Sunday, August 05, 2012

Test of Fire: Christians unite against Obama

This is for Roman Catholics:

And here's the Evangelical Protestant version:


Spot the difference(s).

There is something a little scary and simultaneously amusing about this campaign: the call to Christians across the denominations is to defend religious liberty and resist the redefinition of marriage - by voting for a Mormon who would do neither.


Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Alternatively, Your Grace, there is something Providential and uplifting in this show of Christian unity against a President who has shown his metropolitan disdain for simple Christian faith. A Republican Congress behind a Republican President will not, of course, bring utopia; but it will make Jimmy Carter very happy by making him only the second most useless President in living memory.

If the Churches in this country showed a little more spinal fortitude, 'call me Dave' might not have been so willing to ruin his party on the issue of same-sex marriage.

5 August 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phew, I was expecting someone tied to a stake in the middle of the fire in the top video. Small mercies etc. ;)

5 August 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

More seriously, this has a slightly sinister tinge to it. Imagine a similar one, only with an Islamic flavour, aimed at the Ummah in Europe during elections. Note also the "religious liberty" in there, if that were about the UK then the coverage is pretty broad. People ought to be free as far as possible but liberty has limits in Society because interactions have consequences.

5 August 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Magnificently apocalyptic, Your Grace, and your communicant notes the clear distinction between Catholics and Christians.

A computer synthesised voice-over of appropriate gravitas by the late Charlton Heston would not have gone amiss. Or did his advocacy for the US National Rifle Association disqualify Heston, dead or alive, from the right to intone on behalf of Catholics/Christians?

5 August 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Danj0 said ...

"More seriously, this has a slightly sinister tinge to it. Imagine a similar one, only with an Islamic flavour, aimed at the Ummah in Europe during elections."

What's "scary" about Christians seeking to uphold key values in a country built on Christianity? And if Christianity holds firm the prospect of Islam gaining strength across Europe diminishes.

The family - based on one man and one woman raising children - is the core component of society. Abortion and homosexual 'marriage' are a direct threat to it.

"People ought to be free as far as possible but liberty has limits in Society because interactions have consequences."

Indeed - and Christians ought to reject those freedoms that undermine social stability.

5 August 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Is it scary that some Christians should believe that their Faith is not something to be confined to the private spere and aired in public only on Sunday? We know that is the view of some secularists, but it is not one held by Our Lord and His Apostles. No doubt this might disturb those who imagine Christ's work is confined to collecting the Chancel tax from those unwilling to pay it.

5 August 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

A stirring piece YG,

If there's one thing the western world lacks it's principle. Modern culture-christians believe God exists but live as if he didn't; they use secular philosophy to make decisions and vote using secular reasoning. This is perfect for politicians without substance as such people are easy to manipulate.

Maybe an such an advertisement produced for this country would make us think about who we vote for, rather than putting our cross next to the man who promises to give us more free things than the others.

5 August 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger IanCad said...

Flames and many issues at Stake!!

That's consistent at least.

When Rome talks religious liberty I know they're up to no good.

"The church . . . does not, and cannot accept, or in any degree favor, liberty in the Protestant sense of liberty." -- (Catholic World, April, 1870.)

"If Catholics ever gain a sufficient numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say, SO WE BELIEVE" (The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop of St Louis, Nov. 23, 1851).

"Religious Liberty is merely endured UNTIL THE OPPOSITE CAN BE CARRIED INTO EFFECT WITHOUT PERIL TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." -- (Rt. Rev. O'Connor, Bishop of Pittsburgh.

"The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error--a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state." -- Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX, August 15, 1854.

Don't tell me they've changed over the years either.

5 August 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

IanCad - do try reading some twentieth, or even, gasp, twenty-first century Catholic pronouncements. Would you use the nineteenth century as your canon for anything else? (And no, I am not a Catholic, I am of the same persuasion as His Grace).

5 August 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'd quite like to see a similar video put out by one of the fringe Catholic groups here in the UK. They could demand an exemption in the form of a percentage of the tax payable by companies run by Catholics and Catholic individuals to pretend they aren't helping fund abortion and contraception services as part of the NHS. It could be argued for using this sort of "religious liberty" argument, I reckon.

5 August 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...the clear distinction between Catholics and Christians.

What are trying to say, that Bluedog ?

One can see you need to be wormed, you sly hound...

5 August 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

All very epic and Lord-of-the-Ringsy. Cool ad campaign. What the voters do, Catholic and Evangelical alike, I leave up to them.

Jessica Hoff said:

"Is it scary that some Christians should believe that their Faith is not something to be confined to the private spere and aired in public only on Sunday? We know that is the view of some secularists, but it is not one held by Our Lord and His Apostles. No doubt this might disturb those who imagine Christ's work is confined to collecting the Chancel tax from those unwilling to pay it."


5 August 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wonder if the RCC still favours the ideas in the Unam Sanctam. If so then it must chafe that there are libertarians and liberals who value freedom so much and try hard to keep the RCC's grubby hands off it.

5 August 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

DanJ0 - do you find such confessional sniping useful or good for the soul?

As I find it neither, I'll leave you to it if it is what lights your candle. I am simply reminded of Byron's lines that 'Christians have burned each other, quite persuaded, that all the Apostles would have done as they did.'

5 August 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Libertarians favour reduced government, but some form of government all the same. Libertarians want and need core policy in place, and the rest of ‘social’ legislation, such as preventing a property owner
from allowing his customers to smoke on HIS premises dispensed with. Libertarians also wish to allow B&B owners the right to deny two sodomites the opportunity of sleeping in the same bed in THEIR property.

heh heh, that should be the last time we’ll see you use that word, then :->

5 August 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JH: "As I find it neither, I'll leave you to it if it is what lights your candle."

Clearly, you haven't left me to it. Feel free to leave me to it next time.

5 August 2012 at 14:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Libertarians favour reduced government, but some form of government all the same."

Indeed. In your case, reduced from what level? Socialism?

"Libertarians also wish to allow B&B owners the right to deny two sodomites the opportunity of sleeping in the same bed in THEIR property."

At this point, I'd throw the "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" sign thing back at you but, well, I doubt it would have the effect it would on most people.

5 August 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose we could pretend between us two that they only had "No Dogs, No Irish" on them.

5 August 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger David Lonsdale said...

But for whom should we vote in Britain? Cameron is standing against God over marriage between homosexuals,as is Clegg and Milliband. As for abortion, all support it.

May the Lord confound them all.

5 August 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. No entrepreneur is going to adopt a ‘No dogs, No blacks, No Irish’ policy as it will harm their business. There will always be entrepreneurs who did it better, and take their business. Indeed, many accommodation establishments make a point about being dog friendly. Can’t see why that can’t work with gays. {STIFLES LAUGHTER}. Also, it is surprisingly easy to get yourself a bad name in business – Tesco found that out with it’s hand-outs to gay organisations.

Public Houses would be free to market themselves as no smoking or part non smoking establishments. They used to say pre 2007, that it’s a good marketing model. Apparently, there are millions who would visit a pub regularly if a no smoking area was available to them. Pubs would enjoy a new golden age, apparently {AHEM}

5 August 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "No entrepreneur is going to adopt a ‘No dogs, No blacks, No Irish’ policy as it will harm their business."

That's because social values have changed. Back in the 'halycon' days of the 1950s, there wasn't that much of a problem. In fact, some would have argued that it would harm their business not to refuse Irish and Blacks. Luckily, most of us are more civilised now. Most of us.

5 August 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Yes, we are more ‘civilised’ as people now alright. {CREASES UP, BANGS FIST ON DESK}.

And we now have ‘rights’ that provide odd ball and occasionally murderous trouble makers with a compensation income, and let’s not forget the ‘feminists’ who decide to murder their child in the womb.

Looking back over the decades, one is amazed we managed to get this ‘civilised’ for some to crow about it...

5 August 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jessica Hoff said ...
"DanJ0 - do you find such confessional sniping useful or good for the soul?"

Got him in one!

He will deny having a soul, of course, and simply wants to goad others.

Don't let the little twerp set the terms of the discussion as his his wont.

5 August 2012 at 16:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, before you wade in light a fighting cock with razor blades tied to your spurs, remember his is an isolated position here. He’s holding back the tide of sense. What sport !

5 August 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger IanCad said...

Jessica Hoff @ 14:10

So: Recent history now has a Statute of Limitations does it?

When, and until then, you can show evidence of a Catholic spokesman, of equal rank, or above, those senior churchmen cited, refuting absolutely every one of those statements I will continue to view them as current doctrine.

5 August 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Ian, if you wish to ignore the last century and live in the past, then that's your prerogative. Don't read lumen Gentium, don't read Dominus Iesus, indeed, stick to Pio
Nono and ignore John Paul II.

5 August 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger Tommy said...

So its a muslim or a mormon for pressy, either way both call on a false Jesus, the muslim believes Jesus to be merely a prophet, not the Son of God who died for our sins, the Mormon believes their jesus to be the brother of satan.
The futures not bright, its not even orange, its pretty dark really.

5 August 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Could you name the Encyclical of Pope Pius IX you have cited? You see, it appears he issued no Encyclical on this date.

He was Pope at a time when 'modernity' and 'liberalism' was rife and starting to infect Catholicism and he certainly placed an emphasis on doctrinal integrity.

The other quotes too need some background and they carry no authority at all. They appear with some frequency on sites spreading the 'message' of the Papists waiting to secretly regain power. However, I have yet to find a citation that can be checked. Strange that.

You don't believe all that nonsense, do you?

5 August 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger IanCad said...

Emerging from the Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium has mistakenly been hailed as a modernizing document.
In reality it was an entirely prolix writing that did lttle other than confirm long-standing Papal doctrine.

Dominus Iesus is a more robust declaration of the role of the Roman Church and its relationship to other faiths. Not only the Anglican Community, but in fact, all other churches (Eastern Orthodox excepted) are considered "invalid." This piece of arrogant mumbo-jumbo was penned by then Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the faith.

It is of interest then, that in 2007, after Ratzinger's elevation to the Popehood, that the new Prefect, Cardinal Levada, saw fit to reaffirm the immutable nature of the See of st. Peter by responding to questions relating to both of the documents under discussion. Stating, in essence, that neither document changed anything.

Levada ended his response with these couple of paragraphs, thus confirming that Pope Benedict was fully involved with all the issues.

"The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada

Cardinal Leveda retired earlier this year. The new Prefect is now the Archbishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Muller.

5 August 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You don't believe all that nonsense, do you?"

I do. It's an immoral, self-serving corporation hoping and trying to get its grubby hands on secular power to wield over people. It needs a close eye kept on it at all times.

5 August 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger David B said...

I'm getting the impression from my reading of at least some sections of American opinion that suggests that there is a lot of backlash about the attempts of Catholics and the more literal Protestants to influence American life.

I hope and trust that such attempts will rebound.

Favourable views of Obama seem to be rising, according to some sources at least.

David B

5 August 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

IanCad - you may find this sort of confessional sniping good for your soul, in which case, I wish you joy of it. For me, it is a waste of spirit. We have a great many enemies in this word if we are Christians, and if we refuse to learn the lessons of the past, we shall repeat them.

5 August 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

Wonderful ads and right on the mark. I'll take Romney the Mormon anyday over a liberal Protestant or Catholic.

Romney is a man people of all faiths and no faith can vote for and trust.

Mormons in the 19th century USA experienced intense hatred and discrimination and violence. They are the only religious group in the USA to have been killed by USA troops during conflicts in Utah. Here is an example of how they were persecuted in the USA in the 1800's. It's called the "extermination order" isssued by Missouri Govenor Lilburn Boggs in 1838:

Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the "Mormon Extermination Order"(alt. exterminating order in Latter Day Saint history, was an executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs. The directive was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Mormons and a unit of the Missouri State Guard in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the so-called "Mormon War" of 1838. Insisting that the Mormons had committed "open and avowed defiance of the laws", and had "made war upon the people of this State," Boggs precipitously directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description."

