Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Bishop Justin Welby bids farewell to Durham

The Right Revd Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham and Archbishop of Canterbury Elect, bade farewell yesterday to the Durham Diocese with a message of hope for the people he is leaving behind.

Bishop Justin attended a service of farewell, thanks and celebration at Durham Cathedral in what was his last public appearance in the diocese before he receives his legal title as Archbishop of Canterbury. He will cease to be Bishop of Durham and have the legal title bestowed on him as Archbishop of Canterbury at 12 noon next Monday, 4th February, at a formal service in St Paul’s Cathedral in London. His public ministry will be inaugurated at an enthronement service at Canterbury Cathedral on 21st March (being His Grace's [Lesser] Feast Day; the 457th anniversary of his martydom).

The Farewell service for Bishop Justin and his wife Caroline drew a large congregation from across the diocese and the region and was attended by the Lord Lieutenant Sir Paul Nicholson. Speaking about his new job in an interview before the service, he said: “It is extremely scary and a huge privilege. It’s an extraordinary feeling to look back and see my predecessors, some of whom are extraordinarily distinguished, like my immediate predecessor Rowan Williams, who is breathtaking in his grip and imagination and his intellect and in many other ways. It’s exciting. There is a sense of what is God going to do?”

Asked what effect the possibility of a triple-dip recession could have on the Durham diocese, he said: “It is a huge challenge. Whether we go into a triple-dip or not, whatever does happen it’s going to go on being pretty dark economically. However, at the centre of the Church is Jesus Christ, who is described as the light of the world, and the darker the world, the more obvious the light.

“The Church is a centre of peace and hope which is completely independent of the circumstances around it so church communities everywhere have to be consciously seeking to be that peace and hope, welcoming and loving, ministering to people, letting them come and experience church life, making it easy for them to do so.

“In this diocese, churches, not just Church of England but churches generally, are organising about 50 food distribution centres. That’s the light of the world in the dark times in very practical ways. The church has often been at its best at times of difficulty because, as people are drawn into worship, they find someone who is faithful, whatever happens.

“If I have had three wishes for the diocese of Durham and its people, you couldn‘t get much better than what St Paul talks about in chapter thirteen of the first letter to the Corinthians, which is faith, hope and love.

“Faith in God and in each other, in the capacity of this area to pull itself up and give itself a great future, which I utterly believe is within the capacity of this area and is being demonstrated. You only have to look at what’s happening in places like the Foundation for Jobs in Darlington (of which he is Patron) and lots of other examples in the north of the diocese. Really very remarkable work is being done.

“Hope that some of the struggles of the present will be ended but also hope in the sense of expectation that there is a really good future out there. Hope shows in how we train people, teach them what to expect and give them a vision.

“Love, knowing the love of God and love for each other. One of the plagues of the Western world, including this country, is the absence of trust in each other but in this area the friendliness, its capacity and the strength of its character and people means that it can set an example on the trust that comes through a genuine love for each other and community and area.

“Three big wishes but I think they’re achievable. You build these things a step at a time.”

Quotes From The Night

Bishop Justin on his farewell service: “It’s not a service that I have been looking forward to for a single second. Goodbyes are not easy and this one is particularly painful.”

On his new job: “I am apprehensive, thoughtful, excited and extremely conscious that it is a great privilege to have been asked to do the job.”

On evangelism: “It is a big priority for the church and will be a big priority.”

On the role of the Church in the North East: “Look around the North East and you will see the Church in most crucial areas of life. The clergy and laity are doing remarkable work.”

On the need that led to the creation of food distribution centres after reports of some North East families going short: “We are seeing things we thought had disappeared in the Thirties. Not on remotely the same scale but traces here and there.”

On resolving the disputes on women bishops and differences of opinion on sexuality: “It’s about finding a way forward for these massive challenges. The church at a national level has to be outward-looking and a body that is engaging, not looking inwards and consumed by its own problems... I am optimistic that we can make progress.”

The Right Revd Mark Bryant, Bishop of Jarrow, on losing the Bishop of Durham: “There is a sadness. People in the North East feel we are losing someone in the corridors of power who understands them.

”If you were told that you only had a Bishop for a year, Bishop Justin is an example of what that bishop would have done.

“There is a real sense in the Diocese that the future must be about continuity of the work that he has done. There is a real sense of a church that is growing in the region. He leaves us with a legacy of hope.”

His Grace is delighted to reproduce Bishop Justin's sermon in full, unencumbered with annotation or comment, for the words to speak for themselves:
This sermon is very under prepared. It needed at least 10 more years in the cooking, and is more an exposure of brevity than a reflection on ministry.

That being said the call of God comes in numerous and often unexpected ways, and His voice and word to us is the constant amongst the changes of life. Whenever we are beset with fear and uncertainty, it is to His voice we must turn, to the constancy that is more solid than unreliability of human beings.

We are in the most powerful symbol of stability in the world. The massive bulk of this Cathedral and the journey from Bede the theological historian to Cuthbert the missionary, turns the changes of human practice, dress, liturgy and interpretation of Christian faith into mere passing moments. Bishops come and go, Priors, Deans change, but the Church is the same. As a building its relative narrowness compared to its length gives a sense of strong shoulders and long journeys, the journeys of Christian faith, and the trials within them supported and given direction.

And yet if we think only that we miss half the message. The building is grand, it draws the eye up to God, it stills anxiety and speaks of peace, the beauty of high rose windows breathes life into tired spirits. But it is also a stage set on which the drama of Christian life is played, and that drama goes on never repeating, never ceasing, always changing. The wanderings of the Israelites in this great passage from Numbers also speaks of solidity and movement. The cloud is always there by day and fire by night. There is the continual certainty of the presence of God. But where it goes is anybody’s guess.

Come with me to a typical Israelite tent, standard family, mother and father and about eight children, a few goats, a great deal of general clobber, and possibly a donkey. It is early morning, the first light of dawn beginning to take the chill off the desert. And what are they talking about? I suspect who is going to look at the cloud. “It’s your turn”, “no, I looked yesterday”, “well I did three days in a row when you had a cold”, and so on. Because if you look out, and the cloud has lifted, it means …… packing! You might have been there six months or one day, but you have to move. And let me tell you, and here I am an expert, packing to move is no fun. We have been doing it all day. It leads to gritted teeth, bad temper, pulled muscles and damaged possessions. And they did it unpredictably for 40 years.

