Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Church of Scotland supports Scottish independence

Kind of.

That’s to say, they don’t oppose it.

In principle.

Indeed, the CofS is manifestly of the view that ‘Self‐determination for any nation is a good political principle that the Church would support’. According to their ‘draft response to UK consultation on Scotland’s Constitutional Future’, the sole determining factor in securing the Church’s support is ‘to ensure that social justice would be improved by any constitutional change’.

So, centuries of tied history, literature, language, literature, religion, philosophy and culture are subsumed to the very present social trinity of ‘poverty, health (and) education’. These, they aver, ‘reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ’.


So the Church of Scotland supports the agenda of the SNP if the objective is ‘the alleviation of poverty, the reduction of ill health, forgiveness in the criminal justice system and in society, cultural change that builds better neighbourhoods, removes prejudice that feeds things like sectarianism and welcomes strangers without qualification and all the other things that nurture human living’.

Not a word about the gospel or salvation or religious liberty. And to establish whether or not independence would yield these social benefits, the Church calls for a debate.


So, we have a debate and there are (as there tends to be) two competing, diametrically opposing and mutually exclusive views: the SNP separatists will say that these ‘values’ of Jesus will surely be fulfilled by secession; the Conservative/Labour/LibDem unionists will say that Christ’s purposes are better served by UK political union. How does the Church propose to adjudicate between these two extremes? Take a vote? Did Jesus preach democracy? As Margaret Thatcher told the Kirk some years ago in her 'Sermon on the Mound': “Nowhere in the Bible is the word democracy mentioned. Ideally, when Christians meet, as Christians, to take counsel together their purpose is not (or should not be) to ascertain what is the mind of the majority but what is the mind of the Holy Spirit – something which may be quite different.”

But appeals to Margaret Thatcher on matters Scottish will win no allies. By this Report, the Church of Scotland is aligning itself with the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland: Cardinal Keith O’Brien has long advocated Scottish secession from the Union saying he would be ‘happy’ if Scots voted for independence. Drawing parallels with the independence of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, he is of the view that ‘it is difficult to argue that ecclesiastical independence is acceptable but political independence is not’.

Significantly, when it comes to managing the process of democracy in a referendum, the CofS is of the view that the Section 30 order applied via the 1998 Scotland Act (which provides that Her Majesty may by Order in Council authorise the holding of a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament) should be used as the basis for a discussion and agreement by both the UK and Scottish Governments. They say they would ‘not support any process if it were imposed’ by the UK Parliament. The Church is effectively empowering Alex Salmond against David Cameron’s conditions on both the question(s) and timing of the referendum. They add: ‘On the principle that decision making should be devolved to the lowest level practically possible, the view of the Church would be that the Scottish Parliament should be given powers to legislate for a referendum as that would mean the decisions about process would be taken as closely to those involved as possible.’

It is a curious spiritual and political blindness which preaches that ‘decision making should be devolved to the lowest level practically possible’ and ‘taken as closely to those involved as possible’, while simultaneously advocating direct Scottish membership of the European Union, which would necessitate a new application and acceptance of the acquis, lock, stock and barrel, which would shift decision making on some very crucial matters of social policy very far away from the Scottish people, and would do so in perpetuity.

But isn’t it refreshing to have a nationalist patriotic church – you know, one that celebrates its traditions, is proud of its distinct heritage, builds firmly upon its historic foundations and holds its head high in the political sphere?


Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

The concept of a national, (nationalistic?) church is an interesting one. It may well be that the Holy Spirit is testing the churches at this time as we read in Revelation.

If the national church paradign is hte wrong one, it might be better for the church to voluntarily withdraw from it rather than wait to be forced out over, for example. homosexual marriage. Perhaps separation is the way to go so that the plain Gospel of salvation can be preached without hindrance.

As far as the Scots and independence are conerned, I wish them well whatever they choose, I just wish they'd stop robbing the English and sending so many socialist MPs to Westminster.

14 March 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace, a well thought out thread with fine observation.

Old Ernst has thought for sometime now that it would be better if the rest of the union should start the divorce procedings itself from it's unfaithful partner. Bit like a wife from her wandering eyed husband.

