Monday, July 14, 2008

The Pope and the paedophiles; the Archbishop and the homosexuals

As His Holiness arrives in Australia for an international Roman Catholic youth festival, he brings good news of great joy. In his message to young Australians, he urged them to look to God for the answers to their deep questions about the meaning of their lives: “Many young people today lack hope,”, he said, “They are perplexed by the questions that present themselves ever more urgently in a confusing world, and they are often uncertain which way to turn for answers."

And Cranmer agrees. Do not look to man. Look to God. Seek him night and day with all your heart and mind and soul and strength, and you shall find him.

His Holiness continued: “They see poverty and injustice and they long to find solutions. They are challenged by the arguments of those who deny the existence of God and they wonder how to respond. They see great damage done to the natural environment through human greed and they struggle to find ways to live in greater harmony with nature and with one another."

Good stuff.

But then he turned to one of the themes of his trip to the US – the priestly ritual sexual abuse of children – and said everything possible would be done to prevent a recurrence of Australia's sexual abuse crisis and to promote healing among the victims.

Everything possible?

The issue of the rape of young boys by Roman Catholic priests has been a major scandal in several countries around the world after bishops and cardinals were found to have moved abusers from parish to parish instead of defrocking them or reporting them to authorities. These priests are not only homosexual; they are paedophiles. They are not concerned with celibacy or holiness, but with depravity and porneia.

If the Pope were prepared to do everything possible, he would give Cardinal Bernard Law to the secular authorities. If sexual abuse is ‘incompatible’ with the behaviour required of the clergy, the former head of the Archdiocese of Boston must be brought to judgement. He has not only been aware of egregious sexual misconduct among his priests, but was apparently engaged in elaborate efforts to cover up incident after incident of child rape. Yet he remains sheltered by the Vatican; given sanctuary by His Holiness despite knowing of the rape of young boys and simply turning a blind eye to the possibility that his priests, if moved, may go on raping other young boys.

If His Holiness were really prepared to do ‘everything possible’ to heal this appalling wound, he would not only remove Cardinal Law from his Vatican sinecure, he would also remove his cardinal’s hat.

He does neither, and one wonders why.

But His Holiness also had a word or two to say on the Anglican ‘difficulties’.

"My essential contribution can only be prayer," he said. "The desire is that schisms and new fractures can be avoided," adding that Rome would not "intervene immediately" in their decisions.

Intervene immediately?

Well, Cranmer can hardly wait for the intervention in the non-immediate future. Good grief. Has it not yet sunk in after five centuries that ‘the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England’. At least GAFCON (or Foca) is pledged to uphold the 39 Articles.

Yet Cranmer finds it interesting that it is the Church of England that is attacked for its hypocrisy and bigotry over homosexual priests and its misogyny over women bishops.

It is lambasted by gay bishops on the left and by camp actors on the right. And it is persecuted by homosexualists like Peter Tatchell who are hell-bent (sorry) on forcing their sexuality down everyone’s throats.

At least the Church of England is having the debate, out in the open, in the full glare of media scrutinty, under the unflattering spotlight which exaggerates every blemish and imperfection. Contrast this with Rome’s complete lack of debate, the denial, the darkness, and the sinister sanctuary afforded to those who knew of depraved paedophilia yet did nothing to prevent it.

How many homosexual priests preside over the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass? How many homosexual priests go on raping altar boys? How man homosexual priests are known by their superiors? How many of these bishops and cardinals do all they can to protect their priests but ignore the suffering of the innocents?

God knows.

Why do the Peter Tatchells and Sir Ian McKellens of this world not turn their gaze to Rome and illumine her hypocrisies, instead of kicking the Church of England which is, at the very least, trying to address these very difficult issues in a very unforgiving world?

49 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

If the Pope were prepared to do everything possible, he would give Cardinal Bernard Law to the secular authorities.

I was unaware that civil authorities had issued a warrant for his arrest. Perhaps +Cranmer would be kind enough to supple details of this new development.

14 July 2008 at 07:48  
Blogger SACKERSON said...

Let's stick to the matter of your second para. But may I ask, "Cranmer", whether it was your seeking that did it for you, and if so, how?

14 July 2008 at 08:12  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Who can break the wall of silence?

14 July 2008 at 08:43  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Christian belief has acted as the central pillar, or core of decency running through the centre of our culture and civilisation: an idealogical compass to refer to.
Yes, it has it's problems and difficulties, but the main idealogical principles are mostly clear.
People can be gay if they are so bent on being, but we need to maintain this core in a perpetual state of high moral scrutiny. Teachers, priests, politicians, government officials etc all need to adhere to the core values that set the standard for us all to work from and take guidance from. If you are a sexual deviant in some form or another, then either stay at home and find something else to do, or shut up. Of course it's a bloody struggle, all fall short of the glory, but I don't think a complete shag fest of debauchery is a very good core, or pillar of decency to take guidance from.
The results of our wayward thinking are all too clear at the moment, I don't think any elaboration is needed here.