The people of God are always in the midst of change. We look to the Church of England for stability, but we must instead look to God for direction and purpose, for the journey we are to travel with Him, and for vision of our destination. Change is always happening, and my natural instinct of moaning about it does no good. The answer is not avoiding change, but embracing pilgrimage, drawing close to God in worship so that we are filled with excitement about where we are going. The call of God is to move, and the uncertainty of the future is countered by His unfailing love.

Change comes even when we are still. On a journey back from London last week there was a signalling fault. Another train was alongside us. After an hour or so one of us began to move. The scenery changed, even if for a while we did not know if it was us, them or both.

The church may be still but the world around us moves. Culture and expectations of morality change, economics brings destruction or renewal, often both. We have rapid adaptation by brilliant manufacturing in this region, the taking on of interns and apprentices … and we have 40% cuts in local government funding (If you want to see an astute review of the effect of the cuts see what the Bishop of Liverpool the Right Reverend James Jones said to his diocese on the subject. It was with great sadness that I heard that he has announced his retirement today). All around us is rapid change and those struggling to deal with it, change for good and for ill.

The disciples of Jesus are in desolation, reverting to the securities they know, of fishing and locality in Galilee, and finding even that failing them. There is a lostness about the opening of John 21. And the comfort of Jesus comes by surprise, unrecognised. If Numbers calls us to wander on in trust that God is faithful, John tells us how.

He is present, and they do not know Him. My first lesson in a challenging week of silent retreat 10 days ago was to remember the presence of God, which I had neglected. He is here, and often I either turn away or forget. Yet even when they do not know Him, He guides them and restores the normality of life and profession. They catch a lot of fish. His faithfulness does not at all rely on our reception of it, but on His faithfulness. Be reassured.

He calls and they answer: as they see Him they are able to respond, in different ways, with a cry, with encouragement, with collecting what He has given, or with leaping clothed into the water. I wonder if Peter’s wife said when he got home, “clothes ruined, couldn’t you have walked?”.

He brings them into His work; He has fish but asks for theirs. The church is not necessary to the work of God, but in his grace He has made us essential to His loving. He loves us to share in His work, to participate in the providential outworking of His purposes.

And He feeds them, bread and fish as at the 5,000. Provision where there is nothing.

What is this Diocese primarily? It is not organisation or institution, even grand buildings, it is a people called to be loved by God. This Cathedral speaks to us of the everlasting faithfulness of that love, these passages of our call to respond.

It is God’s purpose that we should each be consoled and comforted by that love, present, participative, purposeful, providing, and in the strength that He brings pack and move on. Far more than that as we each and all together grow in knowing and recalling the source of that love, God with us, we overflow to generous and self-giving sharing of it with our communities.

We are called to be pilgrims overflowing with love, spreading it in our journey, and being that is the gift of God, not the work of any individual.
Pictures By: Keith Blundy / Aegies Associates


Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The Right Revd Justin Welby said; The people of God are always in the midst of change.
This is so true and never so more than now it seems. I trust that he will accommodate change without giving way to changes that compromise the Word of God and all that means.
May he be blessed in his new role and 'fight' for the Gospel to be promoted in our land.

29 January 2013 at 10:54  
Blogger Jonathan said...

sigh. What trite, vacuous piffle. Jesus, not the saviour of the world, but the carebear singing "let's all be friends".

29 January 2013 at 11:01  
Blogger Katie said...

is he really this irreligious or is he just down-dumbing?

29 January 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger scottspeig said...

Wow, about to leave a positive message and read the two negative comments above...

I am impressed that he left politics behind and focussed on that which he ought to - God!!

Also found very interesting and pleasing to me (being a Baptist rather than Anglican) that he said "We look to the Church of England for stability, but we must instead look to God for direction and purpose, for the journey we are to travel with Him, and for vision of our destination"

Hopefully he can continue to guide people to God rather than the church, and that he can keep politics out of his speeches. He ought to concern himself with the spiritual life of the nation rather than the material and this speech touched upon this rather well.

29 January 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Berserker said...

At the end of a rather waffly piece of writing by Bishop Justin - It is God's purpose that we should each be consoled and comforted by that love....


Were the people in the Nazi gas chambers so comforted?

We live in an indifferent Universe. Everything consumes. Even quarks are cannibals.

Simone Weil writes:
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith: in this sense, atheism is a purification. I have to be atheistic with the part of myself which is not made for God. Among those men in whom the supernatural part has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

29 January 2013 at 12:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I agree that there are some whom the supernatural part has not been awakened or suppressed . These people carry a burden similar to the homosexual.On a personal level one will find atheists to be missing a dimension, an incompleteness and almost always lacking in joy.There are comparatively very few real atheists in the world. A lot of people who call themselves atheists are in fact agnostics.

29 January 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm Usual heartfelt guff that has fellows like the Inspector staring at the ceiling…

One hopes the man is not a cat lover. Otherwise all really will be lost…

29 January 2013 at 13:31  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Pope Benedict is a cat lover. He is also an intellectual and strong minded. The new Archbishop of Canterbury would be advised to use him as a model.

29 January 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Gee, and this time, it isn't Corrigan who's being arrogant about waffly Anglicanism and the One True Faith. I guess I'm too busy being worse than Hitler.

29 January 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Being worse than Hitler is nothing to boast and be arrogant about.

29 January 2013 at 14:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer a martyr? Lol. What was he a martyr to? His duplicitous self-serving?
Tell me, was John Lambert also a martyr? If anyone deserved to die for a life of deceit and murderous treachery it was Thomas effing Cranmer. Two-faced and back-stabbing, a fiddler in hypocrisy as the middle path between truth and untruth. Unctuous peddler of truth as the expediency of the moment. May he long continue to burn.

29 January 2013 at 16:21  
Blogger David B said...

Cressida, at 13.09, you may comfort yourself by your offensive dehumanising of atheists, but as usual you have it all wrong.

