Friday, September 23, 2011

The Pope's speeches at Martin Luther's monastery


Pope Benedict XVI has visited the monastery of the man who ignited the Reformation. The Pope made two speeches, both reproduced below. Perhaps sometime soon, as a manifesly generous gesture of true ecumenism, the Vatican might consider Martin Luther as a candidate for beatification, in honour of his profound prayer life, his generous attitude to accepting sacrifice and the genuine and practical love he had for the poor. But above all, for his his holiness, the sanctity of his intellect, his love for God, His Word, and the holy life, and for cleansing the Church of error. He is, beyond dispute, a true Doctor of the Church.

ADDRESS OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
ECUMENICAL PRAYER GATHERING
AUGUSTINIAN CONVENT
ERFURT
23 SEPTEMBER 2011


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through them” (Jn 17:20). According to the Gospel of John, Jesus spoke these words to the Father in the Upper Room. He intercedes for coming generations of believers. He looks beyond the Upper Room, towards the future. He also prayed for us. And he prayed for our unity. This prayer of Jesus is not simply something from the past. He stands before the Father, for ever making intercession for us. At this moment he also stands in our midst and he desires to draw us into his own prayer. In the prayer of Jesus we find the very heart of our unity. We will become one if we allow ourselves to be drawn into this prayer. Whenever we gather in prayer as Christians, Jesus’ concern for us, and his prayer to the Father for us, ought to touch our hearts. The more we allow ourselves to be drawn into this event, the more we grow in unity.

Did Jesus’ prayer go unheard? The history of Christianity is in some sense the visible element of this drama in which Christ strives and suffers with us human beings. Ever anew he must endure the rejection of unity, yet ever anew unity takes place with him and thus with the triune God. We need to see both things: the sin of human beings, who reject God and withdraw within themselves, but also the triumphs of God, who upholds the Church despite her weakness, constantly drawing men and women closer to himself and thus to one another. For this reason, in an ecumenical gathering, we ought not only to regret our divisions and separations, but we should also give thanks to God for all the elements of unity which he has preserved for us and bestows on us ever anew. And this gratitude must be at the same time a resolve not to lose, at a time of temptations and perils, the unity thus bestowed.

Our fundamental unity comes from the fact that we believe in God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth. And that we confess that he is the triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The highest unity is not the solitude of a monad, but rather a unity born of love. We believe in God – the real God. We believe that God spoke to us and became one of us. To bear witness to this living God is our common task at the present time.

Does man need God, or can we do quite well without him? When, in the first phase of God’s absence, his light continues to illumine and sustain the order of human existence, it appears that things can also function without God. But the more the world withdraws from God, the clearer it becomes that man, in his hubris of power, in his emptiness of heart and in his longing for satisfaction and happiness, increasingly loses his life. A thirst for the infinite is indelibly present in human beings. Man was created to have a relationship with God; we need him. Our primary ecumenical service at this hour must be to bear common witness to the presence of the living God and in this way to give the world the answer which it needs. Naturally, an absolutely central part of this fundamental witness to God is a witness to Jesus Christ, true man and true God, who lived in our midst, suffered and died for us and, in his resurrection, flung open the gates of death. Dear friends, let us strengthen one another in this faith! This is a great ecumenical task which leads us into the heart of Jesus’ prayer.

The seriousness of our faith in God is shown by the way we live his word. In our own day, it is shown in a very practical way by our commitment to that creature which he wished in his own image: to man. We live at a time of uncertainty about what it means to be human. Ethics are being replaced by a calculation of consequences. In the face of this, we as Christians must defend the inviolable dignity of human beings from conception to death – from issues of prenatal diagnosis to the question of euthanasia. As Romano Guardini once put it: “Only those who know God, know man.” Without knowledge of God, man is easily manipulated. Faith in God must take concrete form in a common defence of man. To this defence of man belong not only these fundamental criteria of what it means to be human, but above all and very specifically, love, as Jesus taught us in the account of the final judgement (Mt 25): God will judge us on how we respond to our neighbour, to the least of his brethren. Readiness to help, amid the needs of the present time and beyond our immediate circle, is an essential task of the Christian.

This is true first and foremost in our personal lives as individuals. It also holds true in our community, as a people and a state in which we must all be responsible for one another. It holds true for our continent, in which we are called to European solidarity. Finally, it is true beyond all frontiers: today Christian love of neighbour also calls for commitment to justice throughout the world. I know that Germans and Germany are doing much to enable all men and women to live in dignity, and for this I would like to express deep gratitude.

In conclusion, I would like to mention an even deeper dimension of our commitment to love. The seriousness of our faith is shown especially when it inspires people to put themselves totally at the disposal of God and thus of other persons. Great acts of charity become concrete only when, on the ground, we find persons totally at the service of others; they make the love of God credible. People of this sort are an important sign of the truth of our faith.

Prior to the Pope’s visit there was some talk of an “ecumenical gift” which was expected from this visit. There is no need for me to specify the gifts mentioned in this context. Here I would only say that this reflects a political misreading of faith and of ecumenism. In general, when a Head of State visits a friendly country, contacts between the various parties take place beforehand to arrange one or more agreements between the two states: by weighing respective benefits and drawbacks a compromise is reached which in the end appears beneficial for both parties, so that a treaty can then be signed. But the faith of Christians does not rest on such a weighing of benefits and drawbacks. A self-made faith is worthless. Faith is not something we work out intellectually or negotiate between us. It is the foundation for our lives. Unity grows not by the weighing of benefits and drawbacks but only by entering ever more deeply into the faith in our thoughts and in our lives. In the past fifty years, and especially after the visit of Pope John Paul II some thirty years ago, we have drawn much closer together, and for this we can only be grateful. I willingly think of the meeting with the Commission led by Bishop Lohse, in which this kind of joint growth in reflecting upon and living the faith was practised. To all those engaged in that process – and especially, on the Catholic side, to Cardinal Lehmann – I wish to express my deep gratitude. I will refrain from mentioning other names – the Lord knows them all. Together we can only thank the Lord for the paths of unity on which he has led us, and unite ourselves in humble trust to his prayer: Grant that we may all be one, as you are one with the Father, so that the world may believe that he has sent you (cf. Jn 17:21).

ADDRESS OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE EVANGELICAL (LUTHERAN) CHURCHES OF GERMANY
AUGUSTINIAN CONVENT
ERFURT
23 SEPTEMBER 2011


Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I begin to speak, I would like first of all to thank you for this opportunity to come together with you. I am particularly grateful to Pastor Schneider for greeting me and welcoming me into your midst with his kind words. At the same time I want to express my thanks for the particularly gracious gesture that our meeting can be held in this historic location.

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting representatives of Council of the EKD here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. This is where Luther studied theology. This is where he was ordained a priest in 1507. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. On this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For him theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make an impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. Insofar as people today believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. But are they really so small, our failings? Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage? Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted? Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation? Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us? I could go on. No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – this burning question of Martin Luther must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.

Now perhaps you will say: all well and good, but what has this to do with our ecumenical situation? Could this just be an attempt to talk our way past the urgent problems that are still waiting for practical progress, for concrete results? I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our undying foundation.

The risk of losing this, sadly, is not unreal. I would like to make two points here. The geography of Christianity has changed dramatically in recent times, and is in the process of changing further. Faced with a new form of Christianity, which is spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism, sometimes in frightening ways, the mainstream Christian denominations often seem at a loss. This is a form of Christianity with little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability. This worldwide phenomenon poses a question to us all: what is this new form of Christianity saying to us, for better and for worse? In any event, it raises afresh the question about what has enduring validity and what can or must be changed – the question of our fundamental faith choice.

The second challenge to worldwide Christianity of which I wish to speak is more profound and in our country more controversial: the secularized context of the world in which we Christians today have to live and bear witness to our faith. God is increasingly being driven out of our society, and the history of revelation that Scripture recounts to us seems locked into an ever more remote past. Are we to yield to the pressure of secularization, and become modern by watering down the faith? Naturally faith today has to be thought out afresh, and above all lived afresh, so that it is suited to the present day. Yet it is not by watering the faith down, but by living it today in its fullness that we achieve this. This is a key ecumenical task. Moreover, we should help one another to develop a deeper and more lively faith. It is not strategy that saves us and saves Christianity, but faith – thought out and lived afresh; through such faith, Christ enters this world of ours, and with him, the living God. As the martyrs of the Nazi era brought us together and prompted the first great ecumenical opening, so today, faith that is lived from deep within amid a secularized world is the most powerful ecumenical force that brings us together, guiding us towards unity in the one Lord.

174 Comments:

Blogger Shacklefree said...

I think Benedict must have read Len's earlier blog and taken his comments to heart.

23 September 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

the Vatican might consider Martin Luther as a candidate for beatification,

The Inspector has heard most of what has been suggested should happen to Luther, but he’s never heard that one !!!

23 September 2011 at 18:09  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Catholic theology as such, as opposed to a Late Medieval Western popular piety very much akin to contemporary popular faux Evangelicalism, has never been under the slightest misapprehension about where the initiative lies regarding salvation: God freely saves us by His grace, undeserving sinners though we are, and He does so only because of the saving acts of Jesus Christ.

However, God does not merely declare the sinner righteous forensically, as if as a sort of legal fiction, but actually initiates and effects a process whereby righteousness is genuinely brought about through willing co-operation with His grace. For some people, this involves conversion and assurance as classically understood by Evangelical Protestants; for others, the experience of conversion and assurance is different. Both happen, so Rome has never rejected either, but has anathematised merely the narrow insistence on the former.

There is certainly no doubt at all that God, being God, foreknows and in some sense predestines who is to be saved, but the workings of the mystery of election are not given to us to understand, and it is not our place to speculate upon them.

Catholic history abounds with movements for the reform, revival and renewal of the Church at times of crisis or corruption, through the Holy Spirit’s raising up and subsequent use of minorities at the cutting edge. Being ecclesia semper reformanda has always been an integral part of being ecclesia semper eadem.

Central to many such reforming, reviving and renewing movements has been and is the truth that every Christian has a vocation, to be lived out in whatever course of life he or she pursues. Bizarrely, this thoroughly Biblical, Patristic (up to and including High Medieval) and Tridentine idea is frequently alleged to have begun with the Reformers.

Within what is now called “every-member ministry”, which Catholics invented and Protestants tried to dismantle, the Catholic Church certainly maintains the threefold pattern of Holy Orders – Bishop, Priest and Deacon – in the tangible Apostolic Succession through the imposition of hands with prayer. That succession by that profoundly Biblical means is a matter of historical fact, which no one thought to dispute until it suited certain people’s purposes to do so after sixteen centuries.

The Preaching of the Word has always been held by Rome, at least in principle, to be the priest’s primary duty. If this calls for a renewal in the art of Sacred Oratory, not least in the seminaries, then such a renewal can only be effected from the inside.

In order to be more fully Herself, the Catholic Church needs to encourage large numbers of Her members to learn the culture of the Word from that Evangelical tradition which is historically, if even in its own terms no longer necessarily, separated from Her full communion. Such a culture is one in which the defining narratives are those of the Old and New Testaments.

The Bible culture initially arose in order to fill the gaps left after the Reformation where the Lives of the Saints had previously been. Catholicity, however, requires both, not least in order to express the indivisible continuity between the Bible and the Church. Catholics are not being asked to take on anything remotely Protestant as such here: look at the Liturgy, look at the Fathers (up to and including the Medieval Doctors), look at the Medieval and post-Medieval mystics, and look at the iconography and other spirituality of the Christian East, whether Catholic or separated.

Taking on is a defining mark of Catholicism, which radically and fundamentally distinguishes the Catholic Church from the giving up that characterises Protestantism.