Scotland is demanding such things from the 'marriage' that it beggars belief that it would be acceptable to its other partner. 'Batchelor Max'!

Scotland would like it's own cut from the family purse, irrespective of the consequences whilst still maintaining a relationship, it would like to gamble/invest this for its own benefit whilst still maintaining a relationship, it would still like access to being suported by the family purse should the gambling/investments go wrong whilst still maintaining a relationship, take money from its children but still be able to take from the wife's children should this be neccessary whilst still maintaining a relationship, it can go whoring after others/people the other partner knows for a sort of relationship outside the marriage whilst still maintaining a relationship.

If all of these demands are unacceptable as it demands 'batchelor max' to stay with us, then they will divorce from us and have a marriage with a other/s. Let them see if the euro grass is greener than our pleasant land.

If a husband demanded such terms from his wife to stay, she could divorce him for
Unreasonable behaviour

Let's put the old wanderlust Scot out of his misery and start proceedings ourself?

Even the law in this country recognises that there is no point trying to keep two people in a marriage when at least one of them wishes to leave or with constant accusations not even try to make it work for the other person as well, no matter what is given or conceded by the other.

Successful marriages – and let’s remember that there are still more successful ones than unsuccessful ones (although only just!) – take a lot of effort from both sides and perhaps in today's "I want it all and I want it now" society we have lost the will or no longer see the need to try and keep trying to make a marriage work.

Don't want to divorce from them but "Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives.." Hard hearts need to consider the consequence of their actions to show the unreasonableness and hope they soften back to love.


14 March 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

If Scotland does go her own way then there are three possibilities under international law in relation to the EU according to a briefing to parliament (Scotland, independence and the EU):

1. Continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not);
2. Separation (both entities would retain them).
3. Dissolution (both would lose them).

If Cameron loses Scotland and with Qualified Majority Voting being implemented within the EU – and voting power based on population size – this country will be trashed by the EU.

14 March 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

If Scotland does go her own way then there are three possibilities under international law in relation to the EU according to a briefing to parliament (Scotland, independence and the EU):

1. Continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not);
2. Separation (both entities would retain them).
3. Dissolution (both would lose them).

If Cameron loses Scotland and with Qualified Majority Voting being implemented within the EU – and voting power based on population size – this country will be trashed by the EU.

14 March 2012 at 10:32  
Blogger A.K.A. Damo Mackerel said...

If Scotland does get its independence are they planning on joining the EU?

14 March 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, when one thinks of the Church of Scotland one is reminded of Charles I, who observed, 'Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman'.

But that apart, it is a disgrace that both the Romans and the pressbuttons are colluding to break up the Union. May the Scottish people confound their knavish tricks.

14 March 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

No suprises there, then.
OF COURSE the CofS wants SNottish "indpendance" - if obly because the SNP and Salmond are interfering nannies, who would LURVE to ba ble to peer into peoples' drinking habits & bedrooms.
Corrupt shites the lot of them.
It should be no suprise that R Murdoch is cuddling up to the SNP, as well ......

14 March 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

I have heard very little discussion about what proportion of the massive UK public debt the seceeding Scots should take with them. Should it be worked out on a proportionate per capita basis, or should it take into account the large additional per head spend that Scotland has enjoyed these past decades?

This is before we discuss reparation for the damage inflicted on England by the mad Scotsman Gordon Brown.

Surely Alec Weasel hasn't succeeded in making the wannabe seceeders think they can walk awa' Scot free?

14 March 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

Another issue that should be discussed more is that an independent Scotland in solving the West Lothian problem would quite probably leave an independent England with a permanent conservative majority, since the Scots send so many socialists to Westminster.

An Edinburgh regime adopting full blooded socialist policies without the flow of English money they are so used to would lead to the economic ruin of Scotland in a short time.

What would we do about the inevitable huge migration of Scots immigrants seeking work or benefits south of Hadrian's wall?

14 March 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
Independence for Scotland from the UK and a move to slavery in the EU!
What kind of a choice is that and how will it benefit the population? They really must hate England something chronic. One might have thought that by now, there would have been some accord between our two countries. Apparently not. The SNP has gone through the Scottish Fables and decided to revive the concepts of the Noble Scots. Not quite Sir Walter Scott, more like Rob Roy.
The Church should not have a central role in these matters as it is not an issue of the Gospel and may well antagonise those with differing views.
As an Englishman, I already resent the differing benefits being accorded to the respective populations and so would not want separatist terms that were unfavourable to England and the rest of the UK.

