Thursday, April 28, 2011

The Royal Wedding upholds and reinforces the constitutional position of Monarchy and the inner being of the Church of England


You are permitted to be bored and indifferent while wishing Prince William and Catherine Middleton no ill will. You are permitted merely to be grateful for the bonus bank holiday and an extra lie-in. You are permitted even to feel irritated that this wedding is dominating the national media, packing London with foreign tourists and distracting the world’s attention from weightier matters.

But the majority will delight in this joyous occasion of marriage: not because of the individuals involved – though there is undoubted effusive affection for both, not least because of the global popularity of Princess Diana – but because of what the occasion represents. It is usual for a royal marriage to be a religious or a political affair: it is rarer for it to be a love match, and even rarer for it to represent the coincidence of all three. Tomorrow we will see the splendour of Christian England – there will be no multi-faith nonsense and no politically-correct prayers to ‘Our Parent, who art in heaven’. We even get Parry’s great hymn Jerusalem, which is absurdly banned by many Anglican clergy from wedding services.

The religious significance of this marriage must not be underestimated. Its importance depends upon ceremony, upon belief and upon moral example. It is strange to think that, God willing, in about 20 years this couple will be King William V and Queen Catherine: their marriage simultaneously upholds and reinforces the constitutional position of Monarchy and the inner being of the Church of England. In the agnostic and secular milieu of the political establishment, the Established Church is fortified by the ritual of state occasion and the personalities of the Monarchy – in particular of the present Queen. Their own Christian beliefs are imperfectly authentic, and the recurrent royal rituals - when Church and Monarchy are seen as united together - are still central to the life of the nation. Religious and Royal ritual, when well conducted – and no institution on the planet does it as well as Anglicans at their sober and traditional best – is readily consumed by television. This may be an X-Factor wedding, but the religious strength of the Monarchy beneath the pageantry derives from the great consistency which two thousand years of generations have shown in their unassuming commitment to Christian worship, the practice of Christian marriage, and a very high sense of public duty.

Tomorrow, the Church of England, the Monarchy and the pluralised nation will be bound together by an act of union. It represents moral and religious coherence at the level of the nation’s public persona, which remains Christian and Anglican. For as long as the Monarchy presents that image with sincerity, it will be a bulwark against the political assault upon it. Enoch Powell once observed:
It is possible to have an internally self-governed church in this country, but it will not be the national church, it will not be the Church of England. The Church is the Church of England because of Royal Supremacy, because there is Royal – that is to say, lay – supremacy. It is for that reason that it is the Church of the people and the Church of the nation, and can never be converted into a mere sect or private, self-managing corporation.
The Church may have since become largely self-governing, but it remains in some residual sense the Church of the people, and those people clearly wish to retain and express a religious and distinctly Christian quality. William and Catherine are symbolic of spiritual and theological continuity. We should wish them well, and pray for them. They'll need it.

75 Comments:

Blogger Stuart eChurch said...

Totally agree!

28 April 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You said it!

‘God willing’.

Deo volente!

Thank you.

28 April 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

Moral example? The best moral example that has been set in the run-up to this wedding is that Blair and Brown - ruiners of the nation - have not been invited as guests.

28 April 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Shan't be watching it. No ill feeling or anything, it's just that I'm a man and it's a wedding.

I'd agree with what you say, and you say it so eloquently.

I also think it's good to see a a young couple simply choosing to get married rather than shacking up with her for a few years then leaving her "coz things are different since the kids came along" and moaning about being screwed by the cow and the CSA.

I hope they prove to be fine exemplars of happy family life ... at least as good as David & Victoria Beckham.

28 April 2011 at 11:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Beautifully said, Your Grace. As you have quoted Enoch Powell, here is one of his thoughts on ‘the pluralised nation’:

It is by ‘black Power’ that the headlines are caught, and under the shape of the negro that the consequences for Britain of immigration and what is miscalled ‘race’ are popularly depicted. Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him the possession of his native land.

28 April 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 April 2011 at 11:55  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Turns out John Sentamu agrees with me!

28 April 2011 at 11:57  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Calm down, sir!

This wedding isn't the saving of the nation or of the christian church in Britain. It doesn't justify an established church or the position of the Monarchy.

It is two young people in love committing their lives before God to one another after nine years, including the modern practice of some living together first.(By the way, not sure I liked the metaphor of the Archbishop of York yesterday of 'trying the milk before buying the cow')!

Whether either will prove to be true christians adhering to the precepts of their faith and vows remains to be seen. And how the church fairs under Charles and then William also remains to be seen.

However, we can all wish them well and enjoy what I'm sure will be a splendid ceremonial tomorrow without seeing this as something more than it is.

