Thursday, January 17, 2013

Church of England gets powers to tackle 'far right' clergy

Yesterday in Parliament an obscure little statutory committee - all undemocratically appointed by the Lord Speaker - examined and approved draft Measures presented to it by the Legislative Committee of the General Synod of the Church of England on how to deal with the BNP. Ben Bradshaw was quick to extrapolate this to 'far right or racist parties' in general, suggesting future scope for the extension of these disciplinary measures. His Grace has purposely included the first two responses to Mr Bradshaw's tweet, since, if a council can discriminate against adoptive parents for their 'right-wing' UKIP-leaning views, it is inevitable (with a very high degree of certainty) that 'far right' will come to embrace those who oppose gay marriage or women bishops. For if racism be an abhorrent manifestation in the Church of Christ, how much more should homophobia, misogyny or europhobia be subject to ecclesiastical opprobrium?

His Grace has said this before, but he'll say it again. All reasonable Christian people will have immense sympathy with an expression of Christian witness which seeks to denounce racism in all its forms, including in the temporal political realm. The Church should be completely intolerant of all those who would foment discord on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour. The Early Church abolished the Jew-Greek division and declared all to be one in Christ Jesus, so there can be no theological rationale 2000 years later for black-brown-white segregation. To be Christian is to be blind to race: all of humanity is equal in the great plan of salvation. We are all children of God, and all equal in our sin.

But here we now have the Established Church of England empowered by Parliament to prohibit those in Holy Orders from joining a political party which is not only legally constituted in the United Kingdom, but has won elections to the European Parliament and is deemed to conform to both UK and EU law.

Oh, of course, the party has not been named: the General Synod simply decreed that allegiance to a party whose policies are ‘incompatible with the teaching of the Church of England in relation to the equality of persons or groups of different races’ would be ‘unbecoming and inappropriate’. So, in theory, Ben Bradshaw is right that all racist or discriminatory political parties are to be proscribed.

But he only mentions the 'far right'. Are there no 'far left' parties with racist or otherwise discriminatory ideologies? Setting aside the fact that the BNP is manifestly a left-wing, statist organisation, are Church of England clerics free to be Communists, revolutionary socialists or members of Respect?

Clergy are being prohibited from joining the BNP because the Church is perceived by some to have a problem with racism (too few BME vicars and bishops). Which is fair enough. But the Church is also perceived by a sizeable constituency to have a problem with homosexuality and an even more sizeable constituency to have a problem with women (it is still to 'get with the programme', as the Prime Minister decreed).

The anti-far-right measures agreed by the Ecclesiastical Committee were born out of a proposal in 2009 by Vasantha Gnanadoss who warned then of the potential for the BNP to grow in influence. “Passing this motion is a push that is seriously necessary,” she told the Synod at that time.

The peculiar thing is that it is a completely hypothetical move, since no member of the Church of England clergy is presently known to be a member of the BNP. But if one were, why would they now disclose it? And, further, it is not at all clear how prohibiting membership of a racist or discriminatory political party could change a racist or discriminatory heart, with which the Lord is far more concerned.

That the BNP has a racist foundation is beyond dispute. That the Church of England is sexist at the Episcopal level is also beyond dispute. That the Church of England is ‘homophobic’ (to use the vernacular) is manifest to everyone who grasps the basic principles of discrimination - if only as they relate to marriage. Some would say these discriminations are ‘institutional’.

Yet the Church of England has only voted in favour of legislation to prohibit clergy from joining racist or discriminatory political parties like the BNP because that party’s policies are deemed to be inconsistent with Christian values, notwithstanding that there are many thousands who find the Church’s stance on women and gays equally inconsistent with Christian values.

It is now for the Bishops to determine which parties or organisations are deemed to be incompatible with Christian values. To them is given power to bind and loose, and they may do so as long as two thirds of them support the motion. Any ban can be lifted by a simple majority vote should the political party repent and change its ways.

One wonders how long it will be before a bunch of Guardian-reading, liberal-leaning bishops determine membership of the Conservative Party to be ‘unbecoming’ or ‘inappropriate’ conduct for clergy, for, surely, that which became known as Thatcherism was (and is) frequently denounced as being ‘incompatible’ with Church teaching on equality. What of the poor? Was not Jesus the first Socialist?

His Grace can hardly wait to see which political parties or organisations are deemed by the Bishops to be incompatible with Christian teaching and so proscribed. For then we will surely see high-profile court cases giving such groups £millions worth of free publicity. His Grace is loath to quote any BNP spokesman (and, like the bishops, they do all tend to be men). But one of their number has challenged the Church of England, insisting: “We are a modern, forward thinking and progressive nationalist party. We are non-discriminatory and we have a constitution to match. It is high time that was put out there. The Church of England has to keep up to date – they are stuck in the 1970s.”