While the order is often referred to as the "Mormon Extermination Order" due to the phrasing used by Boggs, relatively few people were killed as a direct result of its issuance. However, the state militia and other authorities used Boggs' missive as a pretext to expel the Mormons from their lands in the state, and force them to migrate to Illinois. Mormons did not begin to return to Missouri until 25 years later, when they found a more welcoming environment and were able to establish homes there once more. In 1976, citing the unconstitutional nature of Boggs' directive, Missouri Governor Kit Bond formally rescinded it.

5 August 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger IanCad said...


You are of course perfectly right to demand sources and I will try to find the current location of the documents.

I've searched the Vatican website and I can't find anything for that date. I'm wondering if the encyclical "letters" are perhaps, under a different heading?
Bishop O'Conner spent many years in The Office of Propaganda at the Vatican, and, of course, Pius1X was noted for his medieval outlook. While trawling the Vatican web, I came across a few quotes from Pius that will, at least, give credence to the quote which is in question.

These are theses which Pius1X condemns:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. -- Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

5 August 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger IanCad said...


"confessional sniping"

What on earth is that?

5 August 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger IanCad said...


To judge from your prior posts

"if we refuse to learn the lessons of the past, we shall repeat them"

You seem to be blithely unaware of them.

5 August 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspired by David B tonight, the Inspector reminds himself of conversing with one or two atheists of past. The gist of the conversation being “I don’t have faith, but I often wish I had”. One cannot help but wonder of the atheist legions out there who put their trust in men that have a Christian faith, rather than secularists who have no such restraint on their their thoughts and resulting policies...

5 August 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

IanCad, I'm thinking it was Pope Gregory XVI on 15th August 1832. Paragraph 14.

5 August 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger David B said...

I don't quite get where you are heading, Inspector.

For myself, not only am I happy to have no religious faith, but I tend to the view that most people would be happier without one.

Some of the people I've met online who have lost a deep faith regret its passing, to a greater or lesser degree, but most feel the happier for it.

Having every thought and deed being watched by an invisible judge who is quick to condemn is not the happiest of circumstances in which to live, I think.

And yes, of course, I know many Christians don't take it as seriously as all that, and sort of assume that they won't be condemned to hell even if they are rich, lecherous, lust after their neighbours spouses (spice?) etc.

But many are tormented by thoughts of hell.

David B

5 August 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, one must revisit your site at some stage, but you must admit that with a name like ‘secular cafe’, when it comes to religion, you are going to attract the weak, wounded and unsure, not to mention the teenage rebel...

The point the Inspector wishes to make is that with a Christian presidential candidate, you have at least some idea where the man is headed. This apparent certainty (...slipped in the word ‘apparent’, thanks to bloody Cameron) gives a sense of surety that cannot be guaranteed by the secularist. This understanding of him, if you will, gives everyone, the faithful or otherwise, some foundation of belief of what he will do. A comfort in these unsure times, don’t you think ?

Now, the secularist. He’s a free spirit, unhindered by the restraints of a faith. If he’s any use at politics he will be a pragmatic. Pragmatism requires sacrifice at times, don’t you think. When, not if, it comes to it, what would he sacrifice next, we all wonder...

5 August 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 14.19, watching the two videos one sees that the Catholic edition does not mention the word 'Christian' but relates to 'Catholic(s)' and 'the Church'. Similarly the Christian edition does not mention the word Catholic. Taken at face value, an outside observer could conclude that Christians were not Catholics and that Catholics were not Christians. It seems likely that the Catholic edition was approved by the US Catholic Church. Perhaps some convocation of Evangelican Protestants approved the Christian edition.

Without being judgemental, this communicant regards these differing expressions of identity as significant.

Similarly the imagery employed, with it's darkness lit by the flame of a forge, is both powerful but somewhat pagan, rendolent of fire worship. Or is the forge a metaphor for hell? In any event, possibly not what Christ had in mind when he spoke of being '...the Way, the Truth and the Light'.

Easy to criticize of course, but how else to get the message across?

5 August 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger John Magee said...


What do you think of Obama's Justice Department not enforcing the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act" (which defines marriage in the USA as the legal union between a man and a woman) signed by, of all Presidents, William Clinton? How about Obama's sudden support of gay "marriage" in May of this year claiming he has evolved from his past negative remarks about the subject? Then there is Obama's contempt for the unborn wih his support of all types of abortion including partial birth abortion. His worst example of supporting infaticide was his voting for a bill twice while a State Senator in Illinois to allow babies born in a "botched abortions" to be set in a room to die.

At this point in time after almost four years of his total incompetence in every way at home and abroad as the President of the world's only superpower a conservative who worshipped a goat would be preferable to Obama.

5 August 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog, for this man as a Catholic, the forge did indeed resonate of hell. Good job too what, keeps a fellow on the straight and narrow.

Must admit you have an eye for detail, so stand down valued hound. You will not be wormed on this occasion (...unless you want to be, that is :-> [AHEM}...)

5 August 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Ian C - I am sure that a man of your attachment to the C19th can work out the meaning of confessional sniping; if not,it is what you are indulging in.

5 August 2012 at 22:39  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

John M - agree with you on Obummer, who is making Jimmy Carter a happy man.

5 August 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


All perfectlyreasonable statements from Pope Pius IX who was against the growth of secular liberalism and was protecting the Church from its evils.

You must free yourself from the prejudice of your denomination towards Rome.

Now, repeat after me:

"The Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is not the antichrist."

Your church opposes abortion, except in exceptional circumstances, and is opposed to homosexual marriage.

Why do you feel compelled to assail Catholicism rather than focus on these issues?

5 August 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog said ...

" ... the imagery employed, with it's darkness lit by the flame of a forge, is both powerful but somewhat pagan, rendolent of fire worship. Or is the forge a metaphor for hell?"

The metaphor in the video relates to life being a furnace and a forge where, through experience and God's grace, we become fashioned in the image of Christ.

It's where the dross is removed and where one's character is forged.

"Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.
(Proverbs 25:4)

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."
(Isa 48:10)

5 August 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger len said...

Isn`t it about time we' dropped' the denominations and became followers of Christ not our own particular brand of 'christian' religion?.

5 August 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger len said...

When we arrive at the Gates of Heaven I am sure God is not going to ask " What denomination?" but how did you respond to My Son?.

5 August 2012 at 23:28  
Blogger David B said...

Len, do you mean 'Gates of Heaven' as literally or metaphorically? Or what?

If literally, do you think they are pearly?

David B

5 August 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger David B said...


"David B, one must revisit your site at some stage, but you must admit that with a name like ‘secular cafe’, when it comes to religion, you are going to attract the weak, wounded and unsure, not to mention the teenage rebel..."

In fact out membership tends towards older than average, and many of the teenage rebels we come across tend to be avid Christians, whose views get a pretty thorough fisking,

"The point the Inspector wishes to make is that with a Christian presidential candidate, you have at least some idea where the man is headed."

Hmm. Some pragmatists pay lip service to God, don't you think? What were Churchill's religious views? He sometimes referred to God, but he apparently wasn't a churchgoer, and might have been some sort of deist.

Disraeli? Baptised into Christianity by his father for pragmatic reasons? Are his religiosu views clear?

" This apparent certainty (...slipped in the word ‘apparent’, thanks to bloody Cameron) gives a sense of surety that cannot be guaranteed by the secularist."

I do wish you would stop abusing the term 'secularist'.

One can be, and if one is a sensible person of faith, one will be, a secularist religious person, as well as a secular atheist, like me.

Secularism is the best defence of religious freedom, within sensible limits. We don't want Catholics burning Protestants at the stake, or vice versa, now do we?

" This understanding of him, if you will, gives everyone, the faithful or otherwise, some foundation of belief of what he will do. A comfort in these unsure times, don’t you think?"

It only gives that sort of understanding if the politician is sincere about his religion. Personally, I think the politician who claims religion insincerely is morally corrupt, but less dangerous than the Ayatollahs of this world. Or the equivalent of the Ayatollahs in the other monotheistic faiths.

"Now, the secularist. He’s a free spirit, unhindered by the restraints of a faith. If he’s any use at politics he will be a pragmatic. Pragmatism requires sacrifice at times, don’t you think. When, not if, it comes to it, what would he sacrifice next, we all wonder..."

Historically I don't think you will notice adherents of a faith being unwilling to to sacrifice people of other faiths in the service of their own.

The predecessor of our august host could vouch for that, could he not?

David B

6 August 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said...

" ... not only am I happy to have no religious faith, but I tend to the view that most people would be happier without one."

Ummm ... you'd have to define "happiness". Most empirical research indicates that people of faith have higher levels of psychological and emotional wellbeing than those with no faith.

"Having every thought and deed being watched by an invisible judge who is quick to condemn is not the happiest of circumstances in which to live, I think."

What a perverse and diabolical understanding of a loving and merciful Father who offers us His grace and assistance.

"And yes, of course, I know many Christians don't take it as seriously as all that, and sort of assume that they won't be condemned to hell even if they are rich, lecherous, lust after their neighbours spouses (spice?) etc."

And now the flip-flop. The only way of being "happy" and having a faith is not to take it too seriously.

"But many are tormented by thoughts of hell."

Tormented? Why would they be tormented?

"Scruples" are a difficult and sometimes painful stage in the process of maturation in the spiritual life. They serve as a means of deepening one's realisation of the spiritual world. They may also serve the purpose of the 'dark night of the soul' in leading to a deepening of faith and trust in God.

There are different types of guilt. First there is theological guilt - the condition of a person who has willingly violated the law of God. Secondly there is rational guilt. This is the condition of a person who has willingly violated the natural law, without necessarily knowing it is a transgression of the commandments or the law of God. Thirdly there is the condition of normal or healthy emotional guilt. This is the state of emotions, which is experienced when a reasonably balanced person, who is neither hardened to sin, nor pathologically cold, commits a serious sin or transgression of the moral order. It is perfectly healthy or normal if someone commits a serious violation of God's law.

These forms of guilt are perfectly healthy and lead people to change their life. The feelings arise because we have a conscience that prompts us to change.

Then there is a form of neurotic guilt. This involves dread, anxiety, fear of punishment, desire for punishment, a sense of horror, depression, self-loathing, etc. It is neurotic if it is out proportion to the cause, or if it exists without apparent cause, and is usually protracted through time and of such magnitude that it interferes with one's normal adaptation, or produces physiological consequences. It is symptomatic of an undeveloped pyche and undeveloped understanding of God.

It would seem you have been mixing with people who fall into the latter category.

6 August 2012 at 00:55  
Blogger non mouse said...

Interesting, Your Grace, and awesomely multicultural.

The two videos indeed work towards a goal of uniting Christians under a catholic principle similar to Your Grace’s. However, they also raise questions as to who is funding Romney, and what might be his policies on the euSSR.

As in our ancient Gospel manuscripts, both films use letters of gold to present values common to Catholics and ‘Others.’ However, while the different word-choice “Catholic” seems at first divisive and exclusive, the ‘Protestant’ use of “Christian” broadens audience appeal for the Mormon’s campaign.

In both cases we see the vital values of Marriage, Life, and Freedom forged and assayed; finally, they stand ready to be wrapped in the UNITED States flag... for we read that Americans must preserve that gold. The script also suggests that the flag will not survive without it (Psalms 127:1; golden script signifies the value of God’s Word).

Both videos also cite While only the “Catholics” explain the acronym,* the “Protestants” nevertheless note that their video is funded by that organisation. It therefore is important that CC2W is an Hispanic-Catholic organisation in Florida, because the question arises: To what extent do US-Hispanics fund Romney?