23 September 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

One suspects Mr Cranmer is being provocative here as he knows full well beatification cannot be offered as a "manifestly generous gesture of true ecumenism". This would indeed impoverish the process and be seen as a hollow gesture.

The Pope acknowledged the passionate search of Martin Luther for an answer as to how one receives the gift of God's grace. He did not affirm his theological answer and it is unlikely he would accept Luther as a "true Doctor of the Church."

The Pope does not act 'politically' on questions of doctrine and does not offer beatification to win friends and influence people.

His critique of the Reformation:

"It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds.

The Pope was very clear about improper approaches to ecumenicalsim:

In general, when a Head of State visits a friendly country, contacts between the various parties take place beforehand to arrange one or more agreements between the two states: by weighing respective benefits and drawbacks a compromise is reached which in the end appears beneficial for both parties, so that a treaty can then be signed. But the faith of Christians does not rest on such a weighing of benefits and drawbacks. A self-made faith is worthless. Faith is not something we work out intellectually or negotiate between us."

An interesting aspect of Pope Benedicts address was his critique of "a new form of Christianity, which has "little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability."

Was he referring to the evangeligal and charismatic movements?

23 September 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, forgive the Inspector’s lightness. He was of course humouring His Grace. After all, Luther lit the match so to speak, Archbishop...

23 September 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds.

???? So that's why the reformers translated Scripture into the vernaculars!!!!

Well give me the KJV Cranmer, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and even Old English. You know... English before the franco-germans cloyed the intellects of the young, and glutted their sight and hearing with "existentialist" claptrap. That is, English before the Deconstructionists set about it.

Or maybe this is just a really bad translation that does no justice to el papaseeto.

Any road up, this whole thing demonstrate how RCs and the euSSR work with a Carolingian purpose:) Irrespective of that, I wish they'd get arrest the creeping RCism at my Anglican church; I'll stop going soon, if they don't.

23 September 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger len said...

If Benedict really wants to preach the Gospel why doesn`t he just dump all the religious garbage and get on with it?

If he did as Jesus once recommended and sell all he had and give the money to the poor he might seem a tad more credible(to me at least).

If Catholicism was stripped of all unbiblical teachings they might...just might find underneath all the rubbish the Gospel of Jesus Christ?.....perhaps?

23 September 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Non Mouse, you wicked creature

There are RCs (...originating from Ireland...) in the UK who want nothing to do with the EU. You’ve just upset one...

23 September 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree said...
"I think Benedict must have read Len's earlier blog and taken his comments to heart.

More's the pity Mr Len doesn't pay attention to what the Pope is saying.

Even when Benedict explicitly talks about Christ he is accussed of talking "religious garbage"

Len is clearly in the camp of the new forms of Christianity with:
"little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability."

23 September 2011 at 20:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oh dear, Mr. OIG-- sorry. Please understand I'm deeply appreciative of the Irish contribution to the development of English (including Christianity) and, indeed, of civilisation as a whole!!
I speak of Aidan, his predecessors and his successors, and of the northern marches. Later, there was even Alcuin (who helped Charlemagne).

I'm not forgetting, though, that it was Roman Catholicism that exacerbated schism there...and scattered the Irish contingent, sending many back to Ireland after the Synod of Whitby (663-4).


wv: diesbire

23 September 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Think nothing of it non mouse, my Christian (yet of a protestant stance) brother...

(The Inspector General gets carried away sometimes, red blooded passionate man he is).

That Luther nuisance certainly started something...

23 September 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

The current Pope is a Nazi, although that is an improvement on previous examples which include homosexuals and even a women.

His words are worthless, a cloud without water.

Dodo,

Me oh, me oh my!

Follow, follow!

23 September 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

WomAn, obviously, unless there was another one, which wouldn't surprise me.

23 September 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Just for you; the glorious 12th.

http://youtu.be/YO1FthyChu4

Drag and drop.

You've got to admit it's catchy?

23 September 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English Viking

There is a joke going around that HM Queen asked Benedict when he first thought about visiting the UK. “1940 Ma’am” was the answer.

But a nazi ? Not at all, just a deeply devoted Christian. By the way, your typing reminds the Inspector that ‘fly agaric’ is in season...

23 September 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger bluedog said...

Bravo, non mouse @ 19.36.

Seriously EV @ 20.29, you can't call the Pope a Nazi just because he joined the Hitler Youth. There was no alternative and the penalty for failure to comply was termination with extreme prejudice. Read Benedict's speech to the German Parliament for a frank admission of German failure in succumbing to Nazi ideology.

23 September 2011 at 20:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bluedog,

Spare me, please.

Tell it to Daniel, for example. A youth that would not take the King's meat.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, perhaps?

'...even if He will not... I will...'

There are sundry examples of young boys who were willing to die rather than to deny their Lord.

Ratzinger is not one.

Coward would be a good description. Even unbelievers perfomed more admirably than that yellow belly.

'I dared not resist, because I feared those that killed the body more than the One which can destroy the soul.'

In the league of toss excuses, that one is top.

PS You would not hesitate to call me a Nazi, if i joined a Nazi group.

Thou hypocrite.

23 September 2011 at 21:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Are you implying that I am intoxicated?

Think on, Sir.

23 September 2011 at 21:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English Viking

The Inspector is an amateur mycologist. He’d dearly like to find fly agaric in his area, but has only found ‘death cap’, a related species, which does exactly what it says on the tin.

I expect you know the Scandinavian herdsmen would watch out for reindeer ‘having a good time’ after finding the thing growing beneath the snow, and somehow pull them away to get to it themselves...

23 September 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG

September is the season, but not here.

I need no intoxicant in order to make me rage.

23 September 2011 at 22:05  
Blogger The Worker said...

"He (Luther) is, beyond dispute, a true Doctor of the Church."

On the contrary there is plenty of dispute, plenty.

Martin Luther certainly thought himself the greatest Doctor of the Church of his age and entitled to use his singular genius to alter scripture to suit his inspired theological insights!

"I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it."

"I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there .... it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there."

"If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.'"

"Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply 'Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors."

23 September 2011 at 22:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

I hope you are not playing with 'magic'!

Where have you been hiding? Not falling in the sea again, I hope?

How did Liverpool do last weekend? I missed the scores.

23 September 2011 at 22:24  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking> said
"Dodo,
Just for you; the glorious 12th ...
You've got to admit it's catchy?"


Mr Viking, HIV is catchy too but I wouldn't rave about it.

So what do you think of Luther and his falsification of the bible? A great theologian? A bully? Prone to foul language and abuse?

Now who does he remind me of?

23 September 2011 at 22:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I rather like Luther.

He nailed it. Straight through.

If you want falsification, try the Vulgate.

I know you think me unlearned, but I am happy to run rings around you all you like, left footer.

You would be amazed how much they teach you. Greek and Latin, English, German and French.

And nowadays filthy Arabic.

23 September 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I have to say I like the banter.

23 September 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

The Pope is asking us as Christians to set doctrinal aside and focus on the grave set of challenges facing the world.

As Christians we focus on disagreement, not on the unity of the message of Christ. This has weakened the Church and opened the door to a new form of Christian worship that lacks rationality, doctrine and organisation.

Positivism and secularism are growing in influence and has undermined traditional and foundational Christian values. A hedonistic culture is emerging. Science has created serious ethical problems and the solutions are excluding God's natural law.

Our political system tests the human weakness of desiring power. Democracies expose this because popularity requires concessions to human weakness for success and also encourage the avoidance of disagreeable action.

In combination these threats are grave. The Pope is inviting a discussion on how we as believers in Christ can act now in unity to tackle them. Not a ‘peace treaty’ based on concessions to doctrine and faith. The common approach would be built on what we do agree on and how to act now for Christ and our neighbour?

A coalition to agree a programme of coordinated action? An association of interested parties with a common belief in the basic Gospel message?

24 September 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I am sure the Roman Catholics of the 16th Century would be mighty impressed by these protestations of unity with heretics and apostates. 500 years ago, there wasn't much question among Catholics that Protestants were going to Hell. My how things have changed in a church with teachings that have remained unaltered for 2000 years.

Let's cut to the chase. A common ground of Trinitarian monotheism is not enough. Rome teaches a different gospel. It teaches a gospel that does not and cannot save. So long as Rome stands upon Trent and its anathemas of the Gospel, there can never be unity.

carl

24 September 2011 at 00:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

I can assure you I have never doubted your intelligence, your evident learning or your commitment. I don't know why you chose to speak the way you do or what has influenced this.

Martin Luther, in my opinion, had his problems like the rest of us. His search for individual peace with God in a dark period of Catholicism drove him to that edge where insight is often found. His own need to be assurred of salvation demanded he openly challenge the evils in Church and bring it down.

Personally, I think Luther over did it, got carried away with himself and power and ego got the better of him. He wanted to impose his own authority over that of the Pope, was rude, bad tempered, impatient, foul mouthed and autocratic.

Ps
What was the Liverpool score on Saturday?

24 September 2011 at 00:23  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

They lost on Saturday but they won on Wednesday.


I say what I say because I have seen what I have seen.

Really, awful things.

You have no idea.

(Why do I find myself almost confessing to you?)

See, you nearly drew me in, but I resisted.

Dirty Popiness, dirty left footers.

24 September 2011 at 00:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

Bless you. Only inviting a friendship, not a confession. I've no authority to hear it and couldn't can't quarentee the seal of the confessional anyway.

24 September 2011 at 00:46  
Blogger Captain said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2011 at 00:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

I meant to add just think what Jesus could have done to and with you during His earthly life. How would you feel and behave in presence as His words filled your heart? How would it change the way you saw yourself and other people?

And after His death and resurrection would you be inspired to follow His commands?

So, do it all today and walk in His presence. He is by your side.

24 September 2011 at 00:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Captain

What does this mean?

"Make Paul derivative from the Gospel accounts, and you won't be swimming the Tiber any time soon, but you probably won't be execrating them as damnable heretics either."

24 September 2011 at 01:03  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Carl Jacobs said ...
"Rome teaches a different gospel. It teaches a gospel that does not and cannot save. So long as Rome stands upon Trent and its anathemas of the Gospel, there can never be unity."

What Gospel does Rome teach that cannot save?
In what way did Trent anathemise the Gospel?

24 September 2011 at 01:20  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

carl jacobs said...
So long as Rome stands upon Trent and its anathemas of the Gospel, there can never be unity.

carl

24 September 2011 00:12

Quite so.

The RCC is not a Christian organization, but an essentially pagan one.

It is from its very beginning an utterly man made compromise between pagan star worship, and the story of Jesus Christ.

Indeed it could very well be argued that The ROMAN church is simply a religious expression of the Roman Empire itself, and has precious little to do with the teachings of Jesus.

This is why the RCC has no problem whatsoever being the leading proponent of The Ecumenical Movement, because it is linked to all other religions through its pagan roots.

The one thing that stops the RCC from being totally pagan in all respects, is Jesus himself. Very unfortunately for The RCC most Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died to save mankind from its own sins, and not simply a metaphorical representation of The SUN of God.

There exists only one group of people that prevents all of the worlds religions uniting under one essentially pagan religion, which is why the WHOLE entire world hates them with a passion that knows no bounds.

That group go by the name of REAL Bible believing CHRISTIANS.

It is these people The Roman Empire, later to be known as The Roman Catholic Church has been murderously persecuting for now almost 2000 years.

This is the GREAT SECRET of The Roman Catholic Church. A secret that they have tried their upmost to keep for over 1300 years.