And since the European Convention on Human Rights gives all people (including CofE vicars, who fall within the broad definition of ‘people’) the right to freedom of political belief, the Church cannot win in the courts: clergy cannot be disciplined for lawful political activity.

For His Grace, if the Church of England were to expend just one tenth of its efforts to the propagation of the Gospel that it devotes to issues of gender or sexual equality, it might just reverse its terminal decline. Racist views and discriminatory undertones are going to exist wherever there is diversity and the freedoms of belief, expression and association. This is not to excuse them: it is a simple statement of fact. But the proscribing of the outward manifestation will not transform the inner life of the believer, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.

According to the latest church statistics, only 2.8 per cent of its 114 bishops and 1.4 per cent of the 4,443 vicars come from ethnic minorities. No doubt we are now heading for quotas to address this scandalous under-representation.

What would Jesus say?

Well, if God can speak through an ass (Num 22:21-38), He can undoubtedly do so through the Labour Party, the Guardian, the EU, and even the Rev’d Giles Fraser. But Parliament has now united with the Church of England to dehumanise members of the BNP - they are sinners beyond redemption, through whom the Lord would never choose to speak or work. They have replaced the ‘homosexual offenders’ who were once destined for eternal darkness: the Kingdom of Heaven is not for such as those.

And talking of Giles Fraser (if you're reading, Giles..), if sexually active gay priests or bishops now have a moral responsibility to lie, do not those clergy who hold 'far right' political views have the same moral responsibility? Surely, 'lying to the church authorities, in these conditions, is a bit like disobeying an unjust order. It's a form of non-violent resistance'?


Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Well said 'Bish.

The BNP should have some kind of "silent" membership available for people who wish to covertly support the BNP (or any other proscribed organisation)it as an act of rebellion against the fascists now running the show at the CofE and in Parliament.

It is to this country's eternal shame that no-one in high office looks down upon all of this and proclaims it as not only Un-British but totalitarian.

When you have David Cameron saying he supports the right of people to wear a crucifix at work whilst at the same time sending his lawyers to Europe to deny them that same right we can be certain it will not be slippery Dave speaking out.

17 January 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

The erstwhile Canon claims, "Real truth comes to be expressed in the gay nightclub and not from the pulpit."

And I wondered why the church was in such disarray these days!

17 January 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger gentlemind said...

I have faith in the public court of ideas.

At the last election, many people voted for the party whose leader is now leading the attack on the right of a child to know and be cared for by that child's mother and father. Nobody voted for this.

It is not the policies themselves that make democracy. It is the presentation of those ideas to the public before free and fair elections, and the execution of those ideas after election.

Let us at least have the privilege of getting the government we deserve.

17 January 2013 at 11:05  
Blogger David B said...

What I get from HG's piece is that Establishment interferes with the freedom of the Church to go about it's business as well as giving undue privilege to one religious sect above all others and to religion over no religion.

Disestablish, and be done with it!

I've missed a lot of posts and comment pages in the last few weeks, and have done a little catching up but not much.

I was sorry to miss the opportunity to pass on New Years greetings to Albert. IMO he is one of the more thoughtful, sharp, open minded, and, perhaps most important, decent Christians I have had the pleasure of discussing issues with. If Christianity had more like him and Belfast representing it, it would, I think, be the better for it.

I did notice that HG's views, as a conservative Christian, on help for the disabled were very much in tune with mine as an atheist liberal.

I don't know what impelled Dawkins to have such a down on him - maybe I should check it out.

I might have mentioned before that I find common ground with HG much more often than I would have anticipated, most importantly on issues of freedom of speech, his robust views on offensiveness.

I've been feeling very ill for the last few weeks - to the point where I spent 5 whole days and nights on my settee other than for struggling to the loo and trying to keep hydrated, without either tv or laptop. That was the worst of it, but I've felt pretty sick since xmas.

I look pretty gaunt now - lost a lot of weight, but I'm pretty confident that it is not the cancer itself making me ill, but some combination of chemo and infections.

Chemo on hold for the mo, seeing oncologist a week today.

So that is my news, for anyone interested


17 January 2013 at 11:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

The most excellent post that has come from that burnt hand for a while, that shows the hypocrisy and compliance of the church with political driven agendas, that they should know better about being linked with. Their real is little, if any, discernment within the body!