PS. Vote John Sentamu for Archbishop.

14 July 2008 at 10:04  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Fr Bob,

As far as His Grace is aware, there is no warrant for the Cardinal's arrest. But do you not think it incumbent upon the Pope to *encourage* him to voluntarily tell the police everything he knows?

If he had any conscience on the matter, he would be open and apologetic. It is disappointing that your instinct is to defend the offender. Co -religionist or not, the Cardinal manifestly turned a blind eye to decades of child abuse, and this makes him complicit.

14 July 2008 at 10:19  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

Church of England hypocrisy......

The Church of England was lectured by Robinson this weekend, he said "he was totally orthodox on doctrines such as the Trinity, Resurrection, and Virgin Birth", he didn't add that he preferred "b*******g men to the teachings of the church.

Since when do we pick and choose laws to follow? This priestly pervert was not invited to the Lambeth conference this week, he just turned up. Typical US way, just turn up and impose its will on the rest of the world, send him home Rowan Williams, be an Archbishop for once.

14 July 2008 at 10:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

God did not choose as His Son a member of The Sanhedrin, the religious establishment which had a cosy relationship with the secular authority - Rome.

Nor did Jesus urge his disciples to interpret The Torah in the light of modern (Roman) reality of occupation by pagans.

Nor did Jesus at any stage say the Torah was outdated, or that it did not apply. Most of his key dictums were directly from Leviticus.

It seems funny that the professionalised religious class of today thinks it fine to "interpret" Jesus as agreeing with them as they overturn the very Torah that Jesus died to uphold from secularisation

14 July 2008 at 10:41  
Blogger Bob said...

+Cranmer, I do not believe I gave any indication of my instinct. I read your piece and saw your statement that the Vatican was offering sanctuary to Cardinal Law. I assumed that you had something to substantiate this, and was curious to know what it was. As for jumping to his defence, I daily have to live with the consequences of the appalling way in which this disgusting and sickening evil was carried out and then covered up by my Church. I have no desire to defend anyone who was guilty of abuse or its cover up.

If you see a request for substance to what you have presented as fact a jumping to defence then I suggest that we have different interpretations of whay constitutes a defence.

14 July 2008 at 11:12  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Your Grace ... Another very fine article [posted by Cranmer at 7:24 AM] full of well targeted criticisms and ripostes.

I am a great admirer of Henry Makow (http://www.henrymakow.com/). He has written many a fine article about the NWO's homosexual agenda.

Henry is a Jewish-Canadian. I don't know what qualifies his Jewishness (paternal, maternal, or conversion) but it does prove there are many ordinary Jews out there who are well aware of the hidden NWO agendas, are disgusted by them, and quite prepared to highlight the disproportionate role Ashkenazi/Khazarian Jews (i.e., the FALSE Jews or "Synagogue of Satan") have played in the calculated poisoning of Western Civilization; a campaign that can be traced back to the 18th century, and even earlier. For example, it is now believed the French Revolution was largely incited by a Jew infiltrated and dominated Freemasonry, and financed (as usual) by the Rothschilds.

The essence of Henry's message is that the persistent promotion of homosexuality is designed to degrade humanity. To belittle us, and of course, to especially help de-populate the world of white/Caucasian people. Indeed, he argues that promiscuity is the way heterosexuals emulate homosexuals. In other words, even heterosexuals are encouraged (by the media, entertainment, books, films) to act like homosexuals do. This is why heterosexuals now find it difficult to develop normal relationships. They end up engaging in promiscuous sex in compensation. Here are some extracts (italicised) from his latest article:

For over 100 years, New World Orderlies have neutered the sexes and undermined marriage and family.

My readers are familiar with my view that marriage and family are heterosexual activities while sexual promiscuity is homosexual. We are being re-engineered to behave like homosexuals, unable to bond with the opposite sex because of gender confusion. Unisex bathrooms (and feminism) are examples of how they engineer this confusion. Promoting promiscuity (and homosexuality) are other examples.

With rare exceptions, film art is now dead, and Western culture in general is on life support. Everything is dedicated to human degradation (sex and violence), social engineering and maintaining elite shibboleths and lies.

