Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Professor Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch: "You can't spank an entire church"

65 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

Isn't this guy in deacon's orders, but no longer a believer?

If he is still an Anglican cleric, how come he got knighted? I read somewhere that the Chadwick brothers were never Sir Henry & Sir Owen, since their ordained status made them ineligible for "dubbing" by the Queen.

So nothing at all can be done by other Anglican provinces against TEC & ACC, but in the meantime it's fine and dandy for these apostate provinces to pursue and torment Christian clergy and people who have either fled or remain oppressed in their midst?!

A double standard indeed, according to which faithful Christians are mere roadkill.

6 March 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. What’s this ? Anglicanism is whatever the priest-in-charge of your parish says it is ! Deary me, every organisation needs discipline. A forecast for you Archbishop. You were perhaps born an Anglican, but you won’t die one. But then, an intelligent man like you already realises this...

6 March 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Is this the Richard Dawkins of Anglicanism.

You cannot discipline an entire church? You cannot punish an entire church just because of "one idea" they've arrived at after "prayerful consideration" and "much thought". That is not the Anglican way.

I rather think it depends on the "one idea".

The "one idea" being the ordination of active homosexuals as Bishops? The "one idea" being the appointment of Bishops who deny the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and the propitiatory death and Resurrection of Jesus - or even the existance of God?

So pray tell Professor, how does one do theology and hold a worldwide "Communion" together? Just what is the tie that binds this "Anglican Communion" of individuals?

6 March 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

On his resignation from the Deaconship:

"I was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience."

Now we know what the "one idea" might be. Oh, and it was the Church that couldn't cope?

6 March 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
I had no idea who this man was when I watched the video but his Spirit strongly came over as being liberal and a wet. When I read the comments above my feelings were confirmed. Whatever he wants must be wrong. I would not want to be in felowship with a man like that.

6 March 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

More homosexual distress. About time these types realised they are not the full shilling, and should seek guidance from them who are, or even better, keep out of it...

6 March 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@Way of the Dodo the Dude

On his resignation from the Deaconship:

"I was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience."

Now we know what the "one idea" might be. Oh, and it was the Church that couldn't cope?




He should have taken orders with the Catholic Church; we'd have had no distress at all about it.

6 March 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

You know, one of these days, you Anglicans are going to spread yourselves so thin trying to be everybody's friend that you're just going to disappear. Why don't you bite the bullet before that happens and just come on home. You know what they say - There's no place like Rome.

6 March 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector and Corrigan, our good host will be seething that we are being so critical of his beloved Anglican Communion.

I can feel a rebuke coming. At least it will be directed at one of you two this time, rather than me!

The idea of an 'Anglican Covenant' may well be the only way of keeping this world wide Church together.

Just what sanctions might be imposed for a breach of discipline is hard to imagine. It would also presumably require some agreed restatement of core Anglican beliefs on the vexed questions of the age. On this point the Professor is probably correct. Would the Anglican Community be prepared to expel one of its member Churches?

6 March 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. As a grade 1 Christian (RCC ), it gives the Inspector no comfort to see the established Christian church of England going down the pan. But it’s being eaten alive from the inside !!!

6 March 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, I tend to agree.

Since its inception it has attempted to balance protestantism with catholicism. Not so much a 'middle way' as an avoidance of confrontation between these two very differing traditions.

It has survived women priests and may survive women bishops. Divorce has been accomodated by allowing room for the individual consciences of local priests. One fears the issue of homosexuality, active homosexual ministers and homosexual 'marriage', will be the deal-breaker - Anglican Covenant or not.

Strangely, the Divinity of Christ and the reality and meaning of His birth, death and Resurrection seems to generate less theological heat.

6 March 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Nixon is Lord said...

Does anyone have any theories as to why religion seems to attract more than its share of gays to its professional ranks? Is the temptation to dress in silk robes at someone else's expense that great?

7 March 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger IanCad said...

Nixon is Lord,

Uniforms and the excuse for body contact seem irresistible to those who incline to Bum Banditry.
Police, Firefighters, the Military and acting professions all have more than their fair share of the Sodomite crowd.
It is not just confined to religious denominations with flowery vestments.

7 March 2012 at 07:16  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Way of the Dodo said:

"So pray tell Professor, how does one do theology and hold a worldwide "Communion" together? Just what is the tie that binds this "Anglican Communion" of individuals?"

To answer the first question: one doesn't. The Anglican Communion is a voluntary organisation of autonomous Churches, which grew from the British Empire and have stayed together because they happen to have a shared theology and history. To create a 'curia' of Archbishops to define Anglican theology, as the Covenant proposes, and to determine who is Anglican and who is not, runs contrary to the Protestant nature of Anglicanism, as Professor MacCulloch has pointed out elsewhere. Because Anglicanism is Protestant, Archbishops and the institutional Church do not possess magisterial authority to definitively interpret Scripture; the Covenant would effectively give them that authority.

