Monday, March 19, 2012

Cameron puts homophobia at the heart of the Constitution

For centuries we have heard that the British Constitution is 'anti-Catholic', principally by virtue of the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treaty of Union 1707, all of which prohibit the Monarch from being, becoming or marrying a Roman Catholic.

Bowing to pressure from the religious and political (principally from Cardinal Keith O’Brien who refers to this as ‘state-sponsored sectarian discrimination’; and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond who demands ‘equality of faith and gender’), the Prime Minister announced last October that he would introduce an amendment to the Act of Settlement – a ‘Royal Equality Bill’ which would end male primogeniture in the Royal succession, and simultaneously lift the ban on the Monarch being married to a Roman Catholic. As His Grace has previously pointed out, such a change will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended, including the Bill of Rights (1689), the Royal Marriages Act (1772), the Coronation Oaths Act (1688), the Crown in Parliament Act (1689), the Accession Declaration Act (1910) and the rather more sensitive Act of Union (1707).

But if it be right, just and fair to end this ‘blatant discrimination towards Catholics, which is completely unacceptable in a modern society’, a fortiori must it be right to end it in respect of homosexuals and lesbians.

It has just been announced that the male partners of peers and knights who take part in gay marriages are to be given courtesy titles ‘to put them on a par with wives of titled men’. Ergo, the same-sex spouse of Lord so-and-so might be called Sir such-and-such or the Honourable such-and-such. This is a logical consequence of same-sex marriage for the titled: they are entitled to the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, otherwise the partners of homosexual peers and knights would suffer a manifest discrimination. It is yet to be decided how this will apply to lesbian peers and dames, for the male partners of baronesses and dames are already discriminated against by not being granted courtesy titles. This could be thorny.

But perhaps the most interesting constitutional dimension of the Same-sex Marriage Bill (or whatever it is to be called) is how this will apply (or not) to the Monarch. In proposing that Roman Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred, David Cameron has perpetuated a manifest religious discrimination while seeming to abolish it. He has created an institution of state in which it would be permissible to rear children as Roman Catholics as long as the heir does not seek to take the throne as a Roman Catholic.

This rectifies nothing. If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the throne.

The Bishops have already made it clear that they will oppose this Bill in the Lords, because they know perfectly well that the reform will lead to disestablishment and the end of the Crown in Parliament under God. But that aside, why not have same-sex couples upon the throne?

Is it not blatant homophobia that, should the Monarch be homosexual, that their partner may not be crowned at their side and granted a royal title to reign with them? Is it not blatantly homophobic that they not marry under the aegis of the Church of England, as the Constitution requires, and that the Church will not officiate over their same-sex union? Is it not unacceptably discriminatory in the 21st century that, should the firstborn of Prince William choose to enter into a civil partnership with his best friend from Eton, his lawful partner shall not also be king?

This is surely a logical corollary of removing all ‘offensive discrimination’ from the institution of Monarchy. If one is legislating to end sexism and Romophobia, why not simultaneously end homophobia? This will surely be the next step (as soon as Stonewall and/or Peter Tatchell latch onto it), for (by all statistical accounts) there are just about as many homosexuals and lesbians in the UK as there are Roman Catholics, all waiting for the right time to get offended over this 'disgusting' and 'insulting' discrimination. It would be invidious for a Conservative prime minister to bring to an end an unjust discrimination against one group, only to sustain an unjust discrimination against another. Come on, Mr Cameron. Why can’t we have two queens upon the throne?

63 Comments:

Blogger graham wood said...

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when once we set out to deceive...

say no more Cranmer, of the myariad complications about to be ushered in by the absurd Gospel of gay" emancipation"

19 March 2012 09:57  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

As a good(ish) Catholic boy myself, I've been depressed over the years about the spiral of society deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity; watching liberalism tie itself up in knots like this in the name of 'inclusivity' and 'compassion', however, I think I'm now beginning to enjoy it in a smug kind of way. Won't be long now before the barbarians come stroming in, fellow Romans...

19 March 2012 10:02  
Blogger Lang Spoon said...

@Corrigan1, the barbarians are already in the gates.

Indeed, it is not the barbarians that we should fear the most, but the Frankfurt-school Marxists, who are engaged in a West wide experiment in social engineering to see whether a civilization can survive the overturning of everyone of its principals.

19 March 2012 10:24  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, well here in Barchester I have always been referred to as My Lady Bishop...no one dares do otherwise. How sensible that this title will now be enjoyed in every diocese throughout the land

19 March 2012 10:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

This debate is no longer about religion, marriage, rights, secular versus religion – it is about something that is deeply embedded within the system of democracy itself.

Homosexual ‘marriages’ are not marriages – to frame laws that impose the contrary is to divorce law from nature: from reality.

When a State redefines reality itself through the mechanism of a legal fiction: law itself becomes arbitrary and this leads ultimately to tyranny.