Pretty much backwards in fact.

"On a personal level one will find atheists to be missing a dimension, an incompleteness and almost always lacking in joy"

Really, you should read some of the many deconversion stories which are all over the internet.

Many of them come from from former clergy or monastics, who have become aware that what they took for supernatural religious experiences were in fact artifacts of the mind induced by some mix of ritual, chanting, suggestion, mutual reinforcement, being lied to etc

My own such experiences were not within a Christian context, but the very fact that similar sorts of experiences can be induced within a number of mutually inconsistent religious traditions should be some sort of clue, no?

Some of those who were deeply religious go through a period, which may be longer or shorter, when they miss their religion and wish they could return to it. In my experience of reading such deconversion accounts this particularly applies to members of the more pernicious sects, where those who lose their faith are disfellowed or otherwise shunned by friends and family. which are often most of their acquaintance in sects like mormonism and JWs.

Yet another example of religion being destructive of a human and humane moral compass, to my mind.

Most get over it pretty soon, though, and revel in embracing their humanity, for all its impermanence. Each day being the more precious because of the impermanence in fact.

You should hang out with more atheists and put your prejudices away while doing so - it would be a real eye-opener for you.

Now - back to some unfinished business from yesterday.


29 January 2013 at 16:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Berserker, Weil also wrote that Jehovah made the same promises to Israel that the Devil made to Christ.
So go figure.

29 January 2013 at 16:50  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I take it therefore that the historical Thomas Cranmer wasn't a cat lover then? Personally I can't see what is wrong with a pussy.

29 January 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I feel sorry for this Welby chap; he hasn't even started in office and people are posting here criticising him- his words didn't seem to say anything wrong really? Better him than, say, the westrbo baptist church. What a poisoned chalice the job of Archbis is, eh?

29 January 2013 at 16:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David K.,
The historical Cranmer only loved his pussy on the side. His first known piece died giving birth to his illicitly conceived child. His subsequent piece he carted around in a trunk lest unconcealment expose him as the monster of hypocrisy he was. 

29 January 2013 at 17:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Paddy Lambert said...

"The historical Cranmer only loved his pussy on the side. His first known piece died giving birth to his illicitly conceived child. His subsequent piece he carted around in a trunk lest unconcealment expose him as the monster of hypocrisy he was. " From a religion through it's popes and clergy that has given rise to more illegitimate children than London city's nightclubs, full of Afro Caribbean bouncers, you really take the Jacobs cream cracker?

Hypocrisy..as my old friend Ian Fleming said..Nobody does it better!


29 January 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida, as the CoE continues to ‘evolve’ or swirl around the pan as this man sees it, how long do you think your executed man on the cross is going to last ? The lady bishopettes are going to replace him with something much more friendly.

Step forward (…or sneak into view, more like…) that selfish brute, Felix the domestic cat. Soul-less cupboard loving parasite and confident of the Devil found in the best homes and palaces…

29 January 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B reminds us all at 16:41 what he is doing on this site. Spurred on by the mentally weak and life’s natural losers who penned into the site Secular Café with their tales of woe and ‘enforced’ membership of not just cults but mainstream religion too.

He’s there to offer comfort and support. Internet tea and sympathy to the lost. Why ? Because he CARES {…EYES ROLL…}

And so our evangelically atheist champion came to this site to fight a crusade on behalf of the aforementioned ne’er-do-wells. And look, he’s damn well putting us right as well, bless him.

What does he have to offer apart from his mawkish sickly sweet caring as an internet agony aunt - Well, nothing…

Why does he bother ? Well he KNOWS there is no god - he’s quite definite about that - he just KNOWS it, and he’s making sure everyone else here knows it too.

Bravo David B, it’s people like you who make the world ‘interesting’, as you shepherd your mind cripples away from us believing Christian wolves, and leave them to rot in the stony field of spiritual emptiness…

29 January 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld you scoundrel, was that a bit of feigned indignation you tried to slip past, you denier of the truth !!

29 January 2013 at 17:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Well said to David B. I've never visited his site but it appears you have grasped the essence of evangelical atheism.


I've yet to meet a genuine atheist who has an optimistic outlook on life.


Are you familiar with John 21? Here's how it goes from verse 15:

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep."

A reinstatement of Peter's authority after his earlier fall from Grace, wouldn't you say?

Archbishop Welby's term will end in tears. Anglican's just do not want to be led and are intent on self destruction..

29 January 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Jonathan said...

@David Kavanagh
his words didn't seem to say anything wrong really?
It's not that his words didn't say anything particularly wrong (although him describing the CofE as the most powerful symbol of stability in the world seems like a tragic joke) so much as they seem to say nothing very much at all. It's all just vague mutterings about the voice of God, our journey and destination, without ever saying what the voice of God is telling us, what the destination is, where it is we're going or how we're supposed to get there. It has about as much substance and relevance as the horoscopes in the back of hello magazine.

He's not a lay reader preaching his first sermon during a long interregnum, he's the leader of global anglican communion. We should expect much of him, especially in such a public, widely disseminated and reported sermon. People don't need God to tell them to be kind and generous- most people know they ought to be that already. What we need is forgiveness for our unkindness and lack of generosity; we need God to transform us and bend our naturally selfish and disobedient spirits to his will; we need to experience God's great love for us, shown most perfectly in Jesus death for us, in order to truly know what it means to love others.

Tell us of these things, Justin, not management speak of being prepared for change and new-age hippy nonsense about 'the journey'.

29 January 2013 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me? What do popes, clergy and Afro Caribbean bouncers have to do with the fact that Cranmer was a monstrous weasel? 

At least one has to admire the fact that Peter consistently answered the question. Unlike some historical weasels one could mention.

29 January 2013 at 18:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atheist without an optimistic outlook on life. A plus surely?

29 January 2013 at 18:22  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I guess that the RSPCA wasn't around at that time then? Fancy someone keeping a poor old cat in a trunk!

