Monday, January 30, 2012

Archbishop Cranmer is Bishop Philip Boyce

The Most Reverend Dr Philip Boyce is the Catholic Lord Bishop of Raphoe. He preached a homily on 20th August 2011, entitled ‘To Trust in God’. His Grace reproduces it in its entirety, for the two sentences highlighted in bold have landed the Bishop in a bit of hot water.

Apparently, they constitute an incitement to hatred, at least according to ‘leading humanist’ John Colgan. And so the Gardai have thoroughly investigated the complaint and compiled a file which they have handed to the Republic’s Director of Public Prosecutions.
Homily of Bishop Philip Boyce, Bishop of Raphoe.
Knock Novena, 20 August 2011.


“Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16).

The word of the Lord urges us to place our trust in God, not in the brittle supports of created things on earth. People have always been tempted to rely on some visible and profitable reality. To us, it seems at times to be a step too far to place our confidence in Him whom we know only through faith. It was a test failed by Adam and Eve when they were asked not to taste of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil. Relying on their own wisdom, and abetted by the false promises of the Evil One, they put their trust in a created gain rather than in the power of the all-wise Creator.

They were very soon to regret their folly. They immediately tasted the bitter fruit of the confidence they placed in a lie. They felt ashamed of each other and afraid of God. Their misplaced confidence led to death for both of them. There we see how true it is that God did not make death (Wis 1:13) but that “through the devil’s envy death entered the world” (Wis 2:24). Our first parents trusted in a lie and in the father of lies. As Jesus would say one day: “The devil…was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).

Throughout the history of salvation, people have been led astray. They trusted in something or someone less than God – human idols of one kind or another. It was either in riches or power, earthly princes or human allies. Yet the wisdom of God denounces such shallow confidence: “Cursed is he who trusts in man….whose heart turns away from the Lord…Blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord” (Jer 17:5-7).

The Trust of one who believes

Trust or hope means persevering in faith against the evident difficulties that free us. On a natural level, hope is a movement of our will towards something we perceive as good, that is not ours completely, but that is possible though difficult to attain. Psychologically it creates a tension within us because, what we aspire to, we do not fully possess as yet. But the very fact that it is possible to attain makes us overcome the uncertainties and be confident that what we long for is not beyond our grasp.

Christian theological hope, or trust of one who believes, aspires to the greatest good of all, namely, our salvation and the vision of God in heaven. The Lord Jesus tells his disciples that this is not a delusion for “it has pleased your Father to give you the kingdom” (cf. Rom 4:18). However, the God who gives the promise is faithful so that “hope does not disappoint us, because the love of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:5)

Trusting in God through suffering and in the Dark night of the Church

The moment of history we live through in Ireland at present is certainly a testing one for the Church and for all of us. Attacked from the outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture: rocked from the inside by the sins and crimes of priests and consecrated people, we all feel the temptation to lose confidence. Yet, our trust is displayed and deepened above all when we are in troubled and stormy waters. It is easier to be confident when we ride on the crest of a wave, when the tide is coming in. Not so easy, however, yet every bit as necessary, when what is proclaimed by the Church namely the truth of faith with its daily practice and influence on behaviour, is under severe pressure.

Some of you may be labouring under a severe trial and have come to this Shrine of Our Lady at Knock for strength and consolation. It may be a dreaded illness or family difficulties; it may be spiritual darkness and desolation; it may be trying circumstances in the present financial downturn. Or it may be the spiritual Dark Night that now engulfs the Church in Ireland, in which our spiritual horizons are dimmed because some of those anointed to preach the word of God and to sanctify, were found to have betrayed the trust placed in them by innocent souls.

What we are called upon to do at this time is to act hopefully, with patience. Every dark night of suffering is meant to be a time of purification and renewal. As so often in times past, there were dark days of disorder and trial for the Church. But then, she rose again fortified in light. So too will it be once again this time.

One man who sacrificed all he had to discover the true Church, Blessed John Henry Newman, and who had personal experience of her weakness as well as of her beauty, expressed this buoyant trust in eloquent words:

“But in truth the whole course of Christianity from the first, when we come to examine it, is but one series of troubles and disorders. Every century is like every other, and to those who live in it seems worse than all times before it. The Church is ever ailing, and lingers on in weakness, “always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in her body.” Religion seems ever expiring, schisms dominant, the light of Truth dim, its adherents scattered. The cause of Christ is ever in its last agony, as though it were but a question of time whether it fails finally this day or another. The Saints are ever all but failing from the earth……; meanwhile, thus much of comfort do we gain from what has been hitherto,- not to despond, not to be dismayed, not to be anxious, at the troubles which encompass us. They have ever been; they ever shall be; they are our portion.” (Via Media I, 354-5)

These troubles seem to us to be the worst ever – simply because they are the ones we struggle through at present. The Lord however has to be met in the midst of the very trials that beset us. We should not so much fight them directly as give them into the Lord’s keeping. In some ways we exchange our weakness for God’s strength. Simply to worry and fret makes the anguish fester within us. We do not deny them but rather take them as our share in Christ’s redeeming sufferings. From the midst of them we call upon the only Person who can really help us.

As we heard in the first reading, David, looking back on how the Lord delivered him from his enemies and the waves of death that encompassed him, said: “In my distress I called upon the Lord….” (2 Sam 22:7). He recognised his predicament but he sought help in his weakness from God, the Strong One of Israel. Or like the two desperate people in the Gospel passage: a prominent ruler of the Synagogue whose daughter had already died, but who hoped beyond hope in a miracle and a poor women, a socially marginalised person on account of her ailment, making a desperate grasp, trying to touch even the fringe of the Lord’s garment. The unshakable trust of both of them was rewarded promptly and with astonishing authority (Mt 9:18-22). In some ways, the worse our condition, the nearer is God’s help. For nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, for he has promised to be with his Church until the end of time. As Christians, so much will depend on our attitude of faith and trust. We cannot avoid trial and suffering in this world. “It is not by side stepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed (writes our Holy Father), but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love” (Spe Salvi No. 37). Therefore, we need to trust Him.