A friend told me that posters in Toronto elementary schools cajoled children to attend the annual [Toronto] Gay Pride parade, to be "tolerant" of homosexuals in the name of "diversity." Another friend described the spectacle as a vulgar sexual bacchanalia that you'd protect your children from. If anyone doubts that the lunatics are now running the asylum, this should convince them.


*****************************************************

Please note that the Toronto Gay Pride march includes hundreds of 20 and 30 year old males cavorting totally naked (except for leather hats) in the street parade whilst kissing each other passionately, sometimes in groups of three. Toronto is a city that permits, in the name of diversity, homosexual soft porn in public so that even children may view and be influenced by the lewdness and perversity.

This is the mental state of Canada's most influential city today, folks. And what does the Church say? What does it do?

Once again, if you look closely enough or do some investigative journalism, you will find that the vast majority of the social engineering laws on Canada's statute book were drafted, proposed, and sponsored by organizations set up and managed by these false Ashkenazi/Khazarian Jews. These criminals have nothing to do with the Torah narratives (a belief stubbornly held by those idiotic dupes who keep posting this silly label: "anti-Semite") and everything to do with a Crime Syndicate ---- a syndicate which, by the way, also includes many WASPs like Dick Cheney and George Bush ---- that now has full political control of Continental North America!

14 July 2008 at 11:20  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Fr Bob,

There is a clear link to His Grace's previous post, which in turn links to something you may consider more substantive. If the Hitchens thesis is simply considered more ignorant opinion, His Grace is happy to refer you to a few Roman Catholic blogs which have highlighted the same issue.

A call to be handed over to civil authorities does not imply a warrant for arrest.

14 July 2008 at 11:47  
Anonymous Daniel said...

We're off again.

Paedophiles are NOT homosexuals, so please stop peddling lies. Paedophilia is a well-defined mental illness, homosexuality is not - the two are entirely distinct. I am a homosexual and I have absolutely no interest in Children sexually, whatsoever.

It's interesting to note that you make no reference to male priests abusing female children.

Why Cranmer? Under your definition that would make them heterosexual presumably - something I imagine you cannot parse into your worldview.

You constantly preach about the bigotry directed toward Christians and yet you peddle bigotry yourself.

If you're interested this is the DSM classification model for Paedophilia; you will note it makes NO reference to the gender of the child, nor to the gender of the paedophile - that is because it is not an issue; a paedophile is aroused by Children - not by the gender of the child; whilst some do express preferences for one gender of another, that does NOT by the diagnostic criteria (and what else are we to use in such matters?) make them homosexuals.

You are being deliberately inflammatory.

For what it's worth and I've commented here about it before, the RCC should make immediate efforts to hand over Law as soon as possible. The punishments for paedophiles in terms of loss of liberty should be severe, the sooner we get these people into extended treatment programs, the better for children everywhere.

DSM Criteria for Paedophilia NB (pdf)

14 July 2008 at 12:57  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Daniel,

It would help if, before your rant, you had bothered to read the article.

Precisely where does His Grace state that homosexuals are paedophiles? What are the lies? Or are you just over-sensitive to the juxtaposition? And should your objection to the juxtaposition mean that the two terms should never be juxtaposed? For you must acknowledge that, while it is undoubtedly true that not all homosexuals are paedophiles, it is beyond question that some are. And since the context of this article concerns cases of priests and altar boys (who are not girls), it is not unreasonable to mention the two in the same breath, and it is you who ought to get off your high horse.

14 July 2008 at 13:31  
Blogger Death Bredon said...

Your Grace,

Thank you for having the courage to call out the Pope on his insincerity regarding the Catholic pedophile scandal.

The current Catholic double-speak, cosmetic house-cleaning reminds me of the previous Pope's so-called apology for the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Nice sentiment, but the continued storage of the ill-gotten booty from that pillage in the vaults of the Vatican museum belies the insincerity of the Apology.

May I suggest a "Cranmer's Law?": All papal pronouncement enjoy a rebuttal presumption of falsehood.

14 July 2008 at 13:41  
Anonymous Daniel said...

I have read the post, and it is quite clear what you are trying to do - you are trying to conflate the notion that the terms paedophiles and homosexual can be used interchangeably in the context of these priests.

These priests are not only homosexual; they are paedophiles

QED.

That is simply wrong. It is not "beyond question" that some paedophiles are homosexual - what is your proof for such an ill-informed comment on Psychiatric diagnostia?

As for being on my high horse, if someone were trying to conflate what you are to that which is a moral outrage, I'm sure that you would be the first to take to the steed.

No they are not. The two are mutually exclusive by the criteria set out in the DSM.

