Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Siobhan Benita - the real Labour candidate

Last week Labour's election chief Tom Watson told Labour members to ‘hold your nose’ and vote for Ken Livingstone. But there really is no need. They should all support 'independent' candidate Siobhan Benita (presently running third) because she is New Labour to the core. According to The Spectator, the delightful Ms Benita is a former civil servant endorsed by more celebrities than Ant and Dec can drag into the jungle, including Sir Richard Branson; Tom Conti, Martin Bell and former civil service head Gus (now Lord) O’Donnell (who 'was her boss for much of the 15 years she spent in Whitehall'). So, we have a New Labour apparatchik who spent most of her time 'dreaming up new diversity projects or producing politically correct propaganda'. Leo McKistry continues:
Benita has nothing to offer London but platitudes. Her every utterance reflects the boring groupthink of the metropolitan chattering class. What’s her response to the London riots? ‘We should encourage young people to engage with the police.’ What about gang violence on the streets? ‘Gang members need care and support,’ she says. What’s her favourite thing about London? ‘Its diversity.’
Her campaign slogan is ‘A Mum for London’ and, like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, she is concerned with 'People not Politics’. She is mortified by inequality and social exclusion. And she herself states: "I’m definitely on the left." Moreover, her career path would delight all supporters of Ed Miliband - educated at Warwick university (which happens also to be Lord O’Donnell's alma mater), joined the civil service ('fast stream'), joined the Cabinet Office, and then became deputy director at the Department of Health. We are told that Ms Benita's campaign team includes Giselle Green (former BBC radio producer who is her ‘head of news’), Paul Charles (former communications director for Virgin Atlantic), and Paul da Gama (formerly head of organisational development at the Post Office). So, her mayoralty won't be short of stardust, spin and big-state bureaucracy. Her policies speak for themselves:
Her manifesto, launched this week, is full of bureaucratic expansionism and procedural tinkering. Her whole mindset is geared towards regulation and intervention rather than freedom and responsibility. She wants a youth assembly, a youth mayor, an education commissioner, an office of budgetary responsibility, a network of City Safe Champions, a 1,000-strong Young Londoners’ support team, liaison committees in all 32 boroughs, a ‘comprehensive and external’ review of the Metropolitan Police, a housing needs survey, a central team ‘to prosecute rogue landlords’ and a new department for the capital called ‘Homes for London’.
Siobhan Benita is as Socialist as Ken Livingstone, but far, far prettier. So Labour supporters have no need at all to hold their noses and vote Livingstone; they should walk proudly into the booth and vote Benita - the real Labour candidate.

74 Comments:

Blogger Naomi King said...

Boris Johnson has promised to raise the issue of cuts to London's HIV services with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

London's Conservative mayor, who's seeking re-election on 3 May, is pledging to do “more” on HIV prevention as part of his health equalities remit for the capital. Johnson is “concerned that complacency” on the issue could lead to a serious rise in HIV cases.

Figures from the Terrence Higgins Trust show one in seven gay men on London's gay scene has the virus. Last year HIV prevention groups in the capital received a 20% funding cut of £516,000.

Johnson says HIV/AIDS mayoral ambassador Annie Lennox has done a great job in “raising awareness”.

In a wide-ranging interview with Gaydar Radio's Scott Roberts, the Mayor defended his recent decision to ban several Christian groups from placing homophobic adverts on 25 London buses. He also remains baffled why the opponents of marriage equality are “deeply hostile” to the Government's proposals and says marriage equality is a “good thing” for society.

Johnson would also like to see David Cameron explain the policy in order to change the mind of Tory backbench opponents - he believes doing so would help combat “prejudice”.

Click the Play button above to listen to Scott Roberts' interview on gayradio with Boris Johnson.

http://www.gaydarradio.com/news/2012/4/boris-johnson.html

1 May 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

After "Winning Bradford West for George Galloway", you should have gone for another "ironic" post. Praised Ms. Benita for her true ideological independence, while showing how she is indeed New Labour by other means.

That would have siphoned off sufficient votes from Ken to ensure a shoo-in for Blondi.

1 May 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Benighted: "Being in a state of moral or intellectual darkness; unenlightened." (the freedictionary.com)

1 May 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger IanCad said...

Poor girl! Totally brainwashed and obsessed with spreading the affliction.I'll bet she's never held a job in the private sector.
It would be of great benefit to our country were the franchise limited only to those who have had ten years gainful employment in the private sector. Fifteen years should be required for BA graduates.

1 May 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Click the Play button above to listen to Scott Roberts' interview on gayradio with Boris Johnson

No thanks. I've got more important things to do than listen to homosexuals whining about their self-inflicted ailments.

1 May 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger martin sewell said...

As somebody has pointed out her cv rather undermines her claim to being an " outsider".