When we enter into any kind of suffering and distress, it is the Lord who allows us to experience our own weakness and inadequacy. Some situations cannot be rectified without special help from on high. The sad effects of accidents on the roads, of dreaded diseases, of social and economic upheavals, of addictions and so on, need more than human resources. They also need the helping hand of God. The prophet warned the people of old: “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many…..but do not look to….the Lord” (cf. Is. 31:1). We look for prosperity, but there is no real and lasting prosperity without God.

Indeed unless we trust in a higher power, in God himself, what hope can we have? St. Paul told his converts at Ephesus that before they came to know Christ, they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). We need the radiance of a hope that looks beyond the horizons of space and time, one as Pope Benedict teaches “that cannot be destroyed even by small-scale failures or by a breakdown in matters of historic importance” (Spe Salvi No. 35). For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is “the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness….To come to know God – the true God – means to receive hope” (Ibid, No. 2.3). We thank God for the faith, that enables us to trust in Him.

Knock: a Call to trust in God

In this holy Shrine of Knock, we are always reminded of the reasons we have for hope and trust in God. Central to the Apparition itself is the altar with the Lamb standing on it. This reminds us first of all of the Eucharist where, as fruit of Christ’s Sacrifice, there is offered to us in every Holy Communion the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. By nourishing us with Christ’s life, the Eucharist nourishes in us a life that has no end. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:54). This is a pledge of something great to come, a seed that will blossom into eternal life, into immortality.

From this point of view, the holy Eucharist, which we shall celebrate with intensity at the International Eucharistic Congress next June, is a Sacrament of hope that strengthens our trust in God. It sustains us as we are buffeted by the storms of this world and bear a cross that weighs us down. The Mass is a foretaste of heavenly peace. At this Eucharistic celebration we too experience it at least imperfectly but really, and we are given the promise that it will one day be perfect and cannot be lost. Therefore, let us trust our God.

Moreover, the Lamb on the altar at Knock reminds us of the Apocalypse with St. John’s vision of the end of time and of fulfilment in heaven. We see the risen and triumphant Lamb of God. He is surrounded by angels and a countless number of Christian believers who come here on pilgrimage. This vision foreshadows the heavenly city from which will descend at the end of time the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, the Lamb of God. In his prophetic gaze, St. John “saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and heard a great voice from the throne saying, “Behold the dwelling place of God is with men. He will dwell with them….he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more….” (Rev. 21:2-4). In that company there will be for us “things no eye has seen. No ear has heard, things beyond our imagining, for outweighing our present distress” (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17).

This triumphant Church of the elect is the same that now struggles and sighs in the slow and painful grip of history that is unfolding hour by weary hour, minute by minute. We now face the challenge of trusting in our Saviour, at times without hope. The powers of evil and their apparent triumphs put our trust in God to the test. However, we have the certitude of faith that Christ, the Word of God, will have the final victory. And it is not far away. For the Lord says: “Behold, I am coming soon” (Rev. 22:7).

And we all respond with a cry of hope that hungers for his presence: “Maranatha, Come. Lord Jesus, come.”

Perhaps Blessed John Paul II, at the time we embarked on a new Millennium of human history, had this vision of hopeful trust in his mind when he wrote: “Duc in Altum! Let us go forwards in hope! A new Millennium is opening before the Church like a vast ocean upon which we shall venture, relying on the help of Christ. The Son of God, who became incarnate two thousand years ago out of love for humanity, is at work even today: we need discerning eyes to see this and, above all, a generous heart to become the instruments of his work…we can count on the power of the same Spirit who was poured out at Pentecost and who impels us still today to start anew, sustained by the hope which does not disappoint” (Apostolic Letter, Novo Millennio Ineunte, No 58).

We are under Our Lady’s protection, who visited her people here at this spot in a time of poverty and distress. As long as she is praying for us in Heaven nothing whatever, high or low, can harm us or take away our trust in God. She reigns a Queen forever and her Son refuses her nothing she requests. Our Lady of Knock, pray for us.
The above is reproduced in its entirety for, as we know, that which is permitted and legal in one EU member state may be prohibited and illicit in another, and this may result in the issuing of a European Arrest Warrant and the enforced extradition of British nationals to await trial in a foreign land. Should His Grace’s ashes be extradited to the Irish Republic, he will attempt to keep his readers and communicants informed of events with an appeal for access to his blog in accordance with his inviolable human rights.

John Colgan said of these two sentences: "I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the (Incitement to Hatred) Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law. The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican's Irish Mission Church."

So such expressions merit hours of police time and investigation by the DPP?

This is a most worthy moment for an 'I'm Spartacus' declaration. His Grace wishes to stand foursquare with Bishop Philip Boyce, as should all who care about freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. And in the UK, that will (thankfully) still include a good many secularist-atheist-humanist types. But for how long?

89 Comments:

Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

I'll keep this brief:

Hear, hear.

30 January 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger pssbooks said...

"Archbishop Cranmer is Bishop Philip Boyce"?

Are you revealing your alter-ego, Cranmer?

30 January 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger james said...

I am Spartacus

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/general-principles/the-jackboot-stomping-on-the-throat-of-free-speech

30 January 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger graham wood said...

"Attacked from the outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture"

These are facts - not opinions!

"Against godless culture"?
In other words, the normal position of the church of Christ world-wide - and always has been.
At least Mr Colgan gets the 'drift'

If thats the best this secular humanist can come up with I doubt we will hear any more of this "crime"

30 January 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, for what it's worth, you have my support.
I also find it impossible to understand how hatred per se can be a crime it is peoples actions that can be classed that way, and there are more than enough laws already in existence to deal with them. A hatred law is just another means by socialists to undermine and destroy our Christian based civilisation.

30 January 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Colgan is clearly an idiot. Does he not realise that his very actions prove the Bishop's point?

You know, I really do wonder how atheism can c,aim to be rational when they have people like this in their ranks!

30 January 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Lyndsey said...

This is laughably transparent hatred of Christians.

30 January 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Roy said...

Well, it is absolutely obvious that John Colgan is against freedom of speech and freedom of religion. What other freedoms is he against, I wonder?

30 January 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Lyndsey

I think you may well have a point.