14 March 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Elwin, Salmond has repeatedly said that the proportion of debt an independent Scotland should take would be about 8%, since Scotland has about 8% of the population. Sounds fair enough to me.

As to Scots MPs keeping Labour in power, Blair seemed to manage perfectly well in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without having to rely on the Jocks. Labour is perfectly capable of winning in England, so long as they give the English what they want - law and order, excellent health services, top notch education, bread and circuses and all on low or no tax. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Ok, it might be a bit difficult without Scottish oil, but I'm sure you'll work something out.

14 March 2012 at 12:15  
Blogger Jon said...

Ah Corrigan - back to the boards to witter on about oil!

To address the point of the post directly, I don't really understand how a Church has any "patriotic" stand point at all? After all, isn't national pride still pride and therefore a sin?

As to the level of debate - I saw during the Andrew Neil show on Sunday, and the local scottish segment, with Salmond addressing questions from a female Paxman-lite who was so inept as to repeatedly ask exactly the wrong questions - she kept asking about the Bank of England's role as lender of last resort (like it was a phrase she was clinging to because she thought it was a killer point - as it might have been had she had the forethought to learn how to use it!)

The questions surely are more along the following lines;

First, when RBS or AN other scottish bank fails in future - who will bail it out? There are three answers - Scotland, no one or someone else. If Scotland, then the tax base of Scotland is not anywhere near sufficient to support RBS or LBG, who would be forced to leave Scottish jurisdiction in order to avoid having their remaining freely traded shares utterly routed. If Salmond's answer is "no one" then the banks will probably conclude the same. If the answer is someone else, then what kind of sovereignty is he actually seeking?

The second question is - what currency will be used? If the SNP's long term aim is to sign up to the Euro still then Salmond should be honest enough to say so. He keeps blethering on about the "Sterling Zone" (by which of course, he means the UK). Adopting another country's currency as your own is possible (some central american countries use the dollar informally, and I think Macedonia uses the Euro on the same basis) however these countries have no control over their own monetary policy. Let's say that post independence, the Bank of England intervenes to stifle inflation in England, whilst Scotland is actually tootling along quite nicely. The effect is the same as Scotland signing up for an ECB policy which is dictated by economic conditions in the Ruhr, at the exclusion of all else. Why would the remainder of the UK, with a sovereign national bank consider the impact of its monetary policy on Scotland at all? It wouldn't, is the answer. Scots should therefore prepare themselves for inappropriately priced money supply.

Thirdly, cross border movement of people. There was a time when the Scottish/ English union was the world's largest free trading zone, and we were all the richer for it. If Scotland becomes independent, but is outside the EU until it can complete its accession (assuming that Spain doesn't veto as a warning to Catalonia and the Basque country or the UK out of pique) what guarantees will Salmond seek for the free movement of peoples across the border? What if Westminster closes the border and build a security fence to make a point - after all, Scotland would suffer far more as the smaller economy? If Scotland doesn't succeed in joining the EU, what will its immigration policies be? What provision will there be for forced deportation of English and other EU residents in Scotland? Will Scots living in the EU have a right of return?

I don't mind appeals to patriotism and national history, and literature (twice in the fourth paragraph Your Grace - that's some literature!) but it doesn't put bread on tables. If you're going to do it, do it because it's the right thing to do, rather than because Salmond stands shoulder to shoulder with Sean Connery and Mel Gibson and tells you you're a colonised country being "robbed" by the evil English!

14 March 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Ernst is confused by your tweet.

"His_Grace O, for !*%/!*^'s sake…"

Is that a sympathetic and concerned 'O, for !*%/!*^'s sake' for Mr McGeorge, or a condemning, sneered 'O, for !*%/!*^'s sake', 'just eat your sarnie and read The Sun during your lunch break'.


14 March 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

We, all of us, English and Scots alike, should not break what ought not to be broken.

Ancient and Most Holy Realm of Britain, first amongst Churches; what need WE of Europe?