29 January 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


David B's website isn't that bad, I like the explanation for the site's title:

"In continental Europe, cafés are traditionally venues where intellectuals such as writers, musicians and philosophers can meet for serious discussions and blow clouds of smoke over one another. Similarly, the Secular Café provides a venue in cyberspace for people who want to socialize, share support, and debate or discuss intellectual subjects such as religion, science or politics in a relatively civil and friendly environment."

Can't argue with that.

29 January 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I think to agree to take the position of ABC you'd have to have a pretty good sense of humour. Best of luck to him. Personally, I do wonder if the CofE will even exist in another decade- and if so what will replace it and will it be as generally benevolent as the current situation?

29 January 2013 at 18:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give the poor bloke a chance.The right Revd Justin Welby is hardly out of the starting blocks.

Dodo.... Jesus said 'feed my sheep' not 'fleece them'as the Roman Church does.

29 January 2013 at 19:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David K.,
Oh you're very right that it's an awful thing to lock away an old cat like that, but be sure he only did it so he could smuggle her past customs and make a mockery of them. If the guardians of customs had asked him straight out if there was anything in the trunk, make no mistake the sly Cranmer would have no hesitation denying a real presence. Yet he sent poor John Lambert to a raging pyre when he did the same. 
You see, the essence of Anglicanism, founded in deception and backstabery as epitomized by the weaseling pyromaniac Cranmer, as my good friend Joan Boucher called him, is that you expeditiously say one thing as it suits one occasion and the very opposite thing as it suits the next occasion, and you call that traveling the via media. 

29 January 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


And the Shepherd of Christ, the Servant of the Church, continues still to shoulder the responsibility placed on him.

2000 years plus and still going strong despite all its past failures.

The seat of Canterbury; was has it achieved since it defiantly shook a protesting fist at Rome to satisfy a Monarch's lust and mixed truth with error?

29 January 2013 at 19:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Paddy - are you suggesting Cranmer was into bestiality?!

29 January 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Kavanagh at 18:28. Rather think you need to re-read the Inspectors post at 17:56, don’t you ?

What !

29 January 2013 at 19:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tsk, Dodo. I'm referring to Margaret Osiander whom the priest Cranmer married in Nuremberg and then secreted in a trunk to smuggle into England. The via media you see, CATholic priest by day, CATholic husband by night.

29 January 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len . Give the poor bloke a chance.The right Revd Justin Welby is hardly out of the starting blocks.

Rather thought you hated ALL organised religion as a fully paid up born again nuisance, and especially buildings thereof. Humorous how your muck comes back to haunt you, you idiot !

29 January 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the Holy Spirit is clearly moving people here tonight.

29 January 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Are you still hanging around here. Why ? No mention of buggery lately for you to jump to it’s defence...

29 January 2013 at 20:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah DanJo,
Look who the devil sent by.

29 January 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector - it was the talk of *minority interest* in cats that attracted him.

29 January 2013 at 20:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you Cat holics never fail to amuse.
Is longevity the only claim to fame the Catholic church has? Catholicism originated from pagan Rome and that is all it keeps alive!.

Keep it up boyo`s you are better than Laurel and Hardy(not as funny though)

29 January 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Paddy - and now his little side kick joins in. Bit like London buses.

29 January 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Look son, the Inspector will do the jokes around here. Got it ?

29 January 2013 at 20:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector and Dodo you both are the worst proponents for' religion' that I have seen anywhere.(apart from Hitler who was a Catholic too I believe?)

29 January 2013 at 20:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Len, Hitler was Catholic and so was Cranmer. Your point?

29 January 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Saint Peter was a Catholic, as were all the early Christians.

29 January 2013 at 21:00  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

I trust you & yours are in fine fettle. His sermon appeared reactionary to the point of backward, perhaps he is anxious.

Great joy to his ministry.



29 January 2013 at 21:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

I thought the first Pope and even Jesus and his followers were Jewish lads !?

29 January 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also, I actually think David B's description of his blog is a bit like this one, but in respect of the posters, perhaps we need to ask who is smoking what in the Cranmer Cafe -where comments are more greasy spoon -rather than Café- is the issue.

29 January 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Read 'Acts' .... especially the account of the Jerusalem Council.

29 January 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, we hope to see re-newed leadership from the CoE during his ministry. However, Your Grace, he might start by turning towards your own rhetorical felicities.

29 January 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


My smoke is a pipe or failing that a nice Cuban! With a bit of whiskey or brandy of course.

29 January 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


There was a film a couple of years back with Tom Cruise in it, called 'minority report'. Is that what you are referring to?

29 January 2013 at 22:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Paddy Lambert,

I have to admit I really do not know a lot about the historical Cranmer,OK so I did the history in school about Henry 8th and his 6 knives, but I cannot agree or disagree with what you say because I do not really know a lot about the history. But from what I can gather, you are saying he and the Anglicans are not Christians and also did Cranmer have a cat or not?

BTW, I'm not Anglican (or christian for that matter), so your possible attempt to goad me isn't going to work.

29 January 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"Saint Peter was a Catholic, as were all the early Christians." When was he confirmed as one and who did he say confession to? The early Christians as well you say. Hmm. But you state things that St Peter and the early church never believed so as they were before you and their doctrine is known and can be compared with yours, it is obvious then that your 'church' appears to be making fraudulent claims?

Strange I can't seem to find an epistle to the Catholics anywhere or are they mentioned within the NT as the wolves in sheep's clothing perhaps. ;-)

Could you assist sweet bird?


29 January 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dikkie @29 January 2013 18:10

Then you quote John's gospel at old Ernst.

I like you dikkie but sometimes old Ernst thinks you are trying to make out the dementia in me noggin is so severe I don't remember what it is you are referring to as I can't recollect anything that requires St Peter to be shown he was forgiven from scripture.

Are you saying that to all those scumbag popes (not just clergy but POPES, the key-holders, yes?!) that fathered illegitimate offspring Jesus asked them 3 times to feed His sheep, thereby re-instating those monsters to continue as before in their wickedness?... and you lump St Peter with that mob. Goodness, you must be desperate. Hope I never get to that!

May Ernst recommend a short course of Citalopram , my boy.
20mg 1 taken twice daily.