Indeed "hatred", as defined in the Irish Act, means hatred against a group of persons on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

So is atheism now claiming the status of a "religion"? Surely not? And, perhaps Mr Colgan's own comment, "The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican’s Irish Mission Church.”, actually constitute the real "hatred" in all this.

In reply to Mr Colgan's letter of complaint to him Dr Boyce responded personally saying that in his homily he did not wish to disparage in any way the sincere efforts of those with no religious beliefs, atheists or humanists as
“I have too much respect for each human person, since I believe all are created in the image of God. At Knock I wished to encourage and confirm the hope of believers, even in the present challenging times, since trust in God was the theme I was given.”

I wonder what Mr Colgan on Saint Patrick's Day!

30 January 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Albert said...

There's a kind of honesty about Mr Colgan's position. For many years some secularists rather dishonestly attempted to undermine religious free speech by saying it might offend other religious groups (the fact that they other religious groups felt offended by the secularists implying they were so intolerant was an irony the secularists seem not to have noticed).

Now Mr Colgan's being honest. It's got nothing to do with other religions: he just doesn't like freedom of speech (or at least other people's freedom of speech, I bet he expects to be able to say what he likes), because he is unbelievably thin-skinned.

It will be fascinating to see how matters turn out.

It does however show how dangerously stupid these daft laws are.

30 January 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

This is not a frivolous attack against Bishop Boyce, but neither is it a serious indicament; it's an opportunist, but nonetheless calculated attempt, to wield the wooden spoon, to stir things up.

Bishop Boyce stumbled into the waiting web, and triggered the ambush.

Colgan has done this before; it's part of his mission to separate 'Faith from State', in the Irish sense, that is.

Most probably nothing will come of it, excepting a platform for Colgan and his disparate supporters - some of whom have genuine grievances, but whose argument is not necessarily with God, but against the R.C.C.

Colgan, a former prospective Fine Gael candidate, might it seems, have wider aspirations than 'humanism' per se.

30 January 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

You are all very, very badly deluded.
First if all, this "god" thing must be shown to exist at all, before it can be appealed to.
Secondly, the bishop here is a member of one of the vilest organisations on the planet, responsible for uncounted killings and tortures over the years, and whose structure has provided the model for another vile, killing religion - communism.
The bishop makes many qotes from a book of Bronze-Age goatherders' myths as if they were in some way relevent or true, with no test of validity.
The grovelling to the unmarried mother, Mary is particularly revolting, especially given the RC church's treatment of women as inferior beings.

I would call the bishop a bare-faced deliberate blackmailing liar, were it not so obvious that he is insane.

I call, not for a criminal prosecution, but for his sectioning under the Mental Health Acts!

30 January 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Watch out, the lunatics have been let out again!

30 January 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tingey, I've rarely read through your posts before, but on the basis of that last one, never mind the bishop, we have a more immediate candidate for insanity in our midst.

30 January 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

Moonpie :o) We were expecting you!

John Colgan's CV includes an M.Sc too; you two should exchange Christmas Cards. Mind you, he's very much pro-Europe, so perhaps not. He has also, as far as I can ascertain, sat on Gardai committees....hm, one wonders at that particular connection...?

Nice to see you back on full throttle; nothing current on the 'film extras' front eh?

Love and kisses from a deluded goatherd. (Actually, I loathe goats; would a Cheviot sheep satisfy you instead?)

30 January 2012 at 15:32  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Tingey

Voluntary treatment is a preferable route for you. A few short ECT treatments and maybe you'll start to see things more clearly.

30 January 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: not wishing to appear un-Christian here, but isn't that how Moonpie got that way in the first place; accidentally, in the lab?

Fair's fair though, he's not entirely wrong; pretty vile perhaps, but not wholly wrong. ;o

30 January 2012 at 15:47  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Speaking as a secular person I cannot see the incitement to hatred there. I fear the Church is being attacked for very good reasons. But the Bishop seems aware of them.

30 January 2012 at 15:47  
Blogger Owl said...

John Colgan is an ignorant Irish prat. The idiot thinks that he will win a few points political by showing his modern, caring attitude and having a dig at someone from a safe distance.

He is one who definitely needed a good slap as a child but didn't get it, so he grew up to be a complete wally.

It is embarassing to come from the same country as this brain dead twat.

30 January 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

Owl : please, don't hold back - say what you really feel!

30 January 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger Owl said...

Thank you Oswin, the red flashes are starting to clear away now.

Now what was it that I wanted to say about that refugee from a sewer pipe. Oh, never mind.

30 January 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

When serious topics are being discussed and things are a bit gloomy you can always rely on G Tingey to submit an ignorant rant to give us all a good laugh.

I presume he posts his pearls of wisdom while taking a break from writing up his GCSE sociology project.

30 January 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

W.T: now you've gone and done it! We'll be getting a list of his bloody qualifications, again! :o)

30 January 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I can see quite clearly
I note that Boyce appears to "think" that "Adam" & "Eve" were actual people, and that humanity descended form a single pair - has he never heard of EVOLUTION?
And, of course, he is IRISH - the RC church has (I'm very glad to say) recieved some devastating blows in that country as it's corruption, venality and torture of children has been exposed.
This, presumably is the "triumphant church of the lect" that this vile madman is speaking of.
He should rot, along with Arnoud AMoury, another well-known catholic spokesman!

Windsor tipehound - a reminder:
I'm 66, I'm an escaped evangelical, so I know all the christian bullshit and lies, and since I have an M.Sc. in Engineering, I wouldn't go near sociology - far too much mumbo-jumb - just like religon in fact.

30 January 2012 at 17:08  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

More laughing matter.

I rest my case.

30 January 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Tingey said ...

"I'm an escaped evangelical ..."

Well good for you - MSc and all!

Perhaps you recall this passage from Luke:

"When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he walks through places without water, seeking rest: and not finding, he says: I will return into my house whence I came out. And when he has come, he finds it swept and garnished. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself: and entering in they dwell there. And the last state of that man becomes worse than the first."