28 April 2011 at 12:14  
Blogger Albert said...

The Church is the Church of England because of Royal Supremacy, because there is Royal – that is to say, lay – supremacy. It is for that reason that it is the Church of the people and the Church of the nation, and can never be converted into a mere sect or private, self-managing corporation.

That may all be true and what makes the Church of England the Church of England. The trouble is it also means it is not the Church of Apostles. That Church is not governed by a secular political elite or an inherited quasi Levitical governance, but by those whom Christ appointed to govern the Church. Was the Church of the Apostles governed by secular and lay power?

Of course, Dr Cranmer, you will remember that at your trial you admitted - following Anglican logic - that the Head of the Church was once the Emperor Nero, whom everyone else thought a scourge of the Church. Perhaps that's why you didn't stand up to Henry VIII - he clearly fitted a mould you already accepted for the Head of the Church.

It will be a glorious day and the CofE will be do what it does best I am sure. But if the CofE itself needs all this Erastian stuff, that can only be because it is not the Church of Christ.

28 April 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Only Fools..(How apt) said 28 April 2011 12:48

'The trouble is it also means it is not the Church of Apostles.'

Ernst presumes you are referring to that state within a state the other side of the Tiber..Best chuckle Ernsty has had for over a couple of weeks..If actions speak louder than words, that church throughout its entire history has shown it is impossible for it to be viewed as 'the Church of Apostles.' Apostates would be more appropriate, perhaps?

Erasmus was a brilliant scholar and that church in Rome, which rejected him, were undeserving of his greatness.

Thanks for the laugh.

Old Ernsty.

28 April 2011 at 13:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernsty,

Just notice the difference between your post and mine. I did not critique the CofE, just certain interpretations of it. My remarks could just as easily have been made by a High Church Anglican who regards the lay supremacy as anamolous. I gave reasons for my position. You on the other hand have just judged the Bride of Christ in totoas being apostate without giving any reasons at all.

It is of course, rather hard to defend the Catholic Church against the charge of apostasy, when no arguments have been presented.

28 April 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Well said Mr Albert (mainly, and only in your first epistle). However, unlike Uncle Ernst, I do not take you to mean the Roman organisation.

May I urge you to consider that there is on earth no such thing as 'the church' of Christ, but a multitude of churches, each of which serves as the pillar and ground of the truth, the household of God, the body of Christ and his members in particular, a colony of heaven, each of which may be faithful or faithless (see the letters to the churches in Rev 2 & 3), each of which comprises a company of Jesus's faithful, baptised disciples. Such, in any event, is the teaching, pattern and example set out in the New Testament, however apologists like Cranny seek to pretend that there is no such teaching, pattern or example.

Away with all these denominations, these national 'churches', these power bases, which usurp the word 'church and arrogate it to themselves.

Again, well said Mr Albert (in your first epistle).

28 April 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert said 28 April 2011 13:59

"Just notice the difference between your post and mine." I have but notice I state the obvious whereas yours is implied..What other church calls itself 'Church of Apostles' inferring alegacy from St Peter which does not exist. So you use it as a critique indeed or else why use it. Neither church can use this title, which the CofE has never done as it claims no such legacy whereas yours, RCC, does..and is unproven!

Oops Anabaptist, you appear to miss the elephant in Albert's argument (The Mother of all churches)..or are you unaware of his comments on this blog? Comparisons are only useful if you compare one with another..He has, RCC vs CofE but you miss the carefully crafted subtlety used.

Uncle Ernsty..who is neither RCC or CofE!!

28 April 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you for your compliments Anabaptist. However, I fear you and I will not agree on this. Certainly, there are local churches, but there is also the church - on earth. How else could Saul be "raving against the church" if there was no church?

Certainly, members of the church may be faithful or faithless, or somewhere in between - "we have this treasure in earthern vessels" after all, "to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." Hence Christ has promised, that whatever the failings of his followers, the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church. Hence, we have no need for earthly kings to prop up the church, when we rest on the promises the King of kings made to Peter.

28 April 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Albert said...

I have but notice I state the obvious whereas yours is implied..What other church calls itself 'Church of Apostles' inferring alegacy from St Peter which does not exist.

Again, no reasons given here for the conclusion. I cannot see why you think my position is only implicit. But if it isn't clear: I do not think the Church of the Apostles can rest on lay supremacy. The doctrine leads to absurdities and is unscriptural, but perhaps more importantly for the CofE, it is totally contrary to the traditions the CofE claims to be inheritor of.

28 April 2011 at 14:59  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Albert, there was only one church at the time Saul raged against it, pursuing its members as they fled persecution in Jerusalem. Becuase of the persecution that state of affairs was very short-lived, and it became the subsequent mission of Paul to found churches (plural).