A more covert difference between the videos is that the Catholic version (like cc2w) mirrors the imagery of the eu’s “national” rag. The cc2w section is themed in blue and gold. Traditional spiritual values inhere in that scheme: e.g. BVM/marigold; however, the video seems to reverse the eu imagery by depicting the “ring of barbed wire” as a Crown of Thorns. This crown encloses three red-hot stars...perhaps protecting our three values in the forge.

The Protestant video supports this interpretation by replacing the Crown with a verbal frame which finally re-asserts: “Many issues are at stake.”** But what does the eu imagery mean to US-Floridian-Hispanics? How much of it does Romney understand or support?

*cctw = Catholics Called to Witness: Inspiring Catholics to live their faith. There is surely an evangelical note here too!

**One observes that this reflects Your Grace’s sometime incandescence!


6 August 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger non mouse said...


Most Americans I meet neither know nor care about the euSSR; nor have they even heard of the Lisbon Treaty. This does not discourage them from generating unflattering accounts of Romney's eu tour.*** One Democrat, Cokie Roberts, who claims that “racism” underlies his overall campaign, observes: So it hasn’t gone exactly as I think that [the] Romney campaign had planned, for him to have something of a triumphal march through London, Jerusalem and then onto Poland...”.

Blogger Randy Hall, who noticed Romney’s anti-Communist stance while in Poland, riposted: Perhaps Romney’s trip would have gone more smoothly if the members of the “mainstream media” hadn’t dogged the candidate and his staff in search of every “mistake” or “dustup“ along the way.**** Of course, they haven't far to dig if Romney's from the DC mould. Is he? Or is he not?

So thank you, Your Grace for highlighting this Moslem-Mormon dilemma-- for both British and American readers. Clearly some Americans are aware of media tactics and commie problems similar to our own but, by ignoring us, others remain unaware of the global nature of the subversion.

Deo Gratias these videos present similar ideas to those I inferred from the Olympic Thing: for they depict the situation, and they may even help us towards a solution.
*** How many of us noticed?

****For those who would like to read more:

6 August 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo @ 22:40

You wrote:

"All perfectly reasonable statements from Pope Pius IX who was against the growth of secular liberalism and was protecting the Church from its evils."

I said Pius 1X Condemns the three theses:

1. Freedom of religion.
2. Limitations on Papal authority.
3. Roman Catholicism should not be the only acceptable religion.

You are surely not declaring these statements as invalid. They are the essential bases of all liberal, free societies.
Or are you?

"Why do you feel compelled to assail Catholicism rather than focus on these issues?

As you seem to, and the statements above confirm, The Church of Rome considers herself to be the sole arbiter of civil society.
The principle of the separation of church and state is a notion repugnant to her.
Having spent most of my life in the USA I have witnessed the growing power of the well organized RC church. To the extent that, arguably, the most powerful branch of government, the Supreme Court, is controlled by RC's. Six Catholics and not one Protestant.
In this country we value our individuality somewhat more than do those in the US. Americans are far more respectful of authority than we are and tend not to let the constraints of their constitution get in the way of any perceived necessities.
Thus, you are right. I do feel compelled to assail the advance of the RC.

6 August 2012 at 07:54  
Blogger IanCad said...

DanJo @ 21:37

Thanks for the link. I was going nuts last night and gave up.
Yet further evidence that the RCC is a clear and present menace to our traditional liberties so hard fought for.

6 August 2012 at 08:01  
Blogger len said...

David B,(5 August 2012 23:38 ) Very tempted to use 'pearly'but thought this a bit too frivolous.

Seriously though' the denominations'which were created for various reasons, some good, some definitely bad are causing more trouble than they are worth'.Players'in the various denominations become like players in rival football teams hurling insults at each other( I have been guilty of this and I hold my hands up to this) but nothing ever seems to get resolved by confrontation it only seems to widen the divisions.
None of the patriarchs got it 'totally right'(some failed dismally in this respect) but their defining feature was their love of God and their trust in Him.
Christianity is under attack as never before and we need to unite(somehow)and make a stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ against those who would totally overwhelm us(Christians) and the Gospel.

6 August 2012 at 08:25  
Blogger David B said...

Blimey, that Gregory XVI was a bit of a fruitcake.

Dangerous, though, when people take guff like that seriously.

Thanks for link, DanJO

David B

6 August 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


The seperation of Church and State is a long held Catholic teaching. Ever heard of the doctrine of the 'Two Swords'.

Do take note of contextual factors at play when Encyclicals are written. The Pope's in the 19th century were attempting to preserve the religious influence of the Church in emerging new nations that were adopting secular ideals. Nationalism and liberal democracy were new. They were also defending the Church against modernity in religion. They wrote a great deal about capitalism and communism ideologies too.

How right they have proved to be too. The influence of Christianity has waned and Christianity itself is conforming to the world.

There's a difference between control and influence, something you and the atheists who have leaped on your band-waggon appear not to comprehend. Christian values should surely inform Christian politicians and those voting who claim to be Christian need to be aware of God's laws and how compatible democratic choices are with these? It has to be the Church's role to help guide its members.

Are you in favour of abortion and homosexual marriage? That's what this thread is about. Christians uniting at an election to object to antichristian laws; laws that threaten the fabric of society - its not about paranoid and outdated views of the Catholic Church.

6 August 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

So what are your reasoned objections to:

'On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism '
(Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI)

6 August 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger IanCad said...


Forgive me if I am getting this wrong, but am I to understand that "robust disputation" is no longer part of your ministry?
As the most stalwart defender of the Gospel on this blog it seems a shame if you are not going to advocate for truth against error.
We are to required contend for the faith.

Jude 3,4

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

6 August 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo, I don't have time now to write a long and thorough fisking.

I don't much like the idea that trust and submission is due to princes, I don't much like book burning, or attacks on freedom to publish, I do think that divorce and remarriage is sometimes the lesser of evils, and, while liberty of conscience is not an absolute for me (I would draw the line well before burning dissenters at the stake, for instance) I view liberty of conscience as a good rule of thumb only to be supplanted by good reason.

That's a start.

Now - the cricket has started.

David B

6 August 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo wrote:

"The seperation of Church and State is a long held Catholic teaching. Ever heard of the doctrine of the 'Two Swords'."

And further:

"--paranoid and outdated views of the Catholic Church."

Well; certainly Rick Santorum opposed any notion of the separation of C&S during his bid for the the republican nomination.
Neither have I seen any refutation in any Papal writings.
The "Two Swords" doctrine refers to the "temporal" sword and the "spiritual" sword; both being under the control of the church.
Martin Luther and John Calvin posited the doctrine of the "Two Kingdoms" which clearly differentiates the roles of civil and spiritual powers.
This is widely held to be foundational to the adoption of the First Amendment, and somewhat detracts from the works of Roger Williams who really deserves most of the credit.

You asked:

"Are you in favour of abortion and homosexual marriage?

I consider the first murder and the second an oxymoron, and to be completely frank, does pose a dilemma for me in that my libertarian leanings tend to favour the notion of civil partnership; as in contract law.

6 August 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

You said...Yet further evidence that the RCC is a clear and present menace to our traditional liberties so hard fought for.

Do they still teach history in British schools? Or did all you learned there was how to hate your own country and culture, the joys of Islam, and multiculturalism? Ever hear of Magna Carta that great charter of liberty of England and one of the most important documents in the history of democracy signed at Runnymede 1215 AD?

What religion was England in 1215? It was a Roman Catholic country in 1215 AD and had been RC officially since since 597 AD when Pope Gregory the Great sent the monk Augustine, who was prior of a Benedictine Monastery in Rome, to Canterbury to be the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course there had been Catholics in Britain since the 1st century but Pope Gregory by sending St. Augustine to Canterbury in 597 AD made England legally part of the Latin Church which it would stay until 300 years later when Henry VIII wrecked that unity with Rome when he set up his national church.

If I were you I would be more concerned about how Islam is slowing working to make Islamic Law of Sharia a parallel legal system along side the present Brisish legal system. That is your gloomy future. Not some fanatsies about the RC's taking away your freedoms. Islam already has that mapped out for you and your country.

6 August 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

IanCad said ...

"Neither have I seen any refutation in any Papal writings."

You're a student of Papal writing then, are you?

Try having a read of 'Deus Caritas Est'. Here's a starter for ten:

"A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church ...

The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics ...

The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards under-standing the requirements of justice and achieving them politically."

Get back to me when you are slightly better informed.

6 August 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Are you denying the Church's right to contribute to civil society even though she stands against your own private interests and predilictions?

Surely not! I mean you're supposed to be a liberal who believes in a pluralistic society.

6 August 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...



Just to help you along a bit further in shedding your denominational prejudices:

"The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply."

6 August 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Magee, I didn't write what you have ascribed to me so park your attempts to be condescnding.

However, looking at your reply anyway, I think you need to understand the historical context of the Magna Carta a bit better. You seem to be viewing in through modern spectacles.

As fot hating my country, I most definitely don't. I love living here and I count myself very lucky to do so. I also think our culture is pretty damned good as it goes. In particular, I enjoy the relative freedom from religious hegemony. The person who hates his country and culture appears to be you!

As for Islam, I'm an atheist so I don't hold it in much regard at all. In fact, I think it's a load of bollocks, as I do with Christianity. However, I'm a liberal so I support freedom of religious belief, and qualified freedom of religious practice.

I advocate a strong secular State n order to make sure religion-free law sits on top of our diverse society. I think we need to sort out our relationship with religion properly and make it constitutional while we can.

Out of the two foreign religions, I'm actually more worried about Catholicism as it has a very well-known history of abuses here in the UK and yet it manages to hang onto the coattails of the much more benign Church of England Christianity. As such, I think we underestimate its danger to our culture and values.

6 August 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see Dodo is still misunderstanding the Two Swords doctrine.

6 August 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Surely not! I mean you're supposed to be a liberal who believes in a pluralistic

Correct. As on many occasions, you fail to understand what is actually being said, preferring to imagine something quite different that suits you more.

6 August 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee @ 12:30

I think you may have meant to address your post to me.
Of course we Brits all know of Magna Carta. However, it is perhaps a testimony to how little we regard it that the memorial to it was erected by the American Bar Association. Shame! Shame, Shame!
It must be remembered that Magna Carta had little to do with religious liberty. In fact the opposite could be postulated. England was under Excommunication. This effected the Baron's wealth and they were anxious to be accepted back in the fold so to speak.
Of course the Baron's were Catholic; there was no Protestantism at that time.
Wycliffe was a Catholic as were Luther, Calvin and all the other reformers.
Let me also add that there were no Catholics in Britain in the 1st. century. As in all countries at that time the simple Apostolic Church was the upholder of the Christian Faith.
I love your phrase "made England legally part of the Latin Church" The emphasis is on the word "made". Or, as Augustine (of Hippo) would have put it: "Compel them to come in"
You make a valid point about Islam. I must say however that we in the west have done more to promote the cause of Islam than any other force.
Christians are being driven out of the Middle East. Israel is facing a potentially united Muslim Brotherhood. All because we can't mind our own business.

6 August 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo said "What's "scary" about Christians seeking to uphold key values in a country built on Christianity?"

The USA was built by Puritans, whom you would probably deride in the way you do Len for their adherence to the Bible rather than what some bloke in a dress wishes the Bible said so that they can keep their hands on their Bank, their State and their uncounted billions in ill- gotten gains. It was certainly not prone in its early years to bowing the knee to the scoundrels of Rome.

6 August 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Jon said...

John Magee, maybe your need to re-read your history. Henry VIII was not around in 897 AD.

6 August 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...
"I see Dodo is still misunderstanding the Two Swords doctrine."

Justify that comment, if you will.

What utter tosh! And you say it as a committed Christian, do you?

6 August 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger John Magee said...


Correct. My mistake. I meant 300 years AFTER 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed. That would be about the right time when Henry VIII created his national church in the late 1520's. Right?