This is why the Roman Catholic Church banned the Bible from being read by any one but a trained priest. RC services have always been carried out in a language hardly any of the ordinary people could understand, and even owning a copy of a Bible was punishable by being burned or otherwise tortured to death for many hundreds of years.

Or perhaps I am suffering from some kind of gigantic historical as well as theological misunderstanding?

If so, then I stand to be corrected.

24 September 2011 at 01:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Atlas

Now that is some theory which, I suggest, is not supported by evidence.

"Or perhaps I am suffering from some kind of gigantic historical as well as theological misunderstanding?"

One of us is!

24 September 2011 at 01:40  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Prayers have power, you power hour people, the CERN Laboratory has delivered a particle physics wish at faster than the speed of light to Shiva.

Be careful what you pray for because when all the particles are singing from the same hymnsheet, you will always find someone taking money out of the cellection box.

Thats the nature of the trickster, and you voted for change.

24 September 2011 at 01:44  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Atlas and Bred in the bone

Do either of you consider yourselves Christians?

24 September 2011 at 01:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Dodo, my experience of Christ is valid, in relation to my experience of life itself, which is all anyone has to go by.

Is it Christ in doubt here, or your abilty to believe outside of your own confined space of acceptabilty within your doctrine?

24 September 2011 at 02:23  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I have no wish to debate as to whether Ananda Coomeraswamy may have been correct about the Freemasons taking over the Vatican.

Some say he is right, some say he is wrong, I say he is an intersting chap who could of aided East-West relations at a crucial period in history.

24 September 2011 at 02:36  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

The Way of the Dodo said...

I was sort of hoping that you may wish to have refuted my assertions with some kind of evidence yourself.

I do not like to source my information, as I very much prefer people to do their own research into this, and other matters.

All I can say is that the evidence is as conclusive as it is easy to find, which is EXTREMELY easy. Indeed the evidence for most of my assertions can be found by reading a History Made Simple book designed for the virtually ESN.

Please do yourself, and possibly your eternal soul a favor, and do your own research into the TRUE history of The RCC, right from its very beginning around circa 4000BC, right up to this very day.

Yes indeed, The RCC is not based on something that is less then 2000 years old, it is based on something that is at least 6000 years old and possibly in some ways, much much older then even that.

ROMAN catholicism is based almost entirely on COSMOLOGY, indeed the Bible itself was corrupted by pagan cosmology from the day it was selectively assembled, and so has almost infinitely more to do with Ancient Sumerian Pagan Theology as it does with the relatively modern mission of Jesus of the Gospels.

Please understand that I am not myself a Bible believing Christian, indeed I believe in nothing other then THE TRUTH. I do however believe that much of The Truth can be found within Biblical, and other ancient texts.

As I have stated before, being caught in possession of a belief system, is the last possible crime a seeker of truth, should every want to be accused of.

However if you personally wish to consider yourself to be a true Christian, and therefore expect your immortal soul to be saved by a belief in Jesus Christ the redeemer, then I suggest you stop being a member/follower of The RRC, ASAP.

24 September 2011 at 03:24  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

I have no wish to debate as to whether Ananda Coomeraswamy may have been correct about the Freemasons taking over the Vatican.

Then, don't debate it.

I think it is more then likely that it is The Vatican that long since took over Freemasonry, rather then the other way around. After all, the former became much before the later, although both are undoubtedly based on the exact same kind of extremely old belief system, therefore one taking over the other, would have been wholly unnecessary.

To a seeker of TRUTH, its source is of little or no importance whatsoever. The TRUTH is simply THE TRUTH of the matter, whether we choose to like, recognize, accept, want, respect, or worship it, or not.

24 September 2011 at 04:02  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

What's this 'oecumenical gift' that BXVI is talking about in this speech?

O BXVI, we gave up expecting any kind of gift from you or your incumbents on 25 February 1570. (That's when one of your predecessors released the English nation from lawful obedience to its excommunicated Sovereign on pain of its own excommunication from the Roman church.) But yet this excommunicated state has sat quite well with us Anglicans as we've got on with the job of following the Lord without your pontifical interference.

After 40 years of ARCIC (Anglican-RC dialogue), what have we to show for it? Some finely worded documents which show that some Anglican churchmen and some RC churchmen agreed on various theological points over tea at Windsor: Eucharist, Ministry, the Blessed Virgin, and even authority (I like the ones on authority because they idealistically envision the papal office as a 'primacy of love for the sake of the churches'...O please – don't you have any sense of history?).

Rome and its bish do not want unity except on their own terms. The RCC is truly an institutional survivor par excellence and places this above all else, including truth, conscience, human life and even the innocence of children...

I'm grateful for Dr Luther and also for the Anglican reformers. They put their lives on the line and stood up for an open Bible and the teachings of the Gospel. We should never forget why and what they suffered and from which institution.

Last century when we were thinking the winds of change were finally blowing in Rome through Vatican II, in JPII swaggers with all his Polish charm and places dialogue on the slow burner, and subsequently his protege BXVI proceeds to unchurch all other Christians except the Orthodox. Really, what's the whole dialogue process been for, if that is the result? We knew our holy orders weren't good enough but thanks to BXVI now we're not even a church!

The Roman system is quite special and those Anglicans who cross over the Tiber will get quite a surprise when they are 'received' into its embrace. I doubt the use of the Cranmerian-style liturgies will last a generation before the Roman mass in its faux-Cranmerian tones will be imposed. Even the most anglo-papalist of Anglicans will start to hanker for the liberty of the Gospel which does not sit well with the Roman system.

I smile at the perverse logic of Rome. It will allow those of the 'Anglican patrimony' to cross the Tiber with ease - re-ordination for clergy, re-confirmation for laity of course and why not re-do the baptisms for good measure, one can never trust Anglican sacramental intentions! And these newly received Christians will be allowed to preserve their Anglican heritage – the very heritage which would never have developed, had their forebears in faith remained in communion with the bish of Rome and 'all his detestable enormities'!

Luther's stand is still valid today as the Roman church still teaches the doctrine of indulgences and officially asks the 'faithful' to credit their heavenly treasury by gaining partial or plenary indulgences. OK, they are not for sale but the doctrine is contrary to Scripture and smacks of (semi-)pelagianism.

You may say that all this is simply church endorsement for saying a prayer or doing good works but the practice results from the belief that salvation is earned by humans. Apparently some Roman construct added to our sins known as 'temporal punishment' gets removed by the indulgence practice. I don't recall reading of this doctrine in the Holy Gospels or the rest of the New Testament.

I call on the Roman communicants of his Grace to defend the perverse and un-Christian doctrine of indulgences!

Martin and I are waiting...

24 September 2011 at 08:29  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Indeed Atlas, you do stand to be corrected. You comments are incomprehensible both in an historical and theological context.

“It is from its very beginning an utterly man made compromise between pagan star worship, and the story of Jesus Christ.”
Bearing in mind it was established by Jesus, that makes him out to be pretty incompetent. What does pagan star worship mean in the context of the RCC?

“This is why the RCC has no problem whatsoever being the leading proponent of The Ecumenical Movement”
The RCC was the last to join the Ecumenical Movement.

“Very unfortunately for The RCC most Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died to save mankind from its own sins… “
That’s what the RRC teaches and all Protestants denominations obtained those teachings from the Catholic Church.

“Or perhaps I am suffering from some kind of gigantic historical as well as theological misunderstanding?”

Yes you are.


I was sort of hoping that you may wish to have refuted my assertions with some kind of evidence yourself"

You haven't provided any evidence for your assertions.

24 September 2011 at 08:31  
Blogger Preacher said...

When God became man, He assumed the simple manual labour of a carpenter to earn a living.
When He started his earthly ministry, He wore the ordinary clothes of the time.
He mixed with & related to the ordinary people, touching, healing, feeding etc.
He rejected the pomp & grandeur of the Sanhedrin, which He could quite rightly demanded to be the supreme leader of, (The Great High Priest).
He rejected parity with God the Father as something not to be grasped, (Colossians).
He performed miracles & healings as proof of His authority.
Religion rejected Him. The World hated Him without a cause. He was judicially murdered to appease His opponents.
The grave could not hold Him & death had to release its Master.

Religion cannot save any. But it can certainly bind & imprison many to its laws & teachings.

24 September 2011 at 10:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr EV @ 21.15, if Benedict XVI was the Chief Rabbi, holding him up to the book of Daniel would be reasonable. But Benedict is the Pope, and to judge him by Old Testament standards seems both unjust and plain wrong. Christ said of sinners ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ and also ‘I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.’

Now if the Pope was impressed into the Hitler Youth as a minor, shouldn’t he be permitted the benefit of Christian belief in forgiveness 70 years later? Who are you to infer that Christ’s teaching may not apply to Benedict?

And to call me a hypocrite, as you do, on the basis of your own assumption about my possible response to a hypothetical situation of your own imagining is something I struggle to understand. Cart before horse etc?

Why not take the chance to set the record straight by answering this question, ‘Are you now or have you ever been a member of any Nazi Party?’

Now if you are/were a Nazi I would happily call you Mr English Nazi should you wish to be addressed that way. Just say the word.

24 September 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

The Judicious Hooker

Why do you want to keep these wounds of 500 years ago open? The Pope left theological divisions to one aside, can't you?

In these addresses the Pope did not aske Anglicans or other Christian groups to reunite with Roman. It was not an invitiation to ecumenicalism in the sense of abandoning oppossed theologies and arriving at some shared doctrines after negotiation and compromise. He did not ask anyone to convert to Roman Catholicism.

The Pope identified the grave challenges facing the modern world and asked us to focus on what we agree upon and to act together to resist the forces of evil - the growth of positivism, the spread of secularism and the emergance of a pleasure seeking, hedonistic culture that has abandoned God.

In the name of Christ, is that really too much to ask?

24 September 2011 at 11:10  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

The Judicious Hooker said: “I call on the Roman communicants of his Grace to defend the perverse and un-Christian doctrine of indulgences!”

You did it your self: “You may say that all this is simply church endorsement for saying a prayer or doing good works”

However you are wrong that “the practice results from the belief that salvation is earned by humans.”

The Catholic Church has never taught that and St Paul is specific that all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Nevertheless Christianity including Protestant Christianity has always emphasised the obligation to do good works but not because it merits Heaven. It is Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection which has opened the gates of Heaven. St. James himself mentions the need to do good works and says “What use is faith without good works”. This is standard Catholic doctrine but it constantly gets misrepresented and used over and over again even when it is explained. I wonder why?
By contrast compare the position of Luther who re-invented scripture to suit his own inability to deal with the uncertainty of salvation. The Worker in an earlier offering quoted that Luther even admitted to tampering with scripture even though St John the Evangelist says that any person doing this should be anathematised. Here again are the quotes mentioned by The Worker.

“I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it."
"I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there .... it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there."
"If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.'"
"Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply 'Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors."
You may choose to believe the Catholic Church teaches that good works are sufficient to earn salvation but don’t say you have not been corrected on this. Hang on to your erroneous belief if you must but be careful about telling other people what is untrue especially about the Church founded by Christ.

24 September 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

As a former Prefect of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Previously known as The Holy Office of the Inquisition) Benedict has, in essence, been Pope for thirty years. Thus his current mellowness must be viewed in the light of his previous declarations.
Have we already forgotten "Dominus Iesus" in which we Protestants were reminded that we are not churches after all? Do we not remember that a dogma of Rome is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church? That indulgences are still offered?
Protestantism has lost its way. We are blinded by the gentle platitudes of the current Pope. He presents a fair face but we must be aware that Rome is more than a church. It is a country and that with the aim of regaining the power over the world which once was hers.