What the churches are doing is defending democracy.

19 March 2012 10:34  
Blogger The Thirsty Gargoyle said...

I think it marriage is redefined as proposed and then opened to all, a further conundrum still will come into play.

Of course, under new proposals, the monarch would be able to marry someone of the same sex, whether or not that person be honoured by the State with a title, but what would happen to any children they might adopt?

After all, they'd not be able to have children of their own. They would have to adopt. And yet, under British law, adopted children do not have quite the same rights as natural ones; they cannot inherit titles.

So were William and Catherine's first son - say - to be gay, and to marry another man, any children they might have would be barred from inheriting the throne.

It gets messier.

19 March 2012 10:38  
Blogger Jon said...

Your Grace - we've had gay monarchs before. How many of the landed gentry are so titled because a relative enjoyed the favours of the monarch of the time?! James I of England (he of the King James Bible) and the 1st Duke of Buckingham (I wonder how he got his title...) were pretty open about it, after all.

It appears that, having picked the battle ground it has chosen to fight on/ obsess about, the Church is now losing the airwar. Every significant political party in the HoC is behind proposals for gay marriage. (How long before the Church is found on the Jeremy Kyle show, bleating about the Tory party being unfaithful...)

Once again - perhaps its time for disestablishment and a Christian party at the next election? Only then can your undoubted numbers of Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, the Judean People's Front and the People's front of Judea rally to your entirely unsullied and unified flag...

19 March 2012 11:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Yes - but, and I have asked before, will a Monarch in a homosexual marriage or actively engaged in such a relationship, be in communion with the Anglican Church? And, if s/he is not, can they ascend the Throne and/or be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Could someone clarify this issue for me?

19 March 2012 11:37  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
You have been guilty of gender discrimination. With Kings being Queens and Queens being less queenly than they should, there would have to be and abandoning of the traditional King and Queen titles and have instead Senior Monarch and Lesser Monarch.

19 March 2012 11:58  
Blogger David B said...

@Dodo

I'd further like to know whether a King with a mistress is in communion with the CoE?

It's never seemed to worry them, has it?

More generally, it does same to me to be unfair that a convert to Catholicism could not be a monarch.

What, though, would be the status of a convert to Islam or Buddhism, or someone who became an out atheist?

Are we to allow Catholics, but not everyone else?

Let's face it, it is time for disestablishment.

The monarchy is an anachronism, too, though it does prevent people like Bliar becoming head of state.

Some may remember my not altogether tongue in cheek modest proposal some months ago of retaining the Crown as head of state, but not have anyone wearing it anymore.

I've yet to see a convincing argument against this.

David B

19 March 2012 12:12  
Blogger Pétrus said...

As a Catholic I have as much of an issue with the monarchy being barred to Catholics as I do with non Catholics being prevented from becoming Pope.

19 March 2012 12:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I can't quite see crowds of people standing outside Buckingham Palace to see the post-nuptual kiss between the Prince of Wales and his new consort/civil partner/spouse B. It constitutes a sterile and unnatural relationship that attacks the very basis of the monarchy - it's lineage. A husband and wife take their place in a family tree and propagate it forward. This is what people celebrate with the presentation on the balcony.

I am not sure however that the whole "Children must be raised Roman Catholic" argument is a valid concern. Presumably the wedding would still take place in (whatever remains of) the CoE. The promise to raise children RC is only made in a Roman Catholic wedding. Yes, The RCC might consider the marriage illicit and the resulting children illegitimate, but ... who cares?

carl

19 March 2012 12:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
Not entirely correct.

A wedding can be licit in another Christian church and before a minister of another denomination if dispensation is first obtained from a Bishop. The wedding ceremony could even be jointly conducted. Central to this is the recognition that the Sacramental nature of a wedding is enacted by the couple making the vows and not by the priest. That's the basis of annulments too.

For the Catholic to obtain such dispensation they would have to agree to do "all in their power" to raise children of the union as Catholics. Some might see this as a convenient escape clause permitting the children to be raised as Anglican.

Personally, I agree with Petrus above. However, whilst the Church of England still remains established the religious prohibition should extend to all religions too. It is discriminatory to bar Catholics from marrying a Monarch and not Muslims.

Jon
Fair point.

One could raise similar questions about a future Monarch in a civil marriage to a divorcee and therefore not married and therefore in an adulturess relationship in the eyes of the Church s/he might be called upon to lead.

19 March 2012 13:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo asked for guidance but he need look no further than his own blessed home?

Papal Encyclical anyone?

Ernst

19 March 2012 13:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst
It's entirely a matter for the Church of England. Their mess to sort out.

If asked, I'm sure the Pope would be willing to offer a personal opinion - in private if it would spare blushes. It might not be palatable though and could involve a post-reformation reformation.

19 March 2012 13:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh dear.

Old Ernst is really regretting that he voted Conservative last time!