You, sir, do not know what you are talking about - but I guess your use of inflammatory language plays well to the audience of this blog and makes everyone believe what a good Christian you are.

We are in agreement, as I said before, the Catholic Church's behaviour in this matter is an outrage - but it does not further the protection of the CofE to peddle misinformation.

14 July 2008 at 14:08  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Daniel ... let us get something very clear. We have had enough of your agenda ... the homosexuality is "normal" agenda.

Homosexuality is a perversion ... a severe and horrid departure from the norm. So is paedophilia. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to conflate the two practises.

We are NOT going to allow Homosexuals to continue in leadership positions, especially those that are designed to assist the spiritual development of society. That is the price you will have to pay for continuing to engage in your society-destroying practise.

I have nothing against you as a person, but I oppose what you stand for and what you represent.

You can cry and crow until you are blue in the face, but this whole filthy edifice that started to be assembled during the 1960s is going to be utterly destroyed. Mark my words. There are a lot of angry people in society today and we are going to have our way. Your fantasy world of perverse behaviour is going to be destroyed come what may. And those who have profited from perverting people will be made to pay a heavy price.

It is time to repair and rehabilitate our menfolk (++ fatherhood) and restore the dignity and autonomy they once took for granted.

14 July 2008 at 14:35  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Homosexuality is necessarily sterile and infertile. It doesn't work, and present it as just another "life-style choice" requires the ignoring of this existential fact. Being that it is, normalising homosexuality requires the abolition of.. everything.

On the basis of "equality" we shall soon be legalizing animal-human marriage. And with Frakenstein's preparing to create human/animal hybrids the abolition of humanity, on the basis of "equality" is complete.

When we have completed animal/human miscegenation we shall then breed with the plants so that we shall be "at one" with the earth.

14 July 2008 at 16:17  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Paedophiles are NOT homosexuals, so please stop peddling lies

A course in symbolic logic would be advisable Daniel. You transposed His Grace's comments for your own ends; a simple politician's trick.

The fact that a large proportion of those cases brought to light of child molestation and sexual abuse are between male adult and male child. There is almost a conspiracy not to put the cause of death of Roman Catholic priests in major US cities as "HIV/AIDS".

There is no reason for you to intimate that those Roman Catholic clergy (and some Anglicans) who have been exposed as sexual perverts with male minors are somehow irreproachable because their homosexuality does not match your preconceived notions.

Further the DSM catalogue is highly suspect. Once it classed homosexuality as a mental illness and deviancy, a successful lobbying campaign 1970-73 brought the American Psychiatric Association to drop homosexuality from the DSM II Catalogue in 1974.

Who is to say that NAMBLA will not succeed in having "paedophilia" or as we say in the vernacular - child molesters and sex abusers - will not lobby to have their disorder removed from a future DSM ?

14 July 2008 at 16:17  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

In your minor rant this morning you took issue with His Holiness because he is reported to have said that while he would pray for the Anglican church, he would not intervene immediately (implying he will in due course)

In the transcript of that interview,the emphasis is rather different. This part of the interview was conducted in Italian, but your Grace's excellent Latin, should give him little trouble in translating it.
The Pope says in answer to the question:

'Il mio essenziale contributo può essere solo la preghiera e con la mia preghiera sarò molto vicino ai vescovi anglicani che si riuniscono nella Lambeth Conference. Noi non possiamo e non dobbiamo intervenire immediatamente nelle loro discussioni, rispettiamo la loro propria responsabilità ...'

My translation is:

'My essential contribution must be prayer, and with my prayer I will be very close to the Bishops meeting in Lambeth. We cannot and must not intervene immediately in their discussions, we respect their responsibility...'

In other words we are not about to jump in with two feet into their discussions which are their responsibility.

So hold fire Your Grace. Pope Benedict is not about to parachute the hounds of heaven into the Lambeth Conference.

you dont need to re-light the bonfires at Lewes yet. Save them for November 5th.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/22412.php?index=22412&lang=en

14 July 2008 at 16:59  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

The Sanhedrin was not the establishment and did not have a cosy relationship with Rome. They were democratic and chosen on merit alone.

14 July 2008 at 17:20  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Catholic Child Abuse in the USA 1-2 %
Protestant Child Abuse in the USA 5-6% at the same time

Approx 85% of Catholic abusers targeted young males between 13 and 18, the majority around 14-16, which is predatory homosexuality not paedophilia.

Overwhelmingly the figures show the abusers to be male on male homosexuals with a minority of roughly equal male- male, male - female paedophilia.

Draw your own conclusions.