There is no disagreement between us that there is, in heavenly terms, one church, just as there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism (nota bene), but that one church is not to be identified with any particular earthly organisation. Its earthly manifestation is in the multitude of Christ's churches, and is not otherwise to be found.

You are surely right about kings, though.

28 April 2011 at 15:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Anabaptist, I think that's special pleading, I'm afraid. This is how Paul conceives of the matter:

God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

Now he cannot be referring to Jerusalem as the church has already spread and it doesn't sound purely local (this church as opposed to that), neither is he referring to the church in heaven for there will be no need for healers and administrators in heaven.

Likewise, Paul refers to the Church as a body. Now a body is united is not? And it is visible. Likewise, our Lord refers to himself and his followers as a vine - and if branches break off from the vine, what happens to them?

As a matter of interest why do you put "NB" after "one baptism"?

28 April 2011 at 15:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

You draw the comparison of a title that the CofE never uses for itself, creating a false argument/statement.

'That Church' (presumably RCC, as no other bases its authority on the false claim you assert) is not governed by a secular political elite (so popes and cardinals are non political..what other church has political ambasssadors assigned to it..lol) or an inherited quasi Levitical governance, but by those whom Christ appointed to govern the Church (The unbroken chain of succession starting from Peter going onwards, yes?). Was the Church of the Apostles governed by secular and lay power? Yes..They made themselves Popes, cardinals, bishops and priests and how they lived their lifes reveal this or was the Holy Spirit's eye off the ball when all this was occurring?

Matthew 7:3
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

RCC and its 'faithful' are really the last people to throw stones at glass houses.

Ernsty

28 April 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said ...
Anabaptist said ...

No point beating about the bush on this one, folks.

Roman Catholics believe Christ founded only one Church, His Church — on Peter, with the guarantee of indefectibility in the face of the persecutions, divisions and obstacles of every kind which she would encounter in the course of history.

Vatican II stated:

"this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licit) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity".

28 April 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert said ...
Anabaptist said ...
Last Dodo said...

As the error of Rome's false claims have been discussed and proved as such, ad nausem, by others such as Len, Preacher, Kingofhighcs, etc previously, I will leave you three at it.
It's old hat!

Old Ernsty.

28 April 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernsty,

"Church of the Apostles" may not actually be a title claimed by the CofE, but if it wishes to claim to be "part of the one, holy catholic and apostlic church" he needs to be the church (or part of the church) of the apostles.

I think you may need to read more carefully:

popes and cardinals are non political

I did not object to "political" (what society can be non-political?) but "secular political" as arising from the claim of lay-supremacy.

an inherited quasi Levitical governance

The Levitical priesthood was passed on from father to son - like the Anglican supremacy. The Catholic priesthood is by succession - such as from Paul to Timothy.

Was the Church of the Apostles governed by secular and lay power? Yes..They made themselves Popes, cardinals, bishops and priests

That is assuming the point you need to prove. In any case, the CofE does not regard Catholic clergy as laity, and it is to the CofE that my remarks were addressed.

and how they lived their lifes reveal this or was the Holy Spirit's eye off the ball when all this was occurring?

Well Paul described himself as the chief of sinners. Did that stop him being an apostle? Did Peter cease to be an apostle when he denied Christ? or Thomas when he refused to believe? Does the Church cease to be the Church just because it keeps this treasure in earthen vessels? Ever heard of the donatist controversy? Or do you propose an immaculate conception for all Protestant ministers?

Dodo is right, we will have to agree to disagree. You can appeal to as many authorities as you like, but until you prove sola scriptura by sola scriptura you'll be building castles in the sky.

28 April 2011 at 15:56  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said ...

Well said, sir!

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...
"As the error of Rome's false claims have been discussed and proved as such, ad nausem, by others such as Len, Preacher, Kingofhighcs, etc previously, I will leave you three at it.
It's old hat!"

Discussed as proved as false in the minds of those listed, yes! Not real proof though is it?

28 April 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I rather enjoyed David Starkeys take on it in Romance and the Royals.

All the very best to them both.

28 April 2011 at 16:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

My Dear Old Boy, as you appear as old as Ernsty from your pic.

I will say a few points and leave you 3 to it.

""Church of the Apostles" may not actually be a title claimed by the CofE," It does not as it claims RCC has no historical proof to back up this claim..If this is correct then "he needs to be the church (or part of the church) of the apostles. " is an irrelevance as it is statedly and proven as untrue!

"The Levitical priesthood was passed on from father to son - like the Anglican supremacy. The Catholic priesthood is by succession - such as from Paul to Timothy." both positions have no basis on NT teaching by Apostle's or scripture. CofE could not shake off the last remnants of Roman Theology..they hope people only see their priests as pastors in religious clothing. there is no requirement for either as the High priest Our Lord Jesus Christ, has finished the work and is seated by His Father. 'IT IS FINISHED', He said. I believe Him.