To answer the second question: the Anglican Communion is bound together by shared ties of history, culture and theology; it is not bound together by an authoritative Church hierarchy in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church, much as some Anglican Bishops and Archbishops seem to believe that to be the case. It is precisely because of Protestant theology that the fact that a group of Bishops and Archbishops think something does NOT make it the case. The Lambeth Conference is not a Papal Curia, and the widespread rejection of the Anglican Covenant should be a warning not to try and act like it.

7 March 2012 at 08:48  
Blogger Gary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 March 2012 at 08:55  
Blogger Gary said...

"I was ordained Deacon. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience."

If this sad man truly loved Jesus Christ, he would have repented of his homosexuality years ago. We are called to take up our cross and live a holy life, not to embrace the sordid appetites of a fallen world.

7 March 2012 at 08:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said...

"Dodo. As a grade 1 Christian (RCC )..*Snort..Coffee spurting from Ernst's nostrils*. Papers marked by EdExcel, were they?

Dastarder Nasterder toad-ied most profusely and left slimey stains it will take His Grace days to mop up;

"Because Anglicanism is Protestant, Archbishops and the institutional Church do not possess magisterial (Domineering; dictatorial. Err, Is that correct. Yes?) authority to definitively interpret Scripture (Who on earth could you be implying does, my Grade 1 Christian *Chuckling, whilst munching on heavily buttered crumpet); the Covenant would effectively give them that authority."

but "it is not bound together by an authoritative Church hierarchy in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church,"

and

"It is precisely because of Protestant theology that the fact that a group of Bishops and Archbishops think something does NOT make it the case. The Lambeth Conference is not a Papal Curia, and the widespread rejection of the Anglican Covenant should be a warning not to try and act like it."

Can you not just say what you mean.

A light shineth from the crack that is Rome or better put, it speaketh through the crack where sunlight is not allowed!

Bad Toad, bad toad.

Dodo tried to distance himself, whilst staying in tagteam reach..

"I can feel a rebuke coming. At least it will be directed at one of you two this time, rather than me!"
It's called the 'ecclesiastical collective wallop'. Spank three for the advice of one!

Triune Thrashing, fella/s.

Professor Ernst Whacko Blofeld

7 March 2012 at 10:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Young Dodo

Ernst is a Professor Emeritus whilst you are an unruly head strong student with potential but WILL YOU STUDY, lad?

Ernst has to keep pulling you up on your BAlliStiCS and Informing you what the fundamentals of the course are and to try to
stop you including erroneous material NOT specified in the Curriculum set by the God of all Education..Tough work for my Emeritus self but a task Ernst genuinely hopes to complete fruitfully before the earthly course for you ends.

Your caring tutor

Professor Ernst 'most emeritus but by the grace of God, active' Blofeld

7 March 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Anglican said...

Can someone more erudite than I am explain why the Church of England can be considered wholly Protestant? At the reformation it ‘protested’ against the abuses which had grown up in the medieval Church (as did many why remained with Rome). But it daily recites the creeds (I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church), and prays for ‘the good estate of the Catholic Church’. So it regards itself as a reformed Catholic Church, but part of the universal Church (together with the RCC, Orthodox, and others). The RCC disputes this, but this has always been the official view of the C of E.

7 March 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Anglican said...

"Can someone more erudite than I am explain why the Church of England can be considered wholly Protestant? " Wholly Protestant, what on earth can this mean?

At the reformation it ‘protested’ against the abuses which had grown up in the medieval Church (as did many why remained with Rome). It protested at more than mere abuses but declared they were a byproduct from wrongful Doctrine and assumed Dogma built on over many centuries and the abuses were a natural outcome!

The Bible in English vernacular gave reaon to this 'protesting'. We had been led/carried astray (A-stray - as in "we went astray but God's Word redirected us".) on error.

Where in the creeds does it state transubstantiation, purgatory, praying to saints etc.

The RCC, one church amongst many, that profess they follow Christ yet have not done so for centuries and you have the abuses and doctrinally incorrect pratices to prove it?

The Difference is that Rome remains firmly entrenched in it's error whereas the truth that was once a part of Protestantism is being destroyed internally and going your way but it has no 'blind acceptance' of Mother church's command to adhere to, unlike the RCC.

There, answered as you requested and hopefully, you have been corrected in your presumed inaccurate reasoning.

Ernst Blofeld

7 March 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, so are you saying that if Protestants have nothing to protest about they would no longer exist? They are defined by their stance against Catholicism?

Strange faith!

What about agreeing on Biblical truth concerning key Christian doctrine? The Church of England is a mix of catholicism and protestantism - an uneasy alliance between individualism and community. Currently each wing seems to spend more time protesting against the other than Rome.

