Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Spectator Debate: 'England Should be a Catholic Country again'

The Spectator is hosting a debate on whether or not England ('Mary's Dowry') should return to the Roman Catholic fold. They say:

'The Anglican Communion is deeply, and perhaps irrevocably, split, and the Catholic Church is offering a berth to any Anglican who wants to convert. In this year of the Pope’s visit, is it time for England to become a Catholic country again?

'Anglicans and Catholics battle it out in a Spectator debate chaired by Andrew Neil on Tuesday 2 March 2010 at the Royal Geographical Society, 1 Kensington Gore, London SW7 between 6.45pm and 8.30pm.

'Seating is limited so we would strongly recommend booking early to avoid disappointment.'

And then they introduce their speakers:

Speakers for the motion

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor studied for the priesthood at the English College in Rome and was ordained in 1956. He served as a parish priest in Southampton, and later as Private Secretary to Bishop Derek Worlock. In 1971 he was appointed Rector of the English College in Rome. In 1977, he was ordained Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, a position he was to hold for some 23 years until his appointment as Archbishop of Westminster in 2000. He was created a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II on 22 February 2001 and serves on the bodies of seven Vatican dicasteries. He retired as Archbishop of Westminster in May 2009.

Piers Paul Read
Piers Paul Read is the author of a number of novels, among them A Married Man, The Free Frenchman and, most recently, The Death of a Pope. His works of non-fiction include Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors; The Templars, a history of the crusading order; and Alec Guinness. The Authorised Biography. He was educated by Benedictine monks at Ampleforth, studied history at Cambridge, and is a vice-president of the Catholic Writers’ Guild. He wrote Hell and Other Destinations, A Novelist’s Reflections on This World and the Next in 2006 and a new novel, The Misogynist, will be published by Bloomsbury in July this year.

Reverend Dom Antony Sutch
Reverend Dom Antony Sutch has been parish priest of St Benet, Beccles, since 2003. He was born in 1950 and was educated at Downside School and Exeter University. He was headmaster of Downside School between 1995 and 2003. He has been a contributor to BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the day since 2003.

Speakers against the motion

Lord Harries
Richard Harries was Bishop of Oxford from 1987-2006. On his retirement he was made a life peer (Lord Harries of Pentregarth). He is currently Gresham Professor of Divinity and an Honorary Professor of Theology at King’s College, London. He has written books on a range of subjects, most recently Faith in Politics? Rediscovering the Christian Roots of our Political Values, to be published by DLT in March. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and has been a regular contributor to the Today programme since 1972.

Matthew Parris
Matthew Parris was born in 1949 in Johannesburg, and was educated in Britain and Africa, graduating from Clare College, Cambridge, and going on to study International Relations at Yale. Elected Conservative MP for West Derbyshire in 1979, he gave up his seat in 1986 to become presenter of Weekend World, a political interview programme, until 1988. He was the Parliamentary sketchwriter for The Times for nearly 14 years but gave it up at the beginning of 2002 though he remains a columnist for the paper. He also writes for The Spectator every week. He was the winner of the Orwell Prize in 2004.

Stephen Pound
Stephen Pound was born in 1948 and educated at the LSE. He has been Labour MP for North Ealing since 1997. Before entering the Commons he was area housing manager of Paddington Churches Housing Association, and is a lay reader at his local Catholic church.

It perhaps says something of The Spectator's view of religion in England that to oppose this motion they have selected a panel consisting of a (very) liberal Labour-supporting Anglican, a Roman Catholic Labour politician and an Atheist.

Could they not find in the whole of England... err... a Protestant? A Conservative Anglican? Just one, perhaps?

54 Comments:

Blogger The Church Mouse said...

A rather pointless stunt. Rather surprised that Cardinal O'Connor has lent his name to it. Stephen Pound really is dredging the barrel.

13 January 2010 at 09:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather become orthodox than catholic- and at least I would get to celebrate crimbo twice!

13 January 2010 at 09:37  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

It's the nature of the Spectator. When ever they pose a question or write an article they always do it in such a fashion that will annoy their core readership. You only have to visit the Coffee House to see this and read the comments. It's the same people commenting nearly every day, and it is obvious what the comments will be when you read the article before you even get to the end. So my conclusion is that it's the Speccies way of capturing a readership. They are wind up merchants. They know full well what effect this debate will have on their readership, and this panel will only serve to reinforce the effect. But the nature of fish means you can catch them and throw them back with no worries at all about having put them off the next fishing trip.

