Thursday, October 13, 2011

Cameron bites off more than he can chew


When he took office last year, David Cameron made it clear that the overriding policy priorities of the Coalition would be to reduce the deficit and pay down the nation’s debt. The priority reforms would be in health, welfare and education: anything else would be a peripheral distraction. So it beggars belief that, just a year into government, he is intent on fomenting one of the most seismic Church-State spats in decades. Perhaps it is a measure of the corrupting influence of power, or the sense of delusional omnipotence which appears to afflict some of our politicians who appear to believe that the British Constitution is of no greater significance than Hello magazing, and theirs to do with as they wish.

Just before the last General Election David Cameron said unequivocally that he didn’t want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop of Canterbury over ‘gay’ matters. Well, he’s heading straight for one. Or even two.

We are aware of his intention to redefine marriage to include the union of same-sex couples (to which His Grace will return). Not content with that, however, it has been announced that he intends to seek amendment of the Act of Settlement – not only on primogeniture, but also on the prohibition upon the Monarch to be married to a Roman Catholic. Bizarrely, the Daily Mail reports that he had not been in favour of gender equality because ‘the government's focus should be on more pressing matters such as the economic issues facing the country'. Quite. Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed this just a few months ago. Yet here we are, a Conservative Prime Minister, about to throw the switch which will open up the most convoluted can of worms imaginable, and take up literally hundreds of hours of parliamentary time. The Guardian reports:
Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic. This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote.
How on earth does this dog's breakfast of a proposal rectify the ‘historical anomaly’? If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

That aside, the Church of England has already made it clear that it is not in favour of any amendment to the Act of Settlement. And what are we to make of this bizarre proposal:
The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.
So, if the Heir to the Throne is brought up in the Roman Catholic faith (as the Royal Family would be ‘entitled’ to do), when the Monarch dies, the Heir would be forced, in the midst of profound grief, to choose immediately between Rome or the Throne of the United Kingdom. That’ll go down well, won’t it? ‘The Prince of Wales puts temporal power before God’, leads The Telegraph; ‘Prince abdicates and bows to the Pope’, cries The Times; ‘UK gets anti-Papist Prince’, splutters the Catholic Herald; ‘The Audacity of Pope’, spouts the Mail. The Heir would be damned if he (or she) did, and damned if he (or she) didn’t.

But that personal inconvenience aside...

Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William’s heir is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he (or she) so desire: that it is his (or her) human right. But the Heir is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But to be King or Queen is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

It is difficult to view ‘historic injustices’ through the lens of the present. As His Grace has previously observed, this is a realm about which the Prime Minister knows very little. The Protestant Christian faith is woven into the fabric of this nation’s life; it secured its liberties and forged its identity. The Constitution is a fragile work of many delicate threads, and the tampering with one – and the Act of Settlement is a very crucial one – risks producing many loose ends and the eventual unravelling of the entire work.

Our forebears made the Protestant Constitution so watertight as to be virtually impossible to undo; indeed, one clause declares that the terms of the Settlement are ‘for ever’. Amendment or repeal of this Act would demand the consequent repeal of nine further Acts, including the Bill of Rights (1688), the Coronation Oaths Act (1688), the Crown in Parliament Act (1689), the Act of Union (1707), and the Royal Marriages Act (1772). On top of this, fifteen Commonwealth countries of which the British Monarch is also Head of State would also have to enact similar legislation, committing them to months of legislative scrutiny on the implications of repeal for their own constitutions. Even with minimal opposition (and this should not be taken for granted), the parliamentary time involved over the entire British Commonwealth would be colossal. In the UK alone it has been estimated that it could dominate an entire parliamentary year – around a quarter of a government’s legislative programme.

Why is David Cameron trying to chew and swallow that which both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown dared not even bite? Why is he intent on suspending the Coalition’s manifesto commitments on such pressing issues as the economy, education, welfare, defence and health, while they navel-gaze for a whole year on what is considered an issue of such microscopic unimportance to 99% of the British people?

118 Comments:

Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

It therefore looks a given that the burger Cameron is seen munching on is the one feared by John Selwyn Gummer and other tories all those years ago and boy did he find it.

The one containing mad cow disease!

Maybe it's because he is sitting on the 'Cathedra' that Blair and Brown were seated on in Number 10 and it's a Succession and Grand Madness sort of thing as Ernst is debating Roman Catholics about here currently? *Source of immense amusement and an exercise in folly to Ernst*

Ernst 'The 'Sedes' Denier' Blofeld

13 October 2011 08:04  
Blogger Simon said...

If Cameron agrees that the government should not change "the ban on monarchs themselves being Roman Catholic because the British monarch is also head of the Church of England" (BBC), then could he please extend that ban to anyone who is not Anglican? The fact that it is only Roman Catholics who are excluded from reigning, not members of any other religion, really is a 'historical anomaly'.

13 October 2011 08:37  
Blogger Di said...

Hmmmmm, "Constitution is a fragile work of many delicate threads, and the tampering with one – and the Act of Settlement is a very crucial one – risks producing many loose ends and the eventual unravelling of the entire work".

Maybe this is Cameron's ultimate aim, for the pleasing of his masters in Brussels who seek to abolish all nation states?

13 October 2011 08:45  
Blogger Npinkpanther said...

Not to mention, as an Australian, the fact that bringing this debate up may see some of the Commonwealth Realms such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand opting to ditch the monarchy altogether rather than consider changes to the succession laws with Britain. Admittedly support for a republic in Australia is currently at the lowest it's been in almost 25 years but this could easily change if the republicans conduct a good campaign. Since 1999 they've been denied a proper opportunity to seriously raise the republic question again, but this could be the opportunity they've been waiting for. Won't we be grateful to David Cameron, then, when he was the one responsible for giving the republicans that opportunity.

13 October 2011 08:48  
Blogger C.Law said...

While I do think that the whole question of the position of the Church of England in the Monarchy and the Houses of Parliament is of a fundamental nature, I concur with YG that now is not the time to be proposing amending legislation.

Apart from the very practical reasons raised by YG, no proposals for legislation should be made until there has been thorough formal consultation with the citizens (and, given the importance of the matter this consultation should not be hasty)and, hopefully, a consensus arrived at.

There are very valid arguments to be made both for retaining or dispensing with the monarchy, for retaining or changing the restrictions on the Monarch's religion and for retaining or dispensing with the position of the C of E in the governmental structure. However, the system as it is functions well enough to make the idea of changing it without a very significant measure of agreement within the nation (and those Commonwealth countries still having the Monarch as their head of state) and without being very sure of the ramifications of such change very perilous. Given all of the urgent and vital matters facing the nation now, this is not an appropriate time for such an undertaking.

As an indication of the difficulties involved we only have to look at the efforts to change Australia into a republic. The failure of these efforts to date seems to be down to the sensible view of the Australian public that they should not change the system until they can be happy with the proposed replacement.

The relatively straightforward question of whether the succession should be open to the eldest child rather than the eldest son is not an urgent matter either, in view of the current line of succession, unless it is considered that Prince Charles would not be suitable to ascend the throne, in which case Princess Anne in next in chronological order, but excluded by her two younger brothers under the current system.

I am aware that there is a view that Prince Charles is not suitable to be the head of the C of E because of his divorce, though not of how widespread in the corridors of power such a view may be. Is there an agenda here? Is this the reason for haste?

13 October 2011 08:51  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

More to the point ...
I agree with your grace, but for different reasons.
All this is largely an irrelevant distraction.

There are much more important things, being neglected by Camoron.

I no particular order (perhaps)
The failure of our defences
The creeping sleaze and corporatism (c.f. Fox)
The growing necessity for an at least partial if not complete withdrawl from the EU
Being able to feed ourseleves
Having an education system that works .....

13 October 2011 09:10  
Blogger Gareth said...

There are two extremely simple solutions to this total and utter mess, which are as follows:

1) Abolish the monarchy
2) Disestablish the Church of England.

Either suits me...

13 October 2011 09:52  
Blogger DaveR said...

I'm guessing he's bringing these things up because of the lack of headway with economic issues, and so needs a distraction. Though why he's picking these particular distractions seems peculiar - does the Notting Hill set really think these weigh heavily on the public mind?

13 October 2011 09:56  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

As the article in Spiked pointed out, The political class are so disconnected from the people now that tiny focus groups and Lobbyists are the only sources of policy ideas. The evidence of this disconnect is there for all to see if one watches the highly staged Party conferences where most of the audiences are the Media or Lobbyists and their ilk.

The fact that the major concerns of most people are not even addressed, things like the state of the economy, creeping inflation, continued mass immigration and most of all the corrupt EU shows us just how unimportant we the electorate really are.

Gay Marriage is pandering to such a small and insignificant minority that Heaven knows how it became such a large Political issue (well we do really, it's the unrealistic influence of lobby groups like Stonewall)

As YG points out re the Royal succession, is now really the time for this kind of nonsense when we are all on the brink of a financial and social catastrophe?

13 October 2011 10:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, you sum the situation up in an important sentence, 'the British Constitution is of no greater significance than Hello magazing, and theirs to do with as they wish.'

Sadly, the British Constitution is the bauble of the PM of the day. Its fatal weakness is that he/she who commands a majority in the House of Commons can do unthinkable things like devolve Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not England, emasculate or abolish the House of Lords, all without a referendum that may allow the good sense of the British people to curb the folly of their elected leaders.

The sheer complexity of what Dave proposes would just about guarantee defeat in a referendum, which of course means that there will not be a referendum. It is extremely unlikely that the federally constituted Commonwealth nations such as Canada and Australia could agree with Dave's proposals without referenda.

Your communicant confidently predicts that Dave is about to do to the Monarchy what Blair did with devolution. In other words, the weakness of the British Constitution will allow Dave's gimcrack proposals to apply to the UK, but Canada and Australia will stay with the 'Old' Monarchy. After all, it is unlikely that Australia, New Zealand or Canada would wish to become vassal states of the EU, which may be a consequence of Dave's proposal.

Good one, Dave.