At least with Brown (and Ernst despises the halfwit) we all knew he was a P^$%#K but with Cameron he may yet turn out to be a 24 carat gold one. Rock/VERY Hard Place.

If it ain't broke leave alone, me old gran would say !

Ernst

19 March 2012 13:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

Oooohh, no Ex Cathedra revealed from on high for us lost ones then?

"a post-reformation reformation." Bit like old Ernsty then?

Ernst

19 March 2012 13:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst
I said reformation, not deformation!

19 March 2012 13:46  
Blogger Jon said...

Carl said:

"This is what people celebrate with the presentation on the balcony."

Just out of interest, what was your sample size in your interviews with people standing outside Buckingham Palace during the most recent royal wedding?

19 March 2012 14:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

One can't help but wonder at Cameron, a distant relation of Her Majesty, that he has confused the notion of serving his Queen?

5th cousins can be sooo embarrassing...

19 March 2012 16:57  
Blogger Jon said...

Also - I'm surprised that this blog isn't up in arms about the Government's proposal to comprehensively violate the 4th Commandment! I know how you're all dead set on rules that can't be changed!

Perhaps the Pope and CoE have changed the rules again to allow major sporting events to grant an exception to the law handed down to Moses, set in stone.

19 March 2012 16:59  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

The Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c21)

III Endeavouring to hinder the Succession to the Crown according to the Limitations of Stat. and attempting the same by overt Act; High Treason.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/AnnSt2/1/21

19 March 2012 16:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

drat - should read: 'serving a Queen'.

19 March 2012 17:15  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Disestablishment has now to happen.

As a Catholic, and I am sure most other Catholics feel the same, we could live with the presence of an established protestant church as long as they discontinued the 300+ years of penal discrimination against Catholics.

Now of course we will now lose the whole thing as it WILL be disestablished AND will be torn asunder from within.

We will all be the poorer for it - unless you are from Stonewall and even then they should be careful what they wish for.

Our current set of politicians are like a gang of chimps running amok in the Louvre.

They know not what they do..

19 March 2012 17:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst
Now that we've established the Pope cannot resolve this question, do you have any ideas?

Will a Monarch in a homosexual marriage or actively engaged in such a relationship, be in communion with the Anglican Church? And, if s/he is not, can they ascend the Throne and/or be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

And the associated question:

Is a future Monarch in a civil marriage to a divorcee, heterosexual or homosexual, and therefore not married but an adulturer/ess in the eyes of the Church, in communion with the Church s/he will be called upon to lead.

A Catholic position would be clear but then it caused quite a stir back in the 1520's!

19 March 2012 18:45  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

OK chaps, panic over....

http://tgr.ph/FQhp4W

Now that Muslims and Sikhs have come out against gay "marriage" Call Me Dave will be having second thoughts.

It will be fun seeing him try to square this one.

The statement by the spokesman/person for the Muslim Council of Britain "Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia, redefining the meaning of marriage is in our opinion unnecessary and unhelpful.
“With the advent of civil partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual couples now have equal rights in the eyes of the law.
“Therefore, in our view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak." says it all.

Yes...

19 March 2012 20:41  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I was in Oxford yesterday and after a pint at the Eagle and Child stood and reflected on the steps of your Grace's monument.

I reckon it is about time for the established church to recognise that England is now a pagan country and jump before she is pushed.

Since disestablishment can probably now only be avoided by compromise upon Christ denying compromise, it would be a prophetic as well as strategic action to emulate your Grace by walking boldly to the scaffold.

20 March 2012 11:00  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

ERNST posted

'Old Ernst is really regretting that he voted Conservative last time!'

however did you manage that? There weren't any Conservatives standing at the last General election, only one cryptocommunist party and 2 liberals.

20 March 2012 11:03  
Blogger Gnostic said...

What would happen if, one day, we find ourselves with a gay monarch on the throne who married his male partner? Would we still have a king and queen?

;0)

20 March 2012 12:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Alpha Draconis. The Inspector informed this blog of where self – deluding Atlas gets his poison from. He didn’t expect you quote from it too ! Before you have the Catholic church killing everybody, do bear in mind it’s accepted that the population of Europe at 1650 was only 103 million.

Those good old boys who put that nonsense together were obviously plucking figures out of the air. They are not even ‘worse case scenario’.

By the way, soldiers kill people, not churchmen. Europe was indeed at war with itself, and if you had removed the church from the scene, do you really think any fewer would have been killed ??

20 March 2012 18:15  
Blogger len said...

Inspector you should really 'brush up' on your Catholic History.

There is no carpet big enough to brush all that under!.

20 March 2012 21:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And so should you len!

There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. There are no exact numbers but scholars have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately.

A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions.

In the Medieval Inquisition approximately 2,000 people died. The estimate for the Spanish Inquisition is some 2,250 deaths.