6 August 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian cad

Weren't the English people made to swear allegiance to Henry VIII's new national church afte 1531 when he made himself the Supeme head and Sole Protector of the Church in England? Seems to me there were fines and a few people put to death who refused to sign the Oath of Succession. Remember Sts. Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher and others like the humble Maid of Kent, Elizabeth Barton, who was a visionary and prophet who was burned at the stake at Tyburn for daring to insult Henry VIII personally and his national church too? I think anyone could say, based on the evidence, that Henry VIII's new national church MADE people join it... or else. All the participants in the Reformation have blood on their hands in the name of Christ and should be ashamed.

6 August 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo- Are you saying that the voyagers from Plymouth were Catholic? Is this from the Vatican doctrine "Historiam Fabricam"?

6 August 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Jon said...

John Magee - Wikipedia has it at 1534.

6 August 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo@ 12:50

That "God is Love" as Benedict states, is the cement of all Christian endeavours.
Taken at face value this encyclical letter could have been written by any trinitarian theologian.
But it was not. It was written by the man who authored both "Dominus Iesus"and "Lumen gentium."
Furthermore, in a general audience 03/07 he again stresses the rigid hierarchy and absolute authority of his position. This seems somewhat at odds with the gentle tone of Deus Caritus Est.
In no way should what I've written be taken as a swipe at the unquestionable charity, service and devotion to the teaching of Our Lord, as exemplified by the countless RC's who labour in and with places and people that are so neglected by other Christians.
Neither can I but cheer most of the sentiments; 31(b) is an example of enlightenment that deserves the highest praise.
I must confess a distaste for myself when I am scanning a document to try and find fault with it. This stems from my deep suspicion of the entire Roman system as borne out by history.
The only disconcerting note that jumped out, to me, was in 28 (a) para. 4. I get the definite impression that, in reality, the church is still claiming power over the state, despite the seeming assurances in the next paragraph.
Really, Dodo I have to admit, that my response on this subject is not satisfactory to me. So I'm sure it won't be to you.

6 August 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


You have to remember the Church's doctrines and dogmas, whilst unchanging adapt to the times in which we live - what the Church refers to as the 'signs of the times'.

For example, the initial exposition of 'Two Swords' doctrine which holds God as having authority over all mankind, was written in the context of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The Encyclicals of the 19th century were written at a time when social change was significant with nationalism, socialism and capitalism emerging as dominant forces. 'Deus Caritas Est' is a modern expostion written in an era of pluralism and secularism.

Certain dogmas are unchangable and these include the view the Catholic Church is the Mystiical Body of Christ and the Pope is Christ's representative on earth charged with leading His people to salvation. I know this is unpalatable to other denominations but its what Catholics believe to be true from scripture.

People do misunderstand what Church infallibility actually means and also get hooked up on the more colourful language of past times. Nevertheless the Pope remains a Catholic and follows the Apostolic tradition.

There are many excellent recent Encyclicals. Given the theme of this thread I would especially commend Humanae Vitae to you.

6 August 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian Cad

Please explain to me how the renewed and vicious persecution of the 9 million Coptic Christians in Egypt (as well as Christians in Nigeria, Southern Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, and in dozens of other majority Muslim nations) inspired by the Muslim Brotherhod is because "we can't mind our business". We exist and the Koran says to hate us. It's that simple. Any excuse they can dream up is a reason to reason to hate. I thought the so called "Arab Spring" last year was our business, at least according to the excited media, and was going to unleash an era of peace, love, and understanding in Egypt and the Middle East and eventually all over the Islamic world. It seems to me Muslims should start minding their own business and stop hating Jews, Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists, pagans, atheists, beauty contests, ancient artistic treasures, rock bands, Disneyland, gays, pork sausage, kissing in public, women in shorts, piggy banks... what did I forget that "offends" them?

6 August 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger John Magee said...


I was off by 3 or years? My apologies. At my age and failing memory I was lucky to be that close about events 500 years ago. But I think I got the dates and events fairly accurate. Thank you once again for the correction.

6 August 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said...
Dodo- Are you saying that the voyagers from Plymouth were Catholic? Is this from the Vatican doctrine "Historiam Fabricam"?

The hole you're digging is just getting bigger.

The Plymouth voyagers in 1620 were 'Separatists' and under the 1559 Act of Uniformity it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services and people were fined. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, notable Seperatists were executed for sedition - as were Catholics.

Such ignorance!

6 August 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger David B said...

I, on the other hand, think Muslims should start considering whether Islam is true, whether faith based positions are a good idea, and, having answered both in the negative, simply give them up.

Same with other positions that rely on dogma, doctrine, and ancient myth.

David B

6 August 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Jon said...

Hold on Dodo, you're saying that the Pilgrims were Catholic, because Catholics and Puritans both fell foul of the Act of Uniformity?!

Whilst the Catholic Church may have adopted the policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend", the Pilgrims were rather more disdainful of your Church than even the CoE was at the time. You are trying to co-opt a group of people who detested what they saw as your Church's grubby commerciality, indeed, its wanton greed, and descent into hypocrisy as if by dissenting, they were in any way allied with you. You must be desperate!

Rather than digging a hole, I'm pointing out that you're standing in an canyon!

Keep going - you're going to start quoting pseudo- biblical Latin texts shortly, I can feel it, and then we'll all know you've surrendered again.

6 August 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...

"Hold on Dodo, you're saying that the Pilgrims were Catholic, because Catholics and Puritans both fell foul of the Act of Uniformity?!"

Have you been drinking?

Er, no. I'm refuting your claim the Pilgrims were fleeing the Catholic Church.

Here's what you commented starting this little side theme:

"The USA was built by Puritans, whom you would probably deride in the way you do Len for their adherence to the Bible rather than what some bloke in a dress wishes the Bible said so that they can keep their hands on their Bank, their State and their uncounted billions in ill- gotten gains. It was certainly not prone in its early years to bowing the knee to the scoundrels of Rome."

I pointed out the Puritans were actually fleeing the repression of protestant reformation.

As for the rest of that garbage, well it's just ignorance.

David B said...

"Dodo, I don't have time now to write a long and thorough fisking.2

No, that would mean reading the document you've chosen to criticise rather than throwing out lazy insults.

I guess your 'secular cafe' allows you to get away with such tardiness as you challenge the faith of others.

6 August 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You’re not having it David B, are you, eh !

No support for Christianity in our politics whatsoever from you, so our Judeo-Christian heritage, our culture, to be placed in the hands of individuals who have no special regard for it. Any secularist apparently, as we cannot trust anyone with one iota of practicing religious belief otherwise we are doomed ! This is your argument, is it not ?

Must take you to task on your continuing mention of non Christian / Jewish religions. They are as nothing to this man, especially that Satan worshipping business which is Islam, and that, one would think, applies to most of the religious contributors here. Are you able to continue to hold your line without reference to Ayatollahs, or sun worshippers come to that, or would you rather still cling to their coat tails…

Equally disingenuous of you is your references to Catholics burning Protestants and the like. We don’t do that anymore, haven’t done for centuries. And in the same way we no longer eat, and never will again, afterbirth (…at least in the West…), the aforementioned igniting of each other is not coming back…

Ah, one does feel so much better after that rant !

Carry on that man…

6 August 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Jessica Hoff,

If you are Anglican as you hint, don't bother defending the Catholics here- they are big enough and ugly enough to fend for themselves- Dodo, Inspector, John Magee, Corrigan 1 and Cressida.

They all know the "Truth" and and won't budge from it and to a person will defend the truth as they see it- the Roman Church is the only way to salvation. And in any case, if you read the general thrust of their posts they have zero respect for the Anglican Church. I used to defend Catholics here on this blog, but realised it was a mug's game as same said Catholics have zero tolerance for my own faith (as witnessed by John Magee's latest posts - not content with being anti -Jew are we old cock?).

6 August 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo, I read the document twice.

Inspector, I have no objection to religious people being in politics, as long as they seek no special privileged position for their religion over others, or for religion over no religion.

Yes I know that it is some time since the various Christian sects acted towards each other, and to people of other religions or none rather as the various Islamic sects do now.

Yet Christians do seem to go on about eternal verities, when it suits them, while disavowing what their sects thought and did in the past.

David B

6 August 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Any secularist apparently, as we cannot trust anyone with one iota of practicing religious belief otherwise we are doomed"

Well, there's something in that regarding adherents to foreign religions at least as the actions of Ratzinger in the States, Cardinel O'Brien here, and various Mexican bishops have shown regarding politicians and their voting decisions. A bit of the actual Two Swords thing in action there, I think.

6 August 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Paul Twigg, you rat !

The Inspector is recently on record, two or three threads down as being ‘Anglican supportive’

And no, he does not believe the Roman church is the only way to salvation.

6 August 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, rather think ‘no religion’ does extremely well in todays Christendom (...Yes, we realise 350 years ago you could be fined for not attending church...)

Was hoping for a little support in a country that will in decades to come, have a sizeable muslim influence, which will be to the detriment of ‘no religion’. Don’t you worry about that...

6 August 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, post at 20:19 applies to you too.

Perhaps our future masters will allow you to clasp a book by JS Mill when they hurl you off Beachy Head...

6 August 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


I therefore remove you from my remarks and duly apologise (although I am sure you will agree you are quite capable of fending off an attack upon your own beliefs). My main beef is with Corrigan and John Magee.

6 August 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Salutations, Paul Twigg...

Chaps, have to leave it for tonight. This day, the Inspector’s employer managed to screw a full day of intensive work out of him. Your man is now walking round bumping into things as a result. So before he loses consciousness zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ..............

6 August 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 August 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 August 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

You're not involved in the Mars rover project are you (if so I can sympathize).

Hi Paul,

You know there is another faith which would welcome you to your true home...

6 August 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


Quite happy with my own faith thank you.

6 August 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Perhaps our future masters will allow you to clasp a book by JS Mill when they hurl you off Beachy Head..."

Well, I'm hoping we'll have a strong secular State and some clear principles about how religions can co-exist with each other and the rest of us. No, no, there's no need to thank me for trying to protect your religious freedom as best I can, along with the freedom of the rest of us who'd rather get on with our own live without religious hegemony.

6 August 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, I would have hoped for more support for secularism from those worried about Islamic influence.

David B

6 August 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger David B said...

Nice post DanJO

David B

6 August 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger John Magee said...


How is posting historical facts or quoting famous or infamous people verbatim anti anyone or anything or hateful? It's the truth. can anyone deny Thomas More and Cardinal, Bishop Of Rochester, John Fisher and many others were executed because they would not sign the Oath of Sucession in 1534? Do you deny this? What are your feelings about the about the closure of those monasteries and their wealth seized by the Crown for Henry VIII to divvy up and give to his pals? If you remember my post said that all sides in the Reformation had bloody hands. I would never deny that Queen Mary I has her share of Protestant martyrs to answer to God for. Though I do think she is unfairly maligned and was in fact a good woman, a good daughter, and a good Queen as well as a loyal Catholic. It was not a very Christlike period in the history of Christianity... My posts quoting the former Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef can be read in the October 10, 2010 issue of the Jerusalem Post. If you Google his name or "Ovadia Yosef 2010 Jerusalem Post" you can read his vile rants and decide for yourself who is the hater. I quoted him verbatim and what he said then and many times in the past is evil. No one is sacred when it comes to the truth. Not the Pope, the Archbsihop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, some Hottentot witch doctor, nor a Chief Rabbi of Israel named Ovadia Yosef who is quoted in the Jerusalem Post that "gentiles were born only to serve us...." His own words verbatim. Not mine. Look it up. Of course we hear ad nauseum what Pope Pius XII SHOULD have said during the Nazi Holocaust during WW II whilo all he did to help Jews is completely ignored and he is made out to be some sort of anti Semite today by certain liberals. Which he was absolutely NOT!

6 August 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


Cheers for confirming mine and other blogger's views about yourself.