God save the Union!

14 March 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger Anglican said...

I have been visiting Scotland for nearly 50 years, and have always thought the Scots and English were far more alike than, for example, the English and Welsh (I say this as someone who is partly Welsh by descent).

Yet I have often been puzzled by the Scots prickly assertiveness regarding England. They have actually contributed more (relative to population) to the growth of the British Empire, and to the industrial revolution, than England - after they became part of the UK. I have long thought that some form of devolution was desirable in the UK, for regions of England as well as elsewhere (centralisation of power in London is thoroughly bad; yielding power to Brussels is far worse).

The UK is far stronger, and more stable, as a united federal(?) country than split up into its separate parts. Scotland is very likely to be economically and financially worse off by itself. If the Scots really want to go it alone, that is up to them, but they should carefully consider where Salmond – seemingly giving way to megalomania – is leading them.

14 March 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Simon & Lucy said...

Sociologists such as David Martin would tell us that religious groups associated with increasing nationalism benefit positively. So this is an attempt at a smart cultural move.

14 March 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger Oswin said...

Anglican: There you have it, we are too alike, and there lies some measure of the problem. Much of the Central Belt is of Angli origin, as is most of the East Coast. Another country, but with the localised emnity of Lancs and Yorks, or Geordies and Mackems even.

14 March 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. One would presume that whichever side wins, the Church of Scotland will wish to maintain its influence with the governing body. The easiest way to lose influence is to back the WRONG SIDE ! Rather obvious really, what !

Come to heel, that Blue dog. it is a disgrace that…the Romans…are colluding to break up the Union

Knavish tricks indeed, that hound. Rather you say ‘EU’ rather than ‘Romans’. Anyone would think the indigenous Catholics have a hand in this !!

14 March 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It is curious the Church of Scotland can speak with clarity and conviction on this issue, yet not on homosexual marriage. Does this position not require the support of their General Assembly?
And a detailed and specific position on the mechanics of referendum too!

And they are only calling for a debate given it is the expressed will of the Scottish people following the election.

Of course, history dictates many Scots in the Kirk will be keen to seperate from England after the bloody struggles between Episcopalian and Presbyterian models of Church governance centuries ago. The memory of the Covenanters is still strong.

One should note too there is a greater will to promote social justice in Scotland through government with less emphasis placed on the anglo-saxon model of the protestant ethic that is stronger in England.

As for the Catholic Church - is there an alignment between the two Churches on this issue? Has the Catholic Church in Scotland submitted a response to the consultation?

So far as I am aware, Cardinal O'Brian's thoughts, expresed in 2006, are his own and not the official position of the Church.

The full quote, only partly given in the blog, is:

"I would not get too involved in the politics of independence, but I am happy that, if it is the wish of the people, Scotland becomes an independent country."

A few important qualifiers in there!

And O'Brien conceded that, as the leader of a Scottish church which is itself independent from England, "it is difficult to argue that ecclesiastical independence is acceptable but political independence is not".

14 March 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

To gain credibility with the Roman Catholic Church, Mussolini had a religious marriage ceremony to his wife Rachele. Their first marriage in 1915 had been a civil ceremony.

Mussolini closed down many wine shops and night clubs. He also made swearing in public a crime.

Good luck Moira

14 March 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

Have no fear!

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Mars had endured for almost six centuries and will continue to exist long after The Euro Gov has crumbled into dust.

In my era, Samond is know for what he really is - a bigoted, pompus fool, who is not worthy enough to run a brothel let alone a great people like the Scots!

14 March 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog said ...
"... it is a disgrace that both the Romans and the pressbuttons are colluding to break up the Union."

As explained above, the Catholic Church has no declared position. To talk of collusion or alignment is nonsense.

The full quote from Cardinal O'Brian's personally expressed view in 2006 should reassure you:

"I would not get too involved in the politics of independence, but I am happy that, if it is the wish of the people, Scotland becomes an independent country."

14 March 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Catholic Church in Ireland covers both Eire and Northern Ireland.

Wonder if the Presbyterians over there would support a vote for independendance and reunion with the South?