Dr Ernsty

29 January 2013 at 23:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

Well Christianity isn't my religion, so I must be wrong and Jesus and Peter must have been Roman Catholics, but when I did read the gospels, I got from them that they inferred that Jesus, Peter, the disciples, were Jewish people from a part of the Roman Empire called Galilee?

29 January 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ah Ernsty, so you're familiar with the drug. You must NOT try to share your drugs with others! Bad boy. And do be careful with this one as it can trigger mania if not taken appropriately. Make sure nurse oversees their use.

Now, you scoundrel, you know Popes are men and some were sinful men. This does not render Christ's promise to Peter and to the Church void. As you keep reminding us all, God's word is His word.

29 January 2013 at 23:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


You can be a stubborn lass!

Of course Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish by birth and, initially, religion. However, after Christ's death and resurrection, a new Church was formed - the Universal Church. Initially, some would say, it was a Jewish 'cult' but it soon became independent of Judaism.

'Acts' records that to join the new Church gentiles didn't have to be circumcised. Not terribly Orthodox for Jews!

29 January 2013 at 23:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

LOL, of course I am stubborn because I am a perfidious Jew. OK, I take the point and clarification & understand it.

PS - being stubborn is a family trait.

29 January 2013 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I think the term is "stiff necked", Hannah.

As for "perfidious", one needs to be careful with this word. The ancient sense of the Latin word "perfidis", used in the Catholic Good Friday prayer for Jews, was "unbelieving". The English "perfidious" has, over the centuries, gradually acquired the sense of "treacherous."

Language, eh!

30 January 2013 at 00:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


And, of course, Jesus lived and died a Jew. Pentecost marked the breach from Judaism.

Do you remember me once commenting that my father, God rest his soul, once told me, "A true Jew is Christian"? Well, that's what I believe.

30 January 2013 at 00:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

Yep language is a tricky subject. I think that the discussion between my bro and yourself over the term 'goy' highlighted this. I, of course, mean nothing but replying with humour regarding you calling me 'stubborn'. The term "perfidious" also relates to our country which was called Albion at one stage or other.

30 January 2013 at 00:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Sweet bird of paranoia

"This does not render Christ's promise to Peter and to the Church void. As you keep reminding us all, God's word is His word." Now what promise might that be you claim is valid..Surely not this 'apostolic succession' nonsense to non apostles? "As you keep reminding us all, God's word is His word."

The verse is not saying Peter is the rock on which the church is built, but rather it contrasts Peter's name (Greek PETROS, masculine - a piece of rock) to the rock on which the church would be built (Greek PETRA, feminine - a solid ledge of rock).
The context (v13,15,16) is not discussing who Peter is nor what his position is, but who Jesus is and what His position is. The passage does not exalt Peter; it exalts Jesus. Jesus does not confess Peter; Peter confesses Jesus.
Jesus often compared Himself to inanimate objects - a temple (John 2:18-22), a door (John 10:7), a vine (John 15:1-11). Here He compares Himself to a rock, a name often used for Deity in the Old Testament throughout the Psalms.

Well, you will not find that silliness in Scripture, my bird.



Ernst would think there is a better case to be made for St Paul as 'Pope';

* Believed Paul was not married from 1 Corinthians 7 (Ernst thinks from the Koine translation of the word 'agamos' he was a widower).

* Book of Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.

* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.

* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

* Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.

* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 likkle ones.

* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.

* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there. Whatever else is claimed is extra biblical.

* Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).

30 January 2013 at 01:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David K.,
I wasn't trying to goad you and I'm not sure how you got that impression. As to your not being Christian, well I gathered as much from your picture. And no, as far as I know Cranmer didn't have a cat, but he did acquire a wife in Germany while he was an ordained priest of the Catholic Church and obligated to a celibate life. This wife, the pussy as I thought we were both jokingly referring to her as, he smuggled into England in a trunk. This is the truth. It is also true that when he was younger and not yet an ordained priest that he married a woman. It is not certain but it appears that he married her when she was already pregnant. She died during the birth of her child. It is true that he condemned John Lambert to death by fire because Lambert denied the dogma of the Real Presence. Some years later, after Cranmer had himself come to publicly deny the Real Presence, and on the occasion of his condemning Joan Boucher to a fiery death because she denied the dogmatic truth relating to infant baptism, Joan Boucher asked Cranmer, with a touch of sarcasm it must be said, if he didn't think that he might come to change his mind about infant baptism as he had about the Real Presence, and that if he did could he hurry up and do so before she was set alight? Cranmer was not amused and had her consumed in flames. 

Not many people in England know much that is actually true about Cranmer. Most people there live under the cosy illusion that the falsification of history and it's propagation among the masses occur in other places like China or Russia. They never suspect that they are fed and swallow gargantuan lies about their own past. The coterie of criminal schemers around Edward VI ruthlessly executed a power grab which they sought to consolidate under cover of the so-called Protestant Reformation. Protestantism in England was not established in response to popular sentiment: most people were happily Catholic in the profession and practice of the faith of their fathers. Protestantism was imposed with calculated brutality because it served the purposes of those who would illicitly gain power and wealth, the sort of people who would have been right at home with Stalin or Pol Pot.
Cranmer was such a man. The fact that he died a horrible death and wrought wonderful prose doesn't change that, it just helps obscure it for those who would have their own agenda rather than the truth. 

30 January 2013 at 03:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


The Act of Supremacy, it still niggles after 479 years. Is there not enough monies/gold in Rome's coffers or enough land it has confiscated/claimed for itself after all these centuries. Like the greed of mammon, enough is never enough is it?! Is there not enough sins committed by the 'successors and holders of the keys to warrant some magnanimity (If a man is brave we expect him to be magnanimous, truth-loving, and far removed from deception.") amongst the Tiberians.

We can but dream, can we not.

I hear no majority of Citizens demanding the re-establishment of Papal authority over these blessed isles.

On yer papal tricycle, there's a nice chap and watch ya don't fall off. * Da Da Dada Da Da Da Da DA DA. (the eternal Clown's theme as they leave the circus rink throwing papal confetti at the audience)* Honk Honk!


30 January 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


I was referring to the promise of Divine protection for the Church. You know, Matthew 16:18, where Christ promises Divine protection to His Church.