And, by the by, each doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church can be defended, although admittedly probably not to your protesting satisfaction. But then, the Church doesn't rely on human, democratic approval or authority. It has a leadership instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

7 March 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Ernst,

How you read my post as a call to view Rome as an example, I'm not quite sure - I'm speaking up for Protestant principles within the Church of England, against Anglo-Catholic Bishops and Archbishops who have convinced themselves that they are pre-Reformation Prelates, as is Diarmaid MacCulloch. The fact that I am neither an Anglican nor a Protestant is irrelevant. I won't comment on the bizarrely and unnecessarily ad hominem nature of your post.

Anglican,

In a nutshell, the Church of England is Protestant because at the Reformation it accepted Justification by Faith Alone, through Grace Alone, in Christ Alone, as set out in Scripture Alone, and to the Glory of God Alone - principles otherwise known as the Five Solas. Catholic is not the opposite of Protestant, and all the Protestant Reformers claimed membership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

7 March 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Darter Noster said...

Dear fellow
Ernst is mortified...aarghhh, a true believer trying to make a point (a little vague, could have been elaborated better, my fine fella as you sounded tiberian..sshh???, but Ernst catches it now).

What with all the different avatar's flying about and different owner/s of each, Ernst does'nt know where the next dollop of ad hominem is coming from. Knee jerk re-action, my apologies.

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst, so are you saying that if Protestants have nothing to protest about they would no longer exist? (Protestare was what the RCC called them, Not their own definition of themselves. It kinda stuck, did it not.) They are defined by their stance against Catholicism? (They are defined by their obedience to the revealed will of God in scripture that the early church had and knew, even the early church fathers agreed but it was lost as the errors mounted within Roman Catholicism as it defined itself apart from the Will of God. What has Greek or any other orthodoxy position got to do with Protestantism).

Strange faith!

Strange reasoning?

What about agreeing on Biblical truth concerning key Christian doctrine? (State some and Ernst will possible concur?) The Church of England is a mix of catholicism and protestantism - an uneasy alliance between individualism and community (Truth and Error, perhaps, is more appropriate.) Currently each wing seems to spend more time protesting against the other than Rome (A fight for truth against error. Romanism sold out centuries ago but persists because of blind acceptance by it’s adherents despite the contrary evidence it is lost).

And, by the by, each doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church can be defended (By fables and circular reasoning despite it’s foundation NOT being based on Scripture. That thing that called all the protesting!), although admittedly probably not to your protesting satisfaction (Absolutely protestingly not, it seems). But then, the Church (RC ???) doesn't rely on human, democratic approval or authority (Nor God to justify it either!). It has a leadership instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit (puhleasee. Must we go down this route, AGAIN?).

Roman Catholicism is merely one church, very aged Ernst will grant, but not the supreme authority for all christians, which has gone most astray and refuses to correct it's errors..It is even smug about them, because by their words they justify themselves, whereas they are based on vain imaginings.

Your church not only loves it's errors it glories in them like a pig in squalor but some within the CofE are fighting for truth against error/sin being allowed to define God and a christian's relationship to him. Ernst commends them but it may be hopeless.

Ernst, me likkle dickie..Ernst is still fond of you but you keep asking him the same questions repeatedly?

7 March 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger Oswin said...

Nixon is Lord @ 00:08: it is exactly that, and a few things more: You get to be worshipped; dressed-up, as you say; you get to wrestle with your conscience, and fail; you get to be castigated and vilified; you get to be the centre of attraction; you get to keep a deep, dark secret; you get to proselytise or denounce ... and/or any variation of the above, according to one's bent, as it were.

Clearly, not all homosexuals are characterised thus, but they will recognise the traits of certain evident 'others'.

7 March 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 March 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst said ...

... you keep asking him the same questions repeatedly?

That's because you keeping repeatedly posting the same slurs against Catholicism!

Dodo: "What about agreeing on Biblical truth concerning key Christian doctrine?"
Ernst: "State some and Ernst will possible concur?

Some easy ones:
The Nicene Creed?
Marriage between a man and a woman for life and for the transmission of life?
Homosexuality as a sinful disorder?
Abortion is murder of an unborn child?

You might agree - but would other protesting Christians?

Dodo: "The Church of England is a mix of catholicism and protestantism - an uneasy alliance between individualism and community."
Ernst: "Truth and Error, perhaps, is more appropriate.

So are you saying there is no one discernable Truth within the Bible? That each Christian is free to interpret and understand the Bible individually as guided by the Holy Spirit, even though He appears not to be quite getting through to some? That there should be no common doxology, liturgy or discipline within the Church?

Is there such a thing as "heresy" within Anglicanism and/or protestantism? The Spirit can move an Anglican Bishop to deny the Divinity of Christ, His Resurrection, even deny the existance of God?! Or another can support the ordination of an active homosexual and agree to blesss homosexual 'partnerships' as if they were marriages?