14 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I doubt it, Dodo. Ulster Protestants are defined exclusively by they hate, not what they love. They're "Unionist" because they hate Catholics more than they hate the English; however, they do actually despise the English. They just hate them slightly less than they do the Taigs.

Their postition post Scottish independence would be an invidious one. What historical connections with Britain they may have are all towards Scotland, but there isn't a dog's chance that the Scots would take them with them, even if the English were agreable. But then, the English don't want them either, and, truth be told, the southern Irish really aren't that hot about linking up with them either. What it is to be popular, eh?

14 March 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

Let us pray that the predictions of the Alpha Dranconis are true- 600 years of the UK! By Jove that would take us to about 2307 or something. Alpha might be a nut, but at least his heart is in the correct place- but why does he say Ireland - shouldn't that be northern and what's all the guff about Mars?

14 March 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you for clarifying matters, Mr Dodo @ 19.23. With Rangers FC in administration this communicant could envisage a sense of moral collapse in Presbyterian circles, and an uncharacteristic willingness to make compromises.

Mr Corrigan, this communicant has always felt that a re-unification of Ireland is the only sane hope. It will take time of course for wounds to heal, but ss long as opinion both sides of the border is moderate and religious extremism is banished by mutual agreement, it should be possible. Then a re-united Ireland can take its place once again as a key part of an expanded United Kingdom. As it stands the Irish economy is on life-support courtesy of Mario Draghi's version of QE at the ECB. When the Germans wake up, are they are doing so, this source of financial oxygen will be cut off, with horrible implications for Ireland.

Come on, you know it makes sense. Indeed, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. But take your time.

14 March 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@ Blue Dog :

"Then a re-united Ireland can take its place once again as a key part of an expanded United Kingdom".

The blue hound knows his history! Is he a fellow time traveller?

14 March 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


That does not really explain things- what about Alex Samond? Mars? And how does Ireland reunite the UK?

14 March 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Alpha Draconis @ 21.06 asks of the hound, 'Is he a fellow time traveller'.

Alas not my friend, nothing inter-galactic, merely an earthly visionary.

When will you reveal your true mission?

14 March 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Corrigan said ...
"They're "Unionist" because they hate Catholics more than they hate the English; however, they do actually despise the English."

Interesting observation. It's similar in parts of Scotland. "Unionism" equates with tribal anti-Catholicism. Yet in some weird way these characters become supporters of "Independance" from the English.

Oh what harm the Union and Reformation has inflicted on the Scottish psyche!

14 March 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 March 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Actually, thinking about it, is it fuelled primarily by a deep-seated hostility towards Rome and Canterbury?

14 March 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Mr Blue Dog

My true purpose is to watch history unfold; I have been tasked by the Imperial Court to write a full history of the British Space Empire from 2012 to 2300 and what better way to do so than to be here as history happens? .

14 March 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


What a lod of cock- although the story might be made better by including some of His Grace's fellow communicants. Couldn't you write in a part for Dodo, Danjo and of course that tall handsome Lord?

14 March 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Lord Lavendon


14 March 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


I've watch star trek- you shouldn't write this stuff as it could change 'the time line'. So perhaps you should make up the names (and include me in it! and possibly Dojo and Dodo) and make it a bit more interesting ?.

14 March 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

oh - and perhaps you should stop wasting his Grace's space with all this stuff- it is not really pertaining to the post is it?

14 March 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...


...There is logic in what you say. And perhaps I have already altered the time line already. But very well, I shall re-write the history to make it more 'entertaining', although how I will write you and Dodo into it I don't know. And what to do with Danjo?

Oh, blow me to Alpha Centauri!

14 March 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You have breached the Prime Order of the hidden Lord of Time. Disclosing future events in concrete detail renders them open to change, thus causing a potentially fatal disturbance in the destiny of humans.

It is for the inhabitants of this planet to work out their future and to exercise freedom of will. Having disclosed the future you have created a paradox - free actions leading to a known, predetermined outcome.

Watch history; do not interfere in it. You are in great trouble when your superiors discover your transgression.

And Lord Lavendon is quite correct. Your "load of cock" would be greatly improved by including parts for regular contributors to this blog site. Afterall, this is where history is being made.