30 January 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Do calm down, it’s a commercial, for John Colgan. This will never reach court nor will anything like it in the future. You are not going to find twelve good men and women true to convict a Catholic bishop for being a Catholic bishop. Not in the Irish Republic, and that’s for sure…

The Inspector has a relative in the Gardai. He thinks you’ll find that Colgan will have succeeded in bringing himself to everyone’s attention, and will be subsequently placed on the Gardai’s “pain in the arse” list if he is not already on there…

30 January 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Talking of ‘Pains in the arse’...

Tingey. I put it to you Sir, that it is you yourself who does not exist, per se, but are in fact, the wicked and deranged alter ego of none other than Archbishop Cranmer himself !! {ENDS WITH A SHORT BURST OF DRAMATIC MUSIC, DICK BARTON STYLE}

Don’t miss tomorrows exiting episode when His Grace vehemently denies the accusation and excommunicates the Inspector, and, oh yes, Tingey posts his considered, inquiring and open minded opinion yet again…

30 January 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger orangegoblin82 said...

I think Christianity should be as dead as buried as belief in Zeus.

I think that there are things you could quote from the bible that insight hatred.

I think the Catholic church is an evil organisation that has facilitated and covered up the rape, abuse and molestation of thousands of children.

But even I think that the Bishop is on firm ground here.

I doubt it will get anywhere near a court.

30 January 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Orangegoblin. You know your problem with Christianity ? You THINK too much...

30 January 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

OoIG

I think you mean too little

30 January 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger OldSouth said...

As we exclaim in our part of the world: 'Say WHUT?'

OS thinks the best solution, apart from loud gales of laughter, will be for all of His Grace's parishioners around the world to copy and share this with all their circles of family and friends. It's a cracking fine sermon, anyway, and will do everyone good to give it a read.

Let them come arrest us all, in that case.

30 January 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger David B said...

I wonder how the Irish Indy link will go down with my fellow atheists and other secularists at my discussion board.

For myself, I think the complaint ill advised. I wouldn't call it hate speech at all, myself, and, though a lot of the flack I've received from Christians has been offensive, like telling me that I deserve to burn in terrible pain forever, I wouldn't want them prosecuted for that, either.

Looking at it as charitably as I can, he might be doing it to make some sort of point against hate speech laws, though there is nothing really to point to that.

Otherwise, he's an illiberal idiot, to my mind.

But to my mind the Bishop can say whatever he wants, as long as I can also criticise his views, and ridicule and mock them.

Anyway, I'll go and make the link now.

David B

30 January 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've read the sermon thingy a number of times and I can't see incitement to hatred or anything like it. Weird.

30 January 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

John Colgan & G Tingerly are both consumed by hatred & true bigotry. And so - without any sense of their own irony - prove the very things that are said in the homily to be absolutely true.

They are to be pitied.

Our real anger & wrath should be reserved for the idiotic politicians, policy makers & law enforcers who dream up these things and then blindly adhere to them. Contemptuous, shameful fools. A beating is too good for them

30 January 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger David B said...

My post seems to have been eaten by internet gremlins, so re-post

I wonder how the Irish Indy link will go down with my fellow atheists and other secularists at my discussion board.

For myself, I think the complaint ill advised. I wouldn't call it hate speech at all, myself, and, though a lot of the flack I've received from Christians has been offensive, like telling me that I deserve to burn in terrible pain forever, I wouldn't want them prosecuted for that, either.

Looking at it as charitably as I can, he might be doing it to make some sort of point against hate speech laws, though there is nothing really to point to that.

Otherwise, he's an illiberal idiot, to my mind.

But to my mind the Bishop can say whatever he wants, as long as I can also criticise his views, and ridicule and mock them.

Anyway, I'll go and make the link now.

30 January 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I agree with DanJ0 -- this time. (@19:04)

30 January 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Your Grace, an extraordinary attack on a fine sermon.

Mr orangegoblin @ 18.04 said, 'I think that there are things you could quote from the bible that insight hatred.'

Would that be an inciteful insight?

30 January 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger David B said...

Nice one bluedog.

BTW last time I looked my discussion board also thinks the guy has, to put it colloquially, dropped a bollock.

And some of us are pretty hardcore atheists, even by my standards.

David B

30 January 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

We'll win you round yet David B :)

30 January 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"Orangegoblin. You know your problem with Christianity ? You THINK too much..."

Ummmm. Not so sure about that. As William James said:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

31 January 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ya know. I have been pondering this idea for awhile. We really should create a 'G Tingey Automatic Comment Generator.' Like one of the Post-Modernism Generators. All his posts are variations of one post anyways. The template is already known. All we have to do is gather a set of G Tingey ad hominems into a set and perform a random selection to write the sentences. Then we arbitrarily capitalize a few NOUNS here and there. What do we have but a perfectly formed G Tingey post complete in all its requisite intellectual coherence.

Think of the fun we could have. We could create a G Tingey Generator account and debate who makes the better argument - the generator or the real thing. We could see how close our predictions track with reality. We might even get G Tingey to argue with himself. There is no end of amusement in this concept. I should starting writing a requirements spec.

carl

31 January 2012 at 01:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I hadn't realised that hate speech laws were so common in Western countries. Technology, such as social media and web access in general, has changed the way we transmit and receive information but surely open public debate is the best response to hate speech?

31 January 2012 at 04:22  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Rebel Saint:
What hatred, what bigotry?
Sadness, fury at the insanity of the christians ("Potter's House")on my street, and the muslim extremists loose everywhere. I don't want brain-fucked (PH as above) christianity unleashed.
(They believe the bible is "inerrant" - an impossible state given the internal contradictions) and they are YEC's etc ....
I remind you I'm an escaped christian, I know all the bullshit.

Which reminds me, Dodo quoted "Luke" - now apart from my reminder that such a quote is irrelevant to me - it has no "authority", let's examine just that "gospel" shall we, for intolerance and cruelty?
1:20 - just asking questions gets you punished - nice!
which is then contradicted in 1:34(!)
2:2 - contradicts Matthew?
5:18-25 paralysis is caused by SIN (you what?)
10:10-15 Whole cities shall be destroyed just for not listening ... (erm)
11:29 - repeated down all the ages, and it is still bullshit
12:5 straight bullying, indistinguishable from muslim rage boy
12:52-3 very true, what a pity, what a disgrace
19 directly contradicts "eye of the Needle" in an earlier chapter....