Ernst: "Roman Catholicism is merely one church ... which has gone most astray and refuses to correct it's errors. It is even smug about them ... Your church not only loves it's errors it glories in them like a pig in squalor"

Insults do not make your words true!

Ernst: " ... but some within the CofE are fighting for truth against error/sin being allowed to define God and a christian's relationship to him. Ernst commends them but it may be hopeless."

And why might that be? A lack of discipline and authority, perhaps?

7 March 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, jolly good show Blofeld. The Inspector now has a mental picture of you as a Jimmy Edwards type with handlebar moustache and cane. Let’s hope you don’t have the late Jimmy’s interest in young lads too, what !

Will be visiting the care home soon. Will ask Matron if can take you out for a bit of fresh air. Just a push round the cemetery. Don’t mention it old chap…

7 March 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

It would be great if Catholics and Protestants could unite but there is quite a wide gulf between them!.

The Nicene Creed is very good except for the last bit about the Catholic Church(is this big 'C' Catholic or small' c'Catholic or is it all the same?.

How about a compromise?

'The Apostles' Creed'

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic* Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

* catholic means "universal" and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

As for your other questions(addressed to Ernst but I thought I would put' my bit in' as a Protestant and do not want to be classed as a Roman Catholic but do not mind being a member of the 'Universal Church' with Christ as the Head and the Word of God as the final authority.)
Your other questions;
Marriage between a man and a woman for life and for the transmission of life? ( agreed.... also for companionship)
Homosexuality as a sinful disorder?(is part of the fallen nature of man.....agreed)
Abortion is murder of an unborn child?(agreed)

7 March 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

I prefer the Nicene Creed (holy catholic and apostolic church) - and catholic is written with a lower case 'c'. The Apostles Creed is good too.

Great we agree on something - at last!

7 March 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

I bet he'd like to spank a choirboy though, eh...

7 March 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

... or the monkey!

7 March 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst said ...
... you keep asking him the same questions repeatedly?
That's because you keeping repeatedly posting the same slurs against Catholicism! (Ouch. Ad.Ho. where have your sensitivities been slurred?)

Dodo: "What about agreeing on Biblical truth concerning key Christian doctrine?"
Ernst: "State some and Ernst will possible concur?

Some easy ones:
1. The Nicene Creed? Possibly Ok
2. Marriage between a man and a woman for life and for the transmission of life? Ok
3. Homosexuality as a sinful disorder? Nope, neither is adultery, fornication etc. It is Sin and judged as such. Traditionally, the Vatican viewed all homosexual behaviour as a choice motivated by lust by otherwise heterosexual men and, therefore, “subjectively disordered” But when pressured by psychologists who stated they had accumulated undeniable evidence that there is such a thing as homosexual orientation that is not chosen and is unchangeable, the Vatican was forced to concede that homosexual orientation, since it is not a matter of choice, cannot be qualified as subjectively morally evil. One possible conclusion then was that homosexual orientation was part of God’s creative plan and since “action follows being”, the acts that would flow from such an orientation, if they are in the context of interpersonal love, would be morally acceptable. As subjectively disordered is a philosophical term it appears Rome has tied itself in knots over what sin is!
4. Abortion is murder of an unborn child? Ok. But prior use of contraception BEFORE sex is not murder?
5. The removal of a woman’s womb/tubes tied is not sin neither is Vasectomy. This means neither is able to procreate!

You might agree - but would other protesting Christians? You might agree but what would Roman Catholics say?

Dodo: "The Church of England is a mix of catholicism and protestantism - an uneasy alliance between individualism and community."
Ernst: "Truth and Error, perhaps, is more appropriate.

So are you saying there is no one discernable Truth within the Bible? (Errm, where did Ernst say this??) That each Christian is free to interpret and understand the Bible individually as guided by the Holy Spirit (Obviously, He states it as so), even though He appears not to be quite getting through to some (Freewill and people wanting to see something in it that agrees with their own prior foibles, mostly)? That there should be no common doxology, liturgy or discipline within the Church (What is it based on and for who’s benefit)? Where has Ernst implied all this? You just appear to want to get something off your chest.