13 October 2011 10:38  
Blogger Hereward said...

Maturecheese@10:18
Is now really the time for this kind of nonsense when we are all on the brink of a financial and social catastrophe?

It certainly isn't.

Deckchairs and the Titanic come to mind.

13 October 2011 10:43  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Is it not rather silly for a monarch with no theological training to be the head of the Anglican communion and to have a spiritual authority above that of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

13 October 2011 11:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Shacklefree tickled Ernst@13 October 2011 11:00

"Is it not rather silly for a monarch with no theological training to be the head of the Anglican communion and to have a spiritual authority above that of the Archbishop of Canterbury?"

Not any more siller than an Emperor of Rome, Constantine, with no theological training and only had a death bed conversion (well, you need to hedge your bets at times like that, do you not), to be the head of the Roman Catholic communion and to have a spiritual authority above that of the Holy see?

Who would believe it, eh?

Hey, hang on a mo, one is a constitutional Monarch who is a committed believer of the CofE, the other was by Divine Right Of Rome and all encompassing!

*Chuckles, Chortles and much cackling*

Ernst 'you are bad' Blofeld

13 October 2011 12:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ultimately, the CofE really needs to be disassociated with the State but now seems a rather poor time. Perhaps he could set people to work looking for a sensible way to unravel it all to present to Parliament at a later date? He could perhaps go further and look at the impact of pulling out of the EU, setting up a free trade mechanism in place of it, and breaking ties with Scotland while he's there. Might as well sort out a whole bundle of power, structure, and sovereignty issues at the same time.

13 October 2011 13:18  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Oh, come on guys. The Church Of England was only created to allow Henry VIII to take care of business with Anne Boleyn. It has no real theological or philosophical basis and it's far past time it came home to where it belongs - Rome. So knock this nonsense of 'Supreme Head' of the Church into touch. That title belongs (on this side of the veil at any rate) to the Pope. Leave the UK monarch to reign over the UK.

13 October 2011 13:50  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Maybe I'm a cynic but could Cameron's decision to try to please Catholics not be for the same reason that Blair chose to delay his religious conversion until after he left office. Votes dear boy. It is well known that by and large the Catholic vote is a Labour vote and what better way to woo that section of the electorate than to change the constitution in their favour. Blair knew that he had the Catholic vote in his pocket and did not want to upset Protestants by changing his faith until it no longer mattered.

13 October 2011 13:50  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

It is unfair that the Pope has to be a Catholic? Bollocks - he is head of the Catholic Church. Just as Williams should have to be protestant.

The Monarch however, if head of State for the WHOLE of the UK citizens, should NEVER be a head of any religious cult.

Therefore it IS discriminatory in this modern world for a specific group of citizens to be excluded from that office, or other high office, by virtue of their religion.

The sooner the CofE is disestablished the sooner the centuries old protestant bigotries can be consigned to the history books where they are long overdue.

13 October 2011 13:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Not any more siller than an Emperor of Rome, Constantine, with no theological training and only had a death bed conversion (well, you need to hedge your bets at times like that, do you not), to be the head of the Roman Catholic communion and to have a spiritual authority above that of the Holy see?

What is your historical basis for making such a claim?

13 October 2011 14:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer

If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

Absolutely, it makes no sense.

The Protestant Christian faith is woven into the fabric of this nation’s life;

Even if true, that is no reason to keep it that way. Catholicism was woven into the fabric of the nation's life for almost twice the time that England "has been" Protestant. But that didn't stop England changing.

it secured its liberties

Tell that to St John Fisher or St Thomas More, or St John Southworth etc.

and forged its identity.

As did Catholicism. But if the identity of this country is Protestant what place do non Protestants have? If on the other hand, you stress the "forged" part of the sentence, Protestantism is not central to the nation's identity, and so there is no need for the Monarch to be a Protestant.

13 October 2011 14:20  
Blogger Toby said...

I'm a Catholic and I am not remotely bothered about the Act of Settlement. As Cranmer states and as Nicholas Windsor did, if you want to be a Catholic don't expect to be in a position which makes you in line or the spouse of somebody who is going to Head of the Church of England.

In return for giving up this right, I would, however, like to be allowed to reopen Catholic adoption agencies and put paid to the myth that marriage is no more than an acknowledgement of the love of two people (regardless of sex) for one another, but rather is the bedrock of family life and the institution in which children are to be raised and as such the union of two men and two women will never be equivalent to it.

13 October 2011 14:41  
Blogger DerekS said...

Should the Royal Family be entitled to bring up their children in the Catholic faith this is likely to happen in short order as the flummery of that denomination fits well with that surrounding a palace. As YG points out, the bar on the monarch being Catholic will not then be sustainable if seen to be discriminatory.

The monarch should not be subservient to any human power, including spiritual authority, outside the realm of the United Kingdom. This should be written in law. By this means, as papal infallibility is an RC doctrine, which it was not at the time of the Act of Settlement, it should be possible to effectively debar the monarch from being a Catholic without specifying that religion by name. This is because adherence to that religion necessarily entails an acknowledgement of the ultimate spiritual authority of the Pope in matters of faith.

The monarch and the monarch's family are perceived to be bound by constraints that others do not have and for that reason retain privilege despite opposition of some. If those constraints are lifted their peculiar position will be challenged by many who currently accept it. The loyalties of the Royal Family influence the emotional loyalties of those subjects who look up to them for a lead. If those loyalties change so may those of many of their most devoted subjects, but others among them would turn to republicanism.

13 October 2011 14:47  
Blogger Oswin said...

For once I find myself in complete agreement with G.Tingey!

Yes, this is a distraction, a deliberate distraction in my opinion, to camouflage his ineptitude and to avert attention elsewhere. Or else, because he is unable to do anything about real issues, he chooses to meddle for the sake of doing something, anything.

Cameron is just NOT up to the job. Even under more stable circumstances, I would doubt his ability to lead the country.

13 October 2011 14:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert wondered who Constantine The Great was?

Albert vaguely challenged with "What is your historical basis for making such a claim?"

Ernst answers therefore "Which part of the claim do you disagree with and how do you intend to go off subject with it?"

Constantine would retain the title of Pontifex Maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (reign . 375–83).
Constantine seems to have felt himself divinely prompted to handle situations beyond the power of the bishops, gradually becoming involved in all the Church's affairs, sending for declarations to attend councils etc.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Some bishops, blinded by the splendor of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in the heavens.”

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop after the last Caesar to hold that title Emperor Gratian conferred it upon Pope Damascus.

It is not formally included in the Pope's official titles, but does appear on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

Hey, what does Ernst know?

Ernst 'must we really do history again' Blofeld

13 October 2011 15:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Your claim was that Constantine was the head of the Roman Catholic communion and to have a spiritual authority above that of the Holy see.

I cannot see that you have provided any evidence to support that claim. It makes no difference what Constantine took it upon himself to do, or indeed what some bishops lauded him as. You might as well say that as Henry VIII took it upon himself to be Head of the Church of England, and that as some bishops lauded him as such, it is Roman Catholic doctrine that he was.

13 October 2011 15:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Derek,

The monarch should not be subservient to any human power, including spiritual authority, outside the realm of the United Kingdom.

What of the authority of God?

13 October 2011 15:37  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Statute of Westminster 1931

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents

13 October 2011 17:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Expect this unwelcome proposal to be quietly dropped. Can’t see our beloved monarch going along with it and the Inspector has little doubt that she will make her feelings known. If he still persists after the royal wigging, he’ll wake up one day soon and find he’s no longer prime minister. The Inspector understands this is the way it happens. All done very hush hush, don’t you know…

Alternatively, the Queen can just dismiss Cameron, which she has the power to do as head of state. Not a power to be used lightly of course; best wielded to a avert a constitutional crisis - an attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement, for example.

13 October 2011 18:23  
Blogger DerekS said...

Albert responds to my assertion that "the monarch should not be subservient to any human power, including spiritual authority, outside the realm of the United Kingdom" by asking "What of the authority of God?"

Even if God became human He's not now. (I feel I might be corrected on that). Anyway, He is believed to be within us all, even in the UK.

13 October 2011 18:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Derek,

(I feel I might be corrected on that)

Indeed!

Anyway, He is believed to be within us all, even in the UK

But He may have put us, in some way, under the authority of someone not inside the realm of the UK.

When the apostles were alive, if they converted kings, would not those kings have been under the authority of the apostles?

When the faith returned to England in the time of St Augustine, would not English kings have been, in some sense under foreign authority - namely of the Pope?

It's seems to me then, that your principle, if applied, consistently, counts not just against Catholicism, but actually prevents any Christian monarch. If it is not applied consistently, then it just seems to be an instrument to discriminate against some British people in favour of others.

13 October 2011 18:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

I agree with the central thrust of your blog. One minor point, the Pope is not the 'King of the Vatican'. Nowadays, the preferred title tends to be 'Servant of the Servants'. The term 'King' is a rather loaded title in a Christian context, being reserved exclusively for Christ.

(Yes len, I know, I know, one of the Papal titles is
'Pontifex Maximus' and he is 'crowned with a tiara).

Now, what happens if these changes go ahead and the Monarch is homosexual and s/he 'marries' his or her 'partner', and they then 'adopt' a child? Would this person be able to act as the Governor of the Church of England? And, what if their adopted child became a Budhist? Could s/he ascend the throne?

It seems to me the only logical way forward is to leave things be or to disestablish the Church of England.

13 October 2011 18:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Albert

"When the apostles were alive, if they converted kings, would not those kings have been under the authority of the apostles?

Interesting point about the line between spiritual and temporal authority.

Who annoints and crowns the Monarch of England. To whom is the Coronation oath made? Who marries Kings and Queens? Who baptises their children as christians? And the tile 'Defender of the Faith' means what?

Ernsty

Must be so annoying to have the ground cut from beneath your tethering feet?

Historical 'fact' and 'spin' so hard to distinguish when one is intent on making propaganda rather than sharing truth.

len

Do you think Cameron is a Jesuit agent just like Blair before him?