1 May 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Romans 1

ROM 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

ROM 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

ROM 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

ROM 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

ROM 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

ROM 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

ROM 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

ROM 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

ROM 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

ROM 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

ROM 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

ROM 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

ROM 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

ROM 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

ROM 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

ROM 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 May 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The current debate is whether people’s unorthodox sexual relationships and appetites should be given the same respect and legal status as the singular most important societal relationship - marriage – which for millennia has been defined as the lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

1 May 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger graham wood said...

"The current debate is whether people’s unorthodox sexual relationships and appetites should be given the same respect and legal status as ........"

Smack on Naomi. The passage of Scripture in Mark 10 "What God has joined together (heterosexual marriage)....etc. IS NEVER OUTDATED

1 May 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. The Inspector has never heard of her. Though he gives thanks she is standing - to split Ken’s vote. The Inspector’s initial opinion is that she comes across as incredibly bland, and should really be running a children’s nursery. He thinks she would have problems interacting with grown ups. Could well be tears when the ugly truths of life are presented to her. Still, she gets her 15 minutes. Something to tell the grandchildren, don’t you think ?

1 May 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Farage hit the nail on the head: "we're being governed by college kids".

1 May 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger non mouse said...

Even though London was 'different' from the rest of Britain, back when I lived in the city it was still British. Since it is no longer British, and as I no longer live there - I have no right to care if the big, bad, wicked city must accept some alien girl-child as its 'executive.' Suffice it to note that the narrative calls Arthurian legend to my mind: Fata Morgana and all that.

Meanwhile ... God Save the Queen.

1 May 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thanks Graham,

This is what I wrote to David Cameron on the 9th February.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Naomi
Subject: Christianity and Family Life
Date: 9 February 2012 21:11:57 GMT
To: david.cameron.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Cameron

The values we draw from the Holy Bible go to the heart of family life and the heath of society. The future of our country is at a pivotal moment.

Christianity, belief, religion, the Church and the Holy Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. We've got to stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, its a strength. Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code, the almost fearful passive tolerance, has allowed behaviour in ways that run completely counter to our values. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality, has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of lawlessness and a broken society. Moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. There are values which speak to us all and I believe we should stand up and defend them.

Yes they are Christian values. They are values we treasure. Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self sacrifice, love, working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have one to another, to our families and communities. Indeed, as Mrs Thatcher once said, "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Holy Bible". The Holy Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country.

Christianity is alive and well in our country. In the non Jewish/Christian world equality of persons is inconceivable. But by faith in the one true God, through Jesus Christ, each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and every human being is of equal and infinite importance, being created in the very image of God. The knowledge that God created mankind in his own image is a game changer for human dignity and equality. The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Holy Bible in which Kings are anointed and sanctified with the authority of God.

Knowledge of this book is still absolutely pivotal.

As I have said moral neutrality should not be an option, if we don't stand for something, we can't stand against anything. What I am saying is that the Holy Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today at its best; values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. And we should not be afraid to say so as we are a Christian Country. The Holy Bible is as relevant today as at any period in history. I do believe this. None of us should be frightened of recognising this.

I am a committed Church of England Christian who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith. The Holy Bible will continual to profoundly impact our collective future. We should celebrate it and live by it. One of this country's greatest achievements is having taken this greatest of books to all four corners of the world.

Yours sincerely

Naomi

1 May 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Well said, indeed, Naomi - much respect and God Bless.

1 May 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

An excellent and thought provoking post as usual !

I am posting this with sheer mental force- I have a bet with a certain Nova Las Vagas cartel- that THE GAY ISSUE WON'T BE MENTIONED!!

I stand to loose 100 tons of 24 carrot gold!

Here goes!

1 May 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

By the Gods I have just lost circa £2.5 billion!! Yet again the debate on this blog, on who should run the capital of the British Space Empire, has come down to the "gay question". I would have thought that there are more pressing matters for the voters of London to discuss...

1 May 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I think I might vote for her- Strong woman, educated, thoughtful,left leaning, without wanting to turn us into Islamistan, attractive and the kind of girl that can kick ass!

1 May 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Naomi King- That sounds like a manifesto for a "Biblical Christian Party", why don't you and others go and found it, rather than bemoaning the other parties? Then at least fundamentalist Christianity will have a proper voice vis the other political parties.

1 May 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Naomi King,
Very good comments and letter to the PM.
Just one point of advice. If you want to be read, be brief.

1 May 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
Surely Christians should seek to influence all the political parties?

You're proposing a very secular approach that would render Christianity no more than another pressure group in a pluralistic system. Is that what you want?

As a Christian you should be reflecting on the God's Will and seeking to achieve this.

Remember:
"Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

1 May 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Dodo,

I did give a response to your post of 23.40, but it's gone west. Suffice to say that if you look at America said political party wouldn't do too badly- although you'd be sharing a platform with arch protestants Len, Darth Pasta and Naomi, although I guess you and Al/ inspector ,would be like the Rick Scrotum and Newt Grinch of the British GOP!!!

1 May 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

I'm not sure I'd fit into an American style Republican Party as I'm more of a Christian Democrat.

I must confess I'm not a fan of democracy. Give me a good old fashioned King, ruling by Divine Right, crowned and guided by an independent Church, his realm one member of a Christian family of nations.

It could have worked - if only ....