Do for starters?

31 January 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger Preacher said...

I will admit that I cannot agree with much of what the R.C church teaches or believes. However, the rest of the Bishop's message seems fine & I can only presume that the only reason for Mr Colgan's complaint is to draw attention to himself or simply for mischief.

G.T
Brother. You rant, rave & exhibit such anger & vitriol in your posts with proud boasts of being an 'Ex' Evangelical & having 'escaped' from christianity, that I can only conclude that either you have been badly hurt & damaged by some group or individial that carried the label 'christian', or in truth, you were never truly a, christian but suffering under some form of delusion.
This is not meant as criticism, but you are so full of pent up fury that you are setting yourself up as a target for ridicule & I hate to see people self destruct. Please consider carefully what I say, because ultimately, only you hold the key to your future & your own happiness.

Sincerely. Preacher.

31 January 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Oswin said...

Preacher: I think Tingey (Moonpie) perversely enjoys the attention; thus his rudeness, which tends to dictate the nature of subsequent response, again serves to feed his need to offer further insult.

His intention is not to convert, educate or reason, but to revel in abuse, against those whom he considers worm-like, when set against his lofty, superior self.

I don't think that he is in danger of 'self-destruction' - I reckon that may have happened way back; but hey, no one is perfect.

I just hope he doesn't give 'cravats' a worse name, is all. I really think I'd miss him, if he went away. I've grown accustomed to his face, as it were.

Moonpie @ 08:21: if you've never been paralysed by sin; then you ain't been doing it properly! Good luck in future efforts. ;o)

31 January 2012 at 16:06  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Oswin
On another (totally unrelated) blog, someone praised me as an "Inveterate contrarian" ....
Certainly a smidgen of truth, there ......

31 January 2012 at 17:08  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I disagree with much of what this priest says, but defend his right to say it.

This is further evidence that we need a British (I'd settle for English) Bill of Rights NOW which enshrines a pretty near absolute right to freedom of belief and speech, excepting only serious and false defamation and incitement to commit a crime.

I envy the Americans many of their constituiona rights.

If the Darwkinists can call me a braying ignoramus, holocaust denying, mentally ill ignorant deluded child abuser for questioning Darwin, and the kind of antiChristian rant in Tingey's post is OK too, then I want the same freedoms and I want them guaranteed by a Bill of Rights.

How long before a Muslim asks the Supreme court to rule against Christians using the Creed or praying to Jesus as the Son of God as it offends them by suggesting that Jesus is superior to Muhammad?

31 January 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Rebel saint said

@@Our real anger & wrath should be reserved for the idiotic politicians, policy makers & law enforcers who dream up these things and then blindly adhere to them. Contemptuous, shameful fools.

A beating is too good for them''

True, but it would be an excellent start!

31 January 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Moonpie @ 17:08 :

Yep, I recognise the syndrome; it can be fun, but it's best not to abuse the privilege, or else without some measure of contrast, it lacks impact.

Keep 'em guessing, is my policy. Actually, it isn't. I'm far too transparent, alas. :o(

31 January 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger len said...

Bishop Philip Boyce`s message starts of sounding 'right' but he than speaks of praying to 'apparitions' at a site.

No wonder the Church is fragmented and confused for this practice (praying to 'Our Lady' and ghostly apparitions' is little better than paganism.

Judgement has already started in the Church( not with fire and brimstone raining down on it ...yet) but with God exposing the hypocrisy within the Church also with just leaving the church to their own devices.Basically letting them go their own way.

The true church will emerge from God`s threshing floor, chastened, humbled, but far better equipped to carry forth the Gospel message.

31 January 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger A.K.A. Damo Mackerel said...

The Irish labour party now wants to screen civil servants for Catholicism.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/senior-civil-servants-dealing-with-church-should-be-screened-3004002.html

31 January 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Honestly len did you actually read the homily before your nonsensical post? It seems not. You are so intent on attacking the Catholic Church for things you do not understand that you turn a blind eye and deaf ear to its teachings.

The Bishop said:

"Attacked from the outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture: rocked from the inside by the sins and crimes of priests and consecrated people, we all feel the temptation to lose confidence. Yet, our trust is displayed and deepened above all when we are in troubled and stormy waters."

So no need to gloat over the troubles faced by the Church and add your weight to the atheists attacking it. Shame on you.

"The powers of evil and their apparent triumphs put our trust in God to the test. However, we have the certitude of faith that Christ, the Word of God, will have the final victory."

Amen to that and remember Jesus' promise:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

No, less than 0.01% of sinners in the midst of the Church will not bring it down. Dream on you spokesman for the Enemy.

31 January 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len said ...

"The true church will emerge from God`s threshing floor, chastened, humbled, but far better equipped to carry forth the Gospel message."

With you at its head defining doctrine and declaring who is and who is not "saved", I suppose?

31 January 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger len said...

Dodo the deluded ;

You choose your 'foundation' the House built on' ever shifting sand'.

I place my faith in the true 'Rock' which is Christ,even Peter confessed that!.'

'As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (1 Peter 2:4-6)

The Catholic Church basis its authority on one misinterpreted(deliberately IMO) scripture.
If you are sincerely seeking truth then use scripture(not the word of men) to interpret scripture.
Simply look up the word 'rock' in scripture and you will find out who the true rock is!.

1 February 2012 at 07:38  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len

Dear Sir, it is most certainly not one passage in scripture, as you well know. The other verses have been shared with you repeatedly.

And even if it was just this one passage, I have to say it is hard to misinterpret the clear and precise words of Jesus. Twist and turn and question translations all you like, the meaning remains clear.

The Church has faced trials in the past and, true to Christ's word, the Holy Spirit has seen it through.

You should be thanking God that the message of salvation reached you through His Church, not attacking it with lies and gloating over its current difficulties.

Shame on you.

1 February 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger len said...

The shame lies entirely with you Dodo.

You have replaced Christ 'the Rock 'with a' man made'cobbled together religion made up part gospel part with rituals straight out of Babylon.

You (your Church)have destroyed the integrity of the Gospel.