13 October 2011 19:12  
Blogger hellosnackbar said...

It's my view that religion of any kind has no place in modern society;in particular the unspeakable dogma of
political correctness.
It's also my view that serious issues like immigration,cu
tural equivalence and the undemocratoc EU should be the subject of a national referendum.
We should take a leaf out of the Swiss common sense book.

13 October 2011 19:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Now, what happens if these changes go ahead and the Monarch is homosexual and s/he 'marries' his or her 'partner', and they then 'adopt' a child? Would this person be able to act as the Governor of the Church of England?

Excellent point. What Cranmer and others need to recognise is that once a society has ceased to be Christian, establishment harms the Church. It is a mill-stone the true Church can do without and would want to do without.

13 October 2011 19:51  
Blogger DerekS said...

Albert posts "But He may have put us, in some way, under the authority of someone not inside the realm of the UK. When the apostles were alive, if they converted kings, would not those kings have been under the authority of the apostles? When the faith returned to England in the time of St Augustine, would not English kings have been, in some sense under foreign authority - namely of the Pope?".

The Roman aristocracy who provided the early Popes found ways of convincing people a Pope is the successor to the apostles and so inherited their spiritual authority, along incidentally with the temporal authority of Constantine. But an achievement of the Reformation was to challenge that. I do not want to be subject to a ruler who has accepted such claims. That isn't to deny that a ruler could be rightly persuaded of the wisdom of a foreign potentate or leader and be influenced by that person.

13 October 2011 20:41  
Blogger len said...

Cameron`s proposal is indeed a 'dogs breakfast....much like Catholic theology...not much to look at and like to give severe discomfort if consumed.

Tony Blair (a Closet Catholic)eventually came out and he likes Catholicism so much he want all faiths to join in with him and Catholicism is so liberal all faiths can come into it bringing their own particular' gods' with them.

The irony of it, you couldn`t make it up!.

13 October 2011 21:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len the loon squeaked ...

Catholicism is so liberal

Now that's a first!

The only Church to consistently oppose artificial birth control, in vitro fertilisation, abortion, homosexuality and divorce.

If this is 'liberal' imagine what a 'conservative' Church would be like!

13 October 2011 22:11  
Blogger peter_dtm said...

oops
The Monarchy is the gift of the People NOT of Parliament.

Nor may Parliament touch the Bill of Rights (read to see why not). Although Parliament seems to think it can ignore it.

The Bill of Rights is one of the few things binding on all Parliaments. The sooner some one challenges the many breaches (starting with the 1911 Parliament Act through to the illegal accession to the EU constitution) the better.

13 October 2011 23:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

A minor response. You said:

the Pope is not the 'King of the Vatican'.

Papal Titles:

His Holiness The Pope;

Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ

Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles

Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church

Patriarch Of The West

Servant Of The Servants Of God

Primate Of Italy

Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province

Sovereign Of Vatican City State


You prefer 'sovereign' to 'king', then? Is there some significant difference in your mind?

carl

14 October 2011 00:14  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Carl

Because, as I've said, the title 'King', in a Christian context, is reserved for Christ alone - the King of Kings.

The Pope is Christ's representative on earth and is the Head of the Christian Church. He is, in fact, the Sovereign leader of the independent Vatican State but I've always understood this to be a secular title.

You missed one of his titles - 'Papa'.

14 October 2011 00:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, the only thing great about Cameron is his brainless tittishness. Which explains the bizarre political intentions that take up the rest of your post.

14 October 2011 02:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

What's the difference between a Sovereign and a King? Your assertion strikes me as being similar the latria/dulia distinction upon which also hangs a meaningless differentiation. As in "Oh, no Moses! We weren't offering latria to that golden calf. We were only offering dulia."


carl

14 October 2011 03:29  
Blogger len said...

I see the Dodo is still in denial.

Foolish bird.No wonder he got stuffed!.

The Pope is NOT the representative of anything one Earth other than those duped by Catholicism.

I have no doubt that the Pope thinks he IS God on Earth because those who deceive others end up being deceived themselves.

14 October 2011 08:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo blurted something such as"(Yes len, I know, I know, one of the Papal titles is
'Pontifex Maximus' and he is 'crowned with a tiara)." (Does that make him a queen rather than a King?) making foolish presumption that Ernst is Len and Len is Ernst.

The silly bird believes others are like him, speaking under various incarnations via blogger. Lame!

Loved this "You missed one of his titles - 'Papa'" How about 'His Popeyness' and 'Capo di Tutti Capi' (Typically the title is awarded de facto to the boss of the most powerful Mafia ...Ooooh, very interesting) also, perhaps?. You can never have too many to put against your moniker, can you?
It's an Italian/Roman thing, old bird... et hoc genus omne!

"Must be so annoying to have the ground cut from beneath your tethering feet?"
Only you could claim such nonsense after a fellow communicant of your persuasion, goes off subject or 'contra principia negantem non est disputandum', better known as Debate is fruitless when you don't agree on common rules, facts, presuppositions. The facts are in historical records and clues are in his titles. Emperors were stated demigods, or so they believed!

"I see the Dodo is still in denial." Indeed Len, Indeed!

Ernst my fallacious foolish fowl!

14 October 2011 10:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert and Dodo between them spouting such rubbish

"Albert

"When the apostles were alive, if they converted kings, would not those kings have been under the authority of the apostles? (1)

Interesting point about the line between spiritual and temporal authority.(2)

Who annoints and crowns the Monarch of England. To whom is the Coronation oath made? Who marries Kings and Queens? Who baptises their children as christians? And the tile 'Defender of the Faith' means what?" (3)

(1) answered
Err, NO. Simply because they were the least as Christ had asked them to be, in the body of believers and never lorded or submitted ANYBODY under their jurisdiction. They established the Faith, corrected the churches when lapsing into error and encouraged them to move forward in Christ. Many sincere Christian Churchs/fellowships cut off the moving of God's Spirit because there is an attempt to mix elements of civil authority with spiritual authority, as you have shown.
In other words, any mixture of civil and spiritual authority causes the Church to be out of God's divine order so things cannot flow properly. God gave the apostles their full function of work to accomplish in His Body, but this does not make them "President/Prime Minister" type leaders on the top of a hierarchical chain of command in a pyramid-like structure of descending authority. A true apostolic call has nothing to do with controlling people. When it is true spiritual authority then it will be recognized by those who are mature. But, when it is carried out in a demeaning and dictatorial manner, then it is just a person trying to assert their own authority, WHICH THEY NEVER DID.
If the authority of Apostles succeeded (as you claim) and the successors lived lives closer to Satan that Jesus, then surely those Kings have been freed from any authority supposedly implied given to those successors as they are NOT APOSTLES, are they!

Jesus clearly tells his apostles, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them, YET IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU, but whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant." (Matt. 20:25-26, and Luke 24:30). Jesus condemns the whole idea of using civil authority hierarchy methods for exercising spiritual authority in the Kingdom of God. As God's real purpose for authority becomes known, we will begin to see a restoration of true spiritual authority as well as dominion authority (instead of the civil authority). Jesus will bring a proper union of both of these pure types of authorities as described in Zechariah 6:13. Only in Christ can there be a proper balance of both civil and spiritual authority.
(2) answered
The doctrine of the Nicolaitans is something Jesus says that He hates (Revelation 2:6,15). In the Greek language, Nicolaitan means "conquer" (Nikao) "the people" (laos). This false doctrine attempts to divide the body of Christ into some form of a clergy/laity system. It is a false spiritual authority that usurps the headship of Christ. It will effectively cut off God's giftings by cutting off and dividing God's people. It dismembers parts of God's Body by not allowing the giftings that God gives to each body member to function. But a correct understanding of how spiritual authority works apart from civil authority will help to expose this false authority which has been masquerading as truth since the third century. GUESS WHO?

(3) You Numpty You..Beneath contempt to answer as pure unadulterated rubbish. Have you no shame of intellect and is your rejoicing in embarrassment a nest on a twig, to perch yourself on, chirping away gaily ?

Ernst 'you could not make these nonsense's up' Blofeld

14 October 2011 11:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo gave the clue to what he missed within his statement, as Ernst shows!

"Because, as I've said, the title 'King', in a Christian context, is reserved for Christ alone - the King of Kings." Of WHO lad is He King?

Bless that blindness of yours, please read

1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
8 His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?”
9 Some claimed that he was. Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”
But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”
10 “How then were your eyes opened?” they asked.
11 He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”
12 “Where is this man?” they asked him. “I don’t know,” he said.

It appears Bird you are blind and need sight given and the other analogy that is obvious to Ernst is the last sentence which applies to you. Go seek Him!

Ernst 'always eagerly wanting to help others' Blofeld

14 October 2011 12:42  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Reading what you write is like being in the middle of a Lewis Caroll novel.

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Dodo. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said Ernsty. 'Both I and Len are mad and are here.'"

14 October 2011 14:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Err, NO. Simply because they were the least as Christ had asked them to be, in the body of believers and never lorded or submitted ANYBODY under their jurisdiction.

Temporal jurisdiction perhaps. But that is not at issue here, for Catholicism does not put us under the temporal jurisdiction of the Pope. Rather we are under his spiritual or ecclesial jurisdiction. Do you deny that the apostles held such jurisdiction over the Church? If they did, then it follows that an English monarch would have been under the jurisdiction of the apostles. And as such, Derek's point the monarch should not be subservient to any human power, including spiritual authority, outside the realm of the United Kingdom would prevent a Christian monarch in apostolic times. As I take it, that is wrong, so it follows the proposition is wrong.