E S Blofeld

17 January 2013 at 11:31  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

How many times must it be pointed out that there is no valid comparison between race (which is a matter of the skin colour you are born with) and homosexuality (which is a form of behaviour)?
Black people are tired of this over-used analogy and many of them have spoken out to protest against it.
Yes it is intolerable for Parliament to pass such measures. There are no BNP bishops so the measure is clearly designed as the thin end of a wedge. We need to revise the so-called Equalities Act as it has become a new form of tyranny.

17 January 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

His Grace says, 'According to the latest church statistics, only 2.8 per cent of its 114 bishops and 1.4 per cent of the 4,443 vicars come from ethnic minorities. No doubt we are now heading for quotas to address this scandalous under-representation.'

Or as David Cameron might have said, 'The CofE is hideously white'.

But there's a catch. An opportunity recently presented itself to appoint a black man as Archbishop of Canterbury, the gentleman in question is of course already an Archbishop. But his politics? Oh dear, shall we say, somewhat GAFCON.

What to do? Well way down the pecking order there's an Old Etonian bishop with impeccable Left-liberal leanings, very much a safe pair of hands where gay marriage and other progressive policies are concerned.

So meet the new boss, just like the old boss, and Welby's got the job. In short, where Dave is concerned a white Leftie easily trumps a black right-winger.

There is of course no suggestion that John Sentamu would support the BNP. But where does he stand on other issues? Like Michael Nazir-Ali, Sentamu comes from a country where is Islam is strong, which sharpens his response. Given the Left's love-affair with Islam, will CofE bishops who speak out against Islam now find themselves hauled before the Lord Speaker's Inquisition for being 'Right-wing'?

At least Cameron is consistent. Once again he is allowing the introduction of something that clearly hasn't been thought through. The CofE is indeed being reduced to a propaganda vehicle for Cameron's social policies, and its ability to preach Christ's message is being stripped away.

17 January 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger Philip said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 January 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

clergy cannot be disciplined for lawful political activity

Alas, that's "should not" rather than cannot be disciplined. As we saw with the foster parents case, they could be and they were penalized for lawful political affiliation.

The vicar who supports a party the hierarchy disapproves of will similarly find themselves disciplined and then have to fight a court case, meaning the process will be used as punishment regardless of the outcome. Far from being not-thought through, I believe this legal fig leaf to cover oppressive behaviour by proxy from the state has been very carefully and darkly constructed.

(P.S. Kindest thoughts to David B.)

17 January 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger Philip said...

"if the Church of England were to expend just one tenth of its efforts to the propagation of the Gospel that it devotes to issues of gender or sexual equality, it might just reverse its terminal decline". Precisely. But it seems to view its 'mission' as ensuring it’s in line with secularist lib-left notions of equality rather than unchangeable absolute Biblical truth. Which is why it spend so much time and effort on that ‘mission’.

17 January 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger how life is changing said...

Does equality of persons extend to unborn children?

17 January 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

Your communicants owe you a great debt. Utterly brilliant post.
There will always be a remnant, even when the darkness is at its deepest.

17 January 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger Bridget said...

St. Martin de Porres pray for us.

Bless the Lord, all you angels of his; angels of sovereign strength, that carry out his commandment, attentive to the word he utters; bless the Lord, all you hosts of his, the servants that perform his will; bless the Lord, all you creatures of his, in every corner of his dominion; and thou, my soul, bless the Lord.

St. Martin de Porres pray for us.

17 January 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger michael north said...

If there is any hope for the CofE, it lies in cutting loose from the state; otherwise it is a dead duck.

More than one thousand Catholic priests recently signed a letter warning of the dangers to religious freedom in the direction being taken by the government. Paul Goodman commented that David Cameron was not Henry VIII. Neither was Henry VIII, when he started out. He turned into a monster only after meeting resistance from elements in the church; when they failed to "get with the program", in fact.

17 January 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear all

Martin De Porres (born 1579)is 'supposedly' the patron saint of interracial harmony in R Cism, presumably because he was from mixed race except this is not what he accomplished or was tasked with as a dominican monk? Pray to him?
Like the old pagan gods, R Cism seems to have a patron saint for everything..some things never change, only the names!!!


17 January 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Darren said...

That doesn't sound very inclusive does it? Excluding people. If Jesus ate with tax collectors, would be draw the line at BNP members?

17 January 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Pcm979 said...

All hail the House Un-Anglican Activities Committee!

17 January 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Bridget said...

" And, further, it is not at all clear how prohibiting membership of a racist or discriminatory political party could change a racist or discriminatory heart, with which the Lord is far more concerned."

Bit like saying it's hard to know how incarcerating a preying pedophile could change a preying, pedophiliac heart, with which the Lord is far more concerned. 