14 July 2008 at 18:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Sanhedrin was not the establishment and did not have a cosy relationship with Rome.

Mea culpa - I meant Sadduccees not Sanhedrin

14 July 2008 at 19:49  
Blogger Margo said...

Yo, Recusant,

way to go. You must have read the John Jay College of Criminal Justice report on the nature and scope of the sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

Preliminary findings from a study on the sex abuse crisis by researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice appear to suggest that what happened in the Catholic church mirrored broader patterns in American society, rather than arising from unique forces within the church.
“This is in conflict with idea that there is something distinctive about the Catholic church that led to the sexual abuse of minors,” Karen Terry, a researcher with John Jay College said.

Both researchers pointed to a recent series from the Associated Press documenting reports of sexual abuse of minors in public schools in the United States, citing it both as confirmation of a broad cultural pattern rather than something distinctively Catholic, as well as evidence that social attention to the sexual abuse issue has been magnified because of the Catholic crisis.

There is another study done by Aetna Insurance Company comparing the sexual abuse claims of Catholic vs. other denominations and it is in line with your numbers.

Predatory homsexuality is a problem. As for Toronto, you should see the disgusting gay pride parades in San Francisco, and the Folsom Street Festival. They were an absolute outrage. Drage queens in clown make-up dressed up as nuns. One male nude in a cage was hoisted up to a church steeple so he could P _ _ _ on it. Men in speedos with fully erect penises. And to make it more disgusting, the parade had corporate sponsors.

14 July 2008 at 20:27  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

i have run this through my mind many times , and gene robinson in choseing to be a practicing homosexual rather than a rehabilitating one , what does that say !!.

he cannot continue to make claims about the propietry of his communion with the lord , nor in his abilities to bless or consecrate any service .

very soon whole pieces of the bible will be typexxed out as not representing modern church .

if we have no moral stand , we will not be able to fight evil , nor encorage followers to do so.

i am not sure about women bishops yet , some how it appears the Cof E will be come more pollitical .


as for pope benedict , well at least he is appologising , lets be honest the church does not want to find sin by its own workers.

but poor rowan williams , how terrible that such a great theologian should not see how the foundations of the church are being eroded , i dont particulary blame him , but the church had its highest attedences when it was male clergy , if they do not fill as much as in the 1950s will all this have been worth it .

or just an abuse of the shy by the cunning

14 July 2008 at 21:40  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Recusant; you've spotted the flaw in the argument again but shame we're arguing on statistics. But thanks anyway for putting His Grace's rant in perspective!

What no-one has pointed out is, that at the time most of these abuses took place and were covered up, 'expert' (and independent of the Church) thinking was that child sex-abusers could either be cured (they cannot; they're wired wrong) or at least be taught to control themselves (this is still thought to be true. I have my doubts). It was under guidance from such qualified experts that the Church thought it would be alright just to move these abusers to roles where they'd be unlikely to come into contact with children. Naturally, this failed to stop these twisted men from carrying on causing serious harm; but it is with hindsight that we view these decisions.

Of course, none of this is an excuse for a person in a position of trust to be hurting little children or teenagers, but as with any historical event (even if recent) we should not make the mistake of viewing it with our knowledge and making unnecessary judgments. And, on a slight tangent, if most of the victims were boys this is because it's only fairly recently that girls were allowed to serve on the altar or sing in the choir, and so potentially come into close and unsupervised contact with the clergy.

The Roman Church now has a robust system of preventing child abuse. All those in contact with children - priests, youth workers, Sunday-school teachers/helpers - all have to have a CRB check and each Church has appointed people (again, they've been CRB checked) to whom parents can address any concerns. There is always more than one, so that the parents can choose one they feel comfortable talking with. All complaints must be reported to the police - I know this, as I am one of my Church's appointed people.

Any known sex-abusers in the parish (and I don't know anywhere that has any) have to contact the Church first for permission and to make special arrangements before attending any service. They are accompanied into the Church after everyone else has been seated, by someone who has undergone a CRB check, they have to sit where they are asked (away from children) and must not leave the side of the appointed person. They have to leave straight after the service. They would be asked to leave if at any time, the appointed person or a parent had any concerns about their behaviour. I hope that sets His Grace's mind at rest about any potential for current abuses to be taking place. Jenny is on the case, and as a (fortunately late-)teenage rape-victim, she's especially sensitive to predatory behaviour.

14 July 2008 at 22:50  
Anonymous edward tattysyrup said...

I've one criticism of Gene Robinson...

Don't like that stole!