The entire Inquisition of 500 years caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable, yet the numbers are a far cry from the those used by people who are always looking to destroy the Church.

Do stop yoor lies about the Church - it is a sin and a serious one too.

20 March 2012 23:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What about the Albigensian Crusade? The entire population of Béziers was slaughtered. 15,000 people; men, women, and children. Direct involvement of the Catholic Church too. 100s of Cathars subsequently murdered by being burned alive for their religious beliefs.

21 March 2012 05:11  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Should 'the Church of Jesus ' be killing, murdering,torturing , and maiming people for their beliefs?.

Jesus said His followers would be known for their LOVE for one another!.This seems to totally disqualify your Church.

You may(and probably will) cite the 'good works' of Catholic organisations but don`t the secular ones do exactly the same?.

What makes your Church any different from Islam in this respect?.

21 March 2012 08:09  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

So much for the lie that same sex marriage will not result in churches being forced to allow them on their premises.

http://tgr.ph/GCna4N

21 March 2012 08:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
I'll ignore your snide remarks about the Catholic Churches world wide charitable works as unworthy of comment.

"Dodo, Should 'the Church of Jesus ' be killing, murdering,torturing , and maiming people for their beliefs?"

What an obnoxious, nasty litttle mind you have to ask such a rhetorical question.

Did you not understand what I said?

"The entire Inquisition of 500 years caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable, yet the numbers are a far cry from the those used by people who are always looking to destroy the Church."

21 March 2012 12:42  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo @ 05:11 :

Not to mention the Audians, Euchites/Messalians/Bogomills, Marcionites/Gnostics,Montanists, Husites, Lollards, Pelagians, Lutherans and Huguenots and many others besides. Mind, a few of the above you wouldn't necessarily want as your neighbours; but still.

The 'Beziers' deaths are but a fraction of the true horror of the Cathar suppression, which was many times more.

Further, the extirpation of the fruits of Cathar scholarship, destroyed much 'incovenient' knowledge; the stuff Dodo incorrectly refers to as 'Celtic Mysticism' and/or 'legends' - such as pertains to Britain's claim to the earliest of Christ's churches; and, the sojourns and journeys of Mary, and of the 'Jesus family' etc.

21 March 2012 17:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
Numbers and research sources, if you please.

As for the myth of Glastonbury, I think you'll find little documentary support or biblical support. More like a few Christian entrepreneurs in the West seeking to drum up a bit of lucrative pilgrimage business.

21 March 2012 18:39  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, you seem incapable of answering ANY question regarding your Church and its deplorable history.

The Catholic Church is well and truly soaked in the blood of the martyrs.

Perhaps those who planning a trip down the Tiber should remember ALL those who gave their lives to escape the shackles of the Roman Religion and reveal Biblical Truth and put the Word of God into the hands of the 'common man'.These brave men died tortured , burned at the stake, but refused to trade the Word of God for a lie.

21 March 2012 18:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
And you should perhaps spare a thought too for the Catholicand other Christian martyrs who gave their lives for Christ at the hands of militant protestants.

Why do you want to keep denominational hate alive? What motive can you possibly have? Let's remember the bravery and integrity of these men and women - let's loose the 'attitude'.

21 March 2012 19:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 18:39 : do your own bloody research. Top-tip: it ain't all on Wiki; so I'm afraid you're largely buggered.

22 March 2012 02:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

My dear man, buggered I have never been and never will be!

22 March 2012 12:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: never mind, I'll help you out a tad later, after mowing the lawn. Helping with your 'research' that is!

NB. what a shame that we cannot now use that word as innocently as we once did.

22 March 2012 14:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo asks of Len,Why do you want to keep denominational hate alive?

Excellent question that inspired bird. The Inspector himself is amazed at the point scoring the Wicked Weasel revels in. One is reduced to just sitting back and marvelling how this small minded born again belittles the Christian beliefs of his neighbours, yet ignores the godless and the evil ways of the world around him. Must give him strength and courage to pick on us, qualities he naturally lacks as an individual, one supposes. Rather sad, really…

22 March 2012 18:10  
Blogger len said...

I expect the Catholic Church forbidding people for owning or reading the Bible was 'for their own good?.....Dodo?.

Or was it that their religious deception would be uncovered if people could read the Truth for themselves?.
There can be no compromise between truth and error.

See the Dodo is 'still working you ' inspector'I think it' sad' that you cannot think for yourself!.

22 March 2012 19:39  
Blogger len said...

Here Dodo ..a serious question..I know you' don`t do' questions ..but have a go....anyway.

How much compromise with Catholic 'theology' would you be willing to 'do' with Protestants for the sake of 'Christian unity?.'

What would you be willing to 'give up?.
I am very interested as this was your suggestion to me(in a way)

I await your answer with interest.

22 March 2012 20:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Watch out bird, tis a trap !!!

22 March 2012 20:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

I asked you why you were perpetuating hate - not what you would give believing in.