For example, Len's conversion to Catholicism needs to be mentioned, as does DanJ0's rehabilitation to healthy heterosexuality. The fate of Ernst hangs in the balance and is a race in time with his developing dementia. And when will Mr Cranmer accept the errors of his ways? The Inspector's stout defence of the values of civilisation is worthy of recognition too.

14 March 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

We do not use terms around here like "blow me"! This subject has been dealt with in full already.

14 March 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear hear, that bird.

14 March 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

We should all be aware of the dangers of democracy, social liberal, social conservative or otherwise.

The will of 51% should never be allowed to rule over the will of 49%, indeed 99% should never be allowed to rule over the will of ever one individual.

We should be ruled under common law restricted by a written on tablets of stone constitution. A constitution predicated on universal property rights.

Democracy has many potential dangers, the most lethal of which are that the people can be so easily mind controlled, and are often given the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea to select from.

We can no longer trust our own minds, as the information that is daily fed to them is ever more corrupted by people who rarely if ever have our best interests at heart.

It is clear that when it suits our owners agenda's to promote minority issues to the detriment of the almost universally held wishes of the majority, they will relentlessly do so. On the other hand if it suits our owners agenda's to pick off selected minorities one by one, they will do so with out care or conscience.

This should be known as the worst of all worlds, not the better of any, even if the ONLY alternatives presented to us seem to be even worse. This can only ultimately lead to overt absolute dictatorship replacing the slightly more convert form that most of us where born into.

Perhaps it has always been this way. Perhaps the only thing that has really changed over 5 thousand years is that the people slowly became so 'educated' lazy or simply stupid, that they seriously started to believe that they had minds of their own, and where somehow free to use them properly.

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see, and none so enslaved as those that genuinely believe themselves not to be so.

Please read the below quote to see how your owners thought of the vast majority of the common people back in the early 13th century.

The Fourth Lateran Council of the western church (RRC) decreed in 1215.

"The secret mysteries of the faith ought not to be explained to all men in all places.... For such is the depth of divine scipture that, not only the simple and illieterate, but even the prudent and learned are not fully sufficient to try to understand it."

End quote

Do you really think these types have changed even one tiny bit since then?

14 March 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So who do you believe is behind this conspiracy you now attribute to the Catholic Church? From what you say, this force has been present since the beginning of time, predating Judaism and Christianity by millenia.

And I have to say the quote you cited has been proven correct by history. For individuals to believe then can on their own merit and intelligence fathom the mysteries of Scripture is surely a contradiction of Scripture itself and Satan whispering in their ear. Look what it has led to?

" . . . as also in all his [Paul] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"
(2 Peter 3:16).

More than hermeneutics and exegesis are required for comprehension of God's word.

15 March 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

" Len's conversion to Catholicism needs to be mentioned, as does DanJ0's rehabilitation to healthy heterosexuality. The fate of Ernst hangs in the balance and is a race in time with his developing dementia. And when will Mr Cranmer accept the errors of his ways? The Inspector's stout defence of the values of civilisation is worthy of recognition too."

Goodness me, Do you believe this is the TV Comedy 'Soap'. or a blog comedy called 'Pope'!

Everyones blogging to OoiG when they knew damn well Dodo is throwing his comment - Ernst laughed & laughed.

Announcer: Come to Cranmer's blog and you'll come to care for the characters & their ridiculous predicaments soon enough you'll be amazed at how utterly clever it all is.

Dodo, are you the guy with the puppet or is that muppet and should we call you Chuck? :-)

Does that make DanJo-Jodie Dallas the blog soap 'hellooo'
DanJo:'Plato was gay'.
G TINGEY:'What, Mickey Mouse's dog was gay?'
DanJo: Goofy was his lover.

The wisdom of DanJo: 'Women can't be gay. Because if men were gay and women were gay they'd cancel each other out.'

Ernst/Benson: I'm 4064 years old. What do you think I owe it to, a terrific moisturiser?

OoiG : Ok Chaps, let's synchronize our watches. It's now... 3-ish.

Chuck/Dodo: Seven of my guys are going to be off today 'cause it's a Jewish holiday and I'm gonna have to do all their jobs. What really gets me is that I don't think they're all Jewish... two of them are black rastafarians and one's an Indian.