*sigh*

2 May 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger Philip said...

When I read of this woman’s policies and views, particularly on the rioters and on gang members needing care and support, I felt a perhaps a degree of retching in the gut. Perhaps whatever quantity I have of Christianity-informed ideals of responsibility, and of justice that protects the innocent, rewards right and punishes wrong, was reacting. Would her ‘high-flyer’ Civil Service background, even that a former Cabinet Secretary supports her, indicate metropolitan lib-left “Chattering Class” dominant influence in the Civil Service, why a real conservative government may find it difficult to implement a programme, and that something would need to be done about it? That she has a former BBC producer working for her is of course no surprise.

2 May 2012 at 01:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You're proposing a very secular approach that would render Christianity no more than another pressure group in a pluralistic system. Is that what you want?"

Sounds perfect.

2 May 2012 at 03:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

DanJo,"Sounds perfect"
It's worked pretty well in the US.

2 May 2012 at 07:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

DanJO what were you doing up at 3.30 am its not good for your health.

2 May 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. The Inspector concurs with Phillip at 01:05

If you want to go and vote for a silly woman who hugs rioters, then you must admit that says a lot about you. And what’s all this at 22:34 about Christians having their own party ? Trying to exclude us from effective influence in government, eh. Just goes to show that you are just another morally bankrupt secularist at heart. How long before your watery Christianity dilutes to nothing…

2 May 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, 2 May 2012 00:33

You have already got your 'king' the pope, a poor 'substitute' for the real thing.

3 May 2012 at 07:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len
What a silly wee man you continually show yourself to be! As usual you missed the point. And the Pope is not a King; he is Christ's representative on earth.

In the paradigm of Kings ruling by Divine Right, the role of the Church was to annoint them as God's representatives and to offer spiritual counsel in terms of applying God's Law.

The 'Two Swords' of Catholic theology demanded integrity and honesty. People being people, Kings and Popes included and their hangers-on, it just didn't work.

3 May 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"The 'Two Swords' of Catholic theology demanded integrity and honesty. "..Just not with Christ's representative on earth, eh. I am not aware of any christian king that claimed infallibility whether moral or temporal.

You end up condemning, not justifying your understanding of men and what Popes claim they have as His authority over how the lives of men/women should be lived despite their own very obvious failure to live a life that glorified God.

Or as it has been put by a famous president "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Ernst, young bird.

3 May 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Now come on Chaps, we have a much bigger and more dangerous enemy out there to deal with.

3 May 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Naomi
Agreed but I can't let it pass.

Ernsty
Where did I claim infallibilty for Kings? A Divine Right to rule means just that; it makes no other claims.

And Popes are not infallible other than in matters of doctrine and dogma where they are guided by the Holy Spirit. For the rest they are human and can and do sin and make mistakes - unlike you now you've a saint having been "born again" and you can even understand scripture all on your own!

Amazing! And to think you condescend to correspond with a mere sinful mortal.

3 May 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, as unscriptural as ever

"unlike you now you've a saint having been "born again" and you can even understand scripture all on your own!"
Who are saints? Specific people a specific church beatifies or who God has called out, through His son?

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Dan.7:18
"BUT THE SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH SHALL TAKE THE KINGDOM, AND POSSESS THE KINGDOM FOR EVER, EVEN FOR EVER AND EVER."

The saints of the Holy Bible are those people whom the Father in heaven has been "calling-out" from among the nations of the world over the many centuries and who shall "co-rule" the Kingdom of God with Jesus Christ when He returns and establishes it on the earth.

The saints of the Holy Bible will be those who shall attain to the "first resurrection" at Jesus' return, be changed into "immortal Sons of God" whom Christ shall reward with "crowns" of authority within the Kingdom over the mortal nations of the earth.

The saints of the Holy Bible are those who have "believed" God's Word, the Bible [the TRUTH - John 17:17], verbal or written since the beginning of man's creation, who love God's Word and His ways... and who have sought to be obedient to God's voice.

The saints of the Holy Bible have been and are those who have, through the knowledge of God's Truth, and by the power of His Holy Spirit... overcome the pulls of the flesh and Satan's world... and have been faithful and obedient and loving toward God and have endeavored to live in peace among their fellowman down through the generations.

These are the saints of the Holy Bible, who shall be revealed in the Day Jesus Christ returns to the earth with the Kingdom of God.

Many of their names can be found in God's Word, read of them throughout the Old and New Testament. But many more names are missing, because many more are still being called by the works the named have done... and by their inspired words in the Bible.

The saints of the Holy Bible are those "faithful" to God's Word, who shall inherit the Kingdom of God when Jesus returns:

Matt.25:34
"THEN SHALL THE KING SAY UNTO THEM ON HIS RIGHT HAND, COME, YE BLESSED OF MY FATHER, INHERIT THE KINGDOM PREPARED FOR YOU FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD..." .

Ernst

3 May 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

As I said, you are a saint now you have been "born again". A person who can infallibly interpret scripture on your own and who's personal understanding of his faith quarentees Heaven. You're better than any Pope!