14 October 2011 14:19  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Ernst, my fine fellow, you have generated a few guffaws and chortles on this side with your comparison of Constantine and the Pope. A better comparison would be with Henry but even that is not particularly good because Henry chopped off the heads of those who disagreed with him (even the ones who said nothing) and hunted out priests who were merely trying to give the sacraments to those who wanted them whereas Constantine allowed complete freedom of religious belief and although he did convene the Nicene Council he did not interfere with the deliberations but deferred to those with spiritual authority.
Now it is true that the Queen does not interfere with the deliberations of the Anglican communion so she appears to take her cue from Constantine rather than Henry and that is as it should be although it would have been nice if she had vetoed the slaughter of the unborn or the ordination of active and openly homosexual bishops or the creation of Human/animal hybrids for the purpose of scientific experimentation. She is by her position constrained to have no opinion on anything but must simply sign whenever she is instructed to do so. Clearly she has no authority in any sphere – influence perhaps but authority no. Don’t you think the law should recognize the reality?

14 October 2011 15:01  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len has no doubt the Pope THINKS he is God on Earth. Protestant children in N. Ireland are brought up to believe the Pope THINKS he is the equal of Jesus Christ – my son got is straight from the horses’ mouth on a school trip there some years ago. There is so much invention within Protestantism about what Catholicism teaches and they get all these ideas from other Protestants. They like listening to their Chinese whispers. Interesting that you don’t get that sort of invention the other way round.

14 October 2011 15:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Derek,

The Roman aristocracy who provided the early Popes

Can you defend that? I think lots of the early popes were neither Roman nor aristocrats.

found ways of convincing people a Pope is the successor to the apostles and so inherited their spiritual authority

Again, it seems to me that there were plenty of non-Roman Christians making the connection for them.

along incidentally with the temporal authority of Constantine

The temporal power of the Papacy comes much later than Constantine - in the time of the Franks.

I do not want to be subject to a ruler who has accepted such claims

Which claims? Temporal or spiritual? If temporal I will say that the Pope claims no temporal power over anyone outside of the Vatican, if spiritual then why especially should the Queen be under English spiritual power (e.g. of General Synod). After all, as Shacklefree has pointed out, the Queen has signed much anti-Christian legislation (e.g. abortion) precisely because she is under the spiritual authority of the CofE.

14 October 2011 15:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I have no doubt that the Pope thinks he IS God on Earth because those who deceive others end up being deceived themselves

A very interesting statement, considering the Pope obviously doesn't think he is God on earth (indeed, he proclaims that he is not).

14 October 2011 15:34  
Blogger Anglican said...

None of our party leaders - Blair, Cameron, etc. seems to have the slightest understanding of our history or of the Christian faith they claim to have. They are the hollow men with no understanding, just a steady determination to follow the fashionable views and prejudices of the day.

14 October 2011 17:58  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
Not quite sure how you arrive at your statement(15:34) seems to be at odds with what the Popes claim.
Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man."
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions (infernorum)."
Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)

Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is
"the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205

Albert, this is a minute example of claims various Popes have made(there are many, many more)These Popes claim not be a representative but actually God on Earth, the language cannot be misunderstood so I presume you have never read any of the statements otherwise you would not have made your statement at 15:34.

14 October 2011 20:19  
Blogger Albert said...

What are your sources, Len? Because it looks like a case of those who deceive others end up being deceived themselves

I'm not going to go through the whole list. Let me take this example:

"the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man."

Just think about it. Is it really likely that a Pope would say that? It rests his authority on Constantine, whereas the Pope claims his authority from Christ.

What the actual quotation is:

"Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none."

Moreover, since the Church limits God to three persons of the Trinity and says that only they are God, it follows the Pope cannot be God.

"the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;"

The word "vicegerent" does not appear anywhere in "Roman Catholic Canon Law", but even if it did, this passage far from making the Pope God shows he isn't. A vicegerent" is deputy!

14 October 2011 20:45  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Been scouring the internet again? Providing "quotes", with citations, taken radically out of context and with completely invented additions.

Let's look at an example:

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
(Pope Pius V)

What was actually written by Pope St. Pius V's in 1570:

"Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power."

The phrase is about God, not about the pope

1) God is the the one that reigns on high.

2) "To whom is given all power in heaven and earth" refers to Jesus.

3) "has committed" [the Church]

4) "to one alone upon earth" Peter's successor, the Pope.

Catholics have never believed that the Pope is God. To say so is a damnable lie.

14 October 2011 22:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

There appears to be such a precedent for this sort of thing?

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who after ruling only three years, went to the oasis of Tayma and devoted himself to the worship of the moon god, Sin. He made Belshazzar vice-regent in 553 BC, leaving him in charge of Babylon's defense.(Hmmm, Very Interesting)

In 540 BC, Nabonidus returned from Tayma, hoping to defend his kingdom from the Persians who were planning to advance on Babylon. Belshazzar was positioned in the city of Babylon to hold the capital, while Nabonidus marched his troops north to meet Cyrus. On October 10, 539 BC, Nabonidus surrendered and fled from Cyrus.(Left the Kingdom to the vice - regent) Two days later the Persian armies overthrew the city of Babylon.
From the Nabonidus Cylinders that in line with the statement that Nabonidus "entrusted the kingship" to Belshazzar in his absence, there is evidence that Belshazzar's name was used with his father's in oath formulas, that he was able to pass edicts, lease farmlands, and receive the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods (Wow, sound familiar??).

From http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/innIII-policies.asp..A Jesuit University (Ernst goes direct to the source), we learn from
"Papal Authority: Letter to the prefect Acerbius and the nobles of Tuscany, 1198,
Just as the founder of the universe established two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, so too He set two great dignities in the firmament of the universal church..., the greater on to rule the day, that is, souls, and the lesser to rule the night, that is, bodies. These dignities are the papal authority and the royal power. Now just as the moon derives its light from the sun and is indeed lower than it in quantity and quality, in position and in power, so too the royal power derives the splendor of its dignity from the pontifical authority" Sounds like they think they are sort of a 'king of kings'??
Len is correct that Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (promulgated on June 20, 1894), declared that the pope holds “upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Well, it's only an Encyclical, isn't it, so what?

Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

—Humani Generis

It appears the pope has spoken, albert and Dod, old fellas, are you listening and believing or are you heretical?

Ernst 'bringing IT direct from the Pope's Mouth' Blofeld

Dodo said 'hand on heart, cross it hope to die'!"Catholics have never believed that the Pope is God. To say so is a damnable lie."
Unfortunately POPES DO! Are you higher than a pope, have you got petrine succession, coursing through your veins, have you been elected by a group of cardinals and white smoke floating up from your nest.
Know thy place, Fowl plebian, in the Authority proclaimed as the one true holy mother church? or else you are off to Georgetown University Hospital for a likkle stay in the Ignatius ward!

14 October 2011 23:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

I repeat:

Catholics have never believed that the Pope is God. To say so is a damnable lie.

Cite one valid, reputable example where any Pope has ever claimed to be God.

14 October 2011 23:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

"Cite one valid, reputable example where any Pope has ever claimed to be God."
Do you even search the comments attached to be read through?
Are you blind as well as stupid, look above at Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae declaration (promulgated on June 20, 1894).
In 1895, The Encyclical was severely criticized by Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VII of Constantinople, the person he was trying to woo. LOL.

The call for unity was re-asserted by the Second Vatican Council's Unitatis Redintegratio, although the latter statement articulates a different kind of ecclesiology that is more in line with the Council's spirit of cooperation with fellow Christians (Did Pope Leo say he was god on earth, you are misquoting his direct language *that sort of denial given in christian love and unity*?).

Praeclara was cited in the encyclical Orientales Omnes Ecclesias of Pope Pius XII on the topic of Eastern Catholic Churches.

Leo XIII has also been criticized by Protestants for having declared in the encyclical, as Ernst has stated from Jesuit sources, that "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty".

You can read latin, can you not, if English is too difficult or mysterious for you! Ernst has even put a link for you to read the document and such other encyclicals on the jesuit university web site if you can be bothered!

The Roman Church holds that the pope, as the vicar of Christ on earth is the ruler of the world, supreme not only over the Roman Church itself but over all kings, presidents, and civil rulers, indeed over all peoples and nations. The fact is that on numerous occasions the popes have exercised that authority in countries where the Roman Church was strong. They have excommunicated and deposed kings and governors, and, as in the cases of Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Emperor Henry IV of Germany, they have attempted to arouse rebellions by releasing subjects from any allegiance to their rulers.
The pope can therefore demand such submissions from his own people, and indeed from all people insofar as he is able to make it effective, which is due only to God.
Sometimes that submission takes a particularly servile form, where even the cardinals, the next highest ranking officials in the Roman Church, prostrating themselves before him and kiss his feet! (Dont remember any of that happening in the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles, do you?. They actually REJECTED being worshipped, and they had power to SHOW they were endowed by Jesus Christ and The Father, through the Holy Spirit! Outrageous).
The popes have gone so far in assuming the place of God that they even insist on being called by His names, e.g., “the Holy Father,” “His Holiness,” etc. Such titles applied to a mere man are, of course, blasphemous and unchristian/unbiblical. We cannot but wonder what goes through the mind of a pope when people thus reverence him, carrying him on their shoulders, kissing his hands and feet, hailing him as the “Holy Father,” and performing acts of worship before him.

By such means this so‑called "vicar of Christ" accepts the position of ruler of the world which the Devil offered to Christ, but which Christ spurned with the command, “Get thee hence, Satan!”

Have you all no shame?. Obviously not!

Ernst 'whistling in the wind ?' Blofeld

14 October 2011 23:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

You clearly cannot understand plain English.

No Pope has ever claimed to be God.

You are deliberately misquoting from sources and wilfully confusing spiritual authority with temporal power.

The examples cited by len have been shown to be lies.

The 'examples' you give are a wilful misrepresentaion of statements and doctrines pertaining to the Pope's spiritual position as the Head of Christ's Church on earth, His appointed deputy and vicar, with all the authority that entails. This is Catholic doctrine and is fully supported in scripture.

Is your position so weak that you have to spread damnable lies?

15 October 2011 00:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Given your apparent loathing for titles such as "His Holiness" for the Pope, why do you address the host of the blog as "Your Grace"?

15 October 2011 00:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo made ernst giggle with his lack of IRONY!

"Reading what you write is like being in the middle of a Lewis Caroll novel.

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Dodo. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said Ernsty. 'Both I and Len are mad and are here.'"