Fact is, the Church should have the authority to impose restrictions on the degree to which her priests may participate in party politics. After all, these priests are servants of the Church and for them to indulge in activity that clearly runs counter to the mind of the Church is to undermine that service.
If, as Cranmer points out, it is indefectibly true that racism offends the mind of the Church, then it is equally indefectibly true that promoting a racist political agenda offends the same mind. A mind, incidentally, that is made manifest through properly constituted expression and not by rolling democratic fiat, as if truth were a matter of consensus and policy setting.

17 January 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger Bridget said...

Yes, just like the pagan gods. Nothing that is good shall be lost, it shall all be taken up and comprehended in the truth.
As for Martin, the Church sees herself in the example of his life; one of harmony and equality and charity with his fellow, white brothers. He lived the life and he helps us live ours. 
You should take time out for contemplation.

17 January 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Bridget said...

Further, you should not see it as us praying to Martin, but asking him to pray for us. There is a difference which you seem to miss.

17 January 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"As for Martin, the Church sees herself in the example of his life; one of harmony and equality and charity with his fellow, white brothers. He lived the life and he helps us live ours. " But did not his 'white' brothers live in harmony equality and charity with him..In this racist scenario you picture, is that not a greater miracle then!!
"You should take time out for contemplation" You should just take time out, my girl.

"There is a difference which you seem to miss." THERE IS NONE!!!There is only ONE!!

Young's Literal Translation

1 Timothy 2:5

'for one is God, one also is mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,'

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers.

Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father.

Hebrews 7:25

"Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" .

With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son?

Romans 8:26-27

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
The above describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?


17 January 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

In every sphere our freedoms of thought, conscience, speech, belief and association are being eroded.

Now we can see the true purpose behind "The programme" as Davy boy Cameron puts it.

I just know I will die less free than when I was born.

That CANNOT be right.

17 January 2013 at 14:51  
Blogger graham wood said...

Whatever happened to the Reformation doctrine of the right of private judgement?

Whether it applies to particular views on secondary issues which Christians need to confront, then there is to be full liberty of conscience.
Bishops and 'clergy' have no jurisdiction over political allegiances.
Even the Apostle Paul deliberately refused to interpret his authority in such a way that it could be extended beyond its proper sphere of upholding the truth of the Gospel to become a source of legal norms of any kind for the life of the Church.

17 January 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Calm down that man!

"R Cism seems to have a patron saint for everything."

We do indeed. I'm searching now for the patron Saint of elderly, demented commode huggers. I'll let you know the results as soon as.

17 January 2013 at 15:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Is this chappie (the spell check rendered this word crappie) the 'Rev' (cough, cough) Giles for real?

Lying a positive moral requirement to cover one's sin as a man of God? Jaunts to homosexual clubs for 'Vicar and Tarts' parties where priests dress as whores?

What next?

One asks when the last Christian clergyman will inhabit the Church of England when it permits one of its frocked shepherds to preach this corrosiveness. Racist vicars is the least of its problems.

17 January 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The best I can come up with for you is the Apostle Saint Jude Thaddeus, the "The Miraculous Saint," the Patron Saint of "lost causes" and "cases despaired of".

When all other avenues are closed, he is the one to call upon, and his help often comes at the last moment.

There is hope for you yet!

17 January 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Come to think of it, it might be worthwhile calling upon St Jude to assist the members of the Church of England.


O most holy apostle, St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus - People honour and invoke you universally, as the patron of hopeless cases, of things almost despaired of.

Pray for me, for I am so helpless and alone. Please help to bring me visible and speedy assistance.

Come to my assistance in this great need that I may receive the consolation and help of heaven in all my necessities, tribulations, and sufferings, particularly ( ..... state request .... ) and that I may praise God with you always.

I promise, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favour, to always honour you as my special and powerful patron, and to gratefully encourage devotion to you by publishing this request.


17 January 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger AGS said...

Poor Biofeld. Have you never known any creature so well or with such sympathy or apprehension for their wellbeing that you never prayed for them? Not that God has any “need” for such prayer, but perhaps, being personal like you, he understands the desire, your need even, to express such concern for the other through prayer. Perhaps God finds such prayer beautiful? Perhaps he finds it an eminent expression of the life of grace to which he calls us to participate? Not that God needs our participation in anything. He just wills it.

@Graham Wood: “Whatever happened to the Reformation doctrine of the right of private judgement?”

I don’t know. What doctrine was that? Who formulated it? What authority did they have for so ormulating? Is the doctrine, you know, in the Bible?
I think we should be told. But by someone with authority to say so. Who would that be, do you think? Does the Bible tell us?