What a silly, small minded observation about the Bible. Hello, it's 2012! In actuality, the Catholic Church printed and distributed more bibles than any protestant sect.

I would give up none of the teachings, doctrines or dogma of the Catholic Church. They are all contained in the Catechism of the Church and I internally consent to them all.

One never compromises on the Truth or appeases those in error merely to achieve a false unity. That is the protestant way, not the Catholic way. That, or you slinter into thousands of little sects.

"And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

22 March 2012 22:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

In case you miss this on the thread above:

"There are not over a hundred people ... who hate the Catholic Church.

There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."

(Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D.)

22 March 2012 22:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
That 'beanie' weasel could trap his own pee in a bucket!

The thing is, he doesn't actually know what he believes in, just defines his faith by opposition to what he thinks Catholics believe.

Sad.

22 March 2012 22:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Such ridiculous nonsense stated by a foolish bird to justify rubbish.

'In actuality, the Catholic Church printed and distributed more bibles than any protestant sect.'

Correct answer to the statement is;

There are over 1,000 diffrent types of bibles; and there are all together (bibles made) about 6,000,000,000 add or subtract 1000.
The Christian Bible is the bestselling book of all time.

An equally correct alternate answer would be;

No one knows the answer to this question.
There is no record of the number of bibles printed and sold.
Sales occur all over the world, as do printings.
There is no central register of all the translations / versions / editions.

However some observations about Roman Catholicism and the Holy Bible;

1. The Roman Catholic Church is not particularly known for its use of the Bible in mission and ministry. It has a reputation for discouraging — even forbidding — the reading of Sacred Scripture. The Holy Bible is key within the protestant-non roman catholic faith!

2. In 1629, Propaganda Fide decided that no book could be printed at its press without a special decree. In 1655 it prohibited the printing of any book by missionaries without written permission. Missionary policies tended to favor the publication of catechisms and other explanations of the Christian faith.

3. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) actually decreed the integration of Scripture with teaching, formation, and preaching. However, the average Catholic priest in Europe and elsewhere did not own a copy of the Bible. Access to God’s Word usually came through the lectionary, the breviary, and other liturgical books.

4.The faithful, moreover, were seldom encouraged to read the Bible. Their knowledge of Sacred Scripture was often limited to what they heard during the liturgy. The Council of Trent neither encouraged nor forbade translations into the vernacular. But its proclamation of the Vulgate as the official text of the Roman Catholic Church limited its use to those who could read and understand Latin. The church’s hostility toward Protestant editions of Sacred Scripture also created the impression that reading the Bible was something Protestant and therefore suspect. So while biblical studies by scholars and clergy were encouraged and promoted, the same can hardly be said at all about the access of the Roman Catholic faithful to Scripture.

5. The Roman catholic Church puts no priority on the translation and distribution of the texts of the Holy Bible, as even today the Roman Catholic Church has no equivalent to the Bible Societies and feels no need to establish one.

Ernst would therefore conclude that...
6. Pope Gregory XVI in his 1844 encyclical Inter Praecipuas condemned both bible societies and "the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures", and subsequently Catholics did not officially participate in the Society. This encyclical was only reversed by Vatican II in the 1960s.

7. The first organisation called The Bible Society was formed in 1779 to distribute Bibles to soldiers and seamen.

8. The modern Bible Society movement dates back to the foundation of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804 when a group of Christians sought to address the problem of a lack of affordable Bibles in Welsh for Welsh-speaking Christians. This was highlighted by a young girl called Mary Jones who walked over 20 miles to get a Bible in Bala.

9. Although perceived as Protestant, from the early days the British and Foreign Bible Society was officially ecumenical, and allowed inclusion of the Apocrypha. As a reaction to the inclusion of these extra-canonical books, and other issues, the Trinitarian Bible Society was founded in 1831.

Or to be put it another way, why would the RCC print so many Bibles as claimed falsely, when they have no desire to promote its ownnership when the catechism will suffice, in their opinion!

Ernst

23 March 2012 10:43  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Inspector,

My quote was in response to Dodo's suggestion to look up "jesuit", I have no opinion on the matter, other than asking if the allegations were true. I am not sure which thread it was on. Perhaps his grace has deleted it? I do not know.

23 March 2012 19:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

In summary:

- If the Catholic Church had not scrutinized the writings of the early authors, rejecting some and approving others as canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.

- If the Catholic Church had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.

- The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church.

- It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible.

And something else you singularly fail to grasp:

Jesus appointed the twelve apostles to preach the Gospel throughout the world in order that God's revelation might be proclaimed to humanity. They were called to "guard the truth that had been entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit."

Thus, Catholics view divine revelation as being originally transmitted by oral means.

The Holy Spirit also guided some of the apostles and the early Christians to write down the stories of Jesus and certain letters of instruction and revelation.