A Christian's hope is based on the Cross and the finished work, RC's hope is based on a crucifix..Christ stilled nailed to it, His work incomplete but He still remains a daily sacrifice, to be used by RC in their mass.

The problem for the Roman Church is not so much "but until you prove sola scriptura by sola scriptura you'll be building castles in the sky." but the 'complete lack of it' in the scriptura, to back up your claims, my boy.

Old Ernsty, over and out.

Ps

Dodo 28 April 2011 16:06

"Discussed as proved as false in the minds of those listed, yes! Not real proof though is it?" Little bit like catholics who refuse to discuss the barbarity and horror of the Inquisition, despite the evidence! It was the naughty lay catholics doing this, not the Bishops, Cardinals or Popes, was it?
So who has the authority in your Church then or will take responsibility for it's actions?

28 April 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernsty,

I'm tiring of this to be honest. As someone who has been both an Anglican and a Catholic, it is pretty obvious to me that you understand the claims of neither.

Of course, the Church recognises her sins. Pope John Paul II was particularly good at taking responsibility for them. But you don't know that apparently, presumably because you do not actually listen to the what the Catholic Church says, only to what other people say it says. Accordingly, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

28 April 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

BiTB said 28 April 2011 16:15

"I rather enjoyed David Starkeys take on it in Romance and the Royals."

Ernsty too. When he is not doing his crazed personna bit on Question Time, he is one darned good historian.

Ernsty

28 April 2011 at 16:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert said 28 April 2011 16:29

"Accordingly, I see no point in continuing the discussion....Of course, the Church recognises her sins. (Of its people/Laity but not it's Clergy..Pope John Paul II, read his words again and see his subtlety..Was it the laity that issued bulls etc demanding such actions that need repenting of. Maybe you should study more, old boy)"

Although I stated I had finished after my last comment, please feel free to discuss your position with Dodo and Anabaptist..Ernsty would not interfere again as he see's your method is to claim the other has no knowledge, whereas old Ernsty has a mountain of it but 'Pearls before Swines' springs to mind but ONLY in the term that swine will eat anything, not caring what it is they gobble down. It has no discerning taste buds, you see!

Old Ernsty.

28 April 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Albert, your citation of Paul is unfortunate, being immediately adjacent to the statement 'You [plural -- you Corinthians] are the body of Christ and his members in particular. (1 Cor 12:27), which indicates that the church he is talking about is that of the Corinthians, to whom he wrote. Indded his entire argument is predicated on this, that the gifts he mentioned are for the possession and edification of the local congregation. You really need to read these passages in their context, you know, rather than mining the bible for the odd ripped-out nugget that you can flash around as a proof-text.

Paul's reference to the unity of the body -- also in the same epistle -- indicates that there ought to be unity, though there was in fact division. His entire thrust is for them to remember what they are and to act accordingly. But it loses all its force if they are being told about some other body of Christ that transcends their local congregation.

I have no idea why you accuse me of special pleading.

I added NB after 'one baptism' to suggest that I, who am a baptist, (as my name suggests) do not accept the validity of the sprinkling/dabbing of uncomprehending infants as Christian baptism, which is predicated on the faith of the recipient. And it is that invalid 'baptism' which is practised by RC and Anglican alike. We can't both be right: there is one baptism.

28 April 2011 at 16:43  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Last Dodo, I don't think I have been beating about the bush.

28 April 2011 at 16:45  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

Tomorrow, the Church of England, the Monarchy and the pluralised nation will be bound together by an act of union. It represents moral and religious coherence at the level of the nation’s public persona, which remains Christian and Anglican.

What a load of codswallop! It represents nothing all, it is just the next episode of the Royal’s Soap, a story of dysfunctional toffs, one of whom is about to marry a shop girl.

28 April 2011 at 16:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Graham Davis said 28 April 2011 16:58

Did someone shout 'Rabitt'.LOL.

"It represents nothing all," Maybe to you and some of your secularist friends but WE ARE NOT ALL LIKE YOU. There are more of us than there are of you!

Some of us see our once great nation as more than just a name and place on a map..there's a bit more to it, my lad.

Ernsty

28 April 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Royal supremacy may be one thing but the current trends in the C of E are leading towards sect and self-managing corporation.

Not even the avid protestant son of Henry VIII would have thought up such innovations and novelties as have the synods of late.

Defending the Faith is problematic for Prince Charles. One wonders if William will have much to defend or will he have to defend defensively?

28 April 2011 at 17:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernsty,

I have no doubt that you have plenty of knowledge - it's just that - to judge form your comments, you have little knowledge of Catholicism.