2 February 2012 at 08:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

We believe Peter is the rock on which Christ has built his Church, because Jesus said so.

2 February 2012 at 12:49  
Blogger len said...

Albert,

Why on Earth would Jesus build HIS Church on Peter?.
Jesus also called Peter 'Satan' immediately after Jesus said He would build HIS Church on the revelation Peter had received(Christ was the Son of God)will you be claiming this too?.

2 February 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Why on Earth would Jesus build HIS Church on Peter?

That's quite an odd question. Why on earth would whether Jesus has done X depend on whether I can understand why Jesus has done X? But in any case, at least some of Jesus' reason seems clear from the context:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In other words, he does it for the same reason that he prayed particularly for Peter that his faith may not fail, so that when he had turned again he would be able to strengthen his brethren.

Jesus also called Peter 'Satan' immediately after Jesus said He would build HIS Church on the revelation Peter had received(Christ was the Son of God)will you be claiming this too?

No, because it is clear that Jesus does not name Peter "Satan", but merely observes that Peter's desire that Jesus not have to die is a hindrance to him. You must be careful what you say here Len, because the wish Peter expresses in Mt.16.23 is not so far from what Jesus himself asks in (for example) Mt 26.39.

Moreover, it is evident that Peter had the power to cast out demons. Therefore, if Jesus really had meant Peter to be Satan, he would be contradicting his own teaching: "How can Satan cast out Satan?"

But beyond that, if Jesus had really named Peter "Satan", it would make no sense of what Jesus had just given him in Mt.16, and it would make no sense of the fact that Peter is usually called "Peter" in the NT (or in Paul's case the very name Jesus gave - Cephas), as Mark 3.16 makes explicit.

For all these reasons, I think my reading has not been challenged by yours.

2 February 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

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


Seems to me this is a special and very particular responsibility placed upon Peter by Jesus. The Good Shephard asked Peter to tend and feed His flock on His behalf.

3 February 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger len said...

'Feed MY sheep sheep.'..... Correct.

Who where Jesus`s sheep?.To whom was Jesus sent?, where was Jesus sending Peter?.

Peter was the Apostle to the 'circumcision'. 'for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)(Galatians 2:8), Obviously Peter was sent to the Jews which brings up some very interesting questions.

3 February 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was sent to both Jew and Gentile.

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and I'm known by my own; even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd."

Once again the plain words of Christ are perverted by you. The Christian Church was and remains a universal Church. Peter was appointed as head of this Church.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations: and then shall the consummation come."

"And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them ...
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."


Jesus appointed Apostles to baptise and teach His Gospel to all the world. He also appointed a leader.

3 February 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

That's a crazy piece of special pleading. Yes, Peter was sent to evangelize the Jews, but that does not mean his ministry was restricted to the Jews. He was also sent personally by Jesus to evangelize Cornelius. Similarly, Paul who was sent to uncircumcized, clearly had a ministry to Jews also - he even circumcised Timothy. So this is simply another example twisting scripture because left to its own devices it supports Catholicism.

As for quoting Galatians, how about 3.28?

But you haven't made any further defence of your original position on Mt 16.

3 February 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger len said...

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.(Matthew 10)

[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

[6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

3 February 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger len said...

Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

3 February 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger len said...

There is a deafening silence from the Apostle Paul with respect to the Apostle Peter and the city of Rome. Paul wrote much of the New Testament. They cover a tremendous number of years and that’s not all, one of the books (one of the major ones) was written to the Christians who lived in Rome. Also there were four written from Rome, during his first imprisonment and then a couple of more written from Rome during his last imprisonment shortly before he was killed because of his faith and preaching the Gospel. In all of these letters of Paul to the churches (to the Christians) either at Rome or from the city of Rome to others he mentions Christians in each of them. In fact he mentions by name a great number of them. And do you know what, he NEVER mentions Peter! Why do you think that is?.

3 February 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

That Peter ended up in Rome is evident from 1 Pet.5.13. As for Paul's silence, I would note that arguments from silence are among the weakest of all arguments. For example, there is next to nothing in Paul about the life of Christ. There is no Virgin Birth, hardly any teaching at all. Does that mean we are to doubt the Virgin Birth and deny Jesus taught? If we take Paul's silence as evidence his list of the first people at the empty tomb contradicts the evidence of the Gospels.

As for your comment about Rom.15:

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

this is just bizarre, for the whole passage says this:

thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation, but as it is written, "They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him." This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you,
I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.


The passage plainly means the opposite of what you say it says.

No less bizarre is your reference to Mt.10. Yes, at that time there was an instruction for the 12 not to go the Gentiles, but later Jesus instructed Peter (as one of the 12) to go to the Gentiles (Mt.28) and then personally to go to Cornelius (Act 10 & 11).

I mean really! It's one thing to disagree about the meaning of a passage, it's quite another to quote one sentence in a sense which its context plainly contradicts. Yet, I see these comments have come from Protestant websites. Why do you still need witnesses? These people at best do not know the scriptures at worst they are liars. If we were making such obvious mistakes you would rest your case. But because they make these cases against Catholicism, you automatically confuse them with scripture!

But all of this is an evasion. You denied that Jesus built his Church on Peter - despite the fact that scripture plainly records Jesus saying just that. Since you will not accept what scripture positively says, it's hard to see why anyone should take seriously your argument from what scripture doesn't say. Especially, as scripture is pretty clear that Peter was at Rome and your other arguments are plainly contradicted by scripture.

3 February 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and I'm known by my own; even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd."
(John 10)

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

(John 21)

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Mathew 16)

3 February 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger len said...

Peter quite clearly says that Jesus is the Rock not himself.

(already given you the scriptures.)

4 February 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger len said...

Albert ,
And you call my arguments weak!.