In order to get dry after a swim, the Dodo proposes that everyone run a Caucus race — where the participants run in patterns of any shape, starting and leaving off whenever they like, so that everyone wins. (Bit like your commenting here?) At the end of the race, Alice distributes comfits from her pocket to all as prizes. However this leaves no prize for herself. The Dodo inquires what else she has in her pocket. As she has only a thimble, the Dodo requests it from her and then awards it to Alice as her prize.(Huzzah, Kind Dodo!) Pf, pf, pf, pf...

Ernst Blofeld

"Given your apparent loathing for titles such as "His Holiness" for the Pope, why do you address the host of the blog as "Your Grace"

His Grace or Her Grace is a style used for various high ranking personages as Archbishop of Canterbury was...Oh hang on. You don't really believe this is, well, him, do you. Am I not on a blog where the owner writes in the style of some who was.. .well, you know, him.
Is Ernst mistaken and been necromancing with the long dead?.

How much were them indulgences lad and could you get Ernst a nice deal from benny, as you are in the know, as it were? *chortling madly* Bless you, you poor strange bird!
Slighting Rome and ruffling their feathers, so to speak, does bring strange reactions, does it not.

15 October 2011 00:35  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Such acrimony between followers of Christ.

First, I suggest you do some research into these quotes before publishing them. Some of them have been taken out of context, or are inaccurately quoted, or complete fabrications.

It would be far too lengthy an to address each and every quote. Each has a different context. Some of the quotes may be from infallible statements. Some may not. Some of the quotes may be accurate. Some of them may not.

Second, we have to be very careful about taking our own 21st century usage of language and applying it retroactively to other times and other cultures. This is why context is so important. You have to look at the quotation in terms of the entire document or statement in order to understand what is being put forward.

To speak generally, what it all comes down to is that the pope has been entrusted by God to a very special office. Any authority the pope has comes from God, but he does have authority. He acts as God's representative, but he is not God. And the only reason that Catholics believe this is because that's what Jesus himself said.

15 October 2011 00:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Indulgences, to be effective, require acknowledgement and repentance of sin. And they only reduce time in pergatory, they are ineffective in avoiding hell.

Sorry to disappoint.

15 October 2011 00:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo j'accuse Ernst

"You are deliberately misquoting from sources and wilfully confusing spiritual authority with temporal power." Ernst NEVER Lies or wilfully confuses anyone.

Ernst has even given a web link to documents so all can read and comprehend, thereby making up their own minds if they concur with Ernst. How could I be fairer as I am not quoting solely from a book in my library that others may not own.

However Nil Admirari or 'to be surprised by nothing' is how Ernst views your accusations at him, my naughty fowl.

Ernst the forgiving Blofeld

"To speak generally, what it all comes down to is that the pope has been entrusted by God to a very special office. Any authority the pope has comes from God, but he does have authority. He acts as God's representative, but he is not God. And the only reason that Catholics believe this is because that's what Jesus himself said."

Oh well, when you say it like that and show such unequivocal evidence, not even needing 'any direct quotes from Scripture' laid out before Ernst, what was he thinking, the mad fool. *Ernst is mocking you*
Having searched your catechism, Bulls, Encyclicals and viewed the plain blind adherence and loyalty to fables, fabrication and fallacies promulgated by Rome and it's successionists Ernst sums it all up with 'legi, intellexi, condemnavi'

Ernst 'magister dixit or the teacher has said it 'Blofeld

15 October 2011 00:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the eager salesman

"Indulgences, to be effective, require acknowledgement and repentance of sin. And they only reduce time in pergatory, they are ineffective in avoiding hell.

Sorry to disappoint."

Just coz I popped me head through the doorway was not an intention to come in and buy, merely looking in the glass front at all the strangle magical items you have on display.

If Ernst was interested he might have purchased a piece of the cross that our Lord was crucified on. It appears you chaps have enough to rebuild the Ark of Noah from what you have in the back!

A mighty miracle indeed. It appears Rome can do likewise and in super abundance of what the apostles could perform!

Ernst 'sorry just looking' Blofeld

15 October 2011 01:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

Off to bed now lad, getting old and need to rebuild my son's pc tomorrow, bright and early.
You are more relentless than a Double Glazing company.

Look forward to hearing any sale pitches tomorrow or you can just pop a quote through the letterbox.

Nighty Night strange bird

Ernst 'Horlicks in hand' Blofeld, come on tiddles.

15 October 2011 01:14  
Blogger len said...

Is it possible(I ask myself)for Catholics to follow the Muslim practice and practice a a Catholic version of 'Taqiyya'.

Of course once you have accepted Catholicism (joined the club so to speak)you are not allowed to speak the truth about the Scriptures.So where Catholic practices do not line up with Scripture and these practices are promoted as 'truth'then obviously a deliberate attempt is being made to deceive.

So the answer to my question(above) is "yes".

So I ask again "Does the Pope consider himself to be God on Earth?.
Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

Many years ago, Cardinal Manning said: "The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the Kingdom of the Son of God."
Cardinal Newman acknowledged: "If not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist."

BELOW IS A BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE POPE

[2] "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:2-4)

15 October 2011 08:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len quoted ...

"Cardinal Newman acknowledged: "If not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist."

Finally an authentic quote from a reliable source. You would do well to read Blessed Newman's sermons.

Newman here is referring to the necessity of a priestly order that teaches with authority and administers the sacraments of salvation.

He goes on to say:

"If her clergy be priests, if they can forgive sins, and bring the Son of God upon her altars, it is obvious they cannot, considered as such, be in the hold of the State. If they were not Priests, the sooner they were put under a minister of public instruction, and the Episcopate abolished, the better."

He rejects wholeheartedly both a self-appointed priesthood not proceeding directly through the apostolic succession and the priesthood whereby religion and its ministers have become an appendage of the state, as in the Anglican Church.

Christ is the only Ruler and Priest in His Church, dispensing gifts, and has appointed none to supersede Him. Christ's priests have no priesthood but His. They are merely his shadows and organs, they are his outward signs; and what they do, He does; when they baptize, he is baptizing; when they bless, He is blessing. He is in all acts of His Church, and one of its acts is not more truly His act than another, for all are His.

"There is under the Gospel but one proper priest, Prophet, and King, Altar, Sacrifice, and House of God. Unity is its characteristic sacrament; all grace flows from one Head, and all life circulates in the members of one Body, and what is true of priests and sacrifices, is true of righteous and holy men. It is their very privilege thus to be taken into Christ, to exist in Christ, as already in their mortal life they 'have their being' in God."

The priest, according to Newman, in participating in Christ's priesthood, acts as an instrument in communicating his Redemption i.e. above all, the forgiveness of sin.

For Newman the priesthood is seen as so precious an ordinance as a channel of grace and he asked whether it would be committed by Providence to the custody of certain guardians.

Some believe that nothing more is necessary for salvation than faith in God's promise of mercy; whereas it is certain from Scripture, that the gift of reconciliation is not conveyed to individuals except through the Church.

Neman believed that Christ interposed something between Himself and the soul; a Sacramental order and a ministry intended to take charge of those Sacraments. The facts of the case suggest such an interpretation of our Lord's memorable words when He committed to St. Peter "the keys" of the Kingdom of Heaven.

15 October 2011 10:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Speaking of the Catholic priesthood, Newman said:

" ... they had been, as a body, the salt of the earth and the light of the world, through the power of divine grace, and that thus, in spite of the frailty of human nature, they had fulfilled the blessed purposes of their institution."

15 October 2011 10:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo using vatican circular reason but ignoring the presuppostion presented!

""Cardinal Newman acknowledged: "If not divinely appointed, it is doctrinally the essence of antichrist."

QED. = sequitur = It follows!

If first supposition is invalid, the other by reason, must apply. simples.
He is merely giving his own stance, of which is based on Roman Catholic dogma/dogs dinner.

"Some believe that nothing more is necessary for salvation than faith in God's promise of mercy; whereas it is certain from Scripture, that the gift of reconciliation is not conveyed to individuals except through the Church. " Shown fallacious by Ernst and others, not of Romish persuasion, from scripture 'ad infinitum et ad nausem'.

Quoting the catechism, canon law, bulls or encyclicals is no more authorative than mormons quoting from the book of MORONi. *Ernst chuckling at the kindred spirits*

Ernst 'do try harder lad' Blofeld

ps

He was a disgruntled servant of CofE who swim elsewhere across the Tiber, finding his spiritual home.
Len was merely pointing out the lack of doubt in Newman's mind and the obvious conclusion you must arrive at, to reaching his own fallacious conclusion!

15 October 2011 11:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

So now you're the spokesperson for len.

Here's some reading for you:

Primacy of Peter

Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter's name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
"Peter and his companions" Lk 9:32Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter's name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

Apostolic Succession

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord's
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God's messenger
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets...
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles, ...
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas' apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

No doubt you will have a little file on your computer somewhere with 'stock in trade' responses gleaned from trawling the internet.

15 October 2011 11:29  
Blogger len said...

Blimey the rock thing again!.

If your foundations are faulty ALL that follows is faulty!.

You Dodo are a testimony to those who WILL NOT see the truth.

15 October 2011 11:32  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
You can keep repeating error until Kingdom Come(probably literally)but it will NEVER make it Truth.

Until you grasp that fact you will continue going round in circles, excuse me if I don`t join you in your folly.

15 October 2011 11:36  
Blogger Albert said...

This is getting beyond parody. We have been accused of having Constantine as Head of the Catholic Church and of believing the Pope is God on earth.

No serious evidence has been brought to demonstrate either claim, except those which are either bogus or do not say what that the Pope is God on earth or that Constantine was Head of the Catholic Church.

But let's have a look at the following passage:

So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.

Does this identify St Paul as God?

Or this:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."


Is Jesus there claiming that the Pharisees are Moses? Or here:

He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

Is Jesus saying missionaries are Jesus and God?

`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Do you think Jesus means us to understand that he is the poor man one helps?