Anabapist,

In my earlier comment I agreed that there are local churches. Obviously, these churches can be addressed as "the body of Christ". But notice how, in order to make your interpretation stick, you have needed to interpolate with square brackets. If the Pope says to a crowd in St Peter's Square "You are the body of Christ" is he really referring only to them, or to their unity with other Christians? But, if your interpretation is correct, Christ has as many bodies as he has congregations.

Of course, Christians should be exhorted to remain united. But division comes in many forms. For example, there is division between Paul and Barnabas, but there is still one Church. Then there is the division of apostasy or heresy. This kind of division indicates division from the Church. So it is perfectly possible to appeal for unity while believing the unity of the Church is guaranteed.

The special pleading was in trying to say the NT does not conceive of a Church on earth rather than individual churches. you cannot explain away all the passages with reference to Jerusalem.

But this discussion is premised on a sola scriptura assumption, which I do not accept and which I think dissolves in its own acid.

28 April 2011 at 17:16  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Well, Albert, your comment, 'But this discussion is premised on a sola scriptura assumption, which I do not accept and which I think dissolves in its own acid.' was inevitable, and more or less terminates all discussion between us on this matter. I regard the argument on the basis of tradition as equaivalent to that of the Sadducees, to whom Jesus said 'By your traditions you make void the word of God.'

I have not tried to explain, let alone explain away, 'all passages with reference to Jersualem', and it is unfortunate that you should try to evade the force of my points with such a misrepresentation. It was ever thus, I suppose. We get nowhere.

28 April 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wonder how the Middletons got along when they met Phil the Greek. Oh to have been a fly on the wall there. :)

28 April 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Anabaptist,

Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. In speaking of special pleading I was referring only to your earlier comments. I do not believe that I have evaded your response to that - I have responded with some care, I think.

I regard the argument on the basis of tradition as equaivalent to that of the Sadducees, to whom Jesus said 'By your traditions you make void the word of God.'

But my point is, as sola scriptura is not in the scripture (as many things are not) then you must be following tradition in order to believe sola scriptura. And I think sola scriptura is itself a tradition that makes void the word of God (quite apart from the absurdity of it if it cannot itself be proved from scripture).

28 April 2011 at 17:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Ernsty,

I have no doubt that you have plenty of knowledge - it's just that - to judge form your comments, you have little knowledge of Catholicism."

If only you knew, old boy, if only you knew.lol.

Antiquus Ernsty

28 April 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said...
Anabaptist said ...
Ernest said ...

I claim no expertise in theology or the Bible and have been 'mauled' on here by the combined forces of various anti-catholic christians, but didn't Jesus say He couldn't tell His disciples everything and that the Holy Spirit would reveal the full truth to them and would guide them? I haven't looked up the precise passages but I recall this as their meaning. Also, the Apostles were given authority to teach and did so years before the New Testament was written.

Surely this is sufficient to justify interpretation and application of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This also suggests a body of knowledge will be built that will be tradition. It also suggests a leadership to adjudicate when different understandings are arrived at and a teaching authority.

Maybe I'm being simplistic but I cannot see the argument against the unity of scripture, tradition and Apostolic teaching authority.

Look what actually happened to Protestants when 'sola scripture' was adopted and applied. They all disagreed with one another and splintered into numerous divided factions and 'churches'.

And it wasn't and isn't Catholics alone who kill in the name of Christ.

28 April 2011 at 18:36  
Blogger Albert said...

If only you knew, old boy, if only you knew.lol.

Now who's appealing to the other having no knowledge? But it doesn't matter what your background is - even if you were brought up in a Catholic monastery - it's clear from what you have said that you have several fundamental misunderstandings about Catholicism.

Dodo,

Spot on. And passages can be multiplied endlessly to support your position.

28 April 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

...but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 1 Cor 13 v 10.

We now have that which is perfect. You can hold it in your hand. It is a Bible. No further need for instruction from any other source.

I've told you before, but you don't listen.

Popiness is dirty. Ughhh.

PS May the Lord bless and keep HRH Prince William and his lovely bride Catherine, and make His face shine upon them.

28 April 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Albert said...

EV

Popiness is dirty. Ughhh.

Why do you say such ungenerous things? Do you really think they help your cause? If you really were faithful to scripture, would you not want to speak the truth in love?

But why think we Catholics are unscriptural anyway? Who was it who discerned which books went into the NT and which needed to be kept out? Why think that Church could get that right but be wrong on more or less everything else? Who guarded scripture for a millenium and half before the Reformation? Who was it who had to copy out, page, by page, word by word, letter by letter, every single document of the NT, again and again so that you could read it?

It is not that you love scripture but we don't. While you think we do not read it, remember from our point of view you pervert the meaning of scripture by imposing your own interpretation on it rather than listening to that given by Christ through his Church - the pillar and bulwark of truth. A case in point: your interpretation of I Cor.13.10.