3 May 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"who's personal understanding of his faith quarentees Heaven.(Its called God's promises to those who believe on His Son and He never lies or disappoints) You're better than any Pope!(I truly hope I am my lad, haven't done or condoned the terrible things they did to others and their own!)"

""born again"" Is there some other way that men MUST be saved that God has not revealed through His Word then? As Nicodemus asked, 'How is this possible' and can you die again spiritually once you have been born spiritually.

"infallibly" and where has ernst said he is this regarding scripture..To be infallible must mean that someone is omniscient. But who can be omniscient as a mere human?

Infallibility; If logic dictates that before one can answer a question or take a position on something in an infallible way… one would require knowledge or information. And lots and lots of it. In fact, if you want to be absolutely right always and without limits, then you would require absolute knowledge, without limits. There’s a word for that, is there not..: omniscience.

(I hear your little mind clicking away over popes and that chair) but even if one doesn’t simply know everything, to be able to be infallible, one would still require knowledge to be able to calculate, analyse and so forth correctly to be able to arrive at an infallible conclusion (that is, know not only HOW to arrive at it but to RECOGNISE the answer).

Only God is the person claiming infallibility due to His intrinsic nature, not old Ernst (Though popes have claimed such but their answers show this false). It is He (The Holy Spirit) who leads us in all truth not Ernsts sin ridden wisdom, old boy.

Is old Ernst this, was King Solomon.. but more importantly, are popes??

Ernst the fallible Blofeld

3 May 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Yes, if you say so.

All one requires to be infallible in matters of faith and doctrine is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's what Christ promised His Church. This is expressed through the Pope, the Magisterium and Church Councils.

And the Holy Spirit cannot be leading all individuals in all truth. If He was there would not be so many variants of 'truth' around.

3 May 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo Chanting a la Frank and Nancy?

"All one requires to be infallible in matters of faith and doctrine is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's what Christ promised His Church. " Churches but one body!
INDEED my boy.

"This is expressed through the Pope, the Magisterium and Church Councils." Cue chorus;

But then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid..

Ernst

3 May 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

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

3 May 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger len said...

The' rock' is and always was Christ EVEN Peter acknowledged this fact.


' Come to him(Christ) a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God's sight, and 5 like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: "See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." 7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.' (1Peter 2 4-8)

3 May 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger len said...

Dodo also; The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).

And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.

3 May 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger len said...

So Dodo your foundation is faulty so the whole building is faulty.

All the underpinning in the World cannot save it!.

3 May 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Inspector,

If as many claim on this blog your version of Christianity is so important and is the view of the majority of voters, why would a Christian only party be a problem? Are you not giving bullets for danjo to fire, by implying that your (and others) version of christianity is nothing other than a minority belief?!

3 May 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

littlepopelennie

We've had this discussion so many times and Albert has covered all your quotes and points in detail.

The foundation ws laid by Christ Himself! The text of Scripture speaks for itself.

Peter is declared to be the rock upon which the church was built: Christ being both the principal foundation and founder of the same.

Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods.

3 May 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger len said...

Dodo (3 May 2012 22:26) Your statement is rubbish and I suspect you know it is untrue but you continue to chant it like a mantra hoping it will somehow come true.

It is a very hard fact to face that your church has lied to you.

Perhaps you cannot face that fact?.


Will you take God at His Word and give honor to the only true Rock and Head of Christ's Church, The Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Or will you take man`s word for it that Peter is that rock?

4 May 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger len said...

Dodo

If you will not accept the truth of scripture God will send you a strong delusion that you might believe the lie.

Your choice.

4 May 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len infallibly stated ...

"If you will not accept the truth of scripture God will send you a strong delusion that you might believe the lie."

Indeed, yes the Bible tells us this.

Christ's plan for His Church is written stated in the Bible and one would have to be dense or deluded not to understand it.

These are the very words of Jesus.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

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


Explain what He meant by "rock"; explain what He meant by "gates of hell"; explain "keys to the kingdom"; and explain what He meant by "bound and loose".

4 May 2012 at 11:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

Explain?

Matthew 14;25-33

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.
27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Who was the first of them in the boat to declare Him Messiah? It appears they ALL acknowledged Jesus as the Christ and said this whilst worshiping Him!

This is all prior to 16:19...HELLOOOOO.

Why does Peter's account, as retold by Mark, omit this information of declaration by all and of Peter sinking in the water due to 'little faith'? hmmm?

Jesus is THE foundation-stone or corner-stone for the church...
(Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20;17; Luke 6:48; Acts 4:11; 1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:19,20; 1 Peter 2:5-8).
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

or

Revelation 21:10-14
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.
12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

It is therefore crystal clear that ALL 12 apostles, including Peter, are foundation stones for the church, which is built upon Jesus who is the Primary Foundation Stone.

The question is not, Is Peter THE foundation stone that the church was to be built on but 'ONE of several Foundation-Rocks' upon which the church would be built?