Ernst 1/2

7 March 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ernst, “1 of 2”. How depressing...

7 March 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2/2

Is there such a thing as "heresy" within Anglicanism and/or Protestantism (Obviously, just as there has been and it continues in the RCC) ? The Spirit can move an Anglican Bishop to deny the Divinity of Christ, His Resurrection, even deny the existance of God? (Ernst knows many RC’s who do not believe in Christ, His Virgin Birth etc or even that God exists but Mother Church will care for all that should the worst scenario arise! and even some Popes have stated this in the presence of others during drunken debauchery as Ernst has quoted you previously. Methinks the Holy Spirit indeed had problems getting in touch with His ‘chosen’ ambassadors [who claim to have a hotline, by gads], on earth, hmm!) Or another can support the ordination of an active homosexual and agree to blesss homosexual 'partnerships' as if they were marriages? Is their sin your church's sin and visa versa. .Should you not BOTH Repent!!!
(Romans 16;17-20
17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. 19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil. 20 And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Ernst: "Roman Catholicism is merely one church ... which has gone most astray and refuses to correct it's errors. It is even smug about them ... Your church not only loves it's errors it glories in them like a pig in squalor"

Insults do not make your words true! (Where is Rome’s repentance? It is so far from the strait and narrow it believes the road must have peaks, trough and turns because that is what was behind it and stretches out in front? Despite the journeys path and direction being given in advance.. No God-Nav for Rome then, hmmn )

Ernst: " ... but some within the CofE are fighting for truth against error/sin being allowed to define God and a christian's relationship to him. Ernst commends them but it may be hopeless."

And why might that be? A lack of discipline and authority, perhaps. (For whom and on what basis? To continue cheerily on in error as Rome does. There may be things that we can agree on but the things that divide are of such Significance, that you are pointing west whilst Ernst is pointing east. He is looking opposite for a reason!)

Ernst, my boy.

7 March 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said...

Ernst, “1 of 2”. How depressing...

Aahh, you poor thing.. It's hard work acquiring knowledge and therefore an education fella, but cheer up that man.
Ernst is doing it all Buckshee, lad.

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

{SNIGGER}

7 March 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

*gasp*
Thought you were calling Ernst some quaint colonial expletive.
Just realised you cannot spell expletives.
*phew*

7 March 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, dear, oh dear!

First a short lesson on Catholic doctrine - posted earlier on the thread above..

"Sapientis est ordinare."

God's provident wisdom orders the world. By recognizing the goals preestablished in God's plan, the wise and faithful person is able, through Grace, to order his actions and dispositions in line with God's ends.

The expression "objectively disordered inclination" in relation to homosexuality refers to tendencies where the person is not oriented towards the attainment of the end that God's plan assigns to sexuality.

The Council of Trent spoke in an analogous sense of the disorder of concupiscence. As a result of sin, the sense powers are no longer subject to reason in accord with their original ordering, but resist and rebel against God's purposes, thus pushing men to actions contrary to the moral order.

In itself, in Catholic theology, concupiscence, homosexuality, or any other disordered inclination, is not viewed as sinful in the strict sense, but is called "sin" by the Apostle Paul insofar as "it derives from sin and inclines to it."

From the moral point of view, Catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, because they activate the sexual inclination of such persons without (1) that unitive meaning of total self-gift to the other which can be realised only in the matrimonial union of man and woman and (2) openness to the procreative meaning whereby human sexuality is further ordered to the good of the child.

The disordered inclination in itself is not in the strict sense sin; acting on the disposition is sin.

Now, on to other points. Do you not see the problem with protestantism? You are a slippery eel.

Dodo: Each Christian is free to interpret and understand the Bible individually as guided by the Holy SpiriT.

Ernst: Obviously, He states it as so.

Dodo: Even though He appears not to be quite getting through to some.

Ernst: Freewill and people wanting to see something in it that agrees with their own prior foibles, mostly?

Dodo: That there should be no common doxology, liturgy or discipline within the Church?

Ernst: Where has Ernst implied all this?

Read your responses! How do you discern who has interpreted the Bible according to the Holy Spirit? Who agrees and defines doxology, liturgy and discipline? And instead of answering and addressing the problems of consistency inherent in prostantism you launch into yet another attack on sinful members of the Catholic Church!

I can answer your attacks on Catholicism. You don't even attempt to respond to my questions about protestantism.

7 March 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, you poor thing you, let Ernst elaborate

First a short response on Catholic doctrine - Nonsense, gilded in philosophical tripe!

"Sapientis est ordinare." .Motto of The Sapientis Institute, the brainchild institute of Leo XIII, who brought such great things to England for we here such as the encyclical 'Apostolicae Curae' on the invalidity of the Anglican orders! *chuckles ironically*
*Merda taurorum animas conturbit* is the logical outcome from such pronouncements!

As soon as a sentence starts ;
The Council of Trent spoke..Ernst laughs and scrolls past the comments. Ernst is such as descerning fella and has great foresight. Would use it on meself but Ernst suffers from no obvious problems. *chortles*

"The disordered inclination in itself is not in the strict sense sin; acting on the disposition is sin." Philosophical nonsense and not a good thing to rely upon when stood in front of the Great White Throne and used as a defence!

Do you not see the problem with protestantism? Ernst has stated it, You are both WRONG but it appears to be not to your R. C.atholic palette's liking!