13 January 2010 at 09:46  
Anonymous Jim said...

You can stick the Catholic church where the sun doesn't shine (tho on second thoughts they might like that). The Pope is no more 'God's representative on Earth' than I am. He's not infallible, to be obeyed blindly. He's just a man like any other, sinful, and full of errors. The Catholic Church is based on a sham.

The Pope can kiss my ring.

13 January 2010 at 09:48  
Anonymous lorelei said...

Would you have taken part, Your Grace, had they asked you?

13 January 2010 at 10:01  
Anonymous Michael said...

@Jim

You don't have a very clear grasp of the issue do you?

I for one would be, as a Roman Catholic, in support of the motion. The fascinating topic though, having just read Duffy's Fires of Faith, is the perennial question of 'treason' - does a Catholic calling for a return to Rome equate in any way, even marginally, with Mr Choudary calling for the imposition of Islam?

I would suggest not, obviously, and I'm as patriotic as any, but I'm sure it'd be a fascinating debate to have.

13 January 2010 at 10:03  
Blogger Wyrdtimes said...

Wrong flag.

As for England turning back to Catholicism - dream on. The last thing England needs is more bull...

13 January 2010 at 10:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Wyrdtimes,

His Grace thought that, but it is the graphic used by The Speccie. He did search for a George Cross with Pope Benedict picture, but gave up after five minutes. The fact that The Speccie have chosen to talk of England rather than the UK (which, of course, includes Northern Ireland) is interesting in itself.

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Lorelei,

You will understand, having no corporeal presence, that His Grace finds it difficult to grant interviews or to accept invitations to attend any function or speak on any platform. Over the past year, he has declined invitations to some prestigious events and approaches from the BBC, Fox, and numerous Christian radio and television programmes. Even this week he was invited to participate in a programme in which prominent bloggers are asked to define words. But, alas, being ash, he has not the necessary constitution.

13 January 2010 at 10:28  
Blogger John R said...

...or alternatively we could live in the 21st century and consign all relgions to the dustbin of history where they belong.

13 January 2010 at 10:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You ask:

‘Could they not find in the whole of England... err... a Protestant? A Conservative Anglican? Just one, perhaps?’

It may be that the intellectuals at the Spectator are confidently predicting that after Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill becomes an Act, there will be no Protestants or Conservative Anglicans left in the public square.

The Equality Bill will make it illegal for churches to refuse to employ people opposed to the Christian faith in their beliefs and lifestyles.

Any Catholic or Protestant will, no doubt, be found by the authorities in the underground church.

I ask you: which state institution (local or central) will keep a Christian on its payroll who confesses to being a member of a church which stands against the sovereign will of parliament expressed in its ‘Equality Act’?

Many are now increasingly turning to those who say ‘No’ to the Lib/Lab/Con.

13 January 2010 at 10:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's back!! Thank God, we have missed the vital contribution of Mr D.Singh! Praise the Lord!

13 January 2010 at 10:52  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Obviously the bad weather has led to the reintroduction of parlour games to keep the masses amused, yesterday it was 'Be a politician for a week', today it's 'Papal Powerplay'. Or what about World Rule Monopoly? The pieces could be a mini Pope, a ranting Choudray, a weeping Brown, a two faced Blair, a slippery Mandy & a smiling Obama. The players make their way around the board by fair means or foul, points are scored for the amount of waffle spoken with double points for lies told & quadruple points for 'Lie of the game'. The winner is the survivor who reaches the Golden Crown first but just as he reaches for it a Thunderous voice from above says "It's Mine", a mighty hand grabs the crown, the players are all vapourised & the box is closed to the strains of the Hallejujah Chorus. Well, all these things are just games to keep us all amused they have about as much reality as the telly soaps. Do you think Waddingtons would pay for the copyright? we could share it 50/50.

13 January 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

My parents attended the Baptist Church, since I married I have attended the Church of England. I consider myself to be a Christian although I have doubts about some aspects of all denominations, so I keep my personal views between my God and myself. However, generally these days, when looking for either moral or spiritual guidance, I tend to look first towards the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope rather than to the C of E and the Arch Druid of Canterbury.