Peter is NOT the corner-stone, Jesus is. Jesus is also the REAL foundation for the entire structure. Peter is not the ONLY rock the church is built upon, there are 11 other foundation rocks (Ephesians 2:19-22; Revelation 21:10-14). But as for who is the "Rock" in Matthew 16:18, the most natural conclusion is Peter.

"Explain what He meant by "rock"; explain what He meant by "gates of hell"; explain "keys to the kingdom"; and explain what He meant by "bound and loose"." All of Matthew 18!!! READ.

Both Len and Ernst have explained all these questions to you previously but you dislike the conclusions based on scripture and NOT myths propagated ( As in - to make widely known; publicise) by Rome to justify itself and it's position against other believers.

Ernst

4 May 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ersty

Are you now saying Mathew 16:18-19 is inaccurate coming as it did after the calming of the sea?

And thank you for pointing out Revelation refers to the Apostles as the foundation stones of the Church. Rather defeats your earlier points about Christ being the only rock. Peter was appointed as their leader, as the earthly rock, a metaphor for him and his faith given him by God.

Peter, as the head of the Church, was given the "keys to the kingdom", the authority to lead Christ's Church in all truth, and promised the "gates of hell" would not prevail against it.

Say what you will, there really is no other interpretation!

4 May 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"Are you now saying Mathew 16:18-19 is inaccurate coming as it did after the calming of the sea? "

The eternal equivocator..oh how Father Henry Garnet would be proud that his progeny lives on with the doctrine of mental reservation, that you show yourself to be a master in.

All stated this view that Jesus was The Christ. He tells Peter in Matt 16 and all the others in Mat 18 the same thing.

Neither refutes the other, as all are linked except Rome requires a form of Supremacy to justify 'Lording It' over others!

The Corner stone is the foundation. the first course laid on top are the foundation stones..Never laid a course of bricks then, most obviously my boy!!!! A first course must be laid on a solid foundation that is immutable and level or else all goes crooked..and the first layer of bricks ensure it being 'plumb' or 'canon' which is where we get our term for regarding the layout of the Holy Bible.

"Rather defeats your earlier points about Christ being the only rock."

You epitomise what Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams stating:

"We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves."

"Peter was appointed as their leader, as the earthly rock, a metaphor for him and his faith given him by God."

James, Jesus's brother, was the leader NOT Peter.

Why did Jesus give His Mother into John's care and not Peter's. I wish you spoke some sense based on our only record of events rather than presumptions from select scripture that is refuted by other scripture that shows the assumption is at the very least doubtful, let alone correct.

"Say what you will, there really is no other interpretation!"
You are such a fool, as from the verse there could be three possible meanings but you are too in love with Rome and its claim of sole exclusivity based on its own criteria and not with Christ to see this.

Ernst

4 May 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

said ...

Sch twisting about!

Why was Mary passed into the care of John? Scripture doesn't aay. Maybe because Jesus had no brother and Peter would be leading the Church.

And Scripture is Scripture! This is the passage immediately before Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of His Church and conferred His authority upon him.

"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven."
(Matthew 16:16-17)

You callmea fool (not very Biblical.incidentally) and you quote Jefferson in support of your position? The man was no Christian! He didn't believe in the God we worship or the atoning death and resurrection of Christ!

What of these comments:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..."

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

4 May 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
How many times does Peter call himself the 'rock'.... and IF Peter was the Bishop of Rome why didn`t he write' Romans'.

Surely if this amazing revelation that he(Peter) was' the foundation stone' was given to Peter HE would have been boasting to everyone "I am the Rock which scripture points to"

Can you really not see how foolish and heretical your statement is?.

5 May 2012 at 08:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

littlepope len

Questions, questions. Did I write Scripture? Paul was the Pharasee, a scholar with the greatest human understanding of the Old Law. He was chosen for this reason. Peter was a simple man of faith, chosen for this reason.

And why on earth would the 'Servant of the Servants', having been appointed by Christ in the presence of the other Apostles, need to reinforce this? And boast? Are you so dim witted as to advance this as an argument?

5 May 2012 at 11:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

You callmea fool (not very Biblical.incidentally) and you quote Jefferson in support of your position? The man was no Christian! He didn't believe in the God we worship or the atoning death and resurrection of Christ!

What of these comments:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence..."

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

It was to juxtapose the position of RC's and especially the popes such as Alexander VI who said "Almighty God! How long will this superstitious sect of Christians, and this upstart invention, endure?"! or the Donation of Constantine or the Decretals of Isodore?

If Jefferson was not a christian as people pretend he was one, then how much less were Rome's popes, whose debauchery is 'legend'?!

Foolish? because you bring no history or conscience to you evaluation of Rome, except unfailing devotion despite the contrary!

Ernst

5 May 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

1st Corinthians 10:4

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

2 Peter 2:1-25 (We all are living stones/rocks!)
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ...

"having been appointed by Christ in the presence of the other Apostles, need to reinforce this?"

Err, yes. It's called establishing truth rather than confusion!