DO quote Ernst properly, there's a nice boy."That there should be no common doxology, liturgy or discipline within the Church (What is it based on and for who’s benefit)"

..another attack on sinful members of the Catholic Church! Good Lord Man. THESE ARE POPES, not laity who have made NO claim to a directhotline/chosen via line of Peter/Vicarius Christi.

You don't even attempt to respond to my questions about protestantism. I HAVE but it appears you suffer from non catholic dyslexia! Tagicr, ym orop eflal !

It would have been better if Ernst had said..Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Would have made more sense?

Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de cane debeo congredi. *O diem praeclarum*

Ernst 'Sona si Latine loqueris.' Blofeld

8 March 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A question expanded into an answer!

Is there such a thing as "heresy" within Anglicanism and/or Protestantism (Obviously, just as there has been and it continues in the RCC).

Protestanism is by and large based on truth from scripture (with unfortunately appendages left in from the RC indoctrination previously.
Romanism denies the truth of God but twisting it/by adding or removing it's essential meaning. Threefore error is built upon error!

Obvious Differences;

Tyndale, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley would be shocked that Protestants have ignored the Truth once delivered to the saints and re-
established, in large part, by the reformation.
Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom would be horrified to see all that error that denied the truth they spoke of. This is not ignorance of the truth but a blatant denial of it being Truth.
Ironic that references of parts of these are used in the Roman Catechism but the majority of the early church fathers opposition to
pagan worship of statues etc is ignored or omitted!
Tertullian was against the worship of 25th December but the Church in Rome did endorse Christmas, however, no later than by the latter half of the fourth century.
His complaints apparently did not stop this from happening, though his objections certainly have biblical support.
Hence it is clear that even early Roman writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen did not endorse Christmas, nor did Augustine even list it as an important holiday.
The truth is that Christmas reminds us that people are often unwilling to worship God as He intended us to, but instead often prefer some kind of pagan substitutes that they rationalise as somehow acceptable if they pretend the holiday/subject is really about Jesus.

It may be interesting to consider that God said He did not let the children of Israel see Him, lest they try to make images of Him (Deuteronomy 4:15-19). Thus it is logical that God did not have the date of Christ's birth clearly recorded as He did not want it to be observed, unlike His Crucifixion and Resurrection?

A definition of continuing in error for nearly 1600 centuries and recent ignorance and the devaluing the importance of Truth within Protestantism.

One is a committed perversion that is never acceptable and the other a deviation from what should be the Established Watermark (A watermark is a subtle image on some papers or documents to prevent counterfeiting.) followed by all at His Divine Command!

Ernst

8 March 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Goodness, you do ramble on.

Interesting take on Christmas. Silly but interesting. We all need a time to pause, reflect upon and celebrate the arrival of our Saviour. What a silly, silly Puritanically inclined man you are!

It was still illegal to celebrate Christmas Day in Scotland until the 1950's with it only becoming a public holiday in 1958.

You are dense too old chap. How many more times - Catholics do not worship statues.

8 March 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Interesting take on Christmas. Ah bless you lad.
It's called HISTORY and it can be found via archaelogy and recorded documentation, as Ernst has shown!

"It was still illegal to celebrate Christmas Day in Scotland until the 1950's with it only becoming a public holiday in 1958." What exactly has that to do with RC Dogma and it's acceptance of a position on something that was denied by Church Fathers?

"How many more times - Catholics do not worship statues."
(Your Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine, on pages 372, 373 says that they incorporated many pagan religious practices into the Church. He claims that the Church sanctified them and that made it safe to bring these practices into the Church. Also the Catholic Council of Trent declared that: “It is lawful to have images in the Church and to give honour and worship to them ... Images are put in Churches that they may be worshipped.”)

Catechism of the Catholic Church which reinforces the doctrine of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea (A.D. 787) on images:

"Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church [Hmmn, there is no mention of following the divinely inspired teaching of the Bible, is there] we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving figure of the cross, 'venerable' ('venerable' is derived from the Latin word venerare meaning 'to worship') and 'holy' images of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, on houses and on streets."

Writers of Catechisms and Cardinals, what the heck do they know?

You are so incise on your observations, lad. What a dense, stupid old Ernst.
AAAhh....They are merely 'bric a brac' then, that catholics 'inspect', on one knee whilst praying. Thanks!

Ernst 'the much wiser for that' Blofeld

ps

Doesn't even the Pope bows down to images of Mary, then why not the plebians?.

8 March 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, do you have photographs of your grandchildren? Do youlove the photograph or the person who the image calls to mind? Do grow up. Catholics do not worship statues.

Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. Since their discovery in the sixteenth century we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology.

And here's the full text from Trent which repeats the principles of Nicaea II:

"[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols, but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear."

8 March 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst, do you have 'photographs' of your grandchildren? Do youlove the photograph or the person who the image calls to mind?

Show me one of Jesus or St Paul, Peter, His Mother Mary, even an oil portrait or sketch that He sat for??