One more passage springs to mind:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Because at the moment it looks like you hate Catholicism more than you love God's word and commands.

It's a good job I was a Protestant once, because if you two were the only Protestants I knew, I would have to say Protestants seem decidedly lacking somewhere.

If your foundations are faulty ALL that follows is faulty!.

Assertions do not get us anywhere, do they? Suppose I say: "Protestant foundations are faulty, therefore all that follows is faulty" (apart form the fact that I may have committed the genetic fallacy), it's just an assertion. It does not make it true.

15 October 2011 11:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of the Dodo said 15 October 2011 11:29 & Albert 15 October 2011 11:42

Dodo accused Ernst of having stock answers that he trots out, irrespective of specific comments that need addressing..Ernst goes off subject as some wily tactic; "No doubt you will have a little file on your computer somewhere with 'stock in trade' responses gleaned from trawling the internet."

Albert accused others who are non Roman Catholic regarding ;"Assertions do not get us anywhere, do they? Suppose I say: "Protestant foundations are faulty, therefore all that follows is faulty" (apart form the fact that I may have committed the genetic fallacy), it's just an assertion. It does not make it true."

Ernst has just got in and having a laced flaming coffee and cigarillo (Ram Rod) but will address all your points shortly and NOT FROM STOCK ANSWERS Ernst has gleaned elsewhere and lays out willy nilly. You insult Ernst's intellect and balanced reasoning!
Specific charges require specific answers and have them you will.

Ernst 'here we go again' Blofeld

15 October 2011 19:42  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: After several days of scrolling past this sick-making picture of our Ruling Idiot, I decided that his natural calling is that of male model. Mannikin Dave, as it were.

He'd have to specialise in something other than food, though.

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

P.S: Mr. Blofeld Somebody must have trained them to "write about what they know." Just as well -- they're blind to anything but their own reflections :)

15 October 2011 22:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo (If His Grace..oops..The Blog Owner will kindly oblige)

So now you're the spokesperson for len. (Ernst speaks only for The Wonderful Saviour he has in Jesus Christ, no one else, Birdie!)

Here's some reading for you:

Primacy of Peter

Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (little stone), and upon this rock( Massive Stone, That Jesus is the Christ, the ONLY true foundation that anything can be built on) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Mt 18:18 - Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heavenand whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Jesus states likewise to other disciples as he has to Peter)
Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren
All of the verse relevant would be nice (And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (All disciples who loved him would be so tasked except Judas , who was a devil..Peter is just about to deny he would deny Jesus...read on, bird! Not good news for the 'especially anointed one' you have as your leader)
Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd (He is NOT made chief shepherd at all and having to tell Jesus times that he loves him is strange is it not, unless of course you refuse to see what Jesus said next to Peter:'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: . . .'Jesus tells Peter he knows what he WAS like, once, when he was young, he did what he wanted when he wanted. He walked and did as he pleased in whatever he wanted to do and in going where he wanted to go.

But something happened to Peter a short time before this statement by Jesus, that was the breaking of his independent spirit. Peter had been slowly changed as he walked with Jesus until he came to the point of saying, "Lord, I would die for you.
Jesus knew that Peter didn't have enough in himself to die for Him, and Jesus said to him, "When I am smitten, you will deny me Peter, and the sheep will be scattered because you don't really have it in you to love me the way I want you to love me."

And a few nights later, as Jesus was being mocked and judged and sentenced and prepared for crucifixion, Peter stood by a fire and did exactly what Jesus said he would do, and the exact opposite of what he himself said he would do. "and Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me THRICE.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. Why Peter had to restate his love For Jesus and be FORGIVEN in words by Jesus 3 times" "Follow me". were Christ's final words to Peter, do you Follow Him, Dodo?"

2 B Cont'd

15 October 2011 22:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter..read on bird and see what Peter thought of this GREAT NEWS
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to (WHO AGAIN) Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them (Who are THEY?) that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they (Who are THEY) had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not (Who believed NOT?).
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue (Who are the residue?): neither believed they them (Who believed NOT).
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven (Who are THEY) as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (RESURRECTED). Seems like the angel's news had fallen onto Peter's deaf side!
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter 12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, WONDERING in himself at that which was come to pass. (Wondering-to think or speculate curiously or doubt as I don't believe it:) The two who saw Jesus were 'And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, the other unnamed'' All we can know for certain in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:4 is that Peter saw the risen Jesus after Jesus had risen and possibly before the other Apostles had seen him. Nothing more, nothing less. Bit like that loosing and binding nonsense pecking order you keep referring to. The point being?
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias (He merely stood up and spoke 15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty, it does not say 'Peter as the head of the Disciples rose up?) Never took part in a meeting before lad?)
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost (4 And they were ALL (Must include ALL other 11 Disciples gathered not just Peter) filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.( Is the interpreter greater than those who proclaim Prophecy. He merely did as Ernst states)
Acts 2:41 - received first converts (41 Then they that gladly received (believed) his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Note APOSTLES plural not singular, birdie! )
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost (Peter was the first person to told by Jesus the devil was in him, the first person to deny Jesus not once but Thrice and to be asked IF he Loved Him 3 times? Foolish argument The church at Antioch was founded first before Rome, is this therefore proof of it's superiority over Rome's claimed supremacy. First's are only applicable when it suits you)
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira (As Above)
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus (As Above)
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church ( To which he was the first one who disagreed with the Gospel to the Gentiles, that he later apologised to St Paul,' that Paul was correct and he ERRED'!)


2 B Cont'd

15 October 2011 22:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem (At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7–11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19–21)

Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision (Pope Pete I)
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle ( *Chuckle* It appears they were all away ion the Lord's business. Obviously James the Lord's brother was A chief apostle also then!
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. )
Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy (St Paul opposed ST PETER to his face! Do read the internet rubbish they put into your gilded cage!!!
Peter's name always heads list of Apostles (He IS an important apostle but he is viewed as important because his failings are treated as symptoms of man’s state of sinfulness or weakness which can be overcome through faith in Jesus.: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
"Peter and his companions" Lk 9:32 (Timothy, Titus, and Silas all appear in the New Testament writings as missionary companions of, and co-workers with, the Apostle Paul. Acts 15:22-18:5, 2 Co 2:13; 7:6,13,14; 8:6,16,23; 12:18; Gal 2:1-3; 2 Tim 4:10, Acts 16-20,and Timothy appears in 9 epistles either as joining in Paul's greetings or as a messenger. SO WHAT? )
Spoke for Apostles (Spoke AS an Apostle)- Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter's name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together ( Oh, when you state it like that is Sooo Obvious. How many times did other disciples deny Christ in public TO HIS FACE..puhleasee)

Apostolic Succession

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord's (Popes are now Levitical High Priests and from the House of Judah? It appears that succession decree goes way back to Jehosophat himself)
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God's messenger ( Hear the word of The Lord, Dodo and his condemnation of said priests
1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment IS FOR YOU.
2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
8 BUT YE ARE DEPARTED OUT OF THE WAY; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
9 Therefore have I also made you CONTEMPTIBLE AND BASE before all the people, according as ye have NOT KEPT MY WAYS, but have been partial in the law. )


2 B Cont'd

15 October 2011 22:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets ( and 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the CHIEF CORNER STONE..Are you listening Cathedra Petri'ites. Ps. note the plurality until we come to Christ and His Singularity)
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets...(note the plurality )
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles (note the plurality ), ...
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office ( Take it you want the full curse of David to God to avenge him dropped on Rome's head. yes? What a numpty you are!
6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. ) On your's and Rome's head be it then!
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas' apostolic ministry (Sheer desperation!)
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons (Which Rome ignores )
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands (*Chuckle* This part does not refer to you!
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, living heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. Above is what refers to your Church, fowl!
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone ( Wish Rome had tried to obey this great commandment during those Inquisition periods, The death count would have been vastly less, my strange bird? WHAT!

2 B Cont'd

15 October 2011 22:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church (You do know this is ST Paul doing the establishing and NOT Peter. The term rendered is ELDER and see this
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18 And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them. )
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers ( The last thing Rome does. You are such a chucklesmith)
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed The term rendered is ELDER and Ernst reminds you that you are still supposedly referring to succession here, lad or are there Popes EVERYWHERE, begads!)

Thanks for allowing Ernst to spend an enjoyable time correcting your confused grasp of scripture, lad.

ps

your Internet quotes from Catholic SOuRCE(RERS) are not very reliable lad, are they! Believe nowt except study!

Ernst 'Forgive me Your Grace but needs...' Blofeld

ps

Time for a quick snorter from Ernst's finest in the decanter and one we go with Albert!

15 October 2011 22:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Blofeld, you can cut and paste along with the best of them !!

15 October 2011 22:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Non Mouse made old Ernsty chuckle with her wit 15 October 2011 22:02

P.S: Mr. Blofeld Somebody must have trained them to "write about what they know." Just as well -- they're blind to anything but their own reflections :)

Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who is the most foolish blind fowl of them all.

To which the mirror replied; You, my bird, are most foolish blind fowl of all and you can prove it by going here http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/.

They really are chucklesmiths of the highest order that frequent this blog, lass but unlike us, are blind to the giggles.

Ernsty

OoIG

Ernst composes then prepares his response in full on Wordpad, then cuts and pastes from it to blog, so that he does not run out of HTML characters. Ernst has lost many fine replies by foolishly believing blogger knew what it was doing and it would be ok.

Ernst is a Master in action and gives a lesson in how to respond to scallywags, lad. Ernst is unique and irreplaceable as Mrs B states under her breath and through griitted teeth!

15 October 2011 22:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert has requested an explanation regarding parody, here goes..

This is getting beyond parody. We have been accused of having Constantine as Head of the Catholic Church and of believing the Pope is God on earth.