28 April 2011 at 20:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

I am part of the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth as you put it. Though you would deny it, because you believe that 'extra ecclesium nulla salus'. Why do you believe such ungenerous things? Do you really think they help your cause?

'But why think we cat-licks are unscriptural anyway?'

Is it your idolatry of Mary, your 'papa' (Seig Heil), graven images and dead sinners, the abomination of transubstantiation, your anti-semitism, your denial of salvation by faith through grace alone, or just your 'clergy's penchant for small children?

Your interpretation of Matt 16:18 is a case in point, too.

If you think that the Apostles and their successors, until the completion of the Canon, where cat-licks, you're mental.

You'll have to excuse me, I've got to take a shower.

28 April 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Oh i don't know,

28 April 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Albert said...

EV,

I find it astonishing that you think that is an appropriate or even convincing answer. Your prejudice is simply extraordinary. At least you're honest, I suppose - or are you as ignorant as you sound?

28 April 2011 at 22:05  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ernsty 28 April 2011 16:32

Ernie my cantankerous old mate, Magic and the Supernatural in Medieval English Romance has no comparison.

Although I accept divers peoples may challenge my statement.

28 April 2011 at 22:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Albert said...
"EV .... "

Based on my experience I would advise against paying too much attention to English Viking or taking his posts seriously.

I believe he's a parody of anti-catholicism and enjoys attention. He doesn't actually engage in a dialogue. Behind his presentation of ignorance he occassionally reveals something of more substance. Not often as it spoils his 'image'.

At first I thought he might be here trying to show just how idiotic anti-catholicism is - that's how daft he can be!

28 April 2011 at 22:23  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

It's not PREjudice. I have carefully considered the claims of the RCC and found them sadly lacking. Its leaders will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but far worse than that, they hinder others from entering too.

Dodo,

It's no parody; I really don't like the whore, though it is marginally more tolerable than the cult of the dead pædophile.

28 April 2011 at 23:32  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

I'm beginning to wonder if the hostility towards Catholicism is actually coming from some of those raised in the Church and who once accepted the teachings of Rome.

Just a thought. I 'left' the church for 35 years struggling to make sense, firstly, of christianity and then of all its various forms and denominations.

My return was a slow and gentle return 'home' and I firmly believe guided by the Holy Spirit.

For me its just as simple as christianity being the Truth, we can all agree here, and Catholicism presenting the most spiritual and rational explanations of God's plan and then exhibiting this consistently in its teachings, sacraments, worship and social policies.

28 April 2011 at 23:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Can you show me where the Bible teaches us about 'sacraments'?

Are they necessary for salvation?

28 April 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Warburton's finest in the OS said 28 April 2011 22:21

"Magic and the Supernatural in Medieval English Romance has no comparison." INDEED.

As Starkey said , "The British invented romance and marriage". Such a shame it has fallen on deaf ears in these latter generations.

"Ernie my cantankerous old mate" MOI?

ERNIE. you naughty lad.. lol.

29 April 2011 at 00:40  
Blogger Marya said...

Thank you, Your Grace. I pray ... and I wish them every joy.

non mouse

29 April 2011 at 02:48  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

I'm a traditional Anglican myself, or as some call it an Anglo-Catholic. So I can see both sides of the Protestant versus Catholic debate.

I must say I have great respect for the Roman Catholic Church historically, far more than I do for Calvin and his successors or even Luther. That said there are quite a lot of faults I have with post-Hildebrand Catholicism as well as Counter-reformation Catholicism and the disaster of Vatican II. What is needed is the balance provided Celtic, early Roman Catholic and particularly Eastern Christianity.

In my opinion, the Anglican Church, at its best, offers just that balance. It has its foundations in the Orthodox, antique Catholic and Celtic traditions and imbibes the best of latter Catholic and Protestant traditions while being English and British. This is what makes our branch of the Church Catholic worth so much to me. It is why I put up with all the nonsense and have so far not converted to the Greek, Coptic or Russian Church. In figures like the judicious Hooker, Laud, Donne, George Herbert, Lancelot Andrewes, the Cambridge Platonists, William Law, Dean Swift, Cowper, Coleridge and the Tractarians and their successors we have a treasure-trove of saints, sages and mystics.

But we must work to keep this vision of our Church alive. We must jettison Calvin and his ilk(though I'm not saying the whole low church or Evangelical wing.), who add little of worth that our own sages have not already reminded us of and add a lot of nonsense. We must reaffirm our foundation on the truly mystical and metaphysical soil of the Early Church, the Alexandrians and the Cappadocian fathers and what is left of the Celtic Church. St. Clement of Alexandria, St.Gregory of Nyssa and Erigena to name a few key figures must be where we turn. Upon this foundation we can best integrate and evaluate the other legitimate elements of our English branch of the Church Catholic.