(Matthew 18:16) "But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
(John 8:17) "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."
(2 Corinthians 13:1) "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

This is called a good example of itself. The fact that at least "two or three witnesses" are required to establish any truth from scripture is itself established by up to six separate scriptures! What is a witness? In this context it appears to mean separate scriptures, not necessarily separate prophets. For example, as this was true before Jesus said it (Matthew 18:16), otherwise he could never have said it, the witnesses would be those in (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15) all written by Moses.

Paul also said it in a similar way, "This is the third time I am coming to you." (2 Corinthians 13:1), as if to indicate that his coming three times was equivalent to three witnesses. So every important scriptural truth must be established by at least two separate scriptures, otherwise it cannot be counted as valid.

Matthew 18:15-20

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Disciples can only bind or loose what is in accordance with God's word in heaven, NEVER against it!

The Keys Of The Kingdom are the keys of knowledge in always doing the Father's Will!
For any binding or loosing on earth or in heaven, it must be ratified by Jesus as doing the Fathers Will as he disapproves of anything that is contrary!

Ernst

5 May 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
No writer of the New Testament speaks of Peter as Pope. What does their silence mean? Can it be' a conspiracy' against him? Why do they ignore his authority? Why? Could it possibly be because Peter never was' Pope'?. All the apostles were brethren. Peter refused to have Cornelius kneel before him. 'As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up: I myself also am a man.' Acts 10:25-26. How different from the Popes, who compel men to kneel before them!.
Before leaving the earth Jesus made this promise: 'I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' Matthew 28:20. How is He with us? By the Holy Spirit, and not by a visible head, called' the Pope'. Jesus said: 'It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin... Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16:7-13.

This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Since then the same gift of God has been bestowed upon all actual Christians. Today we need 'no Pope' to guide us. God's Word is our authority. Every one whom Jesus saves has the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to illuminate his pathway.

5 May 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len@5 May 2012 15:25

Wonderfully expressed, my lad.

ernst

5 May 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
By his own words Jefferson declared he was not a Christian. Are you serious in saying he was other than a cultural Christian? He's actually described Christ's words as nonsense!

Popes, whatever their many human failings, have always proclaimed the Truth of Christ's nature as God and man. Certainly there have been Popes who failed Christ. He never said they would not; He promised the Church would not succumb to evil.

As for the rest, I don't know what you're going on about! The Holy Spirit has been promised to guide the Church in the way of all Truth and to protect it from darkness and Hell. The "keys to the kingdom" represent teaching authority on behalf of God. That's good enought for me.

little pope len
Yes, yes, I know your position.

Read Acts and it's pretty clear Peter was seen as leader of the Apostles. It's also clear that Apostolic succession was etablished too.

You believe you have the authority to interpret Scripture as you see fit. This is not a right given you by Scripture. Show me where it says "faith alone" or "scripture alone" is sufficient. Show me where it says all men can understand and teach equally authoritatively; that we are all endowed with the same gifts.

Indeed, Scripture contradicts you on all these points. Your brand of individualistic, 'make it up as you see fit' Christianity is harmful and dangerous. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, her Bride. It is a body with a structure and a discipline; it has people with different gifts. It has leadership and a priesthood.

5 May 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"By his own words Jefferson declared he was not a Christian. Are you serious in saying he was other than a cultural Christian? He's actually described Christ's words as nonsense!(He believed, most wrongly, that the New Testament accounts had been altered and Paul was a corrupter of Jesus's words and doctrine..despite evidence this was not the case..If you are not careful, you believe what you want to believe)"
Ditto Alexander VI who said "Almighty God! How long will this superstitious sect of Christians, and this upstart invention, endure?"!

One individual had no such pretensions of declaring himself a committed believer in Jesus, being a deist that despised all religion and held none in high regard or claimed infallibility whereas the other DID..As the successor of St Peter, were Alexander's words stated, via the Holy Spirit..err, hmm, 'Ex Cathedra'!

(Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.) or was infallibility only applicable going forward from 1869 when it was defined 'dogmatically' by the first vatican council?? *bated breath sound*

Ernst

ps

"As for the rest, I don't know what you're going on about!" I KNOW. Its called Exegesis and is a complete mystery to you!
pps

When exactly did ST Peter become infallible during his earthly ministry. A date as an answer, if you have one please!

5 May 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Everything St Peter and the Apostles did and said after Pentecost was guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you doubt it?

5 May 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

As the successor of St Peter, were Alexander's words stated, via the Holy Spirit..err, hmm, 'Ex Cathedra'!

an answer please

5 May 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Galatians 2:11-13

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Who prevailed as correct-true?

2 Peter 3:16

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter claims Paul's writing is scripture but Paul has not mentioned Peter's?

What then was the truth for which Paul contended with St Peter? It was that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ and His Work," Paul adds whilst stating, "we," we Jews, "have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (v. 16.) But if this is true, what place could be found for circumcision then? So Paul proceeds to ask, "If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners," as we should be if circumcision is yet essential, "is therefore Christ the minister of sin?" The very question demonstrates its folly; and he then warns Peter, and all who hold with him, that to build again the things which He (Christ) once destroyed was to make himself a transgressor.
Unfortunately, Peter had really done this by reviving the value of circumcision. T( Peter was not, at this moment mentioned, walking "uprightly according to the truth of the gospel"; and consequently, painful as it must have been to Paul, he had to be rebuked. )hereupon Paul proceeds to expound the deliverance of the believer, as exemplified in himself, from both the claims and the sphere of the law, through death with Christ. (vs. 19-21.)