24 September 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger len said...

Catholicism is a religion that everyone born of the Spirit of God should oppose and indeed will be compelled by the Spirit to do so.
Catholicism takes what is of God and claims it for itself.That is the hypocrisy that is Catholicism.
Ok, so Catholics do 'good works' so do Atheists, so what?.
The wounds to the Body of Christ have been afflicted by Catholicism . The Catholic Gospel is quite plainly 'another Gospel',when Catholic theologians departed from the Word of God and by their 'additions' they departed from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and replaced Jesus Christ with a man the Pope.The Word of God says quite plainly not to worship, men, women , bits of plaster,relics,bones,wafers,etc,etc,all these have been brought into the Pantheon al la Romano in keeping with their Pagan origins.To highlight this situation the Statue of' Peter' is actually a re- named Zeus,Rome didn``t leave the old gods merely re-named them and incorporated them into their 'new religion'.
Well the Pope cannot save anyone even himself so all those who look to the Catholic church instead of Christ are under the delusion of religion , I might add a very clever delusion which betrays its author.

How can a Christian unite with Pagan Rome and its religion?.

24 September 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

If you truely believe all the above then, I'm afraid, the Great Delusion to which you refer is your own.

I would also observe that you did not glean all this from the Gospel and have obviously fallen under the influence of another form of Christianity that distorts and twists history and Roman Catholic theology.

I pray you recover your senses and, meantime, urge you to stop spreading unfounded lies about the Church established by Christ Himself. No good can come from it.

24 September 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

IanCad

Rome has changed none of its doctrines or dogmas. The Pope is reminding all Christians what we have in common.

As for Rome being intent on temporal world power ... well, now that is a peculiar idea. Do you have any actual evidence for this assertion?

24 September 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

To all those who criticise the Roman church and it’s members

It simply won’t do. Those of us who adhere to the church do so in good faith. Who are you people to say we will not be saved ?!! The sheer arrogance of it all; if Jesus was here today, he’d be slapping faces, that’s for sure.

Len, with his attitude that only he and a handful of others like him will be saved - Where did that come from in Jesus’ message ?!! Len should be grateful to the Roman church for ensuring the survival of the word to this time, so he can practise his selfish pick and mix version of it.

The Inspector sees himself as a soldier for Christ, not a troublemaker in the ranks...

24 September 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger IanCad said...

My Goodness! Mr Dodo,
Your first paragraph explains the second.

24 September 2011 at 13:51  
Blogger Fearsome Pirate said...

Beatifying Luther and establishing a cult of intercession around him would go against everything he stood for.

The sheer arrogance of it all; if Jesus was here today, he’d be slapping faces, that’s for sure.

I like how the guy who belongs to the largest church in the world, the one with the ornate palace in Vatican and the costly cathedrals, the one whose fundamental teaching is that its teaching authority is not, has never been, and never will be wrong, and that every association outside of its authority cannot and will not ever be a "church," is acting like it's the underdog and criticizing it makes you "arrogant."

Give it a rest, no one feels sorry for the Catholic Church.

24 September 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

IanCad said...
"My Goodness! Mr Dodo,
Your first paragraph explains the second.


Don't play games.

Point to a dogma or doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that makes a claim to temporal world power.

24 September 2011 at 14:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Point to a dogma or doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that makes a claim to temporal world power.

You mean besides Unam Sanctum issued by Pope Boniface VIII?

We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter_by_ the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

Oh, wait. That infallible Papal Bull isn't infallible anymore. I mean, it was then, but it isn't now. No, that isn't right, either. It's just the part of Unam Sanctum about the Two Swords Doctrine that isn't considered infallible anymore. My mistake.

carl

24 September 2011 at 15:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo,
The Inquisition itself was a manifestation of temporal power. It held sway wherever Rome ruled.

24 September 2011 at 15:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Oh, wait. That infallible Papal Bull isn't infallible anymore. I mean, it was then, but it isn't now.

What are your grounds for thinking it was infallible then?

24 September 2011 at 15:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fearsome Pirate

I think you’ll find that the Pope gives due respect to all branches of Christianity – but that wouldn’t fit in with your view now, would it ?

24 September 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

That old chestnut 'UNAM SANCTAM', the papal bull of Pope Boniface VIII, issued in 1302, in answer to Philip IV of France, who denied the Pope's authority.

Only the last sentence is doctrine.

"We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

The preceding part of the document deals at length with the relation between temporal and spiritual powers in the Church.

It is not a declaration of an intention to acquire world power by force of arms!

24 September 2011 at 16:30  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

The criticism of the language of Unum Sanctum is I think legitimate. A lot of unacceptable practice took place in the Middle Ages because the Church had forgotten the words of Christ “My Kingdom is not of this World” and problems continue to the present day with secrecy, prestige and image being more important to some bishops than the good of young children. However, Albert asks a good question about whether it was an infallible statement.

Let’s not forget too that the persecution of Catholics under Protestantism was significantly worse. Oliver Cromwell killed more Catholics at the siege of Drogheda than the Inquisition killed in 500 years. Taking the whole of the Ireland campaign into the picture, Cromwell is reported to have killed over one quarter of the adult male population of Ireland. Expand that to include the killings in Engand and Cromwell comes out to be pretty brutal even against his allies after he gained power.

I’m not justifying the Inquisition but rather questioning the idea that the Catholic Church was the persecutor and Protestantism the poor victim. We can point to the present day where we know that since 1921 Catholics were a persecuted minority in Northern Ireland whereas Protestants in the south were not discriminated – point which was made by southern Irish Protestants in a TV debate which I watched soon after the trouble began. This wilful unknowing of history does great discredit to Protestantism.

Nevertheless, I recognize the validity of the language of Unum Sanctam. And please answer Albert’s question.

24 September 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Sorry It should read "the validity of the criticism of the language of Inum Sanctum."

24 September 2011 at 16:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bluedog,

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of, affiliated to or associated with or any form of Nazism, neo or otherwise.

I have read (and own a copy of) Mein Kampf though. I also think that some of the stuff Hitler believed was entirely correct, and the world would be a better place if some (note the word some) of his ideas were put into force today. He certainly knew how to make a ruined, bankrupt nation a superpower once again.

Does that make me guilty?

You are correct in your assertions that, should Benny have repented of his membership of the Nazi party, and his cowardice, we should say no more and forgive him.

He has not though, has he?


PS He needs to repent of wearing a dress, as well.

24 September 2011 at 17:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Shacklefree @ 16:54

"Oliver Cromwell killed more Catholics at the siege of Drogheda than the Inquisition killed in 500 years"

This is just about the most absurd statement I have ever seen on this blog.
Albigenses, Waldenses, Huguenots, the Dutch, the Jews: Many, many thousands, perhaps millions, slain by the noose, the flames, the rack, the sword.
Please check your facts.

24 September 2011 at 17:18  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I could agree about the dress bit were it not for the fact that it would mean I couldn't turn up for a ceilidh in my regalia.

24 September 2011 at 17:19  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Royal in his Book “The God that did not Fail quotes the Soviet dissident Vladimar Bukovsky as stating that: the Inquisition, in the course of three centuries, and after legal procedures of a sort, killed fewer people – probably around three thousand – than the Soviet Union killed on an average day. Compare that with Cromwell and to enhance the picture further compare the views of Luther.

“For rebellion is not just simple murder; it is like a great fire, which attacks and devastates a whole land. Thus rebellion brings with it a land filled with murder and bloodshed; it makes widows and orphans, and turns everything upside down, like the worst disaster. Therefore let everyone who can, smite; slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or dev­ilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you. http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html. Contemporary estimates puts the death toll from the Peasant’s Revolt at 100,000.

It’s the same old stories about lies being disseminated about the Catholic Church and a deliberate unknowing about the brutality of Protestantism. In any case you don’t have to go back 500 years. Just look at slavery in America, the attempt to eradicate the indigenous Indians, apartheid in South Africa and N. Ireland all under Protestant administrations. The record of our own times tells us that Protestantism has shown a much greater tendency towards persecution. I’m not justifying Catholic abuses – just putting it in context.

24 September 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger IanCad said...

Shacklefree @ 17:40

"The record of our own times tells us that Protestantism has shown a much greater tendency towards persecution"

Try telling that one to the Serbs.

24 September 2011 at 18:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I thought we were talking about Protestantism/Catholicism rather than the Orthodox. I'm not sure what you are referring to with your comment. Are you talking about recent history of earlier? Can I take it before we move on that you accepted that Catholicism has been at the very least no worse than Protestantism in this regard.

24 September 2011 at 18:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

The simple fact of the matter is that where organised Catholicism has met organised Protestantism head to head, anywhere, the cat licks got whooped.

They are only big when they wade in mob-handed, or have their victim chained to a rack.

24 September 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Viking,

should Benny have repented of his membership of the Nazi party, and his cowardice, we should say no more and forgive him.

Actually, Pope Benedict's family was anti-Nazi. His father gave up working for the police under the Nazis, making them all poor. Joseph refused to go to Nazi meetings and lost his education as a result (he ended up being taught privately by a sympathetic teacher). Most importantly, he lost his cousin to the Nazis because the cousin had Down's Syndrome and was euthanised.

Just think about that list of suffering will you next time you are going to accuse the young Ratzinger of being a Nazi.

24 September 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Albert,

Your above post is a bit sad, really.

It contains absolutely nothing to refute the FACT that Benny was a Nazi.

Not his old dad, not his disabled relations, NOTHING.

If someone had killed one of my relations for being disabled, well ,,, the mind boggles. Suffice it to say, I would not have joined their club.

Coward. Literally and morally. I do not hold that against him, I know what it is like to be frightened. What I hold against him is the idea that he is some kind of paragon of virtue, someone to be emulated, a vicar of Christ.

Of Christ?

He would never have cow-towed to jack-boots.

The Pope is one of Lucifer´s favourites; he drags more souls to hell than drink and drugs combined.

24 September 2011 at 22:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English Viking

Has it occurred to you that Benedict is all the more stronger from his childhood experiences. Would the Inspector General have cow-towed to the jackboot ? The answer is yes, without doubt, and he would have convinced himself he was doing his bit for Germany. He wouldn’t have wanted to end up in the newly established camps, or have seven shades kicked out of him. There’s honesty for you...

24 September 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

I sometimes wonder if people show such venom towards the Pope because they are fearful Roman Catholicism may be correct.

Many of their extreme objections to Catholicism are based on deliberate misrepresentations of the Church's doctrines and falsification of its history. Then there are personal attacks on individual Popes who cannot all be Saints.

What would English Viking have said to St Paul? Called him a cowardly, murdering Pharisee scumbag?

The Pope served in the German Infantry for 2 years, being drafted from a seminary, as required by the law of his country. He deserted his post before experiencing armed combat. Did that make him a 'Nazi'? Was every Russian a 'Communist'?

Just a thought.

24 September 2011 at 23:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Too right Dodo

The older the Inspector General gets, the more he is able to understand what it was to be alive in those times. No one wants to put their neck on the line. Survival, as now, was paramount. Tis easy to criticise from the comfort of your own home...

25 September 2011 at 00:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

You have NO idea what has occurred to me, none whatsoever.

Dodo,

If Benny was half the man Paul was, I would think twice.

A deserter you say? A feckin deserter?

The sooner rid of, the better,

Really, if you had ever been forced to make the choices I have, the ones that run are the worst. 

Stand fast. No options, no choices, stand fast.

STAND FAST.

25 September 2011 at 01:02  
Blogger len said...

The fact that the Pope didn`t stand for what was right then( as did many Christians who were executed for their beliefs by the Nazis) is no less important is the fact that Benedict doesn`t stand for what is right NOW.
Benedict is the figurehead for a vast heretical religious system which makes a mockery for all Christ stood (and died for).
Christ gave His Life for HIS Church Benedict obviously wasn`t prepared to follow His example.