Oh, and I didn't like Lord Harries when he was Bishop of Oxford, so I wouldn't listen to him now!

13 January 2010 at 11:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am an Anglican catholic Christian, and very proud to be so. Could I give up the church of Your Grace's former corporeal presence, John Jewell, Richard Hooker, the incomparable George Herbert, William Gladstone, William Temple, to name but a few? I think not. And were I ever to be forced by conscience to do so, I would infinitely prefer to worship before an iconostasis in a cloud of incense, than turn to Rome.

13 January 2010 at 11:34  
Anonymous PaganPride said...

I begin to smell the smoke rising from the fires of Smithfield and Oxford again ... but your Grace would know all about that.

13 January 2010 at 11:34  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Your Grace,
The omission of a suitably qualified conservative Anglican is surely deliberate.

Roman Catholics are ultra-conservative, a roadblock in the path of equality and diversity. Dinosaurs in the secular age of moral relativism. Intolerant of abortion and assisted suicide. Staunch defenders of heterosexual marriage and family values.

Yet regrettably, some amongst their anachronistical priesthood of male celibates have manifestly failed to practice what they preach. Pederast Priests have been exposed, Bishops caught turning blind eyes. All pilloried in the media for their betrayal and hypocrisy. Faith and doctrine undermined by its guardians.

What an easy target for the Marxist and atheist speakers arrayed against them.
This debate is an ambush.
They are about to be mugged.

13 January 2010 at 11:36  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I presume that Matthew Paris is a Protestant Atheist.

While people might mock at the thought of England becoming Catholic or even Christian, I recall that not so long ago, Russia was considered as the archetype of the atheist state. We used to say prayers for Russia at the end of Mass.

Now look what's happened. Orthodoxy has bounced back and Churches rebuilt, even the ones that were reduced to rubble by Josef Stalin (the pin up boy of so many of the left in this country).

I agree with D.Singh (welcome back). This country will end up like China. There will be an official church (probably the Church of Green, with the Very Rev Sir Jonathon Porrit, Baronet crowning the next monarch) and the current Churches, Catholic or Protestant going underground.

Time to build that priest hole. You won't need (inadvisable to seek!) planning permission and the building regs are no doubt on the internet.

13 January 2010 at 11:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, a more pertinent question might have been "is Britain going to become an Islamic state?"

13 January 2010 at 12:13  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

UGOC@11.55

Parris is a lapsed militant atheist who recently suffered a bout of Lutheran rage which drove him into the arms of protestant atheism.

He explains it most eloquently here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6875245.ece

13 January 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous philip walling said...

At the Reformation there were more churches in London than any other city in Christendom.
The Church of England has largely run into the sand and will be extinct in less than a generation. Yet interest in matters religious grows every year.

The choice will have to be made between religious belief (Christianity or Islam) v secular materialism and it is hard to say which the English will choose because we've retreated a long way from any conception of the divine.
But we appear to be falling out of love with materialism (it clearly hasn't made the people happy) and Islam is too simplistic and proscriptive (eg no alcohol!) to attract most English people, so it's got to be Catholicism or Orthodoxy, there's nothing else.

13 January 2010 at 12:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should England have a religion anyway? It has a diverse range of different religions so why should it have an official one? Surely its better if everyone can just have their own beliefs and do there own thing?

13 January 2010 at 12:47  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Knighthawk

Only in England do we seem to have protestant atheists. Dawkins is another one.

Both come from sub-Saharan Africa.
Might be significant... probably not.

13 January 2010 at 12:53  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Anonymous 12:47 said...
'Why should England have a religion anyway? It has a diverse range of different religions so why should it have an official one? Surely its [sic] better if everyone can just have their own beliefs and do there [sic] own thing?'

Mr Anonymous, I agree with you completely. England should not be a Catholic country, or a Protestant country, or a Baptist country, or a Presbyterian country.

Making Christianity territorial has been one of the most damaging things ever done to it. It is completely opposed to the notion of freedom of choice, and fundamentally to the idea of faith. Nobody believes anything because compelled to do so. They may pretend to believe. They may actually believe, but not because of compulsion.