If I create a statue of Jesus based on a Photograph of DanJo..Is that therefore Jesus????

"Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible." When and where exactly did they state/believe the image painted was an icon of Jesus and venerate the wall, not depicting an oral representation???
You/WE had/have Full the Word of God, they had not, yet you persist, we refuse to join you in idolatry?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." Exodus 20:4,5. Could He not be more specific?

Do take a look at the Ten Commandments in the Catholic Catechism Lad and you will notice that after removing the Second Commandment, the Third Commandment then became the Second Commandment, and the Fourth Commandment became the Third and the rest of them were slid down also. Your Roman Catholic Church then took the Tenth Commandment, found in ONE verse [Exodus 20:17] and which deals with the ONE subject of covetousness, and they broke it in half, and made it into the NINTH and TENTH Commandments in their Catechism.

Surprised you ain't mentioned the Brazen Serpent as justification for idolatory but if you were considering..
God has never told us ANYWHERE in the Word of God to make a statue of anyone nor anything. The Israelites were instructed to “look” to the serpent (which pictured Christ) so they could live. The people were NOT instructed to bow, honor, nor pray to the brazen serpent (statue).

Isaiah 45:22, " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

Ernst

ps
R C Catechism 2129,2130, 2131 and 2132 shows that anything can be justified lad, if one is willing to twist the truth far enough.

8 March 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. The Inspector gives you some clarification. For Catholics who worship God and Christ, they find comfort in loving images devoted to the Trinity. Again, that’s love, not worship. The Inspector himself is that way. To suggest we 'worship' graven images is at the best, ignorant, at the worst, malicious. Don’t forget this now...

8 March 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just read the link below Ernst. I really can't be bothered walking you through it.

And I'm now thinking your continual misrepresentation of Catholicism is malicious.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

8 March 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger len said...

Forgive me if I am wrong but haven`t I seen images of people,Popes etc bowing and indeed even kissing statues of Mary?.

Even if your not worshipping Mary, you are sinning if you bow down to her because the Bible strictly forbids it in Exodus 20:5!

8 March 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nobody ‘worships’ blessed Mary in the Catholic church. We venerate her...

8 March 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oh do get a life len!

8 March 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

Your commenting, in response to the historical appraisal of old Ernst and Roman Catholicism, mirrors your football team's performance tonight so far.

Slipshod, lacklustre and more 'a hope and a prayer' than assured confidence.


OoiG

"To suggest we 'worship' graven images is at the best, ignorant, at the worst, malicious. "

God defines idolatry as the making of images, bowing down and serving them. God does not prohibit art or sculpture. For example, God commanded the making of golden cherubims and a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:18-20, Numbers 21:8-9). But the people of Israel were NOT called to bow down before them or serve them. God never intended that the cherubims should be venerated by praying and bowing down before them, and indeed they were hardly ever seen by the people of Israel as they were hid in the Holy of Holies.
Similarly the bronze serpent was a picture of Christ dying on the cross (Numbers 21:8,9; John 3:14,15), but the people of Israel were never told to pray or bow down before it. When in course of time they did that very thing in defiance of the 2nd commandment, the godly king Hezekiah smashed it to pieces (2 Kings 18:3,4).


However St Thomas Aquinas states otherwise. “*The Cross+ it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of latria.” And again he states, “we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ” (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 25

"“…because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they
represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we
uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints
whose likeness they bear” (Council of Trent, Session 25, On the Invocation,Veneration, Relics of Saints, and Sacred Images.)"

Your catechism makes indulgent allowances for this sin, nay actually encourages it even pronounces a curse if you disagree!

"The Second Council of Nicea goes as far as condemning with a curse (anathema) those of us who do not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints."

1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

Don't you go a changing now old boy. ;-)

Ernst

8 March 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OoiG stated hoping nobody would pick it up??

"Nobody ‘worships’ blessed Mary in the Catholic church. We venerate her.." or the Latin word venerare (having to do with worship).

You are not getting confused with the word Venereal/venereous are you?

And you chaps talk about the Gay word being hijacked by homosexuals.

veneror ātus, ārī, dep. VAN-, to reverence, worship, adore, revere, venerate:

to reverence, worship, adore, revere, venerate
to revere, do homage to, reverence, honor
to ask reverently, beseech, implore, beg, entreat, supplicate. Sounds to Ernst like you are worshipping something you know should not !

Who says latin is a useless language. *ingēntis rīdeō{Huge Guffaws}*

Ernst that fella.

8 March 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst. Saint Aquinas does not speak with the authority of the Church - he offers a theological opinion.

And if you really cannot see the difference between idolatoty and worshipping graven images and devotion to icons for what they represent, then there's no more to be said.