29 April 2011 at 03:08  
Anonymous len said...

Westcountryman,
At a quick 'scanning'of your post have you left someone out?

30 April 2011 at 08:41  
Anonymous len said...

Here`s a question for Catholics,its only theoretical so don`t panic!.

If you totally renounce Catholicism and everything connected with it will you still be saved?.

30 April 2011 at 08:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Here`s a question for Catholics,its only theoretical so don`t panic!.
If you totally renounce Catholicism and everything connected with it will you still be saved?"

What? You worried by this question? Why would a Catholic want to renounce their faith?

And if you're really interested in the answer, rather than playing games, why not refer to the Catholic Catechism? Anyway, I suspect you know Rome's teaching on this one!

30 April 2011 at 11:16  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo,
You evaded the question!.

There was no Catholic Church when Jesus and the disciples were on Planet Earth,does this mean they are all lost,?
Or where are they?

30 April 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

What about those sacraments, Dodo?

You could just feign offense as a way of ignoring the question, I suppose.

30 April 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"What about those sacraments, Dodo?"

All the sacraments have a biblical foundation in the words and actions of Christ and the Apostles. Apostolic tradition and church teaching developed them into their present form.

Are they necessary for salvation? This I can't answer in full but they are a great source of assistance and strength in the journey. The Church Catechism
allows for salvation for baptised non-catholics and, indeed, the unbaptised and non-christians.

As you advised someone else recently: Am a nurse-maid? Do your own research. You can read it on line and it amply covers both questions.

Once you've done so, I'll happily try to answer any genuine questions you might have.

30 April 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I ask not because I don't know the answer, rather because I do. The reason you won't answer (not can't) is because you know I'll rip you to bits with scripture if you dare to repeat the lie that your 'church' teaches, which is that they ARE necessary for salvation.

PS How can non-Christians be saved? You see what a mess you get in when you stray from the teachings of the Bible into the traditions of men?

Probably not.

30 April 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

So you know the mind of God and can discern it fully and totally from the Bible? Wow!

Who God admits to heaven is entirely His perogative. What happened before Christ? What happens to those who haven't had His message revealed? To those misled by others?

These matters are all hinted at in the Bible but require interpretation and application through tradition and a teaching authority.

'Sola scriptura' is unbiblical as was pointed out so well others in posts that silenced you and others who subscribe to this 'tradition'.

30 April 2011 at 22:30  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Ps - the Catholic Church is a little bit more subtle in its teachings on the sacraments.

Do read the catechism!

30 April 2011 at 22:32  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Dodo,
You evaded the question!.
There was no Catholic Church when Jesus and the disciples were on Planet Earth,does this mean they are all lost,?
Or where are they?"

What a truely silly post!

30 April 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

You're ranting, and it's so unbecoming.

I wave my private parts in the general direction of your catechism.

Answer the question: are sacraments necessary for salvation? Yes or no?

C'mon, you claim such erudition in all things popey, does one need to perform and keep the sacraments in order to be saved?

You know the answer, and you will continue to refuse to give it, because you know I can prove you wrong.

You could look on this matter as an opportunity to invite a recalcitrant to the 'church'. Why not explain the method of salvation, unless you are ashamed of it?

30 April 2011 at 23:18  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...

"I wave my private parts in the general direction of your catechism."

Assuming you have any I'm sure the're very unsightly and I do hope you're on your own!

Do please behave and understand I'm unwilling to hold a discussion with someone in your state of undress.

Given the subject matter, it must surely be disrespectful to the Bible and to God to communicate in such a fashion.

1 May 2011 at 01:32  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

Of course sacraments are necessary for salvation. A sacrament is ontological, it raises one up through true Christian Love and Knowledge from the corporeal to the spiritual, from the flesh to the spirit. Christ's sacrifice and grace are sacramental, the whole of creation is sacramental and all our actions should be treated as a sacrament. The seven sacraments, particularly Baptism and the Eucharist, are but particularly efficacious modes of the sacrament, the Eucharist being in a sense a especially powerful prolongation of Christ's sacrifice.

It was natural for Christ and the early Church to see the world this way, as symbolic and sacramental. It is the seeds of modernism like nominalism, rationalism, subjectivism, materialism and so forth which more or less infect much Protestantism, or which are born at least partially of it, which are utterly alien to the early Church.

The Roman Church should not escape our censure though. It was the post-Hildebrand Roman Catholic Church which gave birth to the overly rationalist late Scholasticism as well as nominalism and it was its very abuses and influences which were most responsible for the rise of Protestantism. The post-reformation and modern Catholic Church has taken on board, though not perhaps to the same extent, many of the problems of the renaissance, Protestantism and modernity.