True Christianity consists in the personal, practical recognition that Jesus is the risen Lord, God's Messiah, the fulfilment of God's covenant to Abraham, the hope of the world. That recognition cannot be imposed by state fiat. Following Jesus is not a nominal matter, but a matter of actually following him.

No true church after the New Testament pattern would aspire to be the 'official church' of a country.

The English Reformation was incomplete, in that it replaced one state church with another. There was no more liberty of conscience.

Anabaptists in the 16th Century were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants across Europe (and are still condemned in some archaic Anglican statements), but they did not believe in the state church, and they persecuted none, but tried to do good to all.

Catholicism is not what it used to be back then. Neither is Anglicanism. But the idea of a state church is just as bad now as it ever was.

13 January 2010 at 13:45  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Yo your Grace!....

'England Should be a Catholic Country again'

Well I dont know about that,even the Satanists have a better reputation.

13 January 2010 at 13:55  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Christianity needs a leader like Cardinal Clemens von Galen who had
the guts to stand up to Hitler in
spite of the consequences against all the odds.
Both the Anglican and Catholic Churches are lacking in strong
steadfast and courageous leadership.Neither Church has sustained its communicants or
parishioners.Unless the right leader emerges nothing will change.
Saint Secular will rule the day.

13 January 2010 at 14:27  
Blogger Jomo said...

Looks like they got the cast mixed up - Pound for the Papists and Cormac for the Protestants might have made more sense!

13 January 2010 at 15:53  
Blogger Theresa said...

Yet regrettably, some amongst their anachronistical priesthood of male celibates have manifestly failed to practice what they preach. Pederast Priests have been exposed, Bishops caught turning blind eyes. All pilloried in the media for their betrayal and hypocrisy. Faith and doctrine undermined by its guardians.


Knighthawk,

I dont really want to rise to this particular tired old bait, but child abuse has been a problem and still is a problem for all institutions dealing with children, not just our church. Barnados, Quarriers, local authority run homes, remand institutions like Kerelaw in Scotland and so on have had much bigger problems with this. The only reason it has all died down is that local authorities realised that if they insisted on churches compensating their victims, that they would have to do the same to those who suffered at the hands of abusers in local authority homes. I don't excuse the abusers in our church and in a way I am glad that we have had a harder time of it in the press; it means that the abusers in our system have been removed, whereas I suspect in other places they have not.Last year the National Children's Bureau reported that a quarter of girls leave local authority care already pregnant. Now why are we not turning a big spotlight on that? There's obviously something going badly wrong. But perhaps the lack of a religious background makes them less interesting?

Anyway, with regard to the main subject, I agree that there's a bit of a wind up going on here with this debate. I suppose it will be fun.

13 January 2010 at 16:10  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The Speccie is so boring - and so obvious with the wind ups. Their campaign seems designed to alienate their core readership into resigning their subscriptions.

Quite what readership they expect to acquire instead only they know. Some of the most aggressive bloggers seem very young and very euro: not indigenes in heart or mind. I often wonder if they're planted in order to tick the readership off so much they'll stop blogging as well. Shut us up and out. A journalistic parallel to the NHS?

Welcome back Mr. Singh!!

13 January 2010 at 16:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

And fellow commincants - Happy New Year and thank you for your kind greetings.

Now Your Grace, when are you going to start some red-hot debates so that we can start doin' some real shootin' an'fightin' (and some bayoneting) eh?

And where is that gunslinger Lord Lavendon and that filthy atheist Glovner?

Don't tell me, Glovner became a Christian? I hope not. How could I ever share eternity with HIM!

13 January 2010 at 17:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As others have said, wrong flag you fool.

13 January 2010 at 17:53  
Anonymous len said...

The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ. The word vicar means a substitute or filling the place of another. Pope has taken the position of Christ. Roman Catholic system declare the Pope is the 'Head of the Church' - Stolen from Christ, as Christ Jesus is the head of the church. Colossians 1:18. Roman Catholic system is against Christ it is an antichrist. The Greek word [anti] in scripture most nearly denotes something that is "in place of" another thing. The root meaning is, "instead of" or "in place of". It is not the original but a substitution, not Christ but a substitute for Christ. Instead of Christ a false Christ an Antichrist.