No serious evidence has been brought to demonstrate either claim, except those which are either bogus or do not say what that
the Pope is God on earth
or

that Constantine was Head of the Catholic Church.
Constantine legalised 'christianity' and had the POWER to send bishops as he did when he sent Hosius, bishop of Cordova, Spain assess the matter of arianism..
Hosius talks to another Hosius and a young Athanasius and is convinced of their non-Arian thinking. However Constantine still fears civil war and calls a general council of bishops (He had the power to call councils of Bishops INCLUDING ROME)
Bishops all met in hall of imperial palace--all expenses paid by Constantine; May 20--July 25, 325.
Constantine did NOT create Roman Catholicism but was it's First Supreme Head who Rome's bishops were subservient to!
In 380 AD, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the formal decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople. During this time (the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils) there were considered five primary sees according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, known as the Pentarchy.

But let's have a look at the following passage:

So we are ambassadors (an authorized messenger or representative, Ernst assists you with the correct definition). for Christ, God making his appeal through us.

Does this identify St Paul as God? False argument as the terms of reference are not equal and Paul or other apostles never state such apresupposition!. Neither is or can a Pope a God..Why you no risten. HE HIMSELF CLAIMS THE POST MAKES HIM ONE, from his own mouth!. Grandest of Delusions, is it not! Not like he is infallible or something?
"Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae declaration (promulgated on June 20, 1894).
In 1895, The Encyclical was severely criticized by Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VII of Constantinople, the person he was trying to woo. LOL.
The call for unity was re-asserted by the Second Vatican Council's Unitatis Redintegratio, although the latter statement articulates a different kind of ecclesiology that is more in line with the Council's spirit of cooperation with fellow Christians (Did Pope Leo say he was god on earth, you are misquoting his direct language *that sort of denial given in christian love and unity*?).
Praeclara was cited in the encyclical Orientales Omnes Ecclesias of Pope Pius XII on the topic of Eastern Catholic Churches.
Leo XIII has also been criticized by Protestants for having declared in the encyclical, as Ernst has stated from Jesuit sources, that "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty".

2 B Cont'd

16 October 2011 00:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

The discussion is proving fruitless although I acknowledge the time and effort you clearly devote to offering the truth as you have come to believe it.

Some questions:

By who's authority do you definitively interpret scripture?

Would you deny you are influenced in your understanding by protestant theologians and 'historians' who have waged theological and spritual warfare with the Vatican for over 500 years?

My answers, in case you ask:

I place my trust in 2000 years of consistent church teaching on Christ's message and the means of salvation. The authority I rely on is the Apostolic Church whose doctrines depend on scripture, enhanced by natural reason and early Church tradition.

I am a Roman Catholic and accept the infallible doctrines and authoritive teachings of the Church.

16 October 2011 00:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd

Or this:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice."

Is Jesus there claiming that the Pharisees are Moses?
(It is a seat, bit like that Cathedra Petri you chaps go on about. The comparison is not Moses but his Authority as Lawgiver and divider of the Law as given him by Jehovah and of which HE ALSO was obliged by the Law to keep. Ermm by the way, it's about Hypocrisy lad.
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. You do enjoy a false comparison and positively REVEL in one, do you not? )

Or here:

He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

Is Jesus saying missionaries are Jesus and God?

`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Do you think Jesus means us to understand that he is the poor man one helps? *Sheer desperation of language, Is Jesus really a Door, bread, A light, a real shepherd and we are really Ovis aries. Is he really the direct immediate offspring of Adam, David, Abraham simultaneously-

One more passage springs to mind:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (You appear to bring it against this blog, lad and common sense!)

Because at the moment it looks like you hate Catholicism (It is simply RIDDLED with ERRORS but you refuse to hear our complaint and scream bigot!) more than you love God's word and commands. (Like others here, we love the sinner and hate the sin..You are merely lost in sin by your false application of Christ's full saving work. You can add NOTHING to it.
So believe your fallacies and fables should you so wish but please peddle the snakeoil somewhere else, if our refusal to purchase offends.

Ernst the NON CATHOLIC Blofeld

It's a good job I was a Protestant once, because if you two were the only Protestants I knew, I would have to say Protestants seem decidedly lacking somewhere ( Your lacking is the Word of God and the Sons Full Saving Grace towards you, hence your diatribe at us. What a sad pathetic excuse that is you have presented . )

If your foundations are faulty ALL that follows is faulty!.(You sound more like Basil Fawlty with that line of reasoning, think your foundations were dug and cemented by that fine Irish builder, Mr. O'Reilly)

Assertions do not get us anywhere, do they? Suppose I say: "Protestant foundations are faulty, therefore all that follows is faulty" (apart form the fact that I may have committed the genetic fallacy), it's just an assertion. It does not make it true. Your really sound like a Basil Fawlty!

Ernst 'you poor soul you' Blofeld

16 October 2011 00:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Just to illustrate my point:

A fuller quote from 'THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM'., the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII in 1894.

Understand the context, understand the overall message, and you will appreciate the reference is to the responsibility to act as the Good Shephard and leader of Christians as the Vicar, the deputy, of Christ. A commission passed to the Church.

"Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith."


It's a prayer to God the Father for Christian unity and the spreading of Christ's message.

Even pulled out of context, this does say 'we hold instead of or in addition to or as a replacement of God. It is the Pope simply representing our Lord Jesus as His appointed Vicar until His return.

16 October 2011 00:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The discussion is proving fruitless although I acknowledge the time and effort you clearly devote to offering the truth as you have come to believe it.

Some questions:

By who's authority do you definitively interpret scripture? (Ernst prays to the Holy Spirit and asks for His guidance in all things and that Ernst has received an exemplary education at a Grammar School, for which he is eternally grateful. Old Ernst had fine tutors who taught him very well. The clue to understanding is having a brain to understand when Christ/Jehovah is being literal or not in what is stated directly or through The Prophets..Not rocket science, lad, is it! )

Would you deny you are influenced in your understanding by protestant theologians and 'historians' who have waged theological and spritual warfare with the Vatican for over 500 years? Ernst has read all including 'Early Church Fathers' or as so called, Catholic Theologians such as G K Chesterton etc but as soon as they divert from Scripture into unfounded dogma, Ernst is OFF! Ernst disagrees with Classic Protestantism as in Baptism and Replacement and eschatological theology as it is unscriptural! Ernst uses the brain and gifts God gave him to make up his own mind as Ernst must stand before His wonderful Saviour and give an account of himself and WHY!

My answers, in case you ask:

I place my trust in 2000 years of consistent church teaching on Christ's message and the means of salvation. The authority I rely on is the Apostolic Church whose doctrines depend on scripture, enhanced by natural reason and early Church tradition.

I am a Roman Catholic and accept the infallible doctrines and authoritive teachings of the Church.

Ernst accepts this is genuine but as Ernst has stated 'So believe your fallacies and fables should you so wish but please peddle the snakeoil somewhere else, if our refusal to purchase offends.'

You have arrived where you are and must take your chances on Tradition and the ways of men who are so obviously false and wicked, that their lives are an indictment for you to see that is as plain as the nose on Ernst's face but you see Christ instead. Ernst gives no such allegiance to men who are more wicked than Ernst has ever been and Ernst 'repented' of his many cringeworthy failing and sins, your leaders have NEVER. Madness!!!

Ernst,' my poor faithful fowl' Blofeld

16 October 2011 00:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear deluded Dodo

Do you know how enormous and the different subjects addressed by the Encyclical. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

All you have quoted is something from a different part of the encyclical.

If I state all the above you quote but included "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty (Popes as successors of St Peter and having supremacy over others orthodox or otherwise". you would think Ernst insane yet it is somehow agreeable for you to forgive such a statement from a pope and even modify it's simple conclusion, that as He is 'Vicarius Christi' it naturally follows. A Sequitur!

How does all the other words invalidate that statement.

RC's truly are deluded and even make allowances to cover it up. Honestly, it's incredibly sad and heartbreaking!

Ernst

16 October 2011 01:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Your closing comments are just silly!

I follow the teachings of the Church. I do not, nor have I ever, offered worship to men. My allegiance is to Christ and to the doctrines of His Church, not to individual priests, bishops or popes.

Of course mortal, sinful men have occupied postions in the Catholic Church. I'm sure you'd accept there have been many prominant protestant pastors who have sinned. How on earth can you know whether or not particular men repented? Who are we to judge others?

16 October 2011 01:14  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Actually, I do know about the subject matter of 'THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM'. I also understand the political circumstances within which it was written and why it was written.

I regard it as a wonderful Papal letter setting out the duties and responsibilities of individuals, the Church and State, and would recommend it be read by everyone.

Here's what it (prophetically) said about Freemasonry:

" ... for its depraved principles and iniquitous designs are well known. Under the pretence of vindicating the rights of man and of reconstituting society, it attacks Christianity; it rejects revealed Doctrine, denounces practices of Piety, the Divine Sacraments, and every Sacred thing as superstition; it strives to eliminate the Christian Character from Marriage and the family and the education of youth, and from every form of instruction, whether public or private, and to root out from the minds of men all respect for Authority, whether human or Divine. On its own part, it preaches the worship of nature, and maintains that by the principles of nature are truth and probity and justice to be measured and regulated."

16 October 2011 01:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo not knowing who is who or what in Roman Catholicism

"I follow the teachings of the Church ( It is based on bulls encylicals from Popes and a catechism that takes scripture and extracts out of context what suits how it wants to operate and continually builds error upon error). I do not, nor have I ever, offered worship to men (Take it you would not kiss the pope's ring in public or private,if offered?). My allegiance is to Christ and to the doctrines of His Church(ROME via circular reasoning?), not to individual priests, bishops or popes. Then you know not what Rome is, so get out, pronto"

"Of course mortal, sinful men have occupied postions in the Catholic Church (Dear Lord, This is ST Peter's succession you are talking about..Who else within it can claim infallibility). I'm sure you'd accept there have been many prominant protestant pastors who have sinned( They most asssuredly have but since when has a pastor claimed what a POPE has claimed. Try to be realistic rather than foolish!)
How on earth can you know whether or not particular men repented (Well, it appears that others who took over their positions looked at their examples and continued in their wickedness and no deathbed confesssions were forthcoming to their confessors to give to the church laity as a lesson in how this position should be acted out and their sorrow that they failed, miserably? Who are we to judge others? They are judged by their actions and deeds in life, like we all are except without their extravagant claims of infallibility, complete authority over all etc etc"

Answered!