[after describing the often confusing plot line from the previous episode at the top of every show]

Announcer: Confused? Catholic 'catholic' or just cataholic.
You won't be after this episode of "Soap" wash those sins away!


15 March 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

You ask a question, that you have previously answered yourself, have you not?

Satan moves in MYSTERIOUS ways, but he also moves in highly, methodical, systematic, patient, and logical ones, right to the very top of the worlds power structures.

The RCC is predominately a mystery religion based on traditions that go back way past the reported birth of Jesus of Nazarath. Indeed so far back that no one can say with any certainty quite how far into the distant past, these mystery's go.

The RCC was identified by early evangelists as such as soon as they first got a copy of The Book to read. The first notable evangelist being John Wycliffe during the mid to late 14th century.

He claimed that The Pope represented the anti-christ as laid down in scripture, most clearly within the book of Revelation, and had no hesitation in saying so.

John Wycliffe made it his lifes work to translate The Book into English so that what was self apparent to himself, would also become self apparent to as many as possible.

His works later went on to form the foundations of The King James Bible. You know that book you are supposed to read, but never do.

The RCC was the dominate power in the world then, and it still is today, BUT EVEN MORE SO, as it has successfully infiltrated, and subverted every single major temporal and spiritual entity know to mankind, BAR NONE, including Freemasonry, and of course The Banking Industry.

It was clear to early biblical scholars that The Roman Church had become the very antithesis of what Jesus preached in the Gospels.

Which they claimed was the true reason why the RCC was so desperately keen to stop anyone INCLUDING all but a tiny minority of even Roman Catholic priests, from reading all but small highly selected and edited sections of Holy Testament.

So you see I am not saying anything particularly new with regards to The Roman Church. These ideas/discoveries go back more then 700 years to the time of The Council of Trent.

Now this is a question you need to answer yourself?

As the RCC, its affiliates, concubines, and bankers have been basically running the ENTIRE show for now almost 2000 years do you think that they have done a good, or a bad job of things?

Remember that you eternal soul may be on the line with this one, so I ask, nay beg you to do your own research into these matters, instead of expecting myself to do it all for you.

There is a massive amount of relevant material out there, which is not at all difficult to find, all you have to do is have the will to educate yourself, and to do so with an open mind.

Why not start with a book I have just finished reading, namely The Peoples Bible, by Derek Wilson

15 March 2012 at 03:06  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

More than hermeneutics and exegesis are required for comprehension of God's word.

My dear Dodo.

I have to pick you up on this last sentence, for it truly encapsulates what is the extremely long standing problem of The RCC, and it's utterly misguided followers, bless um.

The Holy Bible is not at all difficult to understand for even someone of a limited intellect. Of course it works on several different levels of understanding, like all the greatest divinely inspired works of art, however the underlining message of The Gospels is unmistakable.

The people do not, and have never needed a priest to tell them that they are being rampantly screwed over by their establishment masters.

The Roman Church has over time become slightly more Biblical at the bottom level, but at the higher remains a Mystery School cut off from all but the initiated few.

Astrology, Magic, Fortune Telling, Mythology, Alchemy, Witchcraft, Human Sacrifice, and all of the rest of the ancient mysteries have as much if not a whole lot more to do with The Roman Church then Jesus, or his father for that matter.

So much so that The Holy Father exists as The Pope on Earth, and therefore the RCC has effectively replaced God with material man. This may not be a heresy to The RCC, but it most surely is of the highest kind to The Word of Jesus Christ.

Please understand that I do not consider myself to fall on either one side or the other, or indeed any side at all.

However as you clearly consider yourself to be a pious Roman Catholic then it is only fair to advise you that where you may very well be ending up for a very long time indeed, it would be very advisable to take with you one of those uniforms firemen put on before entering burning buildings, if at all possible.

15 March 2012 at 04:02  
Blogger David Ould said...

No one has commented on how Leviticus condemns men who wear skirts. Scotsmen are renowned for dressing as women.

15 March 2012 at 07:38  
Blogger len said...


Pretty masterful summing up of the Catholic 'religious system'.