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it."

Spin away, argue about pebbles, stones and rocks, ... its meaning is clear to me.

30 January 2013 at 11:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 January 2013 at 18:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a well known fact that the original 'authority' of the Roman Church was 'the Donation of Constantine' which was discovered to be a clumsily constructed forgery so the Catholic church hastily scrabbled around for some other means to establish their' authority'.They did this by reinterpreting who' the Rock 'was.'The Rock' is shown throughout scripture as Christ but the Catholic church disregarded scripture(and the true position of Christ in favour of their 'traditions').
So the 'authority'of the Catholic Church has been stolen from Christ.
This is' the foundation' of the Catholic Church and on which it bases its 'authority.'

30 January 2013 at 18:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do we know that the Messiah is the foundation stone? By Peter's own testimony, when he wrote: "coming to him as a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen precious with God ....For it is contained in scripture: 'Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious: and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.'" Paul also stated: "and you have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone" (1 Peter 2:4-8; Ephesians 2:20).

30 January 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, one does believe he knows exactly how those army officers felt shortly before they shot Rasputin...

30 January 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

'Rasputin'. I didn't realise you were a fan of boney m? LOL.

30 January 2013 at 19:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So will anyone help me out here please?
When Peter stood up on the occasion recorded in the first chapter of Acts and gave first direction on how the Church was to begin to organize herself for action in time, did he have authority to do so? 
And if he did, can we take it that Matthias by virtue of this organizing act come to possess authority for action that Justus did not come to possess?
And if we can, can we then take it that the Church proceeded to further organize herself for action in time and that she had authority to do so? 
And that her decisions taken later were built on, and consonant with, her decisions taken earlier? 
And that through her step-by-step process of decision making, clarifying, explicating and building up that a visible form of the Church and what she proclaimed and what she sacramentally practiced emerged in the world and in history?
And if one were to come upon this Church some 15 hundred years later would one have any good reason for saying that this was not the Church established by Jesus Christ 15 hundred years ago? And if one did have a good reason for saying this, what would it be?

30 January 2013 at 20:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let us go along with Catholic theology IF Peter was the Rock(we know he wasn`t and never could be) but let us suppose for the sake of argument Peter was' the rock'..well the Church died when Peter died.

Bony 'M' LOL(you couldn`t make it up) .ra ra rasputin.

30 January 2013 at 20:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Have you been drinking or has your medication been changed recently?

Of course no protestant will answer your questions.

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

30 January 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo's reply to Paddy is irrefutable proof of the validity of the Pope.No amount of unconvincing misinterpretation or tampering can refute this lucid statement.It was essential for the Protestants to attempt to manipulate and misinterpret this to rid themselves of the Pope.
Unfortunately for them this 'loop hole' free part of the scriptures appears to have been written
anticipating what was to come...tough, boys!A 500 year run off the rails is enough.

31 January 2013 at 00:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you Catholics have chosen your 'foundation'and to keep repeating a false statement about Peter being' it'will never make it true.'Hay and straw' and all that!

I have chosen mine which is Christ.

31 January 2013 at 08:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


I repeat the foundation of our faith is Christ. The Pope is his representative on earth, the leader of His visible Church, His Mystical Body. Christ granted the Church authority on earth and promised it His protection until His return.

Answer Paddy's questions. Was the Jerusalem Council valid and, after St Peter's death, were the other Councils of the Church?

It really isn't complicated!

31 January 2013 at 18:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Pope has no authority on Earth only that which he has stolen from Christ.

The Pope heads up a religious organisation which has little to do with Christianity let alone the Body of Christ.
When did Peter ever claim to be Pope?.
When did Peter ever claim to be the foundation stone of the Church?.
The other' Apostles never claimed Peter had 'sole authority' your Catholic claims are totally false.
Paul had to 'dress down' Peter because Peter was leading people astray funny that Paul did that when Peter was the all important' Pope'.
Before leaving the earth Jesus made this promise: 'I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.' Matthew 28:20. How is He with us? By the Holy Spirit, and not by a visible head, called 'the Pope'. Jesus said: 'It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin... Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16:7-13.

The Pope is an imposter in a long line of miscreants who have planted themselves on thrones usurping the position that belongs to Christ alone.In the year 58 Paul wrote a letter to the Romans. In this letter he mentions more than twenty persons, but he does not say a word about Peter; he sends no greetings to Pope Peter. If Peter had been there he would undoubtedly have mentioned it. In 61 Paul goes to Rome and visits all the brethren. He did not meet Peter there; if he had been there he surely would have seen him. In 62 and 63 Paul wrote to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon, from Rome. He speaks of several of his fellow labourers, but he is silent about Peter. In 66, a short time before his death as a martyr, Paul writes to Timothy from Rome and relates to him how all had forsaken him except Luke. Does any one believe that if Peter had been there he, too, would have neglected Paul? Never! Between 41 and 66, when it was said Peter was in Rome we cannot find a passage anywhere in the whole New Testament mentioning that fact. Why? Simply because Peter never was' Pope.'

31 January 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Here we go - len's 'off' on one and yet again fails to address the actual question posed.

31 January 2013 at 20:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plenty of questions of mine Dodo fancy answering any?.

The 'Church Fathers' don`t seem to have noticed Peter being' the Pope' (perhaps he kept a low profile?) Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - not Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:

1. Linus
2. Anacletus
3. Clement
4. Evaristus
5. Alexander
6. Sixtus
7. Ignatius (Telephorus)
8. Huginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Sorer
12. Eleutherius

according to Hyppolytus, the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter. How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome, and an 'infallible' pope, when the "fathers" of the church seem to be so ignorant of the fact?
From: Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:

"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist.

Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.

31 January 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


It was Paddy asking the questions. Me? Frankly, I've given up on you and your internet *theology* and church *history*.

Whilst cutting and pasting were you aware this series of books was:

" ... published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh ... as a response to the Oxford movement's Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic."

Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in the 'Oxford Dictionary of Popes' says, "It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome … To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c.180), it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries concedes, "According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers ..."