When Pope Pius IX was Archbishop of Venice, he stated: 'the pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks. Does the pope accord a favor or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who accords the favor or pronounces that anathema. So that when the pope speaks we have no business to examine.

Christ had a crown of thorns. The Pope wears a triple diadem.
Christ washed the feet of his disciples. The Pope desire his feet to be kissed.
Christ paid tribute. The Pope takes it.
Christ fed the sheep. The Pope shears them for his own profit.
Christ was poor. The Pope wishes to be master of the world.
Christ carried on His shoulders the cross. The Pope is carried on the shoulders of his servants in liveries of gold.
Christ despised riches. The Pope has no other passion than for gold.
Christ drove out the merchants from the temple. The Pope welcomes them.
Christ was meekness. The Pope is pride personified.
Christ promulgated laws that the Pope tramples underfoot.

We need another reformation!

13 January 2010 at 20:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can stick the Catholic church where the sun doesn't shine (tho on second thoughts they might like that). The Pope is no more 'God's representative on Earth' than I am. He's not infallible, to be obeyed blindly. He's just a man like any other, sinful, and full of errors. The Catholic Church is based on a sham.

The Pope can kiss my ring.

Likewise with knobs on, and you can rest assured the Pope will love all the knobs he can get his Choir boy loving hands on.

13 January 2010 at 20:32  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"Could they not find in the whole of England... err... a Protestant? A Conservative Anglican? Just one, perhaps?"

I suppose His Worthiness the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't quite fit the qualifications?

(We are hardly surprised that our fundamentalist evangelst friend does not miss an opportunity to launch yet another jejune jeremiad against the Pope and the Church of Rome. It would be pointless to respond.)

A few of our number agree that having a state religion is a bad idea. Our Founding Chaps (in the U.S.) wrote that into law right at the beginning.

I'm usually amazed at the differences between England and the US. One has no written Constitution and a state religion; the other has a written Constitution and no state religion.

Apparently, in England, no-one pays any attention to the state religion, whereas in the U.S., no-one pays any attention to the Constitution.

This may be an example of Blake's "fearful symmetry".

13 January 2010 at 20:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any relation to Screaming Lord Sutch?

13 January 2010 at 23:26  
Blogger James D said...

Perhaps if you want a good Anglican, you should invite John Shelby Spong, the former bishop of Newark, NJ. Aside from having a terrific name, he has some quite interesting theological views.

14 January 2010 at 02:37  
Blogger Preacher said...

Philip Walling
"It's got to be Catholic or Orthodoxy, there's nothing else".

Philip, aren't you forgetting the Baptists, the Methodists or the free Churches, including A.O.G, Elim & the many other new charismatic Churches, House churches, New frontiers, Pioneer etc, or were you refering only to a state religion? Perhaps The time IS right for all the denominations to stand on there own two feet without the crutch of the State to support them, it seems that when this happens or even when the state is openly hostile to the true church e.g China that it grows in strength, numbers & faith.

14 January 2010 at 10:34  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

ZZMike

...a jejune jeremiad...

Nice one ;-)

14 January 2010 at 10:54  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

certainly not, and in fact britain never was a catholic country, britain has always been protestant if im correct. the rcers help power before the dreaded act of union. We have no desire to return to the church which burned our fathers for reading the bible, sending the crusades or carrying out the inquisition etc etc etc etc, May latimers candle never burn out in this England, may the Lord whom delivered us from popery keep us free from it for rome has not changed. read 50 years in the church of rome by chiniquy.

14 January 2010 at 23:05  
Blogger Manfarang said...

A more useful debate would be about restoring the Celtic Church.

15 January 2010 at 02:56  
Blogger Scot said...

Romanists and atheists fighting over this realm, and disposing of it to their own satisfaction!

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.

15 January 2010 at 19:00  
Blogger brian said...

There is no debate to be had.
Britian is Catholicand always will be.
It means "world wide".
If they want to waste time debating instead of saving souls (the devil makes work for idle hands) the issue they mean to ask is should Britian be ROMAN CATHOLIC?
Britians church leaders are no better than the Romans strutting around in very expensive regalia whilst millions die of starvation

15 January 2010 at 21:15  
Anonymous William Lamberton said...

On Iain Dale's site, there is a debate about the Union of England and Scotland. Were England to decide to follow the rule of the Romish anti-Christ, that Union would be over within weeks.