1 Peter 5:13 'She who is in BABYLON, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark'.(Rome?)

First of all, there is no place in the New Testament where there is any hint or any record of any kind that Peter was in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that he wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon [In Peters day Babylon was still a city and a territory—See Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2. "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis]. This is far to the east of the Roman Empire and not in Rome which is in the western part of the Empire. This is where Peter apparently had much of his ministry among the many Jews scattered there from previous centuries. He was there preaching that the Messiah had come, that Jesus Christ was that promised Messiah, and that Jesus Christ was the only hope of salvation. He was there preaching to those people when he wrote the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter. He wrote to those who were in what is now Asia Minor or what is now modern Turkey. All of these districts that he mentions are in a little section of eastern Turkey. The New Testament gives no statement or hint whatever that Peter was ever in the City of Rome, the Capital of the Roman Empire in his day.

(Peter was doing exactly as his Lord commanded and had gone to the Jews in Babylon)

4 February 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger len said...

Albert, Dodo, and others,

I think you should be very much aware of exactly what your 'foundation is!.

Catholics claim Matthew 16-18 was the authority given to Peter to build a Church/religious system.The fact this is not accepted by any outside Catholicism does not deter them one bit!.Scripture quite clearly states who the 'Rock' is and it definitely was not Peter.
Islam also claims its' authority from the Scriptures' but then denies the truth clearly revealed about Christ within the Scriptures.

So if the scriptures are true(and they are )then Catholicism and Islam(and all the other religions) are false religions.You cannot have it both ways!.

' For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.'(1 Corinthians 3:11)

4 February 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

1. It is usually accepted that Babylon, in the NT refers to Rome. Hence in Revelation 17 we read of Babylon, and the description matches Rome, right down to the fact that it is a city built on seven mountains. You don't have to be a Catholic to accept this. Thus, when the Bible shows Peter in Babylon, it means Rome.
2. Yes, of course, Peter speaks of Jesus as the rock, but it is perverse to take this to mean that the word "rock" can only be used in this way. How then will you interpret: laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock ? That Jesus was the tomb in which Jesus was laid?

Clearly the NT is able to use the same expression in different ways. For example, Jesus says, Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. And if we ask what the word "door" means, we find, that by your standards, it means Jesus for Jesus says "I am the door." So the word of God is reduced to absurdity when we apply your principles: Jesus knocks on himself.

Similarly, Jesus says "I am the Light of the world". But even this does not mean the expression "Light of the word" only applies to him. For he also says "You are the light of the world." So your principle is plainly false when applied to the Bible. It doesn't need saying that you have provided no evidence from the Bible for your principle.

Consequently, we cannot foreclose how scripture may use the word "rock" in different contexts. In any case, in Mt 16, Jesus plainly and explicitly says Peter is the rock. But you don't want it to say that, and so you would prefer to nullify it, with exegetical principles which cannot found in scripture and are plainly contradicted by scripture.

Now, as usual, you have made a whole series of earlier claims in other posts about this. As usual Dodo and I have answered them. Do we get any counter arguments, or are you conceding that you were making scripture contradict itself?

Let me ask some straight questions, which all arise from things you have claimed.

1. Did Jesus only send Peter to the Jews?
2. Did Paul show that someone else had made the foundation of the Church in Rome?
3. Is the silence in Paul evidence against (for example) the Virgin Birth?

4 February 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry Len, I've just spotted this addition.

So if the scriptures are true(and they are )then Catholicism and Islam(and all the other religions) are false religions.You cannot have it both ways!.

I think an impartial observer of this discussion would recognise immediately that it is your position which makes scripture contradict itself, and they would draw their own conclusion.

Catholics claim Matthew 16-18 was the authority given to Peter to build a Church/religious system.The fact this is not accepted by any outside Catholicism does not deter them one bit!

I don't think you have expressed the Catholic claim at all well there. The text says, and Catholics believe, that Christ will build his Church on Peter. This is accepted not only by Catholics, but by Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants, including many Anglicans. For example Hagner's very worthy Protestant commentary (to pick simply the first one that falls off my shelf) says the Catholic reading is the "natural reading...required by the word play in Greek" while "attempts to deny this...seem largely to be motivated by Protestant prejudice."

So: are you disturbed by the fact that it isn't only Catholics who follow this interpretation? Are you disturbed by the fact that the Catholic reading is the natural one? Are you disturbed that even Protestant scholars recognise that the reading you offer is motivated by Protestant prejudice rather than a serious attempt to listen to the word of God and let it say what it has to say (i.e. the Protestant reading is an attempt to nullify the word of God to uphold a human tradition)? No, I don't expect you are disturbed by that Nothing the Bible actually says seems to make any difference at all to you!

' For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.'

What then do we find in Ephesians:

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

You see, in order to uphold your tradition, you must make scripture nullity itself.

4 February 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Albert

Well said. There will be no answers of substance but it is important to respond.

I've noticed often in dealing with strict 'born againers' that they use scripture as a weapon against Catholicism. Of course there are numerous websites now they can use as reference sources. Scripture is often partially quoted, taken out of context or given some odd interpretation.

As I recall in the New Testament there is one particular creature who quotes scripture at Christ in similar fashion and He responded by using scripture against the Enemy. I think Catholics likewise have to become much more adept in presenting the Word and in displaying reason in explaining it.

4 February 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

I've noticed often in dealing with strict 'born againers' that they use scripture as a weapon against Catholicism

That's a very good way of putting it. The problem for Protestantism is that, from the first it was a tradition in reaction against something. Whereas Catholicism grew from apostolic roots, Protestantism defines itself against Catholicism and can only survive by denying Catholicism, rather than just listening to scripture.

Of course there are numerous websites now they can use as reference sources. Scripture is often partially quoted, taken out of context or given some odd interpretation.

Yes, I've been quite shocked by the fact that these things come from sites presumably representing real Protestant communities. I suppose for years these preachers have been able to rant on without contradiction. Now with the internet, we can challenge it with the Bible.

4 February 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Prayer to St. Isidore of Seville
(Patron Saint of the Imternet)

Almighty and eternal God,
who has created us in Thy image
and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful,
especially in the divine person
of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
grant we beseech Thee that,
through the example of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor,
during our journeys through the Internet
we will direct our hands and eyes
only to that which is pleasing to Thee
and treat with charity and patience
all those souls whom we encounter.
Through Christ our Lord,
Amen.

Discovered this inspirational Saint recently and, with his help, who knows, even I may be able to reform my approach!