1 May 2011 at 03:10  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Westcountryman ...

Been reading some of your posts with interest. Are you a Gnostic? Certainly some of your comments are suggestive of this.

1 May 2011 at 13:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

David danced naked before the Lord.

I haven't got anything He hasn't seen before. He did knit me in my mothers womb, after all.

Answer please.

1 May 2011 at 14:22  
Blogger Westcountryman said...

If you mean by Gnostic the early Christian heresy, then I'm certainly not a Gnostic. I'm a very traditional Anglican, or an Anglo-Orthodox/Catholic.

Like many a traditional Christian I find much support in Platonism but the views I put forward are based on the Church Fathers, particularly the Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers, and find an echo, to a greater or lesser degree, in many of the greatest figures of the Western Church from St. Augustine to Erigena and from Aquinas(if one digs deeply enough.) to Meister Eckhart.

The Gnostics too drew from the Platonic and Christian well but they included the metaphysically absurd notion of fundamental dualism.

The Roman Church has, at least since Augustine, had a certain imbalance in it. It has had a certain rationalism and a certain dualism(ironically Augustine, a former Manichaean dualist sometimes comes close to a sort of Gnostic-dualist renunciation of the earth.). This became even more prominent with the rise of Scholasticism which, though its founders like Anselm and Aquinas were great men, eventually led to a replacement of the early focus on the mystical Intellect and symbolism with a concentration of discursive reason and though and so provides a stage for the rise of nominalism, much 'Protestant' theology and modernity. The developments of the post-Hildebrand Papacy that aimed to take the functions of both Emperor and Pontiff parallels this theological-philosophical process. This has led to an overly rationalist theology, without enough of a focus on metaphysics, on symbolism and a theology of nature and of art.

Though the Catholic Church has not reached the depths of say the Calvinist Church it does lack the sustenance that can be drawn from the more balanced Eastern Christian tradition. Though a careful usage of the Western tradition, one that retained Aquinas and Augustine but balanced them with Erigena, St. Francis of Assisi, the Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers and the Rhineland mystics and stayed well clear of the Novus Ordo mass in favour of the traditional Tridentine mass or Sarum use(or equivalent.), seems to me to still be of supreme divinity.

1 May 2011 at 15:25  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Blofeld 28 April 14:44, _"...a legacy from St Peter which does not exist.....the carefully crafted subtlety..."; 15:36_ "...creating a false argument/ statement.."; 15:48_"...discussed ad nauseam, by others such as..."; 16:18_"... a few [well made] points..."; 16:42_"...Ernsty would not interfere again as he sees your method is to claim the other has no knowledge..."
...and Anabaptist passim:

Quite so, and having been a participant in a similar discussion some days ago with Dodo about "magisterium", will not join in again now, beyond mentioning that the validity of rebuttals such as Anabaptist's are seldom acknowledged by those choosing to be in obedience to the "magisterium" form of church government continuing to be claimed by the Vatican City side of the great schism and repudiated by so many of other denominations and none.

Through the centuries they too often seem to have less knowledge of certain aspects of "Catholicism" than their critics, and debate peters out. The Baptism of John's gospel, and of Mark's and of Matthew's and Luke's, is a great mystery.
[This comment is later than intended due to technical hitch at point of despatch.]

1 May 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
I ask not because I don't know the answer, rather because I do."

Then why seek an answer from me? Do stop playing silly games!

The answer to your question is in the cathecism of the Catholic church. Do read it if you want a proper understanding.

2 May 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

'Tis you you plays the game, Sir.

Answer please. Yes or no is fine. Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?

Be careful now; God is listening.

2 May 2011 at 12:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

As I understand the church's teachings, and do remember I'm not an expert, they are as follows:

Yes - if one is a baptised member and fully informed of the church's role and her requirements and act with free will and full understanding.

Maybe - if one is baptised yet unaware or ill-formed about christianity and the Catholic church's role and her teachings or has been led into error.

No - if one has never had the opportunity to receive Christ's message of love and to be baptised or to learn of the Catholic Church and its divine mission.

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

Hope this brief outline helps. Do check my understanding though as I'm not a theologian or a priest.

2 May 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Your answer was fine.

Basically, yes, no AND maybe. Or 'Christ did die for you, and you accepted Him, but now He has withdrawn your 'eternal' salvation, because you don't go to Church.'

Brilliant.

2 May 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking ...

Really, you do like to twist answers.

Do read what was written. I know it isn't as black and white as you'd like.

2 May 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo

It is exactly that. You just wish it wasn't, because it shows how moronic your 'doctrine' is.

2 May 2011 at 22:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older