Yet it seems St Peter had accepted Pauls infallible argument because in Acts 15:11 he finishes..

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.(Note not They(gentiles) even as We Jews).

Ernst

5 May 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Alexander VI disgraced the Papacy.

Leo the Great (440-461) declared: "the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor"

The very indignation that the evil life of a Pope rouses is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples. Everything is expected from a Pope and their vices are scandalous.

And of course his comment, so often quoted on anti-Catholic sites, wasn't infallible! Do you actually understand the dogma of infallibility? Perhaps you should research it a bit more impartially.

The Pope isn't expected to be the wisest and most able theologian. He doesn't sit in isolation and decide how to run the Church, interpret the signs of the times on his ownsome and apply scripture to them.

You have a very dim view of Peter and Paul and the other Apostles, suggesting they took matters personally in understanding Christ's message and applying it! They weren'ton a power trip!

And if you are going to'cut and pastefrom Wiki do include the full paragraph:

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.

It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state that the pope cannot sin in his own personal life nor that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies."
(Wiki)

Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino, and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus have all spoken "ex cathedra."

This gift does not belongs only to the Pope. Infallibility also belongs to the body of Bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the Pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.

We have this from Jesus Himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the Bishops, the magisterium of the Church:
"He who hears you hears me"
(Luke 10:16)
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"
(Matt. 18:18).

5 May 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"The Pope isn't expected to be the wisest and most able theologian.(Surely he must know if Jesus was an upstart invention/lie and that Christians are a superstitious sect, because he is, supposedly by Rome's dogma, empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim such things?) He doesn't sit in isolation and decide how to run the Church (Who else in the hierarchy of Rome can claim infallibility..Infallibility trumps all, my boy), interpret the signs of the times on his ownsome and apply scripture to them (By his very statement he has proclaimed the Word Of God by his binding and loosing and rattling his keys, to prove it! He says that Jesus is an invention and Christians believe falsely. Is this done in heaven also.."Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"
(Matt. 18:18).)."

Encylopedia Brittannia has it that Infallibility is "the doctrine that the pope, acting as supreme teacher and under certain conditions, CANNOT ERR WHEN HE TEACHES IN MATTERS OF FAITH OR MORALS. As an element of the broader understanding of the infallibility of the church, this doctrine is based on the belief that the church has been entrusted with the teaching mission of Jesus Christ and that, in view of its mandate from Christ, it will remain faithful to that teaching through the assistance of the Holy Spirit."
So my boy, Did he ERR? answers that don't destroy the hermeneutics of ERR would be most appreciated by all.

My boy, Infallibility means NEVER being mistaken, not even once?!
If the promise espoused is broken once, infallible is now fallible and shown to be the most grave error as you blaspheme God, because it means the Holy Spirit has failed, God has lied and Satan has won (God cannot keep His Promises!).

Psalm 89:34,

34 My covenant will I not break , nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Joshua 23:14,

14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.

God ALWAYS keeps His Promises

2 Corinthians 1:19-20

19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.


Ernst

Ps

My boy, I don't hate you or Roman Catholics but you all show blind faith despite the obvious, which should make you consider Is This Truth?.
If Satan accomplished a sign, that deluded men, would you claim that Christ was behind the sign..ergo (therefore, because of..?!)

6 May 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

What a silly post.

The Encylopedia Brittannia is quite right. However, you are overlooking the precondition to infallibility - "UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS".

You are just revealing your ignorance andprejudice about the doctrine of infallibility.

The quote you cite,if genuine, was NOT an ex-cathedra statement and does not undermine the position of the Catholic Church.

Was this a Bull addressing matters of faith and doctrine and binding on the Church? Hardly!

This alleged remark, supposedly suspressed and hidden for centuries until its disclosure in "Secret Church Histories", written in 1731, is hardly the material of a ex-cathedra prouncement.

7 May 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS".


"CANNOT ERR WHEN HE TEACHES IN MATTERS OF FAITH OR MORALS." QED!

A silly response from you as the answer is in the statement defining it.He is not required to be sitting in a specific chair nor it being written into a bull to pronounce 'ex cathedra' on these subjects?

Or is whether Christ was a man made invention or that the faith Christians hold onto is true, are not matters of FAITH OR MORALS?!

Condemned by their own words and deeds!

Ernst

7 May 2012 at 15:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

You have not bothered to read the Vatican I doctrine on infallibility. If you had, you'd know you are talking nonsense.

When a Pope declares on matters of faith or morals it is through an encyclical circulated throughout the Church. Ex-cathedra merely refers to the authority invested the Papal Office or the Church from Christ.

Do you actually know how many ex-cathedra teachings by Popes there have been? They are extremely rare.