6 August 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

John Magee is quite fond of quoting from historical figures.

What about these anti- Jewish rants from his own Popes??

Pope Innocent III: “When Jews are admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts, according to the popular proverb, after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or of the burning brand in one’s lap.”

Pope Innocent IV: “The wicked perfidy of the Jews - from whose hearts Our Saviour did not remove the veil because of their enormous crimes but caused them justly to continue in their blindness, commit acts of shame which engender astonishment in those who hear, and terror in those who discover it.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

Pope Saint Gregory VII: “We exhort your Royal Majesty [King Alfonse VI of Castile], not to further tolerate, that the Jews rule Christians and have power over them. For to allow that Christians are subordinated to Jews and are delivered to their whims, means to oppress the Church of God, means to revile Christ himself.” (Regesta IX. 2)

Pope Saint Gregory I: “It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.” (Epistles, Book XIII:1)
Pope Saint Pius V: “Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

Pope Benedict XIV: “Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians.” (A Quo Primum)

Pope Clement VIII: “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. […] Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

6 August 2012 at 21:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

And :

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […] They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.”

Pope Alexander III: “Our ways of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief if such folk are living in continual and intimate intercourse with them.” (Ad Haec)

Pope Martin V: “However, we received a short time ago through credible reports knowledge to our great alarm, that various Jews of both sexes in Cafas and other cities, lands and places overseas, which fall under the jurisdiction of Christians, are of obstinate mind and, in order to conceal swindling and wickedness, wear no special sign on their clothing, so that they are not recognisable as Jews. They are not ashamed to give themselves out as Christians before many Christians of both sexes of these cities, districts and places mentioned, who could not in fact identify them, and consequently commit shameful things and crimes.” (Sedes Apostolica)

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time […] All and every single Jew, of whatever sex and age, must everywhere wear the distinctive dress and known marks by which they can be evidently distinguished from Christians.”

Pope Saint Pius V: “In order to make an end of all doubt concerning the colour of the cap and the sign of the women, we declare that the colour must be yellow.” (Romanus Pontifex)

Pope Saint Pius V: “With full understanding and in exercising of the apostolic powers, we withdraw from the Jews and their rule (and recognize no right or claim) all properties, which the Jews have in their possession in this city Rome or other places of our domain of rule.” (Cum Nos Super)

Pope Paul IV: “It is too absurd and pointless that the Jews, whom their own guilt condemns to slavery, under the pretence that Christian piety suffers and tolerates their coexistence, pay back [with wickedness] the mercy received from Christians.” (Cum Nimis Absurdum)

Pope Leo VII: “Let the Gospel be preached unto them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled.”

Pope Innocent IV: “We who long with all our hearts for the salvation of souls, grant you full authority by these present letters to banish the Jews, either in your own person or through the agency of others, especially since, as we have been informed, they do not abide by the regulations drawn up for them by this Holy See.” (To the King of France)

6 August 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

and ....

Pope Saint Pius V: “The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice - in all towns, districts, and places - must depart these regions. After this time limit shall all at the present or in the future, who dwell or wander into that city or other already mentioned, be affected, their property confiscated and handed over to the Siscus, and they shall becomes slaves of the Roman Church, live in perpetual servitude and the Roman Church shall have the same rights over them as the remaining [worldly] lords over slaves and property.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.” (To the Archbishops of Sens and Paris)

Pope Innocent IV: “And that you [King Saint Louis IX] order both the aforesaid abusive books [The Talmud] condemned by the same doctors and generally all the books with their glosses which were examined and condemned by them to be burned by fire wherever they can be found throughout your entire kingdom, strictly forbidding that Jews henceforth have Christian nurses or servants, that the sons of a free woman may not serve the sons of a bondwoman, but as slaves condemned by the Lord, whose death they wickedly plotted, they at least outwardly recognize themselves as slaves of those whom the death of Christ made free and themselves slaves. So we may commend the zeal of your sincerity in the Lord with due praises.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

Pope Benedict XIV: “It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” (Quoting Pope Innocent III, “Etsi Judaeos”)

Pope Gregory IX: “They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

Pope Alexander III at the Third Lateran Ecumenical Council: “We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians.” (Canon 26)

6 August 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

To conclude I am beginning to see Danjo's and Jon's points about the secular state and the problems with the ultra fundamentalist Catholicism as suggested by Magee. Can it be any worse as that as desired by Papal authorities past?

6 August 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger David B said...


And yet the Catholics yatter on about the Catholic faith propounding eternal truths

David B

6 August 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

My, you have been busy or did all these quotes comes from a site warning you of the evils of Catholicism and the Church's hatred of Jews? It's a history the whole Christian Church shares.

Just to point out, it is now 2012 - we've even managed to land a probe on Mars!

All of the quotes provided above have a historical context and none are infallibly defined dogma.

If you want an up-to-date position on the Catholic Church's position in respect of Judaism then try researching Popes John Paul and Benedict and their teachings.

Of course the history of Judaism isn't exactly sinless, now is it? One could quote reams from the Talmud out of context suggesting all sorts of things.

Are you saying you really believe in secularism and the abandonment of God's laws? Central to the Jewish faith is hope in an earthly Kingship ruling according to the precepts of God. Until then this faith requires compliance with numerous rules and regulations, more or less, according to whatever Rabbi or school you follow.

David B
All Christians believe in eternal truths and so do Jews.

What, if anything, do you believe in - I mean really believe in?

6 August 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo - that we live on a godless world that it is incumbent on us to make the best of.

David B

6 August 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

So not much then.

6 August 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What is "ultra fundamentalist Catholicism"? And in what ways is Mr Magee expounding it?

6 August 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 August 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo that is the short, late night version.

I really believe in lots of things.

But, in these sense that the word 'God' seems to be generally understood, we live in a godless world is pretty central to what I believe.

You might be interested to read in some Catholic's attack on Dawkins.
The attack can befound here

Coyne's fisking can be found at

David B

6 August 2012 at 23:28  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 August 2012 at 23:33  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


Good for you. It is about time some-one decided to put John Magee in his place. I find that he is a rabid racist masquerading as a Catholic, presumably to get support from the likes of Dodo. Don't expect Dodo to back down- his 'clan' loyalty to his faith is almost as strong as the Kavanagh loyalty to one another. Now I have my tin hat on and am preparing to hide behind something.

6 August 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

Good, so that means that Magee is wrong to drag all the stuff about Barons and the Henry VIII as it is just "historical context", excellent! We have solved quite a few issues here in one blow !

Israel is of course a secular state and dare I say it, that whilst Christians and others seek converts, often by the rule of the sword, Jews do not (although all are welcome to convert if they so wish).

Jews simply wish to be left alone to practice their faith and culture, we are not out to control the universe as people like Magee and Lintus suggest.

And of course I have every right to defend my faith, culture and race against rabid anti- Jews such as Magee. Why he and Corrigan produces quotes as if they were gospel, yet I have never ever, once, ever, seen you or the majority of Catholics distance yourself from his apparently Catholic inspired rants against Jews.

So are the quotes out of context, or has the general view just been massaged to suite the 21st century? Magee clearly thinks that his Catholic view is correct. Are his views in line with Papal teachings? If not will you in public rebuke a fellow Catholic?

6 August 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger John Magee said...


Interesting to see that I am called a "hater" when all I did was quote a REAL hater. How is it "anti Semitic" to quote VERBATIM the nasty stuff Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said about non Jews? No prominent priest, rabbi, minister, mullah, imam, shaman, nun, or swami is above being held accountable for truly hateful remarks like his. Obviously the people yapping at me don't know what they are talking about and didn't research the article in the October 2010 Jerusalem Post headline article OR read it. If anyone can excuse what he said I would like to have a discussion with them please.

6 August 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger John Magee said...

Jewish World
Jewish News

Ovadia Yosef: Ovadia Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews


LAST UPDATED: 10/18/2010 05:13

According to Rabbi, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.

That is why gentiles were created,” he added.

Yosef’s Saturday night sermons have seen many controversial statements from the 90-year-old rabbi. In August, Yosef caused a diplomatic uproar when he wished a plague upon the Palestinian people and their leaders, a curse he retracted a few weeks later, when he blessed them along with all of Israel’s other peace-seeking neighbors.

7 August 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Magee,

Thanks for tuning in . Now what do ya think about the vile Jew hating comments as said by your G-d -Emperors ? No prominent priest, rabbi, minister, mullah, imam, shaman, nun, or swami is above being held accountable for truly hateful remarks like that.

7 August 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger len said...

Iancad,(6 August 2012 10:40)

Christianity has become a fragmented travesty of' the Church' that Jesus empowered to carry the Gospel forward into the Nations.
There needs to be some radical changes in Christianity or it will be trampled underfoot by the secular World.
If we could get' the denominations 'to discard all the rubbish they have accumulated over the Centuries and to get back to basics we could get on with the important task of preaching the Gospel as the disciples did.
If we cannot or will not do this then God will do what He has always done (which is to work through a remnant who make themselves available to God.)
If the Christian denominations cannot get their act together then God will merely bypass them and they will become an' empty shell' lacking purpose,life,and the ability to do anything but become a 'social club' for those without the vision to see how dismally they have failed God and Gods plans for these' end times'.

This is really a time for now or never.

7 August 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace...

Oh dear.

7 August 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hannah said ...

I must say your grammar and written style has much improved in a few days.

" ... whilst Christians and others seek converts, often by the rule of the sword"

Now, now, that was some time ago and the Christian Church offered conversion or exile and rarely death. Christians under such circumstances often chose martyrdom.

Part of the 'problem', as I'm sure you know, was that Jews often faked conversion. This created an atmosphere of suspicion and the belief Jews were secretly conspiring. Muslims do the same too. A Christian is called upon not to publically reject Christ.

"So are the quotes out of context, or has the general view just been massaged to suite the 21st century? Magee clearly thinks that his Catholic view is correct. Are his views in line with Papal teachings? If not will you in public rebuke a fellow Catholic?"

The quotes you gave have to be understood in the context of their times. I doubt very much the current Pope would present a false view - he's just not that sort of man. Indeed, he's not entirely popular with orthodox Jews for some of the theological views he holds and litergical changes he refuses to make. Catholics do believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the long awaited Messiah, rejected by His people and condemned to death.

I've read Magees posts carefully and I'm not sure exactly what you want me to rebuke him for.

He's on a protestant blog that has a distinct view of the history of Catholicism and he defends the Church, as is his right. His own personal experiences also give him a perspective on the injustices suffered by Christians in Eastern Europe. He's against the history of the formation of Israel in 1948, seeing it as an injustice. That said, he's far more hostile towards Islam and has acknowledged the secualr state of Israel is a defence against radical Islam.

Let's be frank, there is a tradition in Judaism that non-Jews are somehow less in the eyes of the God. That God is the God of the nation of Israel and gentiles can at best be 'Pious Among the Nations'. This flies in the face of the Christian view of God who, according to the scriptures we follow, is the God of all nations now that gentiles have been grafted into the Chosen People.

There have been rabid antisemitics on here - did you mean Mintus or was it Marcus? I can't recall his name now. And, as I recollect, I did argue against him although he hated all faiths.

Point out a specific comment that merits criticism and if I agree with you I'll happily say so.

Paul Twigg said ...
"It is about time some-one decided to put John Magee in his place."

Evidence would help.

"I find that he is a rabid racist masquerading as a Catholic, presumably to get support from the likes of Dodo."

Strong accusations - based on what? So he doesn't agree with Israel's origins or some of her present laws. This makes him a racist?

Actually, he was hostile towards me until recenmtly.

"Don't expect Dodo to back down- his 'clan' loyalty to his faith is almost as strong as the Kavanagh loyalty to one another."

You really don't understand me at all, do you? I am not a Catholic because of tribal loyalty. I hate such things.