;)

14 July 2008 at 23:13  
Anonymous Anti-pedo said...

i dont think any of those priests that do that to little kids even believe in god.either that or there sick in the head and dont believe what ther doing is wrong.ya know maybe they should read the bible and prepare themselves for the rapture.

15 July 2008 at 03:07  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

dr. irene lancaster [14 July 2008 17:20] ... The Sanhedrin was not the establishment and did not have a cosy relationship with Rome.

You are using the past tense dr. irene ... why is this?

My sources tell me the Sanhedrin were reconstituted in 2004.

This reconstitution conveniently corresponds with the completion of the new Supreme Court building located opposite the Knesset, which is full of Freemasonry & Occult symbolism and was 100% financed by the Rothschilds.

As you are currently in Israel, or its environs, can you kindly confirm?

And while you are at it, please also justify, with evidence, your assertion that the Sanhedrin did not have a cosy relationship with Rome.

15 July 2008 at 05:10  
Blogger Margo said...

Your Grace says: How many homosexual priests preside over the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass? This begs a question and a response.

My belief is that homosexuality is deviant behavior no matter what the American Psychiatric Association proclaims. (How many of them are homosexual?) But if a priest has homosexual tendencies and does not act on them, is he a sinner? The sin lies not in the inclination but in the act of b*********** itself. At least these priests know how to say "no." Not only did Gene Robinson not say no, but went wholeheartedly into the homosexual lifestyle until he found his "male soulmate." He not only "explored" (his own words) his homosexuality but committed adultery as well, which had been thrown to the wayside in all the brouhaha that followed. Whatever happened to the word "restraint?"

15 July 2008 at 15:25  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

The Sadducees were indeed the enemies of the Sanhedrin, which was made up mainly of Pharisees, the democratic and radicals in the emerging Jewish religion. The Saducees have now died out. The descendants of the Pharisees are the rabbis of every hue.

15 July 2008 at 15:36  
Blogger Margo said...

re: Sanhedrin

What period does Dr. Lancaster refer? The Sanhedrin, prior to Roman occupation or to the Sanhedrin of the First century A.D.?

Having taken several biblical history courses, I would have to concur that the Sanhedrin of the First Century A.D. was subservient to Rome. The Sanhedrin composed of Jewish intelligentsia, saducees, priests and pharisees was a legislative body ruling on Jewish religious and political matters. Generally, the president of the Sanhedrin was the High Priest.

Due to the subjugation of Judea as a province of Syria and with the collusion of Herod the Great, all high priests were appointed by Rome. Both the priesthood and the reign of Herod depended upon compromise with the Romans. Rome looked to the High Priest to keep the populace in line. the family of Annais, including his son-in-law Caiphas controlled the Priesthood and Sanhedrin for most of the first century, A.D.. both had long tenures -- the implication being that Rome was pleased with them. As the highest religious authority, they were seen as playing a critical role in religious life and the Sanhedrin. At the same time, however, many Jews resented the close relationship the high priest maintained with Roman authorities and suspected them of taking bribes or practicing other forms of corruption. The priesthood and sanhedrin basically ended with the destruction of Jerusalem but it limped along for about another hundred years or so until the rabbinate modified Jewish religious practices and rituals for the diaspora.

Josephus has commentary on this but it is at odds with the Jewish Talmud as to who was and how the President of the Sanhedrin was appointed or elected.

15 July 2008 at 17:38  
Anonymous tubbs tattysyrup said...

This is all very well but about that stole???

15 July 2008 at 18:29  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

The current Archbishop of Armargh has written a very erudite article on homosexuality (accesible through Ruth Gledhill's blog) in which, following Richard Hooker's view of Scripture, he argues that the passage in Romans 1 refers only to those for whom homosexuality is unnatural, with the implication that if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality was natural for some then it would not be condemned.

Increasingly homosexuals insist that they were born like it and it can't be helped. I find that I was born with original sin and am daily tempted to steal, slander, gossip, hate, and disobey God in a million ways. Through the grace of God I am usually able to resist these temptations. Apparently Bishop Robinson is not. If you love me, said Jesus, you will keep my commandments.

15 July 2008 at 19:59  
Anonymous Daniel said...

Your Grace,

Please forgive me if I have been over-zealous, hurtful or otherwise contrarian. I mean well - for all peoples - if I have been at times, perhaps, far too robust - I apologise. I just have one question.

Why, after all this time, and all this conflict, the deaths, the joy, the pain, the argument, the debate, the sorrow, the love, the fear - the fact we are entangled with both our hearts and our heads - does God not come here and settle this, once and for-all? It would be, surely, just a moment for Him to take this away, because it seems to me that (alas) we cannot be reconciled - and that is a serious problem for all human beings, of whatever faith, gender, sexuality or creed.