Benedict is a false shepherd and his actions prove it!.

25 September 2011 at 08:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Viking,

It contains absolutely nothing to refute the FACT that Benny was a Nazi.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. You've asserted he was a member of the Nazi party - where is your evidence?

He was of course, a member of the Hitler Youth. It was required by law, and he joined when he was 14. 14 years old Viking, just think of it. It was required by the law of what Churchill called "the cruelest tyranny that has ever sought to bar the progress of mankind".

As the law prescribed joining the Hitler Youth, the way to resist was to refuse to join meetings - which he did with the consequences I have already indicated.

But even if all this were false, and he was a Nazi when he was 14, have you never read that love "does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right." 1 Cor.13.6.

25 September 2011 at 09:47  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr EV @ 01.02 says. 'You have NO idea what has occurred to me, none whatsoever.'

Well cut out the secret squirrel stuff and tell all.

25 September 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger rallentanda said...

The Cardinals voted for a German Pope in the majority. Ask yourselves why?

25 September 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bluedog,

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;-)

25 September 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking said
"A deserter you say? A feckin deserter>
Stand fast. No options, no choices, stand fast.
STAND FAST."


Oh come on now. Stand fast and shoot Russian soldiers who were dying to kill the evil of Nazism? If he had, you'd have accussed him of this!

Would you have called St Peter a coward when he denied Christ that evening? Would you have called him a sniffling Jewish sympathiser for not fighting and dying to save Christ?

Seriously, and in a spirit of friendship, English Viking do think more carefully about the judgements you hurl at others as Christ could judge you by the same standard.

If there was a just war to be fought I would want you bearing arms on the side of good. Our times require more finese and circumspection because the enemy is cunning and is in our midst. Don't harm the one force that stands between us and chaos, Christianity; Roman Catholicism included.

25 September 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

rallentanda (25 September 2011 12:49)

The Cardinals voted for a German Pope in the majority. Ask yourselves why?

Wouldn't be because he was the best man for the job, would it ? Rather boring, that answer, no ‘conspiracy theories’ at work (...over to Atlas now...)

25 September 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog (25 September 2011 11:08)

The mystery of English Viking’s past, no closer to being solved, is intriguing us all... Ask him if he was in the Parachute Regiment circa 1972 ?

25 September 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

...
A messenger came, blood on his feet and a wound in his chest,
"The Christians are coming!" he said, "I have seen their cross in the west!"

In a rage Saladin struck him down with his knife and he said,
"I know that this man lies, they quarrel too much,
The Christians could never unite!"
...

(From Chris DeBurgh's Crusader, 1979. See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6SkaFMTihI&feature=related)

25 September 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

Saladin was a missed opportunity for the world for Christians, Jews and Muslims.

If only .....

25 September 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...we'd killed him. Yes Dodo, a missed opportunity indeed...

25 September 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

bluedog and Inspector

By my reckoning English Viking is in his middle to late 40's. I'm thinking covert armed combat in Yugoslavia.

25 September 2011 at 14:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector

Saladin was a noble man who behaved with honour. He fought for what he believed to be right.

In my opinion, if his Muslim successors conducted themselves with an ounce of his chivalry the Middle East would be a safer place today. He was a politician and a leader, a Sunni and not a fanatical S'hite Islamist.

25 September 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger The Worker said...

rallentanda said...
"The Cardinals voted for a German Pope in the majority. Ask yourselves why?"

Do tell.

25 September 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

The line came to me, "unbidden" as they say, about half-ways in the comments section here. Went to two DeBurgh concerts in the 80s, but to my disappointment, Chris never played the Crusader.

Anyhow, not my quarrels and not my place to comment on stuff I'm not familiar with, but hoo-boy, are such passions helpful in these challenging and decisive times? It's a question, not a critique or a censure...perhaps these are affectionate "love bites" between Christians that keep the relationship fresh and exciting.

Regarding the missed opportunity for Christians, Muslims and Jews you mention, true; the latter might have been able to assist a bit with their linguistic and diplomatic skills and their commercial networks, but were somewhat distracted with getting slaughtered by both of the warring sides.

25 September 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I'm happy to be judged by my own standards - I've never turned my back, not even once. Peter was a coward, that is perfectly clear. He repented and went on to greater things - fair play to him, forgiven and forgotten.

You'll have to guess again, I've never been in Sarajevo on business, only pleasure.

25 September 2011 at 15:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Not the Paras, either, although if I had been there that Sunday there would be a lot more tosspots whining for compo.

For goodness sake. what do you expect if you shoot at a soldier?

25 September 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

True, but who knows Saladin and Richard may have reached an understanding that included your brothers too. I think it possible. Only God really knows. As I said, a missed historical opportunity.

25 September 2011 at 15:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English Viking (25 September 2011 14:15)

With your intellect, one cannot rule out ‘Special Forces’. Maybe you walked the Iraq desert. However, we would not expect you to confirm that as no doubt you are an honourable man, with respect for that Regiment. (Unlike those renegades who have written books on the subject and have enriched themselves on their comrades efforts. Those people have no shame, what !)

25 September 2011 at 15:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Linguistic skills as disclosed earlier, mainly European but not necessarily Arabic - so maybe not Iraq.

The plot thickens ....

25 September 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

Without doubt the man was at least a senior sergeant. The backbone of the British Army, the best trained army in the world (...Carl Jacobs, take note...).

English Viking, are we addressing an RSM by chance ?

25 September 2011 at 16:30  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Fy faen!

Am I so easy to read?

25 September 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

No Iraq at the time, Dodo. And Jews acted as intermediaries between Islam and Christendom, with many able to speak and write in Arabic, Persian, Latin and Greek, as well as the vernacular languages of Europe. Many of the classics were translated by Jews.

25 September 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

No Arabic, no point, because I never went there, although I was willing.

German and French, mostly. A smattering of Spanish, for obvious reasons, the Greek and Latin mostly for regimental bullshit.

Too old now, but I did my bit when it was required of me.

If I had known then what I know now, I would NEVER have gone.

Never.

25 September 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

"Fy faen!"

Not easy to read at all. And you would have gone if called upon, you know it.

Not somewhere in South America?

25 September 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I've sweated there. What a shit-hole.

Enough now.

25 September 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English Viking

Am I so easy to read?

Good God man, certainly not; but you are up against the Inspector General.

For those not aware of what’s going on, our Viking was the Colonel’s right hand man. Respected by the junior officers, his ‘nominal’ superiors...

Lets see then – You took the troops to Norway for arctic training. Met and fell in love with a local girl. Bit awkward being a serving soldier, but on your release you were back there like a shot, and here we are now.

One last question, care to divulge your regiment ?

25 September 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

"silentium est aurum"

25 September 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo The Inspector thinks he may have dug himself in, perhaps with some liquid rations. We’ll leave him to his thoughts...

25 September 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

True Sir, true.

OoIG,

I will not divulge my regiment, nor rank. It would make it too easy to find out who I am, and that just won't do.

Suffice it to say, if you were under me, feet would not touch.

P S Liquid rations. Lol. Scottish ones, the only thing they are good for.

25 September 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS My wife is an English girl, and lovely she is too. Loyal. The most attractive quality.

I did my Arctic training here, but that was nothing to do with my decision to live here.

25 September 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A sensible decision on your privacy, that Viking – as you were and carry on

25 September 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Since the Inspector declared himself, uh...dug in...and is most likely, not in prime condition to inspect I, who have only celebrated our gorgeous Fall day with a couple of shots of Jameson's (not scotch, but yummy whisky for a great value), will merely remark that the current martial talk and reminiscing about good old days of blowing or shooting things apart is far better than the previous drum-beating for the next round of Christian sectarian wars.

25 September 2011 at 19:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

Jameson, being Irish, is spealt with an 'e' i.e. whiskey.

Do the Canadians celebrate the start of autumn? Stange ....

25 September 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector

Just natural curiosity disinhibited by the water of life.

25 September 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi

The Inspector meant that the English Viking had dug himself in, ex-soldier that he is.. But he’s actually out and about somewhere.

Jamesons is a most excellent Irish whiskey (note the ‘e’ in the word on this occasion to indicate the Irish origin). It’s tripled distilled to be sure. Most Irish whiskies are, to be frank, best avoided if you enjoy drinking it neat, but that one and a couple of others, Bushmills comes to mind, will not disappoint...

Postscript – that wily bird has beaten IG to it on the ‘e’....

25 September 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

By George, Dodo, you're right. Had to check the bottle for the spelling...which led to my having another little drop on the principle of, like, symbolically bloodying a knife that's been drawn. And no, there is no official Canadian Autumnal celebration; I just took matters into my own hand. Ever the proactive chap, I am.

25 September 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Inspector, I misread you and now it looks like I'm on my own. I like things neat, not even ice or soda, just the way the distillers present them to us. I only depart from this when having Crown Royal; it's an abrasive Canadian blended whisky liked by some of the old chaps in my synagogue, who taught me to freeze it until almost gel-like and to chase it with a shmaltz herring and piece of onion.

25 September 2011 at 20:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi

When it comes to accompaniments to whiskies, the Inspector recommends air cured ham (ie not cooked). Tends to appeal to the savage in him. Obviously religious considerations deny you this, and IG can’t really think of alternatives as he’s never tried it with salt beef, although pimento stuffed olives also do it. Satay chicken too !

Postscript. Salt beef going down on tomorrows shopping list

25 September 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector,

Smoked turkey legs and various varieties of smoked beef, all available kosher, come pretty close, I'm told, and a particular kind of a smoked, maple syrup-coated and sliced beef made in the States apparently resembles Virginia hams. Those, though, I like with a thick dark beers (e.g., Rickard's Red in Canada)...not that I would rudely refuse them if offered with scotches or whiskies.

25 September 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS Found a leg of chicken from Friday night, which I roasted and basted with my own mix of paprika and garlic sauce and had to test your suggestion empirically. I see now, very atavistic indeed. Surely the Inspector has had the opporunity to observe too, how after sufficient raising of the glass, many items from all food groups begin to taste quite suitable. Must end this now and quickly continue with the clearing of the backyard; can'nt have wife and kiddies discover the nominal head of household sprawled on the floor, bellowing merry songs into the business end of the vacuum cleaner.

25 September 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

Drunk in charge of a hoover ... do be careful.

25 September 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I think the hoover would have been in charge of me had I continued with my experimentation.

Had family arrived early and surprised me, I would have waved my laptop in defence and shown how you, Dodo, with your provocative spelling correction, and the Inspector with his enticing culinary suggestions must take some responsibility for my slackening of discipline and surrender to base temptations. Anyway, all's good now; strong black Colombian coffee and a thick pepper salami sandwich with garlic mayo, strong dijon mustard and salty dill pickles nestled between two slices of fresh rye bread, quickly followed up by a vigorous stint of yard tidying and creative hedge trimming have done much to restore me. Gulping down a large glass of soda water with a pre-empive doze of ibuorofen as I write, then back to the yard while there is still sunlight and motivation.

25 September 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

You sound like you've a touch of hyper activity. Mind you don't get indegestion!

25 September 2011 at 22:22  
Blogger len said...

As the Popes have done all in their power to overturn the reformation (and still doing so,disposing of all that opposed them )is it not just a tad hypocritical for Benedict to pay 'lip service' to Luther.
But there again Catholicism is all about, compromise and assimilation and retaining power by force or stealth.

Those religions which are the creations of man are moving towards ecumenism. Its very much like when the Pharisees tried to crush and destroy the ekklesia when Christ was forming it.