7 August 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger John Magee said...


Where is your proof I have been "hostile toward you until recently"? I have been coming here for only a few weeks and quite frankly I can't remember more than once or twice addressing you about anything here.

7 August 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger John Magee said...


Since a Pope must always be a priest (technically any Catholic priest or layman, as far as I remember from my reading, can be made Pope and does not even have to be a bishop or a cardinal at the time of his election by the College of Cardinals but he must be immediately ordained a priest if he is a layman elected to the Papacy). So I think that indicates I did include all Popes under the title "priest" in my long list of clergy of all faiths who should be held accountable for hateful speech. Cute title you gave the Popes, "G-d Emperors", what kind of swipe was that meant to be? The Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter and is the Bishop of Rome. I can be honest enough to hold past Popes, any priest, and the historical Catholic Church accountable for it's hypocrisy, wars, and hateful stuff said by some of it's clergy in the past centuries if can you have the same honesty and denounce Rabbi Ovadia Yosef along with his ilk and nasty Christophobe supporters.

7 August 2012 at 01:45  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Just a point Inspector. It is part of Catholic teaching to believe that those of other faiths can be saved....even atheists in special circumstances
Thankfully Danjo, David and Paul Twigg are atheists who do not qualify.

7 August 2012 at 04:37  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

len 10:40

I am shocked to find myself agreeing with some of your post. The secular world without Christian values is here to stay.There is too much historical and ideological animosity to unite the Christian faiths.
A 'remnant' will survive and be still identifiable as Christian in our ever increasing secular society. It will be 'ever fixed' Catholicism because it is very powerful and will not disappear.
Catholicism as made evident by Catholics on this blog is not as black and white and one size fits all as it appears.It is complex with divergent opinions even amongst the Princes of the Church.
len,I do understand your yearning for simplicity and goodness in Christianity but to find this I am afraid you will have to join my friend an English Jesuit priest who lives alone amongst Hindus
in a very poor area in India.

7 August 2012 at 05:53  
Blogger John Magee said...


I was never hostile towards you.

7 August 2012 at 05:57  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

John Magee,

I didn't say you were hostile towards me, that was Dodo saying that.

7 August 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


As this is not an inquisition I need not give you any "evidence", however there is a trend that should anyone raise even a hint of criticism of your Church you pounce upon them. I believe you will see Magee called himself an unrepentant reactionary the other day and we have exchanged posts in the past regarding his views on "anglo-saxons". I am simply enjoying watching the ebb and flow of the argument - but as Magee would say himself call a spade a spade.

7 August 2012 at 09:05  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


You said :

"Thankfully Danjo, David and Paul Twigg are atheists who do not qualify".

I wounded, deeply wounded I tell you! Assuming that I am an atheist for the purpose of this discussion, why do Danjo, David and myself not qualify for special treatment in respect of salvation according to you or the Catholic teaching? Why is God singling us out, seems a bit unfair.

7 August 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

You are very kind about my prose style.

I am not convinced by your explanation that it was really all the fault of the Jews for not converting properly (!?). Oh that's a good one!

7 August 2012 at 09:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

PS- I am resuming my reflections, as I am not yet ready to come back on this blog full time.

Until the next clash, old bird.

7 August 2012 at 09:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I am even more wounded, that you,Twigg, placed me in the same group as Corrigan and Magee. As if that was not bad enough then you proceeded to state falsehood that I claim only Catholics could achieve salvation.(Not a Catholic teaching incidentally)

As you reserve the right not to disclose any information about your beliefs I reserve the right not to discuss helpful hints of squeezing you through the bars of the pearly gates.

7 August 2012 at 10:08  
Blogger Jon said...

Err - Dodo - re-read the paragraph you're quoting from my earlier post.

Now point to the exact part of the sentence where I claim Puritans were fleeing persecution at the hands of Catholics. Oh yes, it doesn't exist. I was pointing out that Puritans didn't much like Catholics - not that they were persecuted by them.

You should have gone to Specsavers, old boy!

7 August 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Cressida ,

In that case a thousand grovelling apologises for including you in the same bag as Magee and Corrigan 1.

What then is the Church's approach to salvation? I always being told by Catholic friends that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Squeeze me in at the pearly gates? I might be broad shouldered and tall, but I am not fat! In any case I am expecting to be put through via the stage door or trade man's entrance, rather than the front door.

7 August 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And you should be clearer in your posts. Why throw in all the unnecessary comments about Puritans not wanting to bow their knee to Popes when they were actually fleeing protestant persecution? Somewhat misleading, I'd say. It's rather obvious too as they were viewed as heretics. They didn't like reformed protestants either.

Maybe your prose has improved but you still need to do some more work on comprehension.

"I am not convinced by your explanation that it was really all the fault of the Jews for not converting properly (!?). Oh that's a good one!"

Is that what I said? Let's have a look.

"Part of the 'problem', as I'm sure you know, was that Jews often faked conversion. This created an atmosphere of suspicion and the belief Jews were secretly conspiring."

Not quite in line with placing all responsibility on the Jews, is it? History is a complex subject dealing with irrational beings and open to interpretation according to one's convictions.

Paul Twigg
Of course it's not an "inquisition" - rather a loaded word to throw at a Catholic, don't you think? A neat little tactic too for side stepping an answer.

You laid some serious charges against Mr Magee and now say you have no need to provide evidence. At the same time you accuse me of clan loyalty to him.

As for him being "an unrepentant reactionary", it's a shame there are not more people ready to speak out and react against abortion and homosexual marriage - the theme of this thread.

Instead, in the name of tolerance and diversity people stay quiet. Why don't you speak your views? Surely, if you are a professing Christian you have a responsibility to do more than "watching the ebb and flow of the argument". Now's not a time for sitting at the dock of the bay watching time slip away.

You are absolutely right about Catholicism. If it should fall, Christianity falls.

A question. Would len be able to take his several cats with him if he lived a solitary life in India? Also, he feeds them gourmet food and this could prove an insurmountable barrier as he refuses to seperate from them.

7 August 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger David B said...

You could always be martyred for your faith, Paul.

See point 52 of

Then again you might have been entirely ignorant of the RCC, point 61 ff.

Though that is a bit unclear, to me, anyway.

According to one reading of it God might call some of those who haven't heard of the RCC to do his will, and they will be fine. But the teaching just wanders off into mystery, and a shrug that no-one knows, according to another reading, and no doubt there will be more readings of it.

David B

7 August 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger Preacher said...

I agree with you 100%, including the 'remnant'. I feel it's too late to attempt debate. It's only the Holy Spirit That can change men from religious captivity to Christian freedom (As in the case of Saul). Best to pray for them & get on with the job of reaching the lost who are seeking, instead of wasting time in endless debates.

Blessings Brother. See you in glory.


7 August 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Len will not be able to bring his cats. Apart from labelling me Dodesque (absolutely ridiculous..everyone knows you copy my writing style)I agree with len on a few things

Firstly about len's
cats. Men who love cats are usually tender and make good lovers.Girls like them.

The last Pope declared animals to have souls.I refuse to know anyone who does not afford an animal the respect and love it deserves .Gourmet food is on the menu at our place as well.God gives us pets to teach humans important qualities that they mostly lack.

Secondly .. the simplicity and warmth of Christianity is not exclusively found in Churches and organised worship. The closest some people feel to God and prayer is through his magnificent gift of nature."Nature is the shadoe of the Divine"Giordo Bruno

Thirdly..I cannot think of anything else but there would be something.

7 August 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Hmmm. I just heard something on the radio about Romney: apparently he doesn't have much Hispanic support except in Florida.

7 August 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger non mouse said...

On Romney: That's even though he was born in some compound in Mexico, btw (parents and heritage American of the Insular type).

He did that Mormon knocking on doors thing in France, though... not here.

Oh. And I found out he only has one wife, and she has MS (which I used to know as DS).

He's also turned from pro- to anti-abortion. Obviously they didn't abort any of their own 5, now fully grown, family.

He's also a very good at business/economics. An outstanding CEO career.

I'm not sure about his attitude to animals.....

And yes, it matters to us. Maybe even more than the lalimpickles.

7 August 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

"lalimpickles"? are going to make yourself very unpopular with with this sort of talk Miss Mouse.You know,.. chaps and their cod-pieces.Although you could always pass it off as an extract from Paradise Lost(splutter). What next? a shopping excursion to buy a French poodle or is that going too much against the grain?

7 August 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger John Magee said...


The "Pilgrims" (Puritans) who left England on the Mayflower for the New World in 1620 had lived for many years in Holland because of the persecution they faced in their homeland by the benign Church of England we are constantly reminded about here. Later they rweturned to England because they were alarmed their children were becoming too "Dutch". It must have been those hookers and hash shops back in old Amsterdam that drove those stuff shirt Puritans out. Back in England they endured even more persecution by those easy going Anglicans so they finally decided to risk everything and go to Virginia. Their plans for a home in Virginia changed the Mayflower drifted hundreds of miles north off course and they ended up on Cape Cod which is today know part of the state of Massachusettes, USA. Wat did those wonderful Puritans do in their New England colonies? They outlawed all other religions of course! It's the age old story: the persecuted eventually become the persecutors.They did however have enormous respect for education and created some of the USA's great Universities like Harvard and Yale. They have mellowed over the past 400 years. Their churches are as liberal as can be today and empty too.

7 August 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee

It was my understanding that the Pilgrims left Holland because of the restrictive trade guilds.
They could not earn a decent living there.
Strange now that several US States are following the same course with their wretched vocational licensing schemes which are causing much distress to tradespeople of all skills.

7 August 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger John Magee said...


Sorry, reread your history"

Seeking Religious Freedom
The pilgrims left England in 1609 so that they could practice the religion they chose. An English law, the 1559 Act of Uniformity, demanded that all British citizens attend services and follow the traditions of the Church of England. A group of dissenters known as the Puritains had strong disagreements with some Church practices. Under King James, the practice of executing Puritans for disobeying the Act of Uniformity ended, but the Puritans still found themselves hated by society.

At first the pilgrims and Puritans moved to Holland. Here they enjoyed religious freedom, but they had to learn the Dutch language and their children began observing Dutch traditions. After some time in Holland, they decided they wanted to move to a country that spoke English and that would let them practice any religion they wanted. The only place they could do this was in a brand new place. The Pilgrims decided they would travel to the "New World." They went back to England in 1620 to set sail on the Mayflower.

7 August 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse

Mitt Romeny was born in Bloomfield Heights, Michigan USA. His father was born in Mexico of American Morman parentage. His grandfather left the USA because of the persecution of Mormons by the USA Government. Back then many Morman sects praticed polygamy.

By the way. I am wondering why liberals are not championing polygamy these days since they do support gay "marriage" in the name of "marriage equality". Isn't our government's denying polygamy "marraige equality" discrimination"? Today Islam, some pagans, many Mormons, allow polygamy. I also have a hunch a lot of men would like to have it made legal. I seem to remember even the ancient Hebrews once practiced polygamy. So why aren't the liberals on the polygamy bandwagon today? MARRIAGE EQUALITY! I think the Romeny family loves animals. They have pet dogs.

Remember all the noise a few months ago when it was all over the news that President Obama admitted in his autobiography he once ate dog meant during his youth spent in Muslim Indonesia? I didn't hear the animal rights people HOWLING about that for some reason.

Woof! Woof!

7 August 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee

Actually John I am correct.
Do a search for Pilgrims and the Trade Guilds.

7 August 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida.. Men who love cats are usually tender and make good lovers.

I’ll say, one understands the cats don’t mind where Len touches them these days {SNIGGER}

Such is his ‘idolisation’ of those creatures, one suspects a commandment has been broken. Perhaps an inquisition, err make that ‘inquiry’, is due...

7 August 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger len said...

Cardinal Roger Mahony, was in Rome for the pope’s inauguration in 2005, he said, “The street talk that the pope loves cats is incorrect. The pope adores cats.”