I'll give you a clue. A definitive decree will make it clear through use of this or similar terminology:

"By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful".

Alternatively, an accompanying anathema will state that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

Happy hunting! Do come back if you want clarification.

7 May 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Alternatively, an accompanying anathema will state that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

So when the popes spewed anathema on each other they were speaking ex cathedra.

It appears that the preceding pope who cursed the previous is stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
So who was correct...the previous pope or the pope that succeeded?

Clarification?

Ernst

8 May 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Hypothetical or actual situation? Do offer an example, there's a good chap.

8 May 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Severals should suffice, old bird.

Bishop Liberius signed the Arian Sirmium Creed (“The Second Creed of Sirmium - 357 (The Blasphemy)”) which denied the Deity of Christ; the next Pope in line Damasus I ratified the Trinitarian Creed (Council of Rome, 382 - The Trinity and the Incarnation )

Pope Honorius contradicted so many Popes that he was anathematized (Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites,( who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.)

Pope Stephen VI brought former Pope Formosus to trial by digging up his corpse from the grave and placing the body upon a throne. Pope Formosus was judged guilty of heresy, his bright robes were ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers were hacked off, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown
into the Tiber River. Hence, one Pope clearly condemned another.
Then the second successor of Pope Stephen , John IX, had the body of Formosus, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber River, reinterred with full honors. Formosus' official orders were then declared valid. Then a future Pope, Sergius III turned around and declared that Pope Stephen was correct and Pope Formosus was wrong.

Pope Eugene IV condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch. Then a future Pope, Benedict XV, turned around and declared her to be a saint in 1920.

Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared to be accurate (infallible?). Just two years later, Pope Clement VIII declared that this version was full of errors (Fallible, then).

Even today Evolutionists such as DanJo can use the argument that it was the Pope of Rome Paul V, who condemned the astronomer Galileo for his correct view of the Solar System and Universe yet in 1983 Pope John Paul admitted that the Church under Paul V had made a major mistake and apologised for the shameful way it had treated Galileo (It had Erred??!!.)..

Not hypothetical, were they or would you like more.

It may shock your sensitive soul but, but "the great Fathers of the Church" saw no connection between the verse which Jesus addressed to Peter and the Bishops of Rome.

Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They're not exactly Protestants, old bird, are they *Guffaws*.
Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him 'specifically' the promise of the keys. . .
But the surprises do not stop there. For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith – or the Lord in whom Peter has faith – which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the Church from Nicea in the fourth century to Constance in the 15th agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, a rock on which the church rests.

Perhaps this is why not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him; not one speaks, as RC church documents do today, of an "inheritance". There's no hint of an abiding Petrine office. Insofar as the Fathers speak of an office, the reference is to the episcopate it in general. All bishops are successors to all the apostles.

Ernsty, old fruit.

ps

I ask again...So who was correct...the previous pope or the pope that succeeded?

9 May 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
All a rather long time ago, don't you think?

None of the examples you cite actually meet the standard to constitute infallible declarations on faith or morals applicable to the whole Church. You should also remember that Popes who do teach heresy can quite legitimately be
anathematise by a future Ecumenical Council or a succeeding Pope.

And were the early Church Fathers infallible? They did not carry the authority of the Church in their theological writings.

9 May 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the DELU DUDED Dude

"You should also remember that Popes who do teach heresy (Who under the spirit believed they were teaching orthodoxy??!!) can quite legitimately be
anathematise by a future Ecumenical Council or a succeeding Pope." Or better called 'having it both ways at once'??
It appears one pope's inspired orthodoxy is another's Inspired heresy. *Huge Chortles*..Strange stuff this infallibility malarkey.

Strange that not one church father mentioned this doctrine, especially as some had genuine apostolic links (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. ALL deafeningly silent regarding your pretend tradition), as Rome claim immediate consistency in its orthodoxy.

Utter Nonsense for the unlearned and EASILY gullible.

And were the early Church Fathers infallible? About as much as your Popes were but then, of course, they NEVER claimed such nonsense. Did They!

Ernst.

9 May 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
You doubt the word of Christ? His promise to the Church - amd the words of scripture!

Papal infallibility was bestowed on Peter and his successors by Christ.

We find evidence of this in Scripture. For example, Jesus told Peter:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren"
(Luke 22:31-32).

"He who hears you hears me"
(Luke 10:16),

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
(Matt. 16:18-19).

"When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."
(John 21:15–17)

"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
(Luke 22:32)

Early Christians understood Christ’s teaching on the primacy of the Pope, which involved Papal infallibility. But the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not infallibly defined until the First Vatican Council, as it was not necessary to formally define it until it was disputed. Infallible pronouncements are usually made only when a doctrine has been challenged.

The infallibility of the Pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.

9 May 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Bird

As Christians we are asked to pray for people.

Which of your personalities would most benefit from a prayer.

Ernst

10 May 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
Run out of arguments?

Do you believe in intecessionary prayer?

Try praying for little pope len.

10 May 2012 at 22:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older