4 February 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger len said...

Albert your answer(4 February 2012 11:33) is predictable but it wouldn`t hold up in court!.

Neither does it with me.

Dodo the dilapidated duck seems to be 'going off on one'invoking spirits or whatever please try to calm him down!.

Albert have you looked up who is the 'Rock' in scripture?...A word of advice................... I should tread very carefully on' your foundation'.

5 February 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

is predictable but it wouldn`t hold up in court!

Of course it wouldn't! Courts do not decide on matters of historical symbolism. This is the kind of thing careful scholarship deals with. I have shown that Protestant as well as Catholic scholarship supports Catholicism on these matter. In contrast, your self-contradictory testimony could be assessed by a court and would thrown out.

I note with interest that you have (as usual) failed to respond to my questions and the arguments that Dodo and I have put to you.

Albert have you looked up who is the 'Rock' in scripture?

I think we have demonstrated that scripture uses the word "Rock" in a number of ways. As usual you have failed to respond, except for continuing to assert what has already been answered and thus, your answer contradicts scripture.

A word of advice................... I should tread very carefully on' your foundation'

Peter is not my foundation, he is the foundation Christ has given. You should listen to him.

A word of advice from me: be careful not to tell God what he can and cannot say in his word.

5 February 2012 at 12:35  
Blogger len said...

Albert, you might find this enlightening.

Upon This ROCK - Jacob Prasch (YouTube) www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF2fwwR5SAI

Once you have watched this you will know the Truth, what you do with this is entirely up to you.
Every Catholic who is interested in learning the truth about his(or her) religion should be able to hear the truth of the Gospel and the truth about their religion.

5 February 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dodo and Albert, You have to admit Len has stamina and he keeps coming back and only to get a drubbing. You do a great job and are showing even more stamina than him because you actually make valid scriptural answers which are not twisted to mean the opposite of what they say. However, I think the main worry about this blog is the actions by the humanists and secularists. In the last few years their attempts to eradicate religion have taken on a very aggressive tone. Who would have thought that the current crisis of homosexual clergy would be used as a weapon to remove Catholics from the institutions of power in a Catholic country. It is clear that the threat to Christianity is moving up a gear and the silence about the atrocities against Christians in the Muslim world is clearly deliberate on the part of politicians and media alike. I am coming round to the view that we are fast approaching the end times and by that I mean within the next ten years. The prophecy of Daniel in Chapter 9 give us seventy weeks from the going forth of a message. Below is a link to a series of videos which claims that this event occurred in 1947 with the UN declaration about the establishment of Israel. He therefore claims that 2017 will be the second coming which means that we are almost in the time of great tribulation prophesied by Jesus. I’m not an expert, but he makes a mathematical case from the prophesies of Daniel The signs of the times are ominous and an aggressive satanic assault is what we would expect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1bkB1nShSU.

5 February 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Chief Priest len

You really cannot be serious!

Is this the chappie that says the Catholic Church is the 'Great Prostitute' and 'Mother of Prostitutes'? The supposed purveyor of 'Babylonian Mysteries'? The man who says we are told to come out of her ways in Revelation 18:4 and to have nothing to do with her false traditions?

No wonder your head is full of nonsence about Jesus and the Trinity!

Read the following:

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness."
(2 Cor 11:13-15, NIV).

5 February 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Shacklefree

I never get drawn into speculation about the 'End Times'. In fact,Jesus told us not to.

Throughout history the Church has faced continual trials and as members of Christ's Body all we can do is live as good Christians day by day and leave the future to God the Father.

Should it really make any difference to us if the world were due to end next year, in 5 years or in 10 years? And even if we warned people, would they listen and receive Christ?

However, I do agree aggressive secularism and aggressive atheism are on the rise, sustaining and promoting a hedonistic, self-centred culture. This represents a tangible threat to souls and it may well represent a threat to the very survival of God's Church.

What we can be confident in is that Jesus is with His Church to the consumation of time - whenever that may be.

5 February 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I'm not going to listen to a nearly hour long lecture by someone who thought Calvin was originally a Catholic priest and Erasmus a Protestant Reformer.

That this man is no guide is evident from his claim about the expression "Vicar of Christ" translating as "anti-Christ". Jesus said, "As the Father sent me, so I send you". What can that mean but that they go in the place of Christ? Did Christ then send out anti-Christs?

So, in less that five minutes, he has managed to make two errors of fact and condemn the apostles as anti-Christs.

In any case, there's a kind of irony about you suggesting I listen to your authority figure contradict what I can see scripture plainly says, especially when he shows within the first five minutes that he isn't the scholar he claims to be.

5 February 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo and Shacklefree,

I never get drawn into speculation about the 'End Times'. In fact,Jesus told us not to.

I was about to make that point, but Dodo got there first.

5 February 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger len said...

Albert, you fell at the first fence!..

6 February 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger Albert said...

No Len, your man fell at the first fence. But notice how opposed he is to sola scriptura. He sets out his stall as someone who can read all those languages, and makes comments about how this helps him to know the truth about Catholicism. It's a telling point. In the Catholic Church you wouldn't bother to listen to a talk on scripture unless the person was schooled in the relevant biblical languages. By having to mention it, he showed he was rather a novelty. But then of course, he removes the scripture away from the people and places it into his hands, because he is a specialist (or claims to be). We can't really know what scripture needs unless we have his skills in biblical languages.

Len, all Catholic clergy have to know biblical languages, and something similar occurs in the CofE. It's nothing special. The fact that so many scholars have these languages but do not draw the same conclusions as him (coupled with his basic errors within 4.09) shows scripture, read with the original languages, does not reach the conclusions he says.

6 February 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger len said...

Pity Albert that your ears are shut to the truth.

The truth only sets you free if you are prepared to listen to it!.

But I suppose it seems safer to cling to our illusions and cherished ideas.

The Way to Life is narrow and few will find it.Truth can be a very painful thing but without it change is impossible.Which is exactly why Jesus said you must be born again.

To be born again means to die with Christ on the Cross of Calvary and many will not accept that, they want to Live with Christ but not to die with Him.

7 February 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"There's nothing wrong with him that trying to make him see reason won't make worse."

7 February 2012 at 21:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older