16 January 2010 at 00:04  
Blogger peachperry said...

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

18 January 2010 at 16:16  
Blogger peachperry said...

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

18 January 2010 at 16:16  
Blogger peachperry said...

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

18 January 2010 at 16:17  
Blogger peachperry said...

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

18 January 2010 at 16:18  
Blogger peachperry said...

5th PAGE.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

18 January 2010 at 16:18  
Blogger peachperry said...

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:19  
Blogger peachperry said...

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:20  
Blogger Matthew Huntbach said...


The Pope is no more 'God's representative on Earth' than I am. He's not infallible, to be obeyed blindly.


It is not the teaching of the RC Church that the Pope should be obeyed blindly. A statement made by the Pope is only "infallible" under certain rare circumstances when it is really a statement of the view of the whole Church.

The point is that without some clear standard of authority, any loony can set himself up and say "This is what Christianity is". As we have observed, the more extreme and stupid such a person is the more likely he is to attract attention and followers. Thus does bad religion drive out good. There is no-one with the authority to say "No mate, you've got it wrong".

So we see with Protestantism - liberal Protestantism is on its death-bed, I expect it to be dead within my lifetime (I am in my 50th year). All that flourishes is extreme evangelical movements. Without authority to say "This is authentic teaching", without something firm to hold onto, everyone fears that every interpretation except extreme plodding literalism is not quite correct, and the plodding literalists win.

So we see too in Islam. The extremists flourish there because there is no worldwide accepted authority to say "No, your Trot politics dressed up as religion, your over-insistence on the outward signs at the expense of what is in the heart, your delight in violence, is not what our God teaches us - you are not true Muslims".

What do we see in Acts? The Church meeting together to discern what God wants from us, and how to interpret scripture handed down to us, with Peter as the figure everyone accepts who sums up and defines the conclusion.

Without that authority, the Protestants would have no Bible. There would have been no-one with the authority to say this and that book form part of the Bible, that and this book do not. So to treat the Bible with plodding literalism but reject the authority that gave it to you is not to worship as God intended. It is to worship the words in a book rather than the living God.

This is not to say that when the Pope speaks at other times, he must be obeyed without thought. He must be respected as a learned teacher, so we should certainly try to understand it from his viewpoint. But if we disagree, having properly studied, thought and prayed about it, that is fine. Again, that is what we see in Acts. Peter did not get it right all the time, and acknowledged that.

21 January 2010 at 10:29  
Blogger Scot said...

The RC church has the same problem with authority - it just appears in a different form....try asking which of the pope's pronouncements are infallible and which not?? He is always very careful not to make it clear. Hence differing factions of the Roman church are at loggerheads over that very thing, never mind anything else. It's a fallen world,and Satan is the father of lies, - show me any set of men in earnest about any matter of moment, with no dissentient voice. Do Romanists think that as long as they all adhere to the same label, no-one will notice the wrangling? Not so.
You say (referring to Acts),",.. with Peter as the figure everyone accepts who sums up and defines the conclusion..."
I don't know what Bible you can have found that in. The account of the council of the church finishes (after Peter has made his contribution) with JAMES summing up and giving his judgement: :...Men and brethren, hearken unto me:.....my sentence is....."
See Acts 15.

21 January 2010 at 14:31  
Anonymous len said...

Did Jesus said ' I will give you the pope and he will lead you into all truth? No, of course he didn`t!
papal infallibility? look at the history of the popes and see what a fallible,corrupt lot they were!


Jesus said
JOHN 14:16-18 NKJ
"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever,
"even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
"I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
........
In these last days God is raising up HIS church, a called out brethren whose allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ, not to any man or religious system.

21 January 2010 at 21:11  
Blogger Viator Catholicus said...

The debate is silly. But, the very fact that Stephen Pound is against the conversion of the Protestant Englishmen to the Church founded by Jesus Christ demonstrates that he himself is not Catholic but a Protestant.

24 January 2010 at 17:43  
Anonymous len said...

As Mr Pound is a lay reader at his local Catholic church this would seem to suggest that he might be Catholic?

24 January 2010 at 21:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older