The Catholic Church has continuously taught, therefore, that God's revelation is also transmitted to us through written means (Sacred Scripture).

The Bible is not considered to be the exhaustive, comprehensive teaching of the Christian Faith. Rather, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together are considered the integral source of divine revelation.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age'.

Jesus Christ appointed the Church to teach His revelation to all peoples and all places.

In order to ensure that revelation was preserved intact until the close of the age, He promised that the Holy Spirit would protect and guide the Church. The Church maintains that its official teachings and pronouncements (made by the pope or a church council approved by the pope) will be protected from error.

The development of the canon of Scripture illustrates the Catholic view of the authority of the Church. The Church maintains that God instituted the three pillars of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority) to uphold His revelation to humankind.

Any consideration of the Catholic Church's relationship to the Bible must be preceded by this foundation of the Catholic view of Divine Revelation.

See, we don't believe in sola scriptura - and neither will you find such a theology in the Bible!

23 March 2012 19:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And now to the deal with the lie that the Catholic Church wilfully withheld Bibles from being printed and distributed.

It was at the request of Pope Damasus in the late 4th century that St. Jerome undertook the creation of the Latin Vulgate. This text served as the authoritative Scripture for the Western Church for the next fifteen-hundred years.

Latin was not the dead language it is today. In Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages, anyone who was literate read and wrote in Latin. It was the language of all men of learning and culture. Thus, for the literate people of England, the Vulgate served as the primary Bible during the Middle Ages.

In the seventh century poetic renderings of portions of the Bible were done by a monk named Caedmon. During the following century the well-known Venerable Bede undertook a translation into the vernacular. Many other partial translations were done during the next couple centuries, including one of the Psalms attributed to King Alfred the Great.

In 1066 the Normans conquered England, and Middle English and French replaced Old English (Saxon). From this time we have various manuscripts such as the paraphrase of Orm (ca. 1150) and the Salus Animæ (ca. 1250).

Sir Thomas More, said: "The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."

During the late 14th century, the language of the English people began to change drastically.

During the 1380s the translation of the Vulgate by John Wyclif was composed. The Synod of Oxford, convened in 1408, condemned translations unapproved by the Church. This was done because the Church viewed Wyclif's translation as erroneous.

Though the common people of that time were largely illiterate, the Bible was conveyed to them through means other than reading, such as instruction in school, church sermons, drama, and art. Churches themselves were "visual Bibles," in which the many statues and stained-glass windows served to communicate the stories and teachings of the Bible.

After the advent of the printing press in the 15th century, the first printed Bible in the vernacular in England was that of William Tyndale. The translation included anti-Catholic footnotes and was considered erroneous by the bishops of England.

St. Thomas More wrote of Tyndale's translation that to "find errors in Tyndale's book [was] like studying to find water in the sea."

Over the course of the 16th century, a host of other English Bibles emerged. These included the Coverdale Bible and the Geneva Bible, which, as the name suggests, was written in Geneva by Protestants who followed John Calvin and Theodore Beza. Also completed was the Bishops Bible, which was done under Queen Elizabeth by the Church of England to counteract the Calvinist influence in the Geneva Bible.

Catholics fled to the European continent under Queen Elizabeth's reign. A group of Catholic translators began working on the New Testament in Rheims, France. The completed text was presented in 1582. The Old Testament was then translated at the English College in Douay, France and completed in 1609. According to the translators, the translation was undertaken "with the object of healthfully counteracting the corruptions whereby the heretics have so long lamentably deluded almost the whole of our countrymen."

The Douay-Rheims became the standard Bible of English-speaking Catholics for over three hundred years.

23 March 2012 19:23  
Blogger len said...

Dodo I think you need to go to confession!. The Catholic Church admits banning the reading of bibles ..... this in her own Laws :
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books."
- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,
Scolar Press, London, England


Bibles in common languages
such as Greek were outlawed. The Latin Vulgate
Bible was produced and carefully controlled,
readable only by 'specially trained' representatives
of the church. Laws were issued making it illegal
for any Christian to possess a Bible. Penalties
included burning at the stake. During the Dark Ages
even priests were unable to read the Scriptures
for themselves. As a result, they were unable to
compare the false doctrines sweeping through the
Roman church against the doctrines of the
Word of God. In Italy, it was still illegal to
own a Bible until 1870!

"The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally
suppressed, opposed, and forbidden the open use
of the Bible. It was first officially forbidden
to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden
Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D.
The Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.) also prohibited
its use and pronounced a curse upon anyone who would
dare oppose this decree. Many popes have issued
decrees forbidding Bible reading in the common
language of the people, condemning Bible societies
and banning its possession and translation under
penalty of mortal sin and death. The Roman Catholic
Church has openly burned Bibles AND those who
translated it or promoted its study, reading, and use.
(John Hus, 1415 A.D.; William Tyndale, 1536 A.D.)"