I understand, from theology, that we are supposed to be saved, and yet I look around and I see not salvation?

Regards, Daniel

15 July 2008 at 20:08  
Anonymous Jenny said...

TT

Obviously ran out of material; why else is it patchwork? I'd make him a more lovely one, if I thought it were fitting for him to wear it.

Daniel

Er, He did. It may have been some time ago, and you might not have been there to witness, but plenty were and their work is carried on through the apostolic tradition. If you're expecting thunderbolts to come down from heaven and strike those who are wrong, you're going to be disappointed. If you want the answer, you have to pray, and listen, and open your heart to receive it, even if it is disappointing.

Romans I carries it for me, and the Archbishop of Armargh must be a consumate politician to read it any other way. But, Romans II has important news too.

15 July 2008 at 22:10  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Daniel,

His Grace appreciates and accepts your apology. You are evidently quality.

The questions you pose are ones which have occupied the minds of men for millennia, and, although it may sound trite, Miss Jenny is right to say that the intervention of God into human affairs did offer the solution.

If God were to end all the conflict, the deaths, the pain, the sorrow, he would have to address the thorny issue of free will. He could end all of this at midnight tonight, yet, were he to do so, no man would be left standing a minute past, for all would necessarily have had to be terminated with the suffering which emanates in the hearts of men.

Love hurts. Kenotic love hurts the most. And this is why we are here - to light the way for those who are being lost.

15 July 2008 at 22:26  
Anonymous najistani said...

Your Grace,
The Nationalist knuckledraggers, boot-boys and skinheads appear to have got their lederhosen in a twist over Archbishop Rowan William's latest attempt to improve interfaith understanding:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/07/breaking-news-aspects-of-christian-doctrine-offensive-to-muslims-says-archbishop/

16 July 2008 at 01:21  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Jenny
He didn't!
Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died as a Jew.No Jew says I am God.
Paul never met Jesus and he disagreed with those who had.

16 July 2008 at 03:50  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

manfarang [16 July 2008 03:50] ... you are spreading disinformation and confusion.

Jesus was not a Jew. A Jew is not a race but you imply that it is.

Like many others, you are conflating the terms, Hebrews, Israelites, Judah, and Jews, thinking they all mean the same thing. They do not. Your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.

The myth that Jesus was a Jew is intended to make Christians subservient to Jewish Priests (and their many agents) who follow the Talmud and are therefore essentially Cabalists and Pagans.

Never in his life did Jesus practise the Jewish faith. The suggestion that he had his bar mitzvah is utterly risible.

The vast bulk of those who are considered modern 'Jews' are descendants of a warlike tribe from the Russian Steppes. They are little more than crooks, shysters, banksters, white collar criminals, and war criminals. Most should be given a Nuremburg type (i.e., kangaroo court) trial and shot dead the following day. They are the filth of the world. Humanity would then be saved from having to suffer yet another century marked by much suffering and bloodshed.

16 July 2008 at 05:36  
Blogger Manfarang said...

And Pilate wrote a title,and put it on the cross.And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19

16 July 2008 at 17:26  
Anonymous Daniel said...

Your Grace

I appreciate both your forgiveness and your answer.

I think I shall take time to reflect on what you have said - we are clearly from different traditions, and perhaps on different paths, but I wish no human; religious, atheist or undecided any ill.

Maybe I have something to contribute to lighting the path - possibly in a different way to you - but contribute nonetheless.

This has given me great pause for thought - and for that, I am thankful.

I send you very best wishes.

Regards, Daniel

16 July 2008 at 20:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christ speaks of weeds and wheat in His Kingdom.

Even when there are great sinners among the members of the Catholic Church, She will never fail to teach the true Faith nor offer the means of holiness in the sacraments. The Catholic Church is built upon Peter and the gates of Hell shall not prevail. The Holy Spirit guides Her in Truth.

The same cannot be said for the Communions which have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. The obstinantly sinful members of such separated Communions will little by bring their entire Communions down.

17 July 2008 at 04:01  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

manfarang [16 July 2008 17:26]

The Queen of England belongs to the House of Windsor.

The House of Windsor is a branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line of the House of Wettin.

The House of Wettin was a dynasty of German counts, dukes, prince-electors (Kurfürsten) and kings that ruled the area of today's German states of Saxony, the Saxon part of Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia for more than 800 years. They also occasionally held the kingship of Poland.

Therefore ... being the King or Queen of a people does not necessarily make you of that people.