Perhaps you should let the Pope know your opinion of our feline friends Inspector?.

7 August 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Cat’s are Satan’s willing helpers, and you know it. First time you’ve mentioned the pope without your usual anti Catholic rhetoric. One presumes you are under cat guidance as to what to say when it comes to their infiltrators at the Vatican...

7 August 2012 at 19:25  
Blogger IanCad said...

Len, OIG,

God is Love. And Yes!! Animals will be in Heaven.

Job 12-7-10.
"But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; and the birds of the air, and they will tell you; Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; and the fish of the sea will explain to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?"

Proverbs 12:10
"A righteous man regards the life of his animal."

Psalm 36:6
"O Lord, You preserve both man and beast."

Matthew 10:29,
"Not even a sparrow, worth only half a penny, can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it."

Isaiah 11:6-9
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the goat … the cow and the bear shall feed, their young ones shall lie down together … and a little child shall lead them … They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”

7 August 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IanCad. One considers the sparrow to be his favourite bird. As a child, they were everywhere, including occasionally, in the house. Be quite something to see their spirits flying around. One is also keen on lamb, especially with ‘Madras’ after it...

7 August 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger John Magee said...


All I can find is that the Pilgrims (the ones who left England for the reasons I posted in my last post. Religious persecution. Were not allowed membership in Duch trade guilds AFTER they went to Holland. That had nothing do do with why they went to Holland:

Separatists who fled to Holland and later traveled to North America are now called "Pilgrims". Aside from its literal meaning, the phrase "Pilgrims" was not used by the Separatists! William Bradford, quoting Hebrews, xi:13,...that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth...used the phrase to characterize their departure from Leiden in 1620. Even then, the phrase had no currency until 1669 when writers began calling the Mayflower company, the "Pilgrim Fathers". [In this essay, the phrase Separatist and Pilgrim will be used interchangeably.]

The Dutch in Leiden were tolerant and allowed the Separatists to worship as they pleased. However, the Pilgrims were excluded from certain occupations, membership in trade guilds, owning land but were allowed to participate in low-paying parts of Leiden's principal industry, textile trades, e.g. spinning, weaving, carding, combing, dying, tailoring and manufacture of felt, corduroy, etc. In 1616/17 the congregation began negotiations with the Virginia Company to begin a colony in North America. The Leiden congregation feared loosing their English heritage through intermarriage and assimilation in Dutch society. The Pilgrims also feared being recruited to fight in an impending war between Holland and Spain. James I eventually granted them permission to establish a colony in North America and to practice their religion as they pleased provided they did not antagonize the Church of England. Needing additional colonists, the Leiden Pilgrims ("Saints") accepted Separatist families from England ("Strangers") to sail with them to North America. These later individuals had not shared the years of communal experience living in Leiden and in time, several "Strangers" proved to be sources of dissention after landing in North America.

7 August 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian cad

Once again I have posted below why the Pilgrims had to leave England and flee to Holland. That's what concerns me. You're correct that one of the reasons the Pilgrim's eventually went back to England from their exile in Holland economic discrimination by the Dutch. Especially from joining trade guilds and owning land. They were also conerned their children were losing their English language and identity. But once again, here is why they left England in the first place. I have to confess that I admire the Puritans for their work ethic and repect for education.

The Puritans who later became known as the "Pilgrims" and went to what became Massachusett's Bay Colony left England for Holland in 1609 so that they could practice the religion they chose. An English law, the 1559 Act of Uniformity, demanded that all British citizens attend services and follow the traditions of the Church of England. A group of dissenters known as the Puritains had strong disagreements with some Church practices. Under King James, the practice of executing Puritans for disobeying the Act of Uniformity ended, but the Puritans still found themselves hated by society.

7 August 2012 at 22:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks for that, Jon Magee.
On Romney... yes, I see. Wikpedia has Mitt's birthplace as Detroit; I got confused between father and son. Both were good businessmen, I gather. Certainly, though, all internet sources indicate that polygamy is officially illegal in the US, and that the mainstream branch of Romney's Church of Latter Day Saints has renounced it.
Thanks too: I actually recognise the British History you cite! btw, I think we shouldn't forget how closely related many early colonists were to our Elizabethan aristocracy.

Quite a few years ago, I was fascinated by some of their literature: tracing the connections, and gaining insight into the experiences of their break from Home. Haven't time to unearth my notes now, but I remember Anne Bradstreet (c 1612-72), particularly. The books indicate she was the daughter of one Thomas Dudley, and a sample of her poetry was published in London in 1650: The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung up in America. Some critics, like Jones, have claimed that she was related to Sir Philip Sidney.

Of course the argument is endless... But the American Dudley family rightly traces its proud heritage!

I share your admiration of the earliest colonists, overall. Some were more flawed than others, of course; but how much have we improved?... And the pressures on them were immense.

Oh, and Mr.IanCad: Those animal quotes made my day!!! I too have been fortunate in cat well as dogs, horses, et al :)

*Drabble, M. ed. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. 6th ed. Oxford: OUP, 2000.

**Jones, Augustine. The Life and Work of Thomas Dudley, The Second Governor of New York. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1900; (Note 6), 4. OCLC 123194823

8 August 2012 at 03:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

No discussion concerning The Pilgrims should exclude the role of their pastor John Robinson.
Beautiful words:

"We are now ere long to part asunder, and the Lord knows whether ever we shall live to see one another’s faces. But whether the Lord has appointed it or not, I charge you before God and His blessed angels, follow me no further than I follow Christ; and if God shall reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry. For I am confident the Lord has more truth and light to break forth from His holy word. I bewail the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who have come to a full-stop in religion, and will go no further than the instrument of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn beyond what Luther saw; the Calvinists, they stick where Calvin left them. This is a misery much to be lamented; for though they were shining lights in their times, yet God did not reveal His whole will unto them, and if they were alive today they would be as ready to and willing to embrase further light, as that they had received. Keep in mind our church covenant, our promise and covenant with God and one another, to receive whatsoever light or truth shall be made known to us from His written word. But take heed what you receive for truth- examine it well and compare and weigh it with other Scriptures of truth before you receive it. It is not possible that the Christian world should so lately come out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that the perfection of knowledge should break forth at once."

8 August 2012 at 07:23  
Blogger len said...

Inspector , You seem to have a lot of negative energy flowing from you carefully disguised as 'humour'.Dodo presents the same persona to the World, is this indicative of what lies within?.

I must re- evaluate my opinion of the Pope(Benedict at least) because I believe one can judge what lies at the heart of a man by his attitude towards animals(cats especially)IMO.

Do try to have a nice day!.

8 August 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee

I do not dispute your postings. I was merely trying to add a little more detail.
With the trend in the US towards more regulation of individuals who may desire to contract with others I thought it might be an appropriate time to bring up this neglected piece of history.

8 August 2012 at 08:06  
Blogger IanCad said...


From the "Cultural Catholic" website:

"Joseph and Chico: The Life of Pope Benedict XVI As told By A Cat," is a book for elementary school children which tells the story of the life of Pope Benedict XVI when he was growing up in Bavaria. The story is told by Benedict's next-door neighbour. Chico the cat, who would visit Pope Benedict XVI often. Benedict is a cat lover who fed stray cats in Rome and brought one stray cat home with him when he was a cardinal. The Vatican doesn't allow animals, but when asked whether Pope Benedict XVI brought his two cats with him when he moved into the Vatican, the Vatican had "No comment."

8 August 2012 at 08:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida said ...

"Men who love cats are usually tender and make good lovers."

Making the ideal partner for a woman a circumcised (male) cat lover (usually).

What's your view on having cats nuetered or spayed?

"I cannot think of anything else but there would be something."

It wouldn't begin with the letter 'L' and end with a 'Y' by any chance?

8 August 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian cad

I agree. Take up any trade matters the USA has at the present time with Pressident Obama fans not me. He is a Marxist and I am a capitalist. Case closed.

8 August 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger non mouse said...

Wonderful, Mr. IanCad @ 07:23. A model of plain, clear language.

Viewing His Grace's earlier video of Romney in Israel, methinks the Republican, too, might favour clarity. Rather brave, I thought. Might that be substance in contrast to Obama's "style"?

Time will tell...

8 August 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse

You may be interested to know that Elizabethan accents are still spoken in remote valleys in the Appalachian Mountains in the Southeastern USA (if you saw the 1992 movie "Last of the Mohicans" which was filmed in the Great Smokey Mountians of eastern Tennesse you get an sense of how remote these valleys can be) and on a few islands in the large Cheseapeake Bay east of Washington, DC. Linguistics scholars from Oxford and Cambridge Universiies have visited these remote areas of the USA and studied these people's speech patterns which are apparently a verbal time machine back to the early 1600's. Lots of famous families in the American South, especially in Virginia and the Carolina's, can trace their ancestors to the British Aristocracy. Other than the Catholic colony of Maryland they were all were Anglicans. One example of a Southener who can trace his roots deep into British history is the great Confederate General Robert E Lee who is a not too distant relative of the late Queen Mother and he was also 17th in direct line from Robert Bruce of Scotland. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and others both have similar direct roots in English history and aristocracy. The American South, which became the Confederacy during the USA Civil war of 1861 to 1865, was a bastion of Anglicanism and always was since the first settlement at Jamestown, Virginian in 1607. English Roman Catholics were given a colony and refuge by Charles I when he granted a royal charter to George Calvert the 1st Lord Baltimore and the colony of Maryland (today the state of Maryland) was founded in 1629. The first RC settlers arrived from England in 1634. Later many convicts were sent there (sort of a prelude to what happened in Australia a century later). Today there are still RC churches all over the Maryland Cheseapeake Bay area that trace their roots back to English Catholics from the 1600's. One Carmelite convent was founded in the late 1600's by English Catholic's in Maryland and still exists.

That's the end of the history lesson for today.... You can go back to sleep.

8 August 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee

Good history lesson about a part of the USA that tends to be overlooked. Having lived in SC. for many years I can confirm that it has a very rich tradition.

Let me point out that Judaism also is part of this heritage.

A synagogue (Congregation Mickve Israel) was established at Savannah GA. in 1733.

Up the road in Charleston SC. Congregation Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim was founded in 1741.

Jewish energy, charity and enterprise contributed hugely to the prosperity of The South prior to Mr. Lincoln's war of aggession.

8 August 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger Marya said...

Thank you Mr. Magee! Yes, it's interesting about the way they've preserved some older accents (and word forms), especially considering that we've subsequently lost some of them to 'modernisation.' I've heard it described as a diaspora effect.

I seem to recall "gotten" as an example ... that recently returned to our side of the pond for awhile.

8 August 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian cad.

Yes, I believe the oldest synagogue structure in the USA today is in Touro, Rhode Island. George Washington once gave a speech there after he became President about religious freedom.

The Anglicans welcomed the French large numbers of French Huguenots into the Carolina's in the early 1700's especially South Carolina, where there is still a Huguenot Church in Charleston with one service each Sunday still in French. My guess is few of those who attend it can still speak French but it's a link of thier past.

Then there is the interesting Southern USA state of Louisiana which belonged to France until the early 1800's. We've all heard about the large city of New Orleans. That large city and the many small towns throughout the state, called parishes, are largely Roman Catholic and in the rural areas a French dialect is still spoken as the first language by the people. Did you know that the USA state of Louisiana has it's civil law based on the Napoleonic Code established by the Emperor Napoleon in 1804? It is the only USA state that does not have it's legal system based on English common law.

8 August 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. They say nearly every man has a weakness. Money, Power, Fame, Women, Boys even, but Cats ?

One is delighted that Benedict XVI is spared your bitter calumny through your joint devotion to that creature.

But to go easy on a man whom you consider to be occupying the position of anti Christ over his choice of pet is a damn odd state of affairs if you ask the Inspector !