31 January 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger Pedant said...

So Len, 

If, as you point out, Peter ordains Clemens as Bishop of Rome, then Peter passes on authority that he possesses to Clemens.  By virtue of apostolic succession Clemens becomes the apostolic successor to Peter. So you have now established for us that a Bishop of Rome is a legitimate, authorized successor of Peter. And that all legitimately established bishops succeeding Clemens are consequently legitimate successors of Peter.

I'd have to go away and look up other references by the Fathers but Irenaeus is to hand, 

"With this Church (Rome), on account of its more primordial authority ("propter potentiorem principalitatem') all other Churches in every place cannot but agree, since in it the Christians of all places have preserved the apostolic tradition."
 (Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 3).

Thanks Len. And please, find time to answer Paddy. We're all interested and this is your opportunity to make a real contribution to actual understanding.

31 January 2013 at 23:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo answer this question then... we have in History several popes sitting in 'the Chair of Peter' at the same time!.We have popes who sold the Papacy to the highest bidder!.
We have two popes who excommunicated each other!.

1 February 2013 at 08:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 February 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


They've been answered above by Pedant.

Now go away with your nonsense and concocted *alternative history* from anti-Catholic sources.

Answer Paddy - we are all interested in what you have to say.

1 February 2013 at 12:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apostolic succession is a fallacy the reason being.....Even if one Papal heretic, if he were not restored by repenting of his heresy would break the line of (alleged)apostolic succession back to Peter(who never was' Pope')
Pope Adrian V1(1522-3)who personally pronounced Pope Celestine 111(1191-8) a heretic declared that John XX11 was only one in a long line of Papal heretics.

Heretical Popes came along quite regularly Innocent 1 and Gelasius proclaimed that babies went straight to hell (not purgatory)if they died though baptised before receiving communion. There is a long list of heretical Popes.

So the Papal Apostolic succession does not exist, there is no 'authority'handed down through Peter who never was the first 'Pope.'

1 February 2013 at 22:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Jesus gave authority to Peter on Peters confession that Jesus was the Son of God. Only Peter made that confession at that time.Obviously the other disciples also made the same confession as have millions of believe since that time.

The Catholic Church assumes the authority to 'bar' or 'admit' people into Heaven which is a total misconception of the role of the Church .
Heaven isn't obliged to endorse the church's decisions. Jesus wasn't giving Peter the authority to arbitrarily allow some people into the kingdom of heaven and prohibit others. Peter merely pronounced those 'admitted' whom the Father already admitted because of their faith in Jesus Christ, and pronounced 'barred' those whom the Father already barred because of their unbelief.

The authority of the Church is a delegated authority only granted if the Church is carrying out Gods Will. "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10).

1 February 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Finally the root cause of your aversion to Roman Catholicism is revealed - fear based on ignorance.

A very enlightening post, indeed.

2 February 2013 at 00:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries concedes

Interesting. I know James White. I have met him personally. I have several of his books. In fact, I used to be a moderator in his chat-room. I would love to know the source of this quote. Especially since I know he believes the RCC in its present form didn't emerge until several hundred years after the life of Christ. I just checked his book the "Roman Catholic Controversy" where he enumerates the evidence about Peter not being in Rome.



2 February 2013 at 00:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

James White on the Bishop of Rome

When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time! Only with Hyginus does he say that the monarchical episcopate is beginning to emerge, and does so with Pius 1, 142-155 A.D.

What does this mean? Well, it's pretty hard for there to be an exercise of "papal authority" when there is no papacy! The primitive form of church government found in Rome is the biblical one: a plurality of elders.

The simple historical fact is that the early examples of Roman power are not of the bishop of Rome but of the church at Rome. The prestige of the bishop developed from the prestige of the church abiding at the capital of the Roman Empire. Modern Roman dogma has it backwards: the prestige of Rome does not come from having the "Successor of Peter" within her: the bishop of Rome gained his prestige because of the geographical and political location of the church itself!


2 February 2013 at 01:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo I seem to know more about Catholicism than you do... most of my info from' the Church Fathers.'

Papal authority is 'a scam',that is why Catholics are not trusted to get the 'right interpretation'of the Bible by themselves(although Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL Truth).

2 February 2013 at 08:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

So now you've read the Church Father's, have you?

Noooo, your *evidence* is from anti-Catholic *historians*.

In a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, James White said, "According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself."


You and len might want to read the article.

2 February 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


It is as I thought. You are using an uncited quote from a secondary source. I can't use it to verify the account. I am asking for a primary source - a record of his own words. Do you have any such thing? Because what is being asserting with that quote contradicts what Dr White wrote in the link I posted.


2 February 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


It didn't contradict his reported comment at all. What is clear from your quote is a disagreement over the nature of the Peter's authority, and that of his successors, as Bishop of Rome. len is claiming Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. A different issue.

2 February 2013 at 18:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What has been demonstrated over and over is that Roman Catholics do not engage in critical exegesis when interpreting Scripture, nor do they objectively examine the patristic (church Fathers) record, not because Catholics lack the ability, but because they do not need to—for Rome has already provided the 'infallible interpretation 'for them. Thus, for the Catholic: Rome’s interpretations are correct, because Rome says they are.

This inability to think for themselves and to examine the Scriptures(as the Bereans did) means that Catholics can be told literally anything and Catholics are bound to accept what is' dished out to them' to them as 'absolute truth!.

Clever system whoever thought it up how to make error irrefutable!.

More reading christiandefense.org/Article_%20Matt.%2016.18.htm

2 February 2013 at 19:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Another series of (in our hosts words) "crass insults" len.

No reason, argument or attempts to demonstrate your views. Simple asssertion and then insults to the intellectual and spiritual integrity of Catholics.

And this is you preaching the Gospel? If only you were capable of listening to the essential message of Roman Catholicism.

3 February 2013 at 01:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


It didn't contradict his reported comment at all.

Dr White stated the following:

The primitive form of church government found in Rome is the biblical one: a plurality of elders.

A plurality of Elders by definition means no bishops and certainly no Pope. He doesn't believe there was a bishop in Rome during the life of Peter because he believes the early Roman church was governed by a plurality of Elders. He even qualified his meaning by the phrase by calling that type of church government 'the biblical one.' To a Reformed Baptist, that means several men of equal authority acting as elders over the church. There is simply no question about this.