Ernst

16 October 2011 01:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Although it has beeen repeated time and time again, you simply refuse to accept the defined limits of Papal infallibility.

Neither are you willing to understand the difference between the office of Pope and the pecability of individuals in that position.

For one who claims to be so well read andknowledgeable, I can only assume either wilful blindness or mischievous argumentation.

Which is it?

16 October 2011 01:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, fingers in ear going la la la la

"Although it has beeen repeated time and time again, you simply refuse to accept the defined limits of Papal infallibility."

Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:
This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authetic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church.

Further

“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

—Humani Generis

"Neither are you willing to understand the difference between the office of Pope and the pecability of individuals in that position."

It is the popes themselves that state things about themselves that are definitive and authorative in all things, maybe you are just not comprehending their plain meaning. aaahhh Bless!
Do read correctly what they state lad or must Ernst continually correct you? It's repetitive but you will not put ernst off correcting you for the sake of others not so knowledgeable. You just look, well, stupid!

Ernst

16 October 2011 02:37  
Blogger len said...

Ernst,
I salute your efforts with the foolish fowl and his 'satellites.'

I suppose if one persisted for several years truth might break through but I have serious doubts.

Dodo has been 'programmed'with all sorts of stuff and it keeps rattling round in his head and coming out of his mouth in an involuntary fashion.If he could stop this process he might be able to listen to the Truth,but as I have said I have my doubts.

God Bless you Ernst in your endeavours.

16 October 2011 08:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

You have

1. Failed to show Constantine was head of the Catholic Church (though you use of the claim makes me wonder if you accept the Nicene Creed).

2. You have interpreted the scriptures in exactly that way I do, when I was trying to show that the passages you and Len have quoted do not in fact claim the Pope is God. The rule which applies to scripture applies to the papal passages. Thus you have failed to prove either point.

In contrast, if you bother to read the Leonine text in context, you will see that the interpretation you wish contradicts the text.

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ

Now apart form the fact that this never claims the Pope is God on earth, look at how he speaks of himself: He speaks of his advanced age - does God get old. He says he should follow the example of Christ - does God need an example to follow? He says that Christ is his Master - can God have a master? He says he needs his Redeemer - does God need redeeming?

I am terminating my comments on this page. I think that only malice leads you and Len to misread such passages. By all means disagree with us, but do not attribute to us things we do not say or mean. It is Sunday - let us enter into his rest - or talk about something else.

16 October 2011 09:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert old boy stated

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, (Declared as THEY, Popes via RC Jurisdiction OVER ALL) Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age (as if any supremacy is based on length of being established..as paganism is older does that trump Rome! No apostle is credited with founding Rome but Antioch was, so Orthodox Oriental is therefore supreme. Utterly ridiculous logic) and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ (Gods Intent but wrongkly applied to their firdt dtatement..It's called a false argument...non sequitur- it does not follow"

"He says that Christ is his Master - can God have a master (Then maybe he should ACT like it)? He says he needs his Redeemer - does God need redeeming (Then maybe he should go and get redeemed rather than claim he does the redeeming via his words and mother church!)?"

"I think that only malice leads you and Len to misread such passages." Ernst can only speak for himself and he does not! "By all means disagree with us" Truth HURTS, lad!

Ernst Pax Blofeld

16 October 2011 10:10  
Blogger len said...

Albert misinterprets a desire to know the truth(which Jesus said will set us free )as 'malice.'

The only evidence of malice and a desire to lead a trail 'of red herrings', misinformation and circular arguments, (with personal attacks) comes from Dodo and co.

(look through the posts if further evidence is needed).

16 October 2011 11:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ernst, my noble friend.

Ernst has lost many fine replies by foolishly believing blogger knew what it was doing and it would be ok.

Yes, the Inspector too. So he composes on Window Live Mail (for spell checker). Tis a shame some of your fine work never made it to publication. The Inspector believes there would be open weeping on the streets if the public knew.

Your wit and wisdom are an inspiration to us all, especially to the elderly retired folk who can be such a burden to others don’t you agree. And all done from a Bath chair !! Do carry on...

16 October 2011 14:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len and Ernsty

I am inclined to become disagreeable towards those who persistently spread damnable lies about the Church.

You are both so thick skinned and thick headed it has no impact.

Neither of you know anything of Roman Catholicism and you are caught in a 16th Century time warp.

Like Albert I have concluded it is pointless attempting to discuss these matters with you.

So do run off back to the Nursing Home and take your pills like good little old men.

16 October 2011 15:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

Don’t let that old fox Blofeld bring you down. He is after all just fighting his corner and enlightening us with his convictions in his unique way. Though can’t say the same for his lickspittle Len who is developing a ‘Mr Yeatman’ personality (qv Dad’s Army), every time he inflicts his inane thoughts on us.

16 October 2011 17:16  
Blogger len said...

The problem with the 'Dynamic Dodo' and his minion the' gyrating general' is that they are 'spent forces'just cannot keep up the pace.

The trouble is that Ernst and myself can see straight through the pair of you and your futile attempts to draw a veil over the hideous beast you are trying to protect(not yourselves) but your religion.I will wait until you regain some sort of order before resuming discussions.
See Ya!

16 October 2011 19:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*hides any stakes, bundles of wood, and pitch*

16 October 2011 19:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

We have modern, less noticeable ways and means these days.

17 October 2011 00:05  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

I doubt you'll see me.

17 October 2011 00:07  
Blogger DerekS said...

Just now picking up several days later Albert's post of 14 October 2011 at 15:33 I may be giving forth to an empty room.

In claiming the Roman aristocracy provided the early popes, I was thinking not of the very first popes but of the period when the western empire had been eclipsed and the aristocracy sought to retain their power and influence by other means. By evidence of name and geographical origin it is reckoned for example that the great majority of sixth century popes were from the Roman or provincial nobility.

Secondly. Yes, the temporal power of the Popes comes in the time of the Franks, but its justification rests on a forgery of that time, the Donation of Constantine.

Lastly, what appears as spiritual authority to one person is to another a supremely succesful propaganda machine which primarily serves itself and not the higher power it claims to be a channel for.

18 October 2011 00:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DerekS said...

Just now picking up several days later Albert's post of 14 October 2011 at 15:33 I may be giving forth to an empty room.

Just popped in to see if the room was empty (as Ernst is prone to) but enjoyed your post lad.

Ernst

18 October 2011 10:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Derek,

No, I've just called in:

I was thinking not of the very first popes but of the period when the western empire had been eclipsed and the aristocracy sought to retain their power and influence by other means. By evidence of name and geographical origin it is reckoned for example that the great majority of sixth century popes were from the Roman or provincial nobility.

I think there are historical problems here, because Petrine claims are made already, by non-Popes and non-Roman Christians long before the Roman aristocracy started becoming Popes - certainly long before the 6th Century.

Yes, the temporal power of the Popes comes in the time of the Franks, but its justification rests on a forgery of that time, the Donation of Constantine.

I think that's difficult, because I was under the impression that the Donation of Constantine was a 9th Century document - i.e. too late, I think for the establishing of temporal power.

18 October 2011 14:57  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

It has been a long and impassioned debate and not surprisingly we detect a great deal of frustration and annoyance from both sides as arguments fail to convince. It has ever been thus. Beliefs are important to us and that is as it should be. I salute the perseverance on both sides and value their commitment. However, I am with Dodo and Albert. It seems to me that all the biblical quotations mentioning the failings of Peter simply state that Peter was flawed like us all and that the office of pope is merely that - an office which in no way prevents a person from sinning. Christ did not promise to keep people faithful (free-will) but he did promise to remain faithful, to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and to be with it for all times. Yes, that does applies to individuals but also to the Church he founded on the pebble of Peter. Thanks to Ernst for his efforts – you are a worthy opponent but my greater thanks to Dodo and Albert.

18 October 2011 19:44  
Blogger len said...

As usual the Word of God MUST have the last word.
IF you can find whatever you seek in the Scriptures it will be true(JOHN 17:17 (KJV)
Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.)

And if you cannot find it in the Word of God then it should (at very least) be treated with suspicion.

18 October 2011 19:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

With all due respect, I think I'll rely on others to present the meaning of scripture to me. Just just too many of you loose cannons around spreading your particualr version of the 'truth'.

An official interpretation and teaching is necessary - and is biblical. Without it we have anarchy and confusion and guess who wants this? So who are you really serving?

Tradition

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things."
(Acts 15:28-29)

"And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul.
(Acts 4:32)

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle."
(2 The 2:15)

"Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you."
(Cor 11:2)

Understanding

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

"God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms". For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."
(Dei Verbum, Pope Paul VI, 1965)

19 October 2011 02:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Derek: "Lastly, what appears as spiritual authority to one person is to another a supremely succesful propaganda machine which primarily serves itself and not the higher power it claims to be a channel for."

To plenty of people, I daresay. There's a sinister pall hanging over it, to my mind.

19 October 2011 03:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Derek said ...

" ... what appears as spiritual authority to one person is to another a supremely succesful propaganda machine which primarily serves itself and not the higher power it claims to be a channel for."

Indeed. That's where reason, rationality, faith and discernment come into play. Attempting to comprehend the Gospel and avoiding error has been going on within Christianity since its birth. And that's why Christ in His wisdom appointed a final arbiter!

19 October 2011 12:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ps

On earth ....

19 October 2011 17:04  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,you quote the Pope to authenticate Scripture.. does the Pope understand scripture better than God?.

Apparently so, in the eyes of those under the' Popes spell!.'

22 October 2011 08:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

No, but I trust him more than you.

22 October 2011 16:59  
Blogger len said...

'Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.'(Psalm 146:3)

better to place ones trust in God!.

22 October 2011 17:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

... and His appointed representatives on earth who have been given spiritual power and authority.

23 October 2011 10:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older