

As usual, you have it arse about face; I am England's loss.

Albert,

Vain repetition is always vain. Matt 6 v 7.

3 May 2011 13:42  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...
"Dodo,
Oh, it'sreal alright. Repent.
BTW Being called a bigot by a cat-lick make me feel all warm inside!"

You sure you haven't got a 'good' protestant - 'bad' protestant thing going with 'len'?

You also very coy about your own affiliations too. What church do you attend that teaches this this hatred of all things Roman Catholic?

3 May 2011 14:04  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I am a humble member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my denomination is Christian.

BTW the Bible teaches hatred of all things evil, Romans 12 v 9, hence my venom towards idolatry.

I like Elijah's attitude towards liars, deceivers, false gods and those that follow them. Public humiliation, then down to the brook for some throat-slitting. 1 Kings 18.

Lucky for you this new arrangement between man and God prevents this kind of thing, eh? Probably even luckier for me, given your lot's penchant for torturing and killing 'heretics'.

BTW You may have noticed that Len has openly expressed his dislike of 'my kind', doubting that I am a Christian of any sort, let alone Protestant, so no, nothing going on with kindly Len. I am afraid you'll just have to make do with me.

3 May 2011 14:23  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
I am a humble member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my denomination is Christian."

Name the assembly/church you attend - if any!

3 May 2011 14:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I already have. I meet with other members of the Church and denomination on a regular basis, and not a pointy hat or a golden statue in sight!

3 May 2011 14:59  
Anonymous chevron said...

(Len) "If you(Catholic person) totally rejected Catholicism would you still be saved.?"
Answer:
(Dodo) "And, yes, again as I understand it, if one wilfully and with full understanding leaves the Catholic church salvation will be denied."

Accurate. But the key to that is "with full understanding". Because it is taught that there will be no salvation for those who leave, if they do leave believing such, it follows that there really will be no salvation. It is self-fulfilling. If however one were to leave the RCC and join, say, a Calvinist community because of a persistent sincerely held conviction that one would be better following the call of Christ within that community, then one would be damned for NOT becoming a Calvinist. As such, it makes that pronouncement of "no salvation" basically irrelevant. We are all Christians if we try to sincerely follow Christ, irrespective of whether our understanding of the truth is truly Absolute Truth, and indeed irrespective of whether we know Christ even by name (cf The Righteous Heathen). It is the nature of the personal response to Grace that ultimately counts.

(Albert)"This elevation of private judgement in matters of faith has some pretty sinister origins too!"

Private jugement must always be tempered with due reverence to teaching authority, but ultimately it holds primacy in matters that cannot be reconciled to conscience, as long as the duties of conscience have been upheld. One could equally state that Catholic Eucharistic theology or Christology as dogmatically expressed have some "pretty sinister origins": the Church is lumped with the language of pagan philosophy because it is useful in expressing the doctrine, but conversely the doctrines are framed in a manner that reflects the discourse that used this language. It seems all a bit petty and irrelevant to discuss origins. A tree is known by its fruits, and all that ...

(ESBT) "Poor old Erasmus, [...] refused to be pressured to put anything in the text that was not there, for anyone's denominational benefit"

All translations are a product of those doing the translating. As such, they will always reflect certain biases, conscious or otherwise. There is no such thing as a "direct translation": Aqulia's absurd attempt comes to mind. And is a gloss on the text so very wrong? Consider the Targumim. Or, for something a bit closer to home, Luther and Rom13. Scripture is meant to speak to the individual, and the RCC holds (cf monastic and mystic traditions) that any personal insight that does not contradict Church teaching is valid for the individual. In such a case, amending a text to make clear an interpretation (and thus avoid error) is acceptable. But clearly, if one rejects an external teaching authority then one also rejects the validity of making constraining amendments to the text.

(EV) "It is a sin to lie to others, but doubly so to oneself."

Something isn't a lie if it is believed (an emotive word implying a knowing falsehood, rather than simply unwitting or sincerely held inaccuracy). And there is no sin where there is no resolve. In any case, 'lie to oneself'? Please, talk sense.

(Bellarmine)"Any reasonable person reading their words can see that they are fools and there is no point in getting emotionally invested in their opinions."

I fancy it comes down to a complete lack of theological training, from a mindset that says that they need no teacher or external authority. They aren't so much fools, as blinded by their own opinions, and handicapped by their lack of objectivity. Hmm. On second thoughts, perhaps that is the same thing? :) And alas, I read my definition, and wonder how it applies to myself. Are we not all guilty of that? Or is that more wishful thinking? *sigh* I need more coffee ...