Who needs God when you have everything worked out ?.The Egyptians made the Pyramid a 'resurrection machine' and the Catholics have their religious , 'resurrection machine ' ie the Catholic Church'and their Hierarchy of Priests , sacrements, rituals, etc, also their' subjects' who maintain the ' Pyramid' and try to entice others into 'the system'.

This enables them(Catholics ) to dispense with God as they 'have it all worked out'.

Of course they will never put it as bluntly as this!.

15 March 2012 at 08:20  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Catholic is Cool

15 March 2012 at 08:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And now len supports Altlas' view of human history! That just about sums his understanding of history and Scripture up. What a insightful duo the two of them make.

15 March 2012 at 08:42  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...


15 March 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So we have an unholy alliance. Atlas, len and DanJo, all opposed to the teachings of Catholicism.

I'd say this means the Church must be getting something right!

15 March 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Oswin said...

One doubts that.

15 March 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswine: middle name Thomas, is it?

15 March 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Dodo. Bite me.

15 March 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger len said...

The Dodo is getting in a flap because we don`t want to be Catholics.

Well I will have to 'duck' this one . boom..... boom.

15 March 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

An exercise in handling the species known as 'The Rarely Spotted Silent Dododicus Catolicus'.

Dododicus Catolicus calling is usually done during the hunting season to attract the flightless bird to hunters so that theie arguments are easier to shootdown. This type of calling is actually a fairly difficult skill to master, and there are many different pieces of equipment you can use to help make the process easier. The two main kinds of DodoDuck calls are the short catechism reed caller and a St Peter duck whistle.

1. Learn to make the basic duck honk. This is done by blowing through any sheet taken from the catechism and pressed into a reed to mimic the honking sound of a Dododicus Catolicus that attracts other Dododicus Catolicus's. Blow the reed steadily and firmly, saying hail mary repeatedly. Always start with a high note and descend to a lower note. This is how Dododicus Catolicus communicates out in the Blog.
2. Learn to make the duck cluck by blowing a short, firm blast on the short St Peter reed (ab extracted splinter from a specific chair in the Basilica) duck whistler. The cluck 'Papa' sound accompanied by the swinging of incense is usually used to hold the attention of Dododicus Catolicus, and to make them feel that there is no danger around.

Tips & Warnings

Don't get discouraged. Duck blog calling is an art that can take a lot of practice before you finally get it right!.
If you are having problems, consider consulting with a practiced duck hunter (Ernst offers a reasonable consultancy fee, refundable after 30 days if not satisfied FULLY) to see what calls he or she makes to attract the Dododicus Catolicus.

Not all Dododicus Catolicus will respond to duck calls whether catechism or St Peter based.

Some species do not call to each other in a recognizable manner. So please consult with a duck expert to make sure that the species of Dododicus Catolicus that you want to attract do call out to each other.
However, we have always found that this is always the norm on Cranmer's Blog!

Happy Hunting *Quack Quack* ;-)


15 March 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida said ...

!"Ernst, it pains me to tell you this..but there is something wrong with you!"

15 March 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Repetition is the simple inane repeating of a word, within a sentence or a poetical line , with no particular placement of the words,because the individual has nowt worthy of response, either humourous or new.
A recitation?
Continue unceasingly like a drip from a leaking faucet —Anon
Kept on repeating the words like a talisman —Edith Wharton
[The sweeping wing of a Duck] went around and around like a door-to-door salesman —Raymond Chandler. ;-)


15 March 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas said ...
"The Holy Bible is not at all difficult to understand for even someone of a limited intellect."

I think the trio above demonstrate that Truth in the hands of fools has an unpredictable outcome!

" . . . as also in all his [Paul] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"
(2 Peter 3:16).

15 March 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...



(Ernst offers a reasonable consultancy fee, refundable after 30 days if not satisfied FULLY)

What Ernst said or your quids back.

Huge Chuckles


15 March 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Ernst, it pains me to tell you this..but there is something wrong with you!"

15 March 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

In anticipation of the pain of being spanked most publicly and severely by His Grace if I continue with this Recitation of your's, I will allow you to, yet again, have the last word here if this placates your tortured soul.

Under 'Protestare' *Quips and giggles*


15 March 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"...he is a lunatic, and suffers much ..."

15 March 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 19:10: nothing so prosaic, alas.

16 March 2012 at 14:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older