You have mis-understood Pilate's motives for writing "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" on Christ's Cross. In any case, too much of the Bible is mere allegory and myth. We don't really know what was written on that Cross, if indeed anything at all was written.

Furthermore, if we assume your shallow line of reasoning is correct, then it could only be Roman arrogance that made Pontius Pilate think he had the wisdom and authority to fix the status of the Lord Jesus just prior to his death. Jesus was King of nobody. He never sought such earthly status. Surely that lesson runs throughout his teachings?

You can write "this is a Rolls Royce" on a beat-up Ford Cortina, but that wouldn't change its reserve value at the auction.

As I said, and as others are beginning to realize (at last!), Jesus never was a Jew. That is simply Jewish propaganda designed to enable its Priesthood to dominate non-worldly people like you and perpetuate this silly myth that present-day Jews are the so-called "Chosen People."

No, the Jews of today are a criminal franchise, and as such they are already in de facto control of Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and they dominate the social and political discourse of England (for now). They are close to gaining control of the USA by destroying its constitution. Australia is no exception ... recently it was announced that the teaching of the Holocaust myth shall be made compulsory in all New South Wales Schools.

I fail to see why the death of 2.8 million Jews during the Second World War (many of whom actually died of Typhoid near the end of the war) must be considered more important than the 2-million Armenian Christians killed by the Turks, the death of 2-million Cambodians at the hands of Pol Pot, and the deliberate starvation (coupled with thousands of summary executions) of over 5-million Christians in the Ukraine. It is precisely this kind of distorted priority that has corrupted our society and turned most of its inhabitants semi-insane.

The 6-million "Holocaust" myth was created for at least three reasons. One is because the number '6' is a special (magical) number in Caballa: hence the number 666 for Lucifer. Two, according to the Caballa (and the Talmud) the Jewish State could not be reborn unless the Jewish people were first "destroyed" ... in other words to fulfil an ancient prophecy of theirs, it had to be at least "believed" that 6-million had perished (Note: the number is never 5,999,999 !!!). And thirdly, so that Jewish organizations could extort Billions of Dollars out of the BRD (an illegal national entity) and Switzerland. The present FDR is still handing over money to the State of Israel today. The Germans, in consequence, are being taxed to death. Suicides in Germany are high, as is the exodus of young German emigrants, who wish to free themselves from the Jewish/Zionist yoke.

Jews fomented the French Revolution, extended the First World War by 2 years, and were largely responsible for the Second World War. Jews (a.k.a. the so-called Neocons) made certain that the USA invaded Iraq on a false pretence and they are also behind the Big Brother takeover of English cities. And that is just the short list.

You are a fool manfarang ... you can't see the wood for the trees.

NB: It is likely you have no idea of the scale of the problem because the majority of Jews in the West changed their names a long time ago (long before Hitler and the Nazis!) to disguise their backgrounds. Therefore, don't try and demonize those of us who have done our homework until you have first addressed the problem of your own ignorance. Only when Jews cease acting like a race within a race, will all problems start to abate.

17 July 2008 at 05:11  
Blogger Manfarang said...

the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt.1:1)

17 July 2008 at 18:13  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Now all you are doing is demonstrating how well you can type verses from a book you apparently take literally, just like Muslims take the Qu'ran literally.

You lost the debate when you failed to defend my demolishment of your specious use of Pontius Pilate's alleged writing.

Abraham is almost certainly a completely mythical figure ... in other words, he never existed. One hundred and forty year old men do not make one hundred year old women pregnant, especially one living on a desert diet. Ha-ha-ha.

Believing in fairy stories can be worse than believing in nothing.

17 July 2008 at 20:54  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Manfarang; Pilate might have written 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews' on the cross, and if he did, all I can say is 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Certainly, it is not a title Christ chose, even when Pilate invited him to do so.

Mission; Take back that comment about the Cortina! Don't you know a classic car when you see one? Rolls Royce? I sneeze at them!

17 July 2008 at 22:44  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Bible is the main source of our knowledge of the life and works of Jesus,indeed it is our only source,little reference is made to him elsewhere.No serious New Testament researcher today speaks of "the Jesus movement" or Jesus himself as outside the orbit of first century Judaism.
If Jesus wasn't Jewish then what was he - Buddhist?

18 July 2008 at 04:18  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Manfarang;

Jesus was God incarnate and above such labels.

18 July 2008 at 18:56  
Blogger Manfarang said...

He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.
Matthew 13:37

19 July 2008 at 13:19  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Manfarang;

You want Matthew 22, 41-46.

20 July 2008 at 17:22  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older