3 May 2011 15:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Chevron,

I'd lay off the coffee if I were you, you appear to be rambling incoherently.

3 May 2011 15:26  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
I am a humble member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my denomination is Christian."
Dodo,
I already have. I meet with other members of the Church and denomination on a regular basis, and not a pointy hat or a golden statue in sight!"

So used to your evasions I thought this was another!

Is the the American curch of the same name? If not, does it have a website providing details of its beliefs? Interested in what you believe - rather than what you detest.

3 May 2011 15:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Why am I such a curiosity to you?

I know very little about American churches (I assume you mean US) other than the nonsense transmitted by various late night TV channels.

I believe (in my heart) and confess (with my mouth), that Jesus Christ is Lord, and God has raised Him from the dead, and therefore I am saved. Romans 10 v 9

If you are genuinely interested in what I believe, there is book about it. It's a Bible. (66 books only, though, no rot in the middle, mind).

Will that do?

3 May 2011 16:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Chevron,

Thank you for an extremely interesting post. I agree that discussing origins often doesn't get us very far - genetic fallacy and all that.

Nevertheless, sometimes looking at origins can be helpful. As far as I can see, Luther claimed to have the plain meaning of scripture. When it became hard for him to demonstrate that earlier readers had found his doctrine in scripture, he either had to admit his doctrine wasn't the plain meaning of scripture or deny the tradition in favour of private (i.e. his) judgement. His denial of the tradition and the need to appeal to his own private judgement is a whisker away from admitting his doctrine isn't after all, the plain meaning of scripture.

But then Luther was a great one for changing goal posts - let the people read the scripture in the vernacular (provided they agree with his interpretation, and provided they read his translation with the word "alone" added, to make scripture say (as it doesn't otherwise say) we are justified by faith alone).

3 May 2011 16:24  
Blogger Albert said...

EV,

I suspect Dodo's interest in your ecclesial community is simply that it is rather hard for anyone to subject your beliefs to any kind of criticism or discussion when it is not clear what they are.

3 May 2011 16:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I have clearly stated my 'religion' and, contrary to your assertion, my beliefs come under constant criticism.

3 May 2011 16:33  
Blogger Albert said...

my beliefs come under constant criticism

Perhaps they do. But a lot of the time, it's not really clear whether it is your beliefs that are being discussed. This is where an indication of your ecclesial commitments could help and I'm a bit puzzled as to why you aren't a bit more forthcoming about it. I'm proud of being a Catholic and like people to know.

3 May 2011 17:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I have answered your question, thrice now.

I am a Christian. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I can't say it any plainer. That's it.

3 May 2011 18:18  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Ashamed of the church you attend?
You refuse to specify its denomination or provide details of it so that I might research its beliefs.

Shame on you!

3 May 2011 18:52  
Anonymous chevron said...

Mmmmh Dodo ... EV has a point here. He clearly puts a lot of weight on private judgement rather than institutional teaching authority, thus it is understandable that he insists on being defined by the Church that Christ heads (in a 'Church Invisible' sense), rather than a man-made organisational structure. This is probably, to him, an essential distinction. It does not follow that his faith corresponds to the articles of faith (if any) of his denomination (if any). It certainly does not imply that he is ashamed of any Church he may attend, or any beliefs he holds.

Tricky to pin him down though, if we can't label him. "This product may contain nuts", perhaps? I jest, of course :)

3 May 2011 19:19  
Blogger Albert said...

The problem is EV, that you've spent a lot of time criticising others in the most hateful terms, and have carefully protected yourself from similar scrutiny by evading questions of what it is you believe.

In my experience, people who describe themselves vaguely as "Christian" and cannot give any further clarity as to which other Christians they worship with, are usually (with apologies to Westcountryman) Anglicans. Are you an Anglican?

3 May 2011 19:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Your tiny mind just doesn't seem to be able to grasp biblical fact; I am PART of the Church, it is not a building and It is not possible to attend it. There is a local representation, i.e. the believers in any given location, and there is the corporate representation, ie the whole body of believers globally, the very Body of Christ, of which, He is head.

I'm not being pedantic, it appears to me to be as plain as the nose on my face that this is meaning of the word translated 'church' in the Bible. There is no mention of denominations or orders within the Bible, why invent them? I think I'd permit the notion that John was a baptist, but that's about it.

Albert,

I'm surprised you would imagine that I would submit to a druid, having seen how much contempt I have for both idolatry and men in dresses.

No, I most certainly am not an Anglican.

3 May 2011 19:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Chevron and Albert

Of course we're giving English Viking just the kind of attention he loves. That's the main issue for me. The focus being on him and his hated filled comments rather than the faith he says he professes.