False religions want to assimilate the true church, the Ekklesia ,and by so doing remove any threat to themselves.
The Pharisees were not interested in the reality of who Christ was but only in preserving their own position , their own power, their own wealth.

26 September 2011 at 08:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said 26 September 2011 08:19

Well said, old boy. However it is the age old proverb that a leopard will never change it's spots.
The DEJA-VU of this blog with this issue, ad nausem.

For all that they are decent, well meaning sorts, they are lost in tradition and myth.

Christ founded no such earthly church, NOT ONE and if the Apostles and Acts are anything to go by then Jerusalem is the True Temporal church, is it not?
Why not Antioch, Babylon which had the largest diaspora of Jews in the region outside Israel which Peter visited regularly or just any within Asia Minor.

Ernst, my fine fellow.

'The Pharisees were not interested in the reality of who Christ was but only in preserving their own position , their own power, their own wealth.' An inconvenient truth lost on our tiberian communicants.

26 September 2011 at 11:22  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernst and len

So much wilful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Apostolic Church - Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican.

Do you not apprciate the harm this does to the message of Christ in these times? Or is it you just don't care?

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

Why not be fools for Christ?

26 September 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger Oswin said...

Avi: 20:06 :

I recommend powdered 'English Mustard' mixed in water, with the merest dash of vinegar. A spoonful of that and you won't be needing the Ibuprofen!

Top tip: a light sprinkling of mustard powder in your boots, ensures cosy toes; but over-do it at your peril!

26 September 2011 at 15:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo chirped 26 September 2011 15:06

'So much wilful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Apostolic Church - Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican. 'Surely you jest..see above comments by Ernst and prove yours.

'Do you not apprciate the harm this does to the message of Christ in these times? Or is it you just don't care?' Define this harm that exists if we all fail to agree with Roman Catholicism?

'Why not be fools for Christ?'
Your definition is different from mine, my old wily bird.

E S Blofeld

26 September 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
I cannot imagine anyone truly born again and knowing scripture could remain in the Catholic Church....unless it was to try and save those who remain bound in false religion.

Here is a short excerpt from an article by John MacArthur which I entirely agree with "As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to "another gospel," it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. Meanwhile, evangelicals must not capitulate to the pressures for artificial unity. They cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds" (2 John 11).

This illustrates why there can be no' unity' between Christians and Catholics.I have no personal animosity towards Catholics only the Catholic religious System.

26 September 2011 at 18:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oswin,

Interesting remedy...both the internal and external kind.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers with using...with apologies...a French mustard, but time was of the essence.

I've watched my ex-Londoner father-in-law mix dry mustard right on his plate with his roast beef and learned to like the sharpness, but found it a bit stark. So, whenever I remember, I use up and mix a whole tin of Keen's powdered(kosher, btw), but I use straight sweet rice vinegar (Kikkoman) with no water, a little sweet white wine (Muscat variety), a touch of sunflower oil, a pinch of fresh garlic powder and a good dollop of salt. I find that leaving the mixture in a jar at room temperature for a few days allows for the white wine to ferment a little more and the heat to mellow a tad.

26 September 2011 at 19:40  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Some guy named John MacArthur tells you to oppose Roman Catholicism and you do! Do you accept all his particular 'dogmas' or just this particular one because it suits you? He has quite a mixed bag of beliefs and 'projects' preaching these throughout the world.

Hold on to your own version of Christ's message if you choose but stop twisting Christian history and Roman Catholic theology. I wonder if you actually know what you're talking about when you dismiss the Church as 'religion'.

You constantly makes historical claims quoting no sources or obscure second hand discredited ones and throw in the odd 'authority' such as Mr MacArthur in support of your opinions.

I've resisted the temptation to attack your 'born again', evangelical version of Christianity. To my mind it lacks doctrinal substance and coherence, and is ill-disciplined and disorganised in its beliefs.

Worse still, it is harmful. It offers a simplistic, 'once and for all' understanding of Grace which you either receive and accept or you don't. Job done! This is itself unbiblical and contrary to Christ's words.

26 September 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len

You've heard Dodo, now just behave (these born agains are such a pain, don't you agree Lord)...

26 September 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger God said...

I do agree Mr Inspector General. Oh, how I agree!

26 September 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

Just my long winded way of asking Mr Len to either deliver arguments with substance or to "be quiet"!

Honestly, the nonsense some of these evangelicals come out with just ...... (best not say it).

And their gurus make a very nice personal living out of it too whilst criticising the communal wealth of the Catholic Church.

27 September 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo croaked 26 september 2011 20:51

'To my mind it lacks doctrinal substance and coherence, and is ill-disciplined and disorganised in its beliefs. ' and it tickled old Ernsty..If Len does not mind me responding?

Dear bird, the first thing to realise, to correctly understand church history, is that the word catholic simply means “universal.” This is important because in the early Christian writings of the first and second centuries, when the term catholic is used, it is referring to the “universal church” or “body of Christ” that is made up of “born again” believers from every tribe, tongue and nation (Revelation 5:9; 7:9). However, like many other words over time, the word catholic began to take on new meaning, or came to be used in a new sense (the word Gay for example). Over time, the concept of a “universal” or “catholic” church began to evolve into the concept that all churches formed together one church, not just spiritually, but also visibly, extending throughout the world. This misunderstanding of the nature of the visible church (which always has contained both “wheat and tares”) and the invisible church (the body of Christ which is only made up of born again believers) would lead to the concept of a visible Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It is out of this misunderstanding of the nature of the universal church that the Roman Catholic Church evolved.

Of course, the Roman Catholics are not the only ones who try to claim unique authority through apostolic succession or by tracing the roots of their church back to the original apostles. The Eastern Orthodox Church also claims apostolic succession, although their claim is very similar to the Roman Catholic view. The split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism did not occur until the “Great Schism” in A.D. 1054. There are also some Protestant denominations or groups that will try to establish a “Trail of Blood” that can be traced back through the centuries to the first century church and the apostles themselves. While these Protestants do not hold to apostolic succession in order to establish the authority of a “Pope” as an infallible leader, they still look to that connection to the early church in at least some small degree to establish the authority of their doctrines and practices.
It is important for Christians to realize that direct apostolic succession is not necessary in order for a church or denomination to have authority. God has given and preserved the supreme authority for all matters of faith and practice in His Holy Word, the Bible. Therefore, an individual church’s or denomination’s authority today does not come through some tie to the first century church and the apostles. Instead, it comes only and directly from the written Word of God. A church or denomination’s teachings are authoritative and binding on Christians only if they represent the true meaning and clear teaching of Scripture.

cont'd

27 September 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger Oswin said...

Avi: do you get proper 'horseradish' up your way?

27 September 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

1-“Sola Scriptura,” or Scripture Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that the Bible alone is the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. Scripture and Scripture alone is the standard by which all teachings and doctrines of the church must be measured. As Martin Luther so eloquently stated when asked to recant on his teachings, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."
2—“Sola Gratia,” Salvation by Grace Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is by God’s grace alone and that we are rescued from His wrath by His grace alone. God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary, but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. This grace is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.
3—“Sola Fide,” Salvation by Faith Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. It is by faith in Christ that His righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.
4—“Solus Christus,” In Christ Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is found in Christ alone and that His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to God the Father. The gospel has not been preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared, and if faith in Christ and His work is not solicited.
5—“Soli Deo Gloria, For the Glory of God Alone: This affirms the Biblical doctrine that salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God for His glory alone. It affirms that as Christians we must glorify Him always, and must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God, and for His glory alone.

These five important and fundamental doctrines are the reason for the Protestant Reformation as you well know. They are at the heart of where the Roman Catholic Church went wrong in its doctrine, and why the Protestant Reformation was necessary to return churches throughout the world to correct doctrine and biblical teaching. Crucially they are just as important today in evaluating a church and its teachings as they were then. In many ways, much of Protestant Christianity needs to be challenged to return to these fundamental doctrines of the faith, much like the reformers challenged the Roman Catholic Church to do in the sixteenth century. Hence why the denominations sleep as Satan is the master anaethetiser.

Happy now?

Ernsty 'born again' Blofeld, my old tiberian fowl.

27 September 2011 at 00:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

John 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN (my emphasis).

So, a person needs to be born again in order to have their sins forgiven and have a relationship with God.

We 'Born Againers' follow Our Lord's commandment. What say you?

Ernst, my old birdie.

27 September 2011 at 00:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oswin,

Horseradish, you ask? Khreyn, as we call it? You mean that under-appreciated substance that gives "zing" to our Friday night Sabbath dinner? A fiery flame that can burn through all the Heavenly spheres? First, there is the taste of the sweet wine or grape juice with the first blessing, then the challah after the washing and then the gefillte fish before the meal itself. And the gefillte fish cannot be had without a dollop of horseradish condiment. In fact, the mild gefillte fish I never liked much anyway is only there to provide a base, even a pretext, for this mysterious root.

And here's where I depart from the customs of many of my weaker brethren, the "oh, not for me, thanks," crowd. I shake my head in sorrow over their lack of zeal, weakness of spirit and stomach, for I am of the manly cohorts of those who cannot be satisfied with the gentle stuff that comes in jars at the supermarket. I cackle with frightful glee as I pound my concoction in a stone mortar, adding fresh, potent root, with a little of beet for colour here, a sprinkle of salt tere, some sugar, perhaps a little wine, some drops of sweet vinegar. And on Passover, there is the maror, made of chunks of fiery, tear-inducing horseradish for the "Hillel sandwich," of the two pieces of matza with the mix of horseradish and apples, reminiscent of the bricks and mortar we made for Pharaoh.

Ah, horseradish, didn't the great Burns compose an address to its virtues? "Fair fa' yer honest, sonsie face, great chieftain o'the tuber-race..." or something like that?

Yes, I rather like horseradish and will eat it at every opportunity I get and with every meal I can work it in with...fish, cold beef, chicken and even straight when no one's looking. Tears flowing, face red and contorted in agony delicious, no man alive dare deny me my dear and precious chrein...at least until the Almighty decides I've had my share of it in this world and my time's up anyway.

27 September 2011 at 04:03  
Blogger len said...

Lets be charitable here!. Supposing Catholicism or 'organised religion' as we can call it to avoid offending peoples sensibilities,supposing 'organised religion'(which has existed since Christ`s time)had started in good faith but has become a lot like 'Chinese whispers'.In Chinese whispers we always return to the' original person' to hear what they originally said.Then fall about laughing as we realise each person has put a different interpretation on what they have misheard as the original statement.
We can return to the' original statement 'of Gods plan for the redemption of Mankind through the atoning death of Jesus Christ and the 'new man', the New Creation through the resurrection by reading God`s original statement and intention, through His Word the Bible.
The Bible ,Gods Word, only came into the Hands of Man through the persistence, the courage , and the many Martyrs who saw the inestimable value of having Gods Word in the hands of man to act as a 'yardstick 'to measure the Truth of God, and all that falls short(or goes beyond,just as dangerous) of the Word is NOT of God.

27 September 2011 at 07:47  
Blogger len said...

The 'Organised Religion Church' is very much like a condemned building. A' condemned poster' was stuck on the building but no -one inside the building took any notice of the poster saying " this is a good building, the foundations are as solid as when that guy what`s his name,laid the foundations".And they continue ignoring any one who pleads with them to " Come out of the building".The Builder from Nazareth said if you laid a false foundation your building would eventually fall but those inside the building claimed it must have been the Builder from Nazareth who laid the foundations their' father'who laid the plans had told them so and he wouldn`t lie would he? he told them he was just like God and couldn`t lie because like God he was perfect too.
But they ignore all requests and those outside the building looked on in amazement and incredulity.