For 600 years the Roman Catholic Church
attempted to keep translations of the Bible
out of the hands of the people. Bible-believing
people were mercilessly persecuted and their
Scriptures were destroyed. Those who possessed
Bibles without a license were commanded to
deliver them up to the Catholic authorities
under threat of inquisition terrors. Booksellers
were forbidden to sell any Bibles except to
people who possessed a license from the Catholic
church. Huge quantities of Scriptures in English,
German, Italian, French, Spanish, and in other
languages, were confiscated and destroyed
throughout the 13th to the 19th centuries.
Bible translators and distributors were imprisoned
and burned. Even after the Catholic inquisition
was outlawed in many lands in the 18th and 19th
centuries, the popes continued to condemn the free
distribution of Scripture."


(Dodo you have reached a' new low' in my estimation)
The Truth seems to mean very little to you!)_

23 March 2012 22:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo stated erroneously that;

" If the Catholic Church had not scrutinized the writings of the early authors, rejecting some and approving others as canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today."

Actually the Catholic Church in 397 at the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered 'the canon'.These books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament.
When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said 'they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away'.

Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had ACCEPTED and USED these books for many years before them.

In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern (Rome came in line with the Eastrern church which was closer to the early church geographically and older in being established.

First the people in the church, not a council determined whether it was authoritative- did it come as thus saith the Lord, did they recognize God's voice in it. Did it have the life transforming power of God when it was applied.

There originally was no church council to decide what books were to be included in the canon. They were recognized by the consensus of the entire body of the church not by a council of bishops. The books were written under the inspiration of God, they were canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true. No book became canonical by the action of a church council in the same way the Old Testament books were not decided upon by the Sanhedrin. What the council did was to determine which books did not meet the tests for canonicity. There were no books written from 30-45 A.D. because believers had access to the apostles who were living eyewitnesses. Christ’s return was imminent. So there was no immediate concern to write it down. The New Testament began to be penned down approximately 15-20 years after the ascension. Since many of the apostles were alive there was no reason to write, they also thought Christ’s return was imminent so it was not necessary. When the church had its first martyr Stephen, then they were persecuted and scattered, it then became necessary to pen down the teachings. It was from this event that letters were copied and circulated so that the teachings would not be lost or changed. As the apostles went out they shared the writings and commanded them to be passed on to others. The apostles put their writings into circulation through the church. “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” (1 Cor. 1:2 and Eph.1:1) We have examples of letters to be read to all in Scripture 1 Thess.5:27, “to be read to all the church’s” Col.4:16, “read to the church of Colossae and the Laodiceans” Gal.1:21, “to the church’s of Galatia.” Jesus tells John the apostle in Rev 1:11, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, 'write in a book' and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

part 1

23 March 2012 23:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Part 2

By 170 A.D. most of the Bible had already been approved and read by the church and the term New Testament was in use.

This was long before any council.

To protect the writings from being lost they were copied for distribution. First were the Pauline epistles next were the 4 gospels in one work, then Acts 1 Pt., 1 Jn., Revelation all these were accepted in both the East and the West (these were called Homologumena= all books accepted by the entire church). Their was James and Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Hebrews which were disputed books because they were not familiar with them, these 6 books were accepted later (these are called Antilogumena= books accepted by some of the church).

Their were also false books circulating by authors who claimed to be an apostle or penned an apostles name. They were considered false because it contradicted the writings previously delivered, Example. The 1st miracle of Jesus was that he did miracles as a boy, not change the water to wine at Cana (these were called Notha = writings claiming inspiration but were false). Some of these ended up being in the Koran. By the 2nd century we find the expression the New Testament.

Many of the church fathers (bishops, pastors) quote the New Testament. Such as Polycarp (69-155 A.D.), quoting much of the New Testament (Matt., Acts, Hebrews, 1 Pt. And 10 of Paul's letters) his letter to the Philippians. Justin Martyr (100-160 A.D.) quotes all 4 Gospels, Acts and the epistles of Paul and Revelation. Portions of the gospels were read every Sunday in church. Clement, of Alexandria (165-220 AD) names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Irenaeus (135-210 A.D.) quotes from all the New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John. Origen 185-254 names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments. 160-240. In 300 A.D. Athanasius referred to all 27 books of the New Testament represented in the eastern church. He said “they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away,” so they had already decided what was truly the Scripture.

Tertullian who was a contemporary of both Origen and Clement, he mentions all the New Testament books minus James, 2 Peter and 2 John.

Eusebius gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books. They had their authority from the primary authority found in the writings of the apostles which made up the Bible.

We can produce almost all the New Testament from the church fathers writings and quotations before the year 150 A.D. proving that there was no church government to approve of what was in or out.