Personally I would like to know more about this. 'Christian' since the reformation covers a host of beliefs.

Doubtful he's an Anglican. He's been pretty abusive towards them too. Mind you in the past he has defended the Nicene Creed so it's a possibility. (Interesting as much of it is a developed understanding of Scripture).

It's unlikely he's a Quaker!

3 May 2011 19:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

So you worship on your own then, do you?

3 May 2011 19:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

BTW - shame.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1 v 16

3 May 2011 19:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

When I don't reply you complain that I ignore you and when I do you complain I am an attention seeker.

Make your mind up.

If you wish to desist from asking questions, I shall have no need to make replies.

BTW Quakers are not Christians. Just like cat-lcks.

3 May 2011 19:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

No, I've already mentioned that I meet regularly with other Bible-believing Christians, to render my spiritual service unto God, amongst my brothers and sisters.

To do otherwise would be to fall foul of
Hebrews 10 v 25.

3 May 2011 19:57  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Pentecostal?

Evangelical?

3 May 2011 20:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

It is the duty of all Christians to evangelise.

Pentecostal? Do me a favour.

Your wasting your (and my) time. I've told you my affiliations.

3 May 2011 20:13  
Anonymous len said...

Quite amusing how Albert and Dodo want to hang a 'label' on EV and me and anyone who doesn`t conform to their view point of what a 'religious person' is!(or should be.)

I am a born again believer and a member of the Body of Christ (not a body of religion) What part of that do you not get?.

Just another thought, when teaching people how to detect counterfeit banknotes they don`t give them the fakes ,they give them the 'real thing'to handle and they become accustomed to the feel and the look of the 'real thing. So when a fake(note) comes along they immediately spot it.
The Holy Spirit( within the believer) has the same function when handling and observing 'fake religions.)

3 May 2011 20:16  
Anonymous len said...

I think I too have wasted enough time with Dodo and Albert, anything I say seems to fall on deaf ears.I shake the dust from my feet and move on.
I thank His Grace for His tolerance and will end here.

Until next time:

One last thought, speaking to the religious is like speaking to a person with a bucket on their head,they seem not to be able to hear, or to be able to see what is going on around them,only what exists within the confines around their head.

3 May 2011 20:26  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len, you never did reply to my earlier post. Before departing from the field perhaps you might do so.

English Viking, be interested in your opinion too.

"Rather narrow definition of the role of the church established by Christ.

The Biblical passages below suggest the need for some form of collective organisation.

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23)

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:13-19)

There are many more Biblical passages particularly in Acts supporting the development of the church as an organisation and the teaching and leadership role of the Apostles."

3 May 2011 20:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
Quite amusing how Albert and Dodo want to hang a 'label' on EV and me and anyone who doesn`t conform to their view point of what a 'religious person' is!(or should be.)

Not so!

As a believer in Christ, presumably you are either a member of an assembly that worships, prays, meets and develops their faith together or you stand alone and base your faith on personal revelation from the bible and engage in private prayer and worship.

No?

3 May 2011 20:43  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Got it!

You are a Born Again Evangelical Christian - just like 'len'.

3 May 2011 20:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Matt 16 vv19-19.

I assume you are a proponent of the standard cat-lick line on this passage, and if so you'll know the standard rebuttal from people like me. Petra, petros, etc.

John 20-23

God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,

they are remitted unto them; in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see Mark 16:16. On the other hand he signifies, that

whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained: that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.

It is also interesting to note in this passage that all Apostles are treated equally, and Peter is not singled out for special attention, as cat-licks would like us believe he was.

There is no doubt that Christ used his Apostles to establish the early church, the 'ecclesia', those 'called out', to be separate from the world because they were Christians. There is also no doubt that this church was to be built in terms of strong, sound teaching amongst new-believers, given by Apostles and learned men, evangelism, empowerment by the Holy Spirit, prayer and dedication, amongst other things. It was NEVER intended that a group of believers should build enormous buildings, at ridiculous expense, decorate them with idols of gold, stone and wood and then falsely declare the building to be a church. How can a building be the ecclesia? Nor was it intended that they should elect one man to be the head of all the believers in the world, usurping Christ, pretend he is the font of all wisdom, and build that man a palace, give him an army and his own little country even.

The only 'organisation', if that is the the right word, that I can find that Bible teaches that should be present in a local, independent representation of the Body of Christ, the group of believers in a given locality meeting in a common place, is that of Elders and Deacons. I take the 'rank' of Bishop to be equivalent, in fact exactly the same, as Elder.

The reader will note that John Gill's commentary has assisted in this reply.

3 May 2011 21:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older