The quote in your cite directly contradicts the argument made by Dr White in the link that I posted. That's why I asked for a primary source. And incidentally that is why it is so dangerous to trust uncited quotes from secondary sources. They are often paraphrases wrapped in quote marks. I can imagine what Dr White might have said, and how it might have been transmogrified into that 'quote.' But he doesn't believe what you asserted he believes.

Your cite is simply wrong on its face.


3 February 2013 at 05:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo ...you seem to confusing 'insults' with' telling the truth' perhaps both are the same to you?.People seem to' be insulted' when confronted with the truth but does that mean we should not tell the truth?.'In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
George Orwell
We are approaching a time when the unadulterated Gospel will not be tolerated by anyone' religious' or secular.
My point is that Catholics can possess the Bible and even read it but it will do them no good whatever.For example the Catholic is not bothered in the least by fact that the dogmas of Immaculate Conception,the Assumption,auricular confession,purgatory, and the veneration of statues(to name a few) are absent from the pages of the Bible.Why?, because Catholics have been convinced from infancy that God`s revelation does not come from the bible alone but also in 'sacred tradition'and since no -one can check the contents of oral tradition there is no way for Catholics to check whether any particular doctrine is based on God`s Word or not. Catholics have to simply trust the words of men the Magisterium. So for Catholics the Word of God is irrelevant if the Magisterium decides otherwise.

3 February 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


He may believe Peter was never Bishop of Rome, he may believe there was no Bishop in Rome and a group of elders governed the Church, however substantial evidence contradicting this exists in the writings of the Church Fathers.


Whatever .....

I thought we were discussing Christ's commission to Peter and Church governance. And you rattle off all your ill-informed prejudices.

Here's a suggstion, put them all in one document and then simply cut and paste them whenever Catholicism is raised on herre. It'll save you so much time.

3 February 2013 at 13:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Yes, RC apologists assert that the ECFs support Roman doctrine, and Dr White challenges that assertion. That's the underlying argument. We aren't talking about the underlying argument. We are talking about whether this alleged quote by Dr White is accurate.

"According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers ..."

You cited him in support of your argument. Your cite is wrong. He doesn't believe what this cite says he believes. I have shown this from primary sources. That's why I asked for a primary source for the quote in your cite. I wanted to see Dr White's actual words. I believe the quote is an inaccurate paraphrase that has been "shaped" to say something that Dr White would never say.

So are you now willing to withdraw the claim? Are you willing to admit that the cite is wrong? If not, you must defend the cite with a primary source.


3 February 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Well, no you haven't.

If the early church in Rome was run by elders this doesn't rule out Peter being the Bishop of Rome with Apostolic authority to decide on issues dividing said elders, does it? Neither does it rule out the possibility that the early church in other parts of the world looked to the Bishop of Rome in similar situation, does it?

Even today the Church isn't run on a "monarchical" basis. When the Church is gathered in Councils it decides collectively on doctrine, subject to the final authority of the Pope - exercised sparingly, as at Vatican II in respect of contraception.

Popes are the 'Servant of the Church', however they might have conducted themselves in the 16th century, where you seemed to be stuck. The Magisterium is not some dictatorial body. Its authority rests on Papal leadership and on the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church - i.e. what the Church world wide believes and has always believed. In exception, where disputes are harming the Church or where doctrine must be clarified, Councils gather and Papal ex-cathedra statements are issued.

Roman Catholics believe it has been this way since the Jerusalem Council and will be this way until the end of time because that's what Jesus Christ commanded.

3 February 2013 at 17:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo I can only repeat what I have already said, your reply only confirms what I said at (3 February
11:46 )
Until you can come to terms that what you have accepted as 'Christianity 'has no relationship to what Jesus, the disciples, or the Church Fathers preached then you will continue to be deceived.

3 February 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


If the early church in Rome was run by elders this doesn't rule out Peter being the Bishop of Rome with Apostolic authority to decide on issues dividing said elders, does it?

Yes it does, Dodo. When a Reformed Baptist makes that argument, yes it does. When a Reformed Baptist tells you that the church government in Rome was the'biblical' form of church government, he is excluding both bishops and popes. Reformed Baptists don't recognize any form of church government above the congregational level. That's why his designation of 'biblical' is so dispositive.

You don't seem to be grasping the nature of this argument. It's not about whether there was a bishop in Rome. It's about Dr White's opinion on the matter. I know the man, Dodo. I have followed his ministry for over 10 years. I know what he thinks on the matter. That's why it was so easy for me to produce a primary source.

Your cite is simply wrong. Argumentation about whether there really was a bishop in Rome cannot change that. Your attempts to reconcile Rome's position with Dr White's position cannot change that. Dr White doesn't believe there was a bishop in Rome during the life of Peter.

The cite is wrong.


3 February 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Oh, I've given up on Dr White, Who knows? Maybe the source is misrepresenting his position and perhaps he didn't say what has been attributed to him? He's not crucial as the reference was to other Church Fathers. You have the article., pass it onto him.

What is significant is that other experts have shown there is ample evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome and the early Christian community looked to Rome to provide a lead.

3 February 2013 at 21:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ample evidence?.

Lets see some of this 'ample evidence?

Even IF if Peter was' bishop of Rome' apostolic succession (if it ever was?)failed with heretical Popes.One Pope sold the Papacy to the highest bidder,others carried out criminal acts of the worst possible kind.
And these criminals were the 'vicars of Christ'?.
This is heresy of the worst possible kind.!

Peter would not want to be associated with these Popes and you dishonour a great apostle to do so!.

5 February 2013 at 08:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The link I provided earlier documents the evidence. Did you read it?

You'll have to name the heretical Popes and their heresies. To my knowledge, there has been one Pope censored by the Church for a lack of leadership in permitting a heresy.

Papal succession is unbroken. By definition a heretical Pope would not be a Pope. And yes, there was a time when the Papacy became entwined in worldly matters. How does this actually break Apostolic succession? It simply means they failed in their ministry.

6 February 2013 at 18:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older