Trust that clears up the matter old dickie

Ernsty

23 March 2012 23:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2 Peter 1; 15-16, 12-21

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

There is a reason WHY the Apostles wrote their letters and that was to establish they were eyewitnesses in the truth to His words and glory and to admonish and encourage the existing churches they set up. We are benefactors of this Grace by the Holy Spirit that was given by the letters addressed to the Immediate Early Church .

Ernst

23 March 2012 23:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
Still mbeing the weasel, I see.

You really should read both Catholic and protestant sites before 'going off on one' and throwing insults around.

Did you not read my post?

And you have misrepresented the Catholic Church's position by carefully excluding parts of the text you quote.

The Church has been the guardian of Scripture and not its enemy. It has protected it from corruption by inaccurate translations.

It seems harsh in the days of Freedom of Information and the Internet, but the position of Trent was that only authorised versions of the Binble could be read. The reason was the protection of the faithful from error contained in protestant translations.

Trent decreed on April 8, 1546, "... the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, - seeing that one God is the author of both ..."

They made decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and/or FAULTY translations of the Scriptures. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue.

The prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. They didn'twant Catholics mislead by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics.

The concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. The Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic.

Do stop being so emotional, embittered, and ignorant about this. Put aside your prejudice and see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community.

24 March 2012 00:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Both you and I know that the canon of the Bible was established by the authority of the Church.

The books eventually pulled together into the Bible were floating around at the various Churches, but there was much disagreement over which of the books were Scriptural and which were not. Some individual churches
accepted one book or another, but many did not accept all of Scripture. Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were hotly debated during the time. And some books, like the Gospel of Thomas, which are not Scriptural, were accepted.

So finally the Apostolic, universal Church compiled the Bible as we know it at the Council of Hippo in 393. So up until that time the Bible did not exist as a single book the way we think of it today.

24 March 2012 00:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

It appears that even historical evidence does not convince you that your church WRONGLY claims to have discovered the letters of New Testament and compiled them for the believers.

I have shown you that the early church fathers prior to Hippo already knew of them from their churches as what THEY established as canon not the councils of bishops, it was the other way round.

Codices are codices irrespective that they were not officially stamped by some council.
The rejection of false letters claimimg to be lost epistles were either seen as rubbish that had been discarded as heretical previously or new letters were rubbished by comparing them to all the know epistles and books.

"see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community.@ What nonsense...I don't believe Len see's the ordinary church members of Rome as anything other than sincerely believing they follow Jesus and express goodness through their church and society. So you are casting false aspersions where there is none from us non catholics. It is the hierarchy we disclaim as correct and genuine and are leading the ordinary RC in continued error by their loyal obedience that what they are told by hierarchy is required from them. They refuse to reason with God as to what He says rather than men!

Stop making false claims about the RCC having compiled the Holy Bible. It is easily disproved as Ernst has shown. Whatever good it has done, let it stand on that and not on foolish fabrications and claims to enhance it wrongfully.

All Rome did was comply with the eastern church's canon held by the early church who were not all congregated in the region of the tiber. The hq of the early church was Antioch not Rome!

Gospel of Thomas...puhleaze!

First, the Gospel of Thomas showed a neccesary dependence on the first century New Testament writings, even parts of the Gospel of Mark that were edited by Matthew and Luke.1 The Gospel of Thomas quotes or alludes to more than half of the New Testament writings including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, and Revelation.2 This reliance indicates that the Gospel of Thomas was probably written sometime in the second century, especially since its references include later first century works such as the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Further, the Gospel of Thomas also shows evidence of having been influenced by Syrian Christianity, which, as far as scholars can tell, did not exist as a movement until the second century A.D. Also, many of the early Church fathers who extensively cite portions of the New Testament show no awareness of the Gospel of Thomas in the early second century. There are no quotations or allusions from early Christian writers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, or Justin Martyr. Craig Evans notes, “I’m now aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament.” ("Interview with Craig Evans," in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, p. 36.) Interestingly, the Epistles of Ignatius, which were written around A.D. 110, do not quote half as much New Testament material as Thomas does.

Read “The Apocryphal Jesus: Assessing the Possibilities and Problems,” in Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, eds., Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008, pp. 147-72. for further information from a bible scholar and historian..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_A._Evans

Enjoy!

Ernsty

24 March 2012 11:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ooopssss

“I’m now (should read 'not') aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament."

Drat me failing eyesight.

Ernsty

24 March 2012 11:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

a little excerpt for you from The Gospel of Thoms;
12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

13) Jesus said to His disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell
Me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to Him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to Him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to Him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

Good Lord!!!

Utter gibberish and and false teachings supposedly from Our Wonderful Saviour. Do read it online if you have no copy before even referencing this nonsense towards Ernst.

It does'nt even sound like Jesus. Only a desperate fool for some extra knowledge or their own gospel who fabricate such garbage.
Why it was rejected and is the musing of syrian gnosticism. The early church knew rubbish when presented to it as the had the 'Real Stuff' already.

Ernsty

24 March 2012 11:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older