27 September 2011 at 08:04  
Blogger Oswin said...

Avi: you're truly a civilised man! :o)

27 September 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernest

Thank you for your detailed account of the doctrines of Protestantism. I do agree the Reformation was a response to abuses within the Church at the time but cannot accept the five principles you put forward. Indeed Luther himself admitted adding the word "alone" to scripture and sought to justify this.

Neither do I accept your notion of "born again" - the correct translation being "born from above". I understand these two references by John as being directed at the Jewish belief that being a descendant of Abraham was sufficient. Christ spoke a great deal about His Way and how His followers should behave in their daily journey. I do not believe He meant conversion was a once in a lifetime, transforming event that guarenteed salvation.

27 September 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

'I understand these two references by John as being directed at the Jewish belief that being a descendant of Abraham was sufficient.' These are not references by John but the direct words of Christ Himself to Nicodemus

In Adam all died as he was a direct son of god by creation He had no father, he was created...not born unlike others and eve was taken from him), we are his progeny. Our dilemna is that we are all eternally seperated by that spiritual death however;

Corinthians 15 21-22
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

'I do not believe He meant conversion was a once in a lifetime, transforming event that guarenteed salvation.' We are unable to save ourselves as all our deeds are as filthy rags before the Throne of God.
It appears then that you confuse salvation with devotion/christian life or regeneration and reward.

You asked "'Do you not apprciate the harm this does to the message of Christ in these times? Or is it you just don't care?'"
We have two different messages/gospels therefore..You say you can work at salvation 'a bit of Christ + good works + saints + mary + confessional + daily communion wafer + purgatory+ + + +, We say In Christ Alone all our hopes and eternal destiny is founded and it is a sure rock to place your faith upon, there is nothing you can bring to the party but yourself on bended knee in eternal gratitude.

"Christ spoke a great deal about His Way" errmm

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am THE way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
His is the ONLY way and must be followed, we are not allowed to find our own way!

Why you are Roman Catholic and we are otherwise!

Ernst, my fine old Raphus cucullatus

27 September 2011 at 22:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernst

Dear chap I and all Christians surely fully accept John14:6?

I sincerely wish you would not misrepresent Roman Catholicism and caricature as a perversion of Christ's message.

There is only one Gospel and we share more in common than you suggest. Really,it seems to me, the basic difference seems to come down to our differences on formal, organised, authoritative Church structures and teachings with a priesthood and a system of sacraments.

To Catholics, that's the way God intended it. To Protestants, God didn't plan it that way. Each of 'us' can throw scriptural texts around.

Ps
Of course, Catholics are correct!

27 September 2011 at 23:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo chirped 27 September 2011 23:25

"There is only one Gospel and we share more in common than you suggest. Really,it seems to me, the basic difference seems to come down to our differences on formal, organised, authoritative Church structures and teachings with a priesthood and a system of sacraments." Ahh, the detail!

"Ps
Of course, Catholics are correct!"


res ipsa loquitur, does it not, on pain of separation?

;-0

Ernst, you naughty bird. Nighty Night

28 September 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Being born is it a one time event or would you expect birth to be a life long experience?.
Your logic would give women some concern!.
In salvation our spirit is born again a one time experience....Our Soul(Mind Body Emotions )is BEING saved...Our Body WILL be saved.

But...all this is bought about by the initial' Born Again 'experience in the Spirit.This is what starts the experience ,without the initial experience you are trying to do what only God can do which is to transform your own Spirit ...which is impossible no matter how many 'good works ' you perform.If all you have is religion then you are merely a sinner trying to be 'good'or to put it more bluntly trying to be God.

28 September 2011 at 08:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernesty

The truth does speak for itself ...

28 September 2011 at 12:30  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Obviously there is a lot of disagreement about authority in the Church and while there is, as usual complaints about the dogmatism of the Catholic Church there is also a lot of dogmatic statements by those who repudiate Catholicism. For example, ESBT says “God has given and preserved the supreme authority for all matters of faith and practice in His Holy Word, the Bible”. Yes we have the Bible but on whose authority do you say it is the only and supreme authority. It is just a statement and ignores Matthew 16 which says:
“19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Clearly the words of Christ (as written 2000 years ago by Catholics) do not imply that the written word is the ONLY authority. You really have to read the book you claim to believe in. Here is another dogmatic statement: Authority “comes only and directly from the written Word of God”. How can the word written 2000 years ago be direct? You got it from the Catholic Church and Luther inserted the word “sola” on his own authority. Luther may well say that he has to be “convinced by Scripture and plain reason” but if he is at liberty to insert his own words on his own authority he is merely making up his own religion by modifying scripture to fit in with his desire for ‘assurance’.
Len says “Gods Word, only came into the Hands of Man through the persistence, the courage , and the many Martyrs”. They were all Catholic Len.
Len said the “'Organised Religion Church' is very much like a condemned building”. Did you read that from the Bible? By what authority do you declare such a statement. It’s just your opinion with no evidence. All the Catholics on this blog have already accepted that there were abuses in the Church which needed to be corrected. The Church itself recognized this and reformed. And what about the Jewish Church – surely the arguments you apply to Catholicism today must also be applied to them. Has God rejected them because they are part of an organized religion? The problem is that you look at the Catholic throughout the ages and see sin - nobody disputes that. Why don’t you apply the same argument to your own Church or are you saying you are perfect along with all your congregation? I doubt it – you are a Christian and a sinner like the rest of us. Of course Almighty God is prepared to accept you because of your repentance – you think that only applies to your congregation?
Now if the members of your congregation are sinners, maybe they are better than the rest of us but they are still sinners and St. Paul tells us that they are not worthy by their own goodness. So how is that different from people in the ‘organized churches’? Does your church function without organization? You have a double standard with regard to evidence. You see the splinter in the eye of Catholicism and ignore the splinter in your own eye.

28 September 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernesty and len

Come now, the scripture is very clear. In Matthew 16:17-19, in response to Peter's profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


It's plain enough this is addressed personally and directly to Peter, not to the Apostles as a group.

This scene stands in striking parallelism with John 21 when Christ again singles Peter out and demands a protestation of love and confers leadership. He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone.

In Mathew Christ made Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to act in His place, the Good Shepherd, until He returns.

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep.


As to succession of the primacy of Peter as Bishop of Rome there is a mass of evidence supporting this.

The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes.

In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. He says: "If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger"

He bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit".

At the very start of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had died, a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervened in the affairs of another Church and claimed to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

In the days when the Apostolic teaching was fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

28 September 2011 at 18:09  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes, Taking Matthew 16 and John 21 together the argument is stronger. Thanks Dodo.

28 September 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

You are very welcome. And thank you too for your welcome comments.

It is important to pick up and challenge the misrepresentations of Catholicism.

God Bless

28 September 2011 at 19:17  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes misrepresentation is a problem. It saddens me because I feel there is so much I agree with Len about and I think we should be united in our approach to a hostile world. Len is very knowledgeable and has corrected me in the past and I don't have any problem with that. We should be friends but there seems to be within Protestantism a small element that will oppose Catholicism through thick and thin regardless of any other considerations.

28 September 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

Just remember Len actually believes Catholicism is a satanic system of religion based on pagan foundations. He will not shift from that position.

He also has a notion that Roman Catholicism is the 'Whore of Babylon' and is somehow involved in a global conspiracy which will culminate in it being the seat of the anti-Christ.

Added to this, he sees contemporary Israel as being the imminent setting for the final showdown between God and satan.

Just research some of the contemporary 'prophets' and 'pastors' he cites as references.

His representation of the message of Christ, sound as it is in parts, has to be understood against this backdrop of broader 'theological' thinking. He is attempting to 'evangelise' Roman Catholics and in so doing, lead them into error.

29 September 2011 at 00:25  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Shacklefree,

Who is the 'rock ' on which the Church is Built?.
Dodo says The Catholic Church (through Peter). I say Christ IS and always was the 'rock'.

Well the good thing is we can go straight to Peter and ask him himself!.
1 Peter 2:4-8
English Standard Version (ESV)

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"and
"A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

29 September 2011 at 18:17  
Blogger len said...

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.

29 September 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, shacklefree ,the evidence is there in Scripture, if you want to disregard it that is entirely up to you.I can only hope and pray that others see this and realise that all Truth is in the Scriptures and can be used to determine the Truth.

I thank His Grace for his patience during these interminable discussions.

29 September 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger len said...

One last(promise ) thought,

At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference! Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" (Matthew 21:42). Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.

29 September 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

There is an air of desparation about your grabbing hold of bits of Scripture. Even worse your attempts to confuse the words of Christ with mistranslations.

In the name of God, it is as plain as the nose on your face.

Matthew 16

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


John 21

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."


Christ Himself, surely well versed in Scripture, written and yet to be written, bestowed on the Church, by His own authority as God, an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone.

In denying this you are denying Christ's authority to establish His Apostolic Church and also denying the protection He promised it against error.

30 September 2011 at 00:24  
Blogger len said...

Read the scriptures Dodo.

If you want to believe that Peter is the rock on which the 'Church'is built then God will let you follow that delusion.I believe he has already do so.

I do not believe yo want to know the truth only to confuse the argument with contentious remarks.
I will follow previous advice and from now on treat you as a 'troll'.

30 September 2011 at 08:07  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, Thank you for your comment about Petros meaning pebble whereas references to Christ translate as rock. This is absolutely in accordance with Catholic teaching. Peter was a weak human who displayed failure even within the pages of the Bible so it is right and proper that he is a mere pebble beside the rock of Christ. However, there is a clear and strong connection between pebble and rock that cannot be found between straw and rock. No-one is suggesting that the Pope is IN ANY WAY the equal of Christ even though lots of Protestants try to make out that is what we believe – it is untrue.

Dodo, Yes there is a determined policy of some Protestants to castigate the Catholic Church as the anti-christ and it would appear to me that they are determined not to listen to anything which challenges that view. I find it strange because it makes Jesus out to be the most incompetent of incompetent prophets. The passages we have quoted earlier at the very least should give reasonable cause to claim that Jesus intended to set up a Church and that this was the Catholic Church. Other arguments about abuses creeping in are relevant criticism but they do not prove that Jesus did not intend to set up a visible Church on Earth.

That said, I think there are questions to be addressed regarding the End Times and the Second Coming of Jesus and the example of the Jewish Church gives us a model. The Bible records that at the time of Jesus, the Jewish people recognized the signs and wonders he produced and welcomed him in to Jerusalem as the Messiah. The Jewish leaders did not and conspired to have him crucified so here we have a faithful people being opposed by a corrupt hierarchy. It is a human story which gets repeated throughout history. Now when we consider the words of Jesus about the End times i.e. a time of great tribulation which will be very short and link this with the prophecy of Daniel about the disastrous abomination set up in the holy place it gives us cause to reflect. I am also struck by the prophesies made by Catherine Emmerich around 1820. She had the stigmata so that gives credibility to her message and she talks about the ‘new and odd looking church’ which men were trying to build with their own hands. She also describes this as BABEL which Christians and Jews understand to mean many languages. The Second Vatican Council got rid of Latin as the language of the Mass so it is an interesting connection. I’m not completely certain about this but I think the new Mass may be the ‘new and odd looking church’ and in the context of all the above and bearing in mind the signs of the current times, I think we may be close to the time of the anti-christ whose time will be short (time, two times and a half as mentioned by St. John in Revelation). If so we may see the disastrous abomination set up in the holy place. This cannot refer to the old Jewish sacrifice which because of the new dispensation would now be blasphemous if re-enacted. That leaves us with the throne of St. Peter. I am of course speculating with no authority beyond my own but I think it at least possible that there will come a short time in the future when anti-christ will sit at the very centre of the Catholic Church. He will of course be destroyed by Christ when he comes again to judge.