8 March 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofield. What we have here is the cold stark outlook of Protestantism (...from reading the bible without due reverence...) contrasting with the warm inviting glow of Catholicism, with its statues and images and stained glass, all for the glory of God. In other words, the best that mankind can make in decoration of God’s house. Think about it....

Do you worship your kitchen units, bathroom decor, curtains ?

8 March 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofield. Since the reformation, we have ‘His worship the Mayor’. How did that one get past you Protestant killjoys. Can’t think of any other nation that ‘worships’ a town official. Do help out old chap, Inspector curious on this one...

8 March 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector,these chaps live in a cold, bleak world. No Christmas joy, no beauty in Churches, no human creativity to demonstrate love of God.

Empty walls in bleak chapels, monotonous homilies. The senses must not be assaulted, you see. Presumably they also keep Saturday as the Sabbath - as it's in the Mosaic Law too.

Ernst, one last attempt for you and your friend len

The First Commandment (except inasmuch as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect this.

The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments.

On the other hand, as far as it is positive law, it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9).

Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on. The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church.

So in the First Commandment we must distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me", "Thou shall not adore them nor serve them" — which are eternal natural law, from the clause: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", etc. In whatever sense the archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing; therefore it is Divine positive law of the Old Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of marrying one's brother's widow.

A convenient summary of the Catholic position:

"It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
"We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God."
"We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
"We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

8 March 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your commenting, in response to the historical appraisal of old Ernst and Roman Catholicism, mirrors your football team's performance tonight so far.

Slipshod, lacklustre and more 'a hope and a prayer' than assured confidence.

Forgot to also add 'bleeed'n jammy' after that penalty.

You appear unbelieveably fortunate that De Gea was exceptional tonight, despite 3 put past him.

Now don't go drowning your sorrows in 10 year old malt lad..tis a fair way to go before seasons end.
Nothing worse than a disappointed, cussing, drunken catholic? :-)

Ernst

8 March 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So Ernst, nothing of substance (again) when Catholic doctine is explained.

As for footbal, never give up, never, never, while there's hope. It's only half-time and who knows? And there's no regret if the best team win on the night. That's sport for you.

And why would a Catholics ever become disappointed and resort to drunken cussing over a mere football result?

9 March 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo j'accuse Ernst de la lâcheté..la plume trois blancs. COQUIN!

You challenge Ernst with cowardice and give him the RC 3 White Feathers. How dare you sir.

Ernst is off to bed but will rise to your challenge 'demain' as he gets bored answering silly questions, so he will grin and bear it. For honours sake.

"And why would a Catholics ever become disappointed and resort to drunken cussing over a mere football result?"
Lets see if you are still singing that lyric come 13 May 2012. Could become the Theatre of Mares ? *Hic*

Night boy.

Ernst

9 March 2012 at 02:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OoiG spoke in glowing terms (Ave Maria, Franz P Schubert version, gradually rising in volume in the background) that;

"..contrasting with the warm inviting glow of Catholicism, with its statues and images and stained glass, all for the glory of God. In other words, the best that mankind can make in decoration of God’s house. Think about it....Sounds like Extreme Church Makeover. Ernst has found himself sucked into the Historical tearjerking episodes of Extreme Chutch Makeover endorsed by the RCC, bit like the BBC as an entity..It thinks it has a licence to show or do whatever it bleed'n well likes, despite it's charter!.

It's not a Gilette mach 4 that you are describing is it (the best that mankind can make)
Do you worship your kitchen units, bathroom decor, curtains ?"...Catholic mystical explanations - Nonsense, gilded in philosophical tripe!

Ernst, that poor chattering apologist.

9 March 2012 at 02:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

You compare allegiance to a football with adherence to faith in the Christian Gospel?

You do approach both with the same tribal loyalty and point scoring intent.

Football is a game, old chap. It's fun to watch and to support a team. It's the taking part and all that.

The message of Christ is somewhat more serious, don't you think?

9 March 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Blofeld, excellent struggling piffle of yours at 9 March 2012 02:48, what !

Stumped for an answer eh, good show that protesting one. You see, in the worship of God, does it really matter how it’s done, as long as it’s done with reverence ?

You are quite welcome to your spartan churches and indeed your ascetic faith. You do lack the spirit of Christianity, you know, as you cross the ‘i’s and dot the ‘t’s. Must abide by the text of the Bible rather than the message, of course !

Dodo. With Football, it’s not the winning, or even the taking part that counts, it’s the paying of the Income Tax, of course. God bless the grasping greedy game, eh. heh heh

9 March 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

True Inspector. I blame Sky TV. Don't tell but I watch live football via an American station on the internet.

9 March 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger SpidermanInLondon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2012 at 02:25  
Blogger SpidermanInLondon said...

There is no monotheistic God.

Entertaining that he does exist, he should be disliked for the careless and cruel monster he surely is.

18 March 2012 at 02:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older