8 August 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger John Magee said...


Rural and regional accents in Britain and what was once British Colonial America along the Atlantic coast, now the USA, have almost been destroyed over the last almost 100 years in the English speaking world by radio, movies, and TV. Sad, but that's progress...I guess.

8 August 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You are becoming very tedious Dodo. I am pro castration of cats and randy old dodo birds.

8 August 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger John Magee said...


The present Pope, Benedict XVI, is a brilliannt man. He was the "brains" behind Pope John Paul II in that he wrote most of JP II's sermons, speechs, helped him with his books, and other writings. When we read the brillant stuff Benedict XVI speaks to the world we can be sure he wrote it himself. Of course his staff meticulously check every detail for acuracy. Even so the Pope is 85 and works at least 12 hours a day. I'm 20 years a younger than the Pope and I make all kinds of typos in my simple posts here.... The Present British Monarch, HM Queen Elizabeth II, is a year older than Benedict XVI and she also works long days and is, like the him a highly intelligent person dedicated to the oath she swore before God at her Coronation to serve her people until her death. Like the Pope, she isn't about to retire any time soo.

8 August 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger IanCad said...

non mouse @ 14:57:

So glad you liked it.It is quite relevant to this thread as, implicit in it, is the basis for stubborn denominationalism.
How much we owe to those who have gone before.

John Magee

I had never given much thought to the fact that LA. was actually under Roman?? law until the recent conviction of several New Orleans police officers in connection with the killing of several unarmed civilians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Police in the USA are, generally, above the law. Under the concept of "Officer Safety" they have a license to shoot pretty much anyone they chose.
The fact that in LA. this didn't work raises the question of how they were convicted.
Does the inquisitorial system of prosecution hold sway in LA?
Entirely off-base, but how about current LA. governor Bobby Jindal for a long-shot as Romney's choice for VP.?

8 August 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


We have a special man in Benedict. When he became Prefect, and soon afterwards John Paul II obvious successor, certain liberal gay arse cuddling journalists in the UK wrote of him in disparaging terms comparing him to a Rottweiler. One is somewhat pleased that self same scoundrels are now silent, if only to avoid upsetting their editors...

8 August 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 August 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 August 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IanCad.Under the concept of "Officer Safety" they have a license to shoot pretty much anyone they chose.

Having viewed a few documentaries on US High Security Prisons packed to the rafters with negro gun criminals, one thinks their police officer’s concept should be guaranteed in the US constitution. Perhaps with the UK’s ethnic enrichment program which shows no sign of slowing down, we’ll have the same here in a few years....

8 August 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

The British should have welcomed back the Confederate States into the bosom of the Empire back in 1861, as a Dominion (in the same way as Canada in 1867).

General Lee and General Jackson were among the best military commanders America has ever produced, being able to keep the Yankee hordes at bay for 4 years, until the weight of numbers allowed the Yankees to crush the South. Of course being married to a Virginian woman has left me some what biased, but I feel a surge within me as I think of the following song :

"Our flag is proudly floating on the land and on the main,
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!

Beneath it oft we've conquered, and we'll conquer oft again!
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!


Our Dixie forever! She's never at a loss!
Down with the eagle and up with the cross (albatross)!
We'll rally 'round the bonny flag, we'll rally once again,
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!

Our gallant boys have marched to the rolling of the drums.
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!

And the leaders in charge cry out, "Come, boys, come!"
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!--


They have laid down their lives on the bloody battle field.
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!

Their motto is resistance -- "To the tyrants never yield!"
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!


While our boys have responded and to the fields have gone.
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!

Our noble women also have aided them at home.
Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!"


8 August 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Lavendon, the Yankees were so resentful of Lee’s military ability they used his own garden as a cemetery. Spiteful or what !

8 August 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Correct Inspector, that was a malicious act on behalf of the Northern States.

8 August 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Everyone,

funnily enough I'm just cooking Kosher chicken Jambalaya!

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


Not tedious -just curious.

You do know where the male genitalia of birds and reptiles are located? They are kept well hidden so castration would be a particularly cruel act.

Neither does it seem terribly cat friendly.

8 August 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger John Magee said...


Consider this. Had the South somehow won the American Civil War (1861 -1865) and they could have if they had won the great battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1863. Then sent their armies into the North's industrial heartland and destroyed or crippled it. There would have never been the United States as we know it or the great industrial power it became in the late late 1800's which 50 years after their Civil War helped the Allies in the critical last year of WW I. Germany could have easily won WW I after the Brest Litovsk Treaty signed in 1918 between the Central Powers and the RSFR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) enabled them to sent their Eastern Front armies, no longer needed in the east, to the Western Front when the French and the British were weak in late 1917 and into 1918. The Germans would have won WW I without the USA's influx of much needed troops and material on the weak Western Front in 1917 and 1918. Of course a victorious Germany and it's Cenral Powers Allies would have meant there would have never been a breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or of the German Empire. There would never have been a Hitler or WW II. The "Yankee's" would have never forgiven the British and the French if they had than given more than moral support they atcually gave to the Confederacy, like send troops and material, to help the Confederacy win. A defeated North would almost certainly have sided with a future Kaiser led Germany in future wars in revenge for Britain helping the South. Wouldn't that scenerio be interesting to contemplate? It's one of those "ifs" of history that are so much fun to speculate about if you love history. What do you think? I am thankful the North won the Civi War, the slaves were freed in the South, their Republic was saved and it expanded across the continent and grew economically and provided jobs and a home to tens of millions of European immigrants and eventually became a world super power for good. Most importanty the USA, Britain, and France remained friends and later allies in two World Wars and the Cold War.

9 August 2012 at 03:42  
Blogger John Magee said...


Sir Winston Churchill's mother was an American. At his funeral at St Paul's Cathedral in 1964 as a salute to his American Mother's Y ankee roots he chose the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" to be played by the great organ and sung by the choir in that Cathedral...NOT "Dixie".

I have to admit however that I am very partial to "Dixie" as a song. Especially when played either on a banjo or by a marching band.

9 August 2012 at 03:49  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian cad.

First of all New Orleans has been run by the Democrats since the end of the Civil War. As you know the Democrats (Obama's party) is the American version of the British Labor Party. New Orleans is the 2nd most corrupt city in the USA after Chicago (Obama's "hometown") another city also controlled by the Democrats. The police departments in both these Democrat controlled cities have had massive corruption problems in the past. Do you see the pattern????. Why is it that American towns and communities controlled by Republicans and conservatives are safe, have very little crime, and the schools have high standards while American big cities controlled by the Democrats have become within the past 80 years cess pools of crime, violence, gang warfare, and schools that graduate kids from high school who can't read?... You mentioned the police in New Orleans. Interesting that you gave no thought to the many innocent people killed and women raped by savage mobs who looted stores and even shot at the police helicopters and Army National Guard helicopters who tried to help the citizens still trapped in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. At the time of Hurricane Katrina New Orleans had a black Democrat mayor and the state of Louisiana had a Democrat Govenor. They were total incompetents in handling the disaster after Katrina. They had no idea what they were doing. Thank God the traditional people in that state and in neighboring Mississippi and Alabama could pull themsleves together after Katrina and got through the disaster with help from people from all over the USA. They weren't shooting at police and Army rescue helicopters like the black gangs in New Orleans were. They were helping their neighbors.

9 August 2012 at 04:56  
Blogger non mouse said...

. . . and schools that graduate kids from high school who can't read. Oh indeed, Mr. Magee.

This becomes all the more striking for a British audience, if we understand that American high school does not equate to ours. It is more like our Sixth Form, or Sixth Form College.

And, of course, because these young people enter college with graduate credentials... Well, they can't suddenly string words together, let alone thoughts or essays.

Strange, really--how the marxist approach produces this destructive effect on western education--at all levels.

9 August 2012 at 05:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse

Today our society has been brainwashed into thinking that everyone is qualified to go go to college or a university and that will make us all equal and everyone happy. So what does society do to fullfill that fantasy? It lowers the standards to be admitted to those bastions of higher education so everyone can attend them while at the same time demeaning honest trades and the dignity of work by not supporting trade schools or even teaching children the dignity of an honest days work with your hands and by the sweat of your brow. The left hates the concept of the work traditional work ethic our parents and previus generations learned from an early age. It's ironic that the left (Marx, Engels, and Lenin never worked a day in their entire lives) which prides itself as being "for the workers" thinks so little today of REAL workers. By "real workers" I mean those people who physically build our society and enable it to function every day. People like electricians, mechanics of all kinds, carpenters, brick layers, plumbers, the police, hospital woprkers, laborers, farmers, the military, people who work on computers, garbage men, etc, etc, etc. These people are busy everyday working hard to keep our society afloat. They are not at "occupy rallies" or global warming protests. Every child with an IQ of 90 is told at a young age they "deserve" to someday be the "boss" and paid accordingly while only working 30 hours a week and getting 4 weeks or more paid holidays a year. I wish I was a brain surgeon but fortunately for the world I am not qualified to be one. In our brave new world or dumbing down to please everyone don't count on the fact someday idiots will be made brain surgeons and real rain surgeons made to sweep the streets (that atcually happened in Mao's Cultural revolution in China) just to be "fair". If you want your beloved average child with an average IQ to become a millionaire and he/she has athletic ability help them to develope those skills and become a professional football player or a golfer and let them be deluded by the schools to imagine they can go to Qxford and play the role of an idle scholar. Teach them to be the best at no matter what they do and they will succeed and be happy in life.

9 August 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Rocky2 said...

/ Right On, Archbishop. Saw this item on the net. /

The Background Obama Can't Cover Up !

Islam, part of the Living River of History, can affect even the 2012 US election!
The "headwaters" of this River was Adam, according to Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc .
In the OT (Deut. 28), "tributaries" wanting to join the River will be blessed while "distributaries" who want to flow away from it will be cursed. Those wishing to totally separate from the fresh Living River will end up as polluted, dying "oxbow lakes."
In the OT we see Israelites repeatedly flowing away from God, then repenting and returning to Him; we also see heathen "oxbow lakes" creating their own "gods" and being allowed by God to plunder and kill the erring Israelites.
Then, at the right time, the Living River took on new life with the arrival of the Promised One who offers "living water."
In the 7th century Islam, drawing from both OT and NT, chose to be a distributary away from this River. Many scholars have viewed it as the final Antichrist: note "scourge" (Isa. 28), "Assyrian" (Mic. 5), "Euphrates" (Rev. 9) etc.
God will allow this "scourge" to temporarily persecute and even kill apostate Jews (JINOs) and Christians (CINOs). Jews, especially in "entertainment," seem more expert in apostasy than Christians since Jews have been at it 2000 years longer than Christians have (Google "") - but Christians apparently want to catch up to the Jews!
It's apparent that others will join Islam in its end-time inquisition; its great oil wealth can captivate many leaders and already we are seeing apostate American leaders being bribed into turning against true American patriots.
Those who ignore (or try to dilute or destroy) the God-ordained Living River of History will be swept down it to an ocean made by their own never-ending tears of agony and despair.
The good news is that American JINOs & CINOs can overcome the "scourge" discussed above. The secret is found by checking out "II Chronicles 7:14" & "John 3:16" on the web.
And there's still time - and freedom - before the 2012 "End of America" election to Google or MSN "Obama Promotes Public Sex," "Obama a Black-Slavery Avenger?," "Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right," "Pretrib Rapture Politics," "Mikey Weinstein, Jesus-Basher," "Christ's return is NOT imminent," "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," and "Pretrib Rapture Secrets."
In light of Matthew 7:2, if we tolerate Christian leaders who lie to us and steal from us, we shouldn't be surprised if God allows us to have political leaders who lie to us and steal from us!

A Kansas Patriot (who won FIRST PLACE over 2200 entrants in a nationwide Americanism essay contest)

26 September 2012 at 20:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older