30 September 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

As you wish ....

A "troll"? Someone who disagrees with you and the deluded version of Christianity peddled by your own 'pastors'!

30 September 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len said “The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock".

What’s the problem? Peter was a flawed human so a pebble is a good analogy but there is a similarity between pebble and rock whereas there is none between straw and rock and the Catholic Church has always taught Jesus as the cornerstone, the true foundation. Nobody has ever suggested Peter or ANY Pope was the equal of Christ but we are continuing to see your attempt to ignore the clear meaning of scripture while the examples you use do not conflict with Catholic teaching.

30 September 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger len said...

The Two Babylons

or The Papal Worship Proved to be
the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife

By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop
proves to be a good starting point for those who want to know the truth about where Catholicism originated, (can be read online)

30 September 2011 at 23:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Dear God, is this what you base your understanding of the history of Christianity on? Are you being serious?

Hislop's work is religo-fiction. Poorly written, driven by hate of Catholicism and, I would suggest, evidences signs of paranoid delusion.

It's historically inaccurate, full of on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, wildly imaginative and sketchy in knowledge and facts.

In brief - Satan guided Constantine to corrupt Christianity for his own political ends. Only Protestants worship the true Jesus and true God. Catholics worship Babylonian deities. The Jesuits are the evil agents of this entrapment.

'The Two Babylons' claims the Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, this being the product of a millennia old conspiracy. Martin Luther made similar claims.

The book is recognized by scholars as discredited and called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".

The book features prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as 'The Covenant', 'The Sword', and the 'Arm of the Lord'. It is popular among fundamentalist protestant Christians.

Wake up len and free yourself from this crazy delusion! God will forgive insanity, not wilful ignorance.

1 October 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger len said...

The beast is a politico/religious system...... and the Woman?.

The woman is a church or rather a religious system.
Dave Hunt describes this'Woman 'in his book 'The Woman Rides the Beast'.
In his well-documented book, A Woman Rides the Beast (pp. 243-244), author Dave Hunt describes what the "woman" did for hundreds of years during the Middle Ages:

Thus Roman Catholicism became "the most persecuting faith the world has ever seen… [commanding] the throne to impose the Christian [Catholic] religion on all its subjects. Innocent III murdered far more Christians in one afternoon… than any Roman emperor did in his entire reign." Will Durant writes candidly: "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure.

Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast.

So when John saw this "woman" or apostate church "drunk with the BLOOD of the saints," he was certainly not exaggerating. Even scores of Catholic writers have been mightily embarrassed about what their church practiced for hundreds of years. For with the vast record of priests sodomizing young men, of many popes openly maintaining mistresses and fathering illegitimate children all over Italy, high offices in the church being offered and bought for money—it has seemed to many objective historians that this powerful church was the veritable embodiment of evil in nearly every aspect.

Dave Hunt describes the blasphemous pretentions of the papacy:

'The total submission that Rome requires has been expressed by many popes, but none said it more clearly than Nicholas I (858-67):

It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.' (A Woman Rides the Beast, pp. 153-154).

1 October 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger len said...

(Len continued)

Truly, it is time to WAKE UP!

It is time for all who believe in God to go back and PROVE whether their religious beliefs and practices actually came out of the Bible—or out of "Babylon." For the Creator God tells all who will heed, "'For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.' And I heard another voice from heaven saying, 'COME OUT of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her PLAGUES'" (Revelation 18:3-4).

1 October 2011 at 09:33  
Blogger len said...

For those interested in the validity of their chosen religion perhaps a visit to Moriel Ministries might answer a few pertinent questions that every believer of whatever faith MUST ask themselves as some time or other.

Moriel Ministries, scroll down to 'Five Questions For You'(left hand side)

I am not interested in 'bashing ' anyone`s religion only in discovering the truth.
I also realise that it takes a lot of courage to discard errors that one has accepted as 'truth' especially when one has been threatened with losing ones life or one`s salvation if one departs from the 'faith'.

But the ultimate (for me) is to have the truth and I hope it is for those who read this.
Blessed are those who have the truth about Jesus Christ and escape from the snares of false religion.

1 October 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Nobody disputes the evils in the past of Christianity. However, as I've repeatedly said, Christ was aware of what lay ahead and promised the Apostolic Church would not sucumb to Satan.

You recommend yet another false apostle, another masquerading as an apostle of Christ. And there are so many - all disgreeing and falling out amongst themselves and chasing vain glory with clever theories and smart ideas.

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
(2 Tim 4:2-4).

1 October 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, This is getting immensely interesting. You and Dodo are more knowledgeable than I am regarding the history of the Church and the writings of different authors. I’ll try and read Hislop’s book but in the meantime I hope you don’t mind me putting my little bit in. First of all you should read “Defending Constantine” by Peter J Leithart who is a Lutheran. The book is well written and well researched and his conclusions are exactly the opposite of yours regarding Constantine.

You mention Chapter 18 of Revelation “Babylon the Great has fallen” but look a little further down and it says “Another voice spoke from heaven; I heard it say, 'Come out, my people, away from her, so that you do not share in her crimes.” Later still it says “11 'There will be weeping and distress over her among all the traders of the earth when no one is left to buy their cargoes of goods” and again “All the captains and seafaring men, sailors and all those who make a living from the sea kept a safe distance, 18 watching the smoke as she burned, and crying out, 'Has there ever been a city as great as this!

It is not difficult to connect this with the great financial city which has recently almost collapsed and brought the financial stability of the whole world close to ruin. It talks about a city not about a Church so yours is an interpretation on the words.

In addition look at Chapter 12 of Revelation “the Woman adorned with the sun”. This is clearly our lady and we can connect this particular prophecy with the miracle of Fatima in 1917 where the sun was seen to dance about the sky by 70,000 people. Now it is interesting that the Greek translation of the word ‘adorned’ is “throw it all about”. This is what happened to the Sun on October 13th 1917. Furthermore, the Children of Fatima prophesied that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world and that came true but it is interesting that in Chapter 12 of Revelation after the woman adorned with the sun there is the appearance of the beast which some people including myself suspect may refer to communism/freemasonry. I hope you are not a freemason Len because it , like communism is opposed to the Church of Christ.

In brief Babylon the Great is more easily explained by the stock market than by the Catholic Church and in the modern day the miracle of Fatima and the stigmata of Padre Pio give very compelling modern evidence that Almighty God is telling us that the Catholic Church is the one true faith.

1 October 2011 at 18:19  
Blogger len said...

Glad you mentioned 'sound doctrine' because that is the WHOLE POINT I am trying to establish.
In contrast to the ever changing beliefs of Catholicism, the Bible teaches that it already contains everything pertaining to life and godliness. "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue" (II Peter 1:3). As such, the Bible is able to equip a man for every good work he must do. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). Since it is complete, no man is allowed to alter the revealed word of God. "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-10).

2 October 2011 at 08:53  
Blogger len said...

As I mentioned before, the departure of the Catholic Church from the teachings in the Bible leaves a large number of differences. Apologists for Catholicism do not attempt explain away those differences. Instead, they will argue for the right of the Catholic Church to modify the doctrine of Christ to suit their purpose. It does not matter to them that they are not practicing the religion found in the Scriptures because they believe they have evolved Christianity into a new and better religion. And since change is accepted by the Catholic Church, you find continual disagreement over a wide variety of issues. Today there are Catholics calling for the acceptance of abortion, priest marrying, and women being allowed to enter the priesthood. When these issues are eventually accepted, others will take their place and the departure from the truth will continue.

2 October 2011 at 08:55  
Blogger len said...

The religious World is literally 'awash 'with deception and false doctrine.If you think you cannot be deceived then you probably already have been!.
How then can we determine Truth?
Through God`s Word the Bible! that is the WHOLE POINT of having the Bible in the first place!.Many people were Martyred for putting the Word of God into the hands of the general Public.
People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

2 October 2011 at 09:32  
Blogger len said...

(In anticipation of the standard Catholic response on the 'acceptability of traditions'to Scripture)

The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as 'Tradition 'that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.

(And if you position a man,who claims to be a' mediator',a bridge, between God and man ,who has the 'ability 'to change God`s Word when he desires and claims that he is 'infallible 'and has a divine right to change whatever he sees fit then we have lost the True Gospel and have replaced it with' another gospel'. )

Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that Gnostic teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.

2 October 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

You evidently know a great deal more than me concerning scripture and Revelation in particular. It's not a book I dwell on.

You also demonstrate an awareness of the events at Fatima where Our Lady revealed great prophetic warnings about the future if her warnings were not heeded about God vengence.

len

I'm going to ignore the nonsense you present about church history and, frankly, would advise others not to waste their time reading the authors you commend. Each of them is contradicted by another prostestant or evangelical writer in any case.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
(John 10)

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

(John 21)

2 October 2011 at 14:31  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, I think we need to focus on your contention about “… the ever changing beliefs of Catholicism” and that “the Bible teaches that it already contains everything pertaining to life and godliness. "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue" (II Peter 1:3).
First of all Dodo and other Catholics on this blog have freely admitted that the Catholic Church has made mistakes because it was and is administered by weak humans. This is not something limited to the Catholic Church but applicable to all human institutions. First of all it is Protestantism (not including ‘right wind evangelicals’) which has legalized divorce, artificial contraception, allowed women ministers, ordained openly homosexual priests and bishops and has not disciplined those who teach a different doctrine etc. It is not legitimate to apply criticisms in a partisan way to only one body when all are guilty. This is what I meant earlier when I mentioned misrepresentation.
Secondly where does the Bible teach that it contains EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness? Your statement above does not say that. Also remember that this statement was made by Peter the first Pope. It seems strange that you would use this argument bearing in mind the passage Dodo quoted saying “Feed my sheep”. Your quotation and his support the authority of the Papacy in doctrinal matters but note that this does not imply the Pope is perfect. Even the pages of the Bible tell us that Peter was less perfect than other apostles such as St. John. In Matthew 16 Jesus does not give authority to Peter because he was perfect but because he had truly articulated that Jesus was “the Christ, the son of the living God”. Dodo and myself are very willing to accept your criticism of particular popes or particular practices but let us consider if there is a precedent for this.
Clearly the Old Testament gives us a very pertinent comparison. All the criticisms you level at Catholicism and more could be laid against the Old Testament Church which Jesus condemned but he still insisted the people had to follow what they teach because they occupy the chair of Moses. Now when we come to the time of Jesus it is clear that Jesus did everything within the confines of Judaism. He criticised the chief priest and scribes and Pharisees but he did not call for the breaking of religious unity. In addition there were many signs and wonders associated with the life of Jesus and his followers including Peter. We don’t see the same thing with Martin Luther, John Calvin or Henry VIII and we see no prophesies about the Protestant Reformation. What we see is a prophecy in Daniel about a kingdom (of Christ) which will never end and Christ’s promise to be with his Church until the end of time. St. Stephen challenged Judaism to its face and was killed because of it but Martin Luther chose the protection of a wealthy benefactor and supported the brutality of the nobles against the Peasant’s Revolt. Clearly Luther knew which side his bread was buttered on. Similarly Calvin did not follow the path of Stephen but both Peter and Paul did along with hundreds of other Catholics.
Consider too that after the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, the Jews made up numerous regulations to define faithfulness more precisely. Were they guilty of “ever changing doctrine” and if so why did Jesus still insist that the Jewish people had to follow what the leaders taught?
Why is your criticism so one sided?

7 October 2011 at 18:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older