17 January 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Dr.D said...

The CoE has totally lost its way, and cares not a fig for freedom of conscience any longer nor for the Gospel of Jesus Christ any longer. It is all about Political Correctness, inclusiveness, making Islam welcome in the UK, advancing sharia law, gay marriage, and the elimination of the native Anglo-Saxon stock of the UK. For shame!! It deserves to wither and die!

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest

17 January 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger David Maximilian Cathmoir Nicoll said...

Shouldn't be a problem really - it only seeks to ban those who belong to a party that advocates a message incompatible with the teachings of the CofE, and as the CofE doesn't stand for anything no one will be punished. Or of course, it will mean no-one can belong to the Conservative party, whose leadership advocates homosexual "marriage" which is currently incompatible with the teachings of the Church. Either way it shows up the CofE.

17 January 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, the Church of England is well on its way to being its own political party. This can only be the explanation for it’s would be political vetting of those who adhere to it. If you proscribe a cleric in this way, for supporting UKIP for example, how do you get them to leave the church ? You can vindictively sack them from their job even if they are exemplarily priests, but to actually prevent them from attending, or calling themselves CoE ?

It is of course UKIP they are referring to. One can imagine the number of clerics supporting the BNP can be counted on the fingers of two hands, but UKIP, now that’s completely different. It’s UKIP that will most likely not allow women bishops, or practicing homosexual priests. UKIP that will repatriate black and brown and white people who shouldn’t be here (…at least one hopes they will…). UKIP that will insist we put Britain first, undermining the religious Marxists in the CoE.

The times, very shortly, will be a changing….

heh heh !

17 January 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Emlyn Uwch Cych. Thank you that man. Have looked up Giles Fraser and his ‘thoughts’. He’s rather obsessed with character compromising homosexuality, don’t you think ? Visiting the Sodoms that are gay clubs indeed ! Well beyond healthy ! One can see Christ doing that, to preach to the buggers and get them to repent, but not mere Giles Fraser. Somehow one doesn’t associate the notion of repentance with him…

Still, unlike those CoE commissars with UKIP people, one wouldn’t sack him for it. But under the new regime, he wouldn’t be holding higher office again.

17 January 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One wonders if there is any co-incidence with this CoE ‘initiative’ and the announcement that from 2014, this country will be invaded by 50000 benefit hungry and wage driving down Romanians and Bulgarians. That’s 50000 a year by the way, every year from now until either kingdom come, Romania and Bulgaria are depopulated or more likely, the UK economy comes crashing down, petrol having reached £ 2 a litre to pay for the upkeep of our guests.

Why we have a housing crisis now is not fully understood by this man, because if there is room for that lot, why are there massive housing waiting lists for the indigenous population ? Of course, as we all know, if you are white and British, you take your turn on the queue. If you’re a non white or non British recent arrival, you are spared that inconvenience apparently…

And something else you should all know, there is nothing the UK government can do to stop them coming, because unlike the rest of the EU, we play the game and obey the rules.

It just goes to show, this Marxist-EU organisation we apparently can’t do without is going to rob our youth (20% unemployment) of THEIR future. It’s never too early for the bastard traitors in government to wreck the livelihoods of the next generation. Let’s hope the victim young NEVER forget this and come to realise UKIP is our last chance…

17 January 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dr.D: "It is all about Political Correctness, inclusiveness, making Islam welcome in the UK, advancing sharia law, gay marriage, and the elimination of the native Anglo-Saxon stock of the UK."

They even have bishops in the church itself in England who are not of native Anglo-Saxon stock! Where will it end! :O

17 January 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Losing weight ? Gaunt ? Pack a suitcase, order a taxi and get yourself off to hospital tonight. You are clearly too ill to be left alone, if you are alone as one remembers you once said. If there is no room for you there, tell them to send the medical treatment tourists home, or at the very least park them in a corridor. It’s all very well you being a liberal atheist doormat when you are well, but when you are deserving yourself…

17 January 2013 at 17:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

These so-called saints are dead and in the grave. They have no conduit to the Almighty. Indeed the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy proscribes the practise of communication with the dead.

We have one mediator and advocate: Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5

"On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,"

17 January 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It’s UKIP that will most likely not allow women bishops, or practicing homosexual priests."

Or some sorts of behaviour from UKIP constituency association chairpeople by the look of it.

17 January 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Did someone mention the Reformation principle of 'private judgement'?

In effect, this means: - “You have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for yourself, but we will cast you out if you disagree with something we consider important.”

17 January 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger David B said...

Thank you for the thought, Inspector, but my sister arrived from Scotland to look after me last Sunday, and I am doing better since she arrived.

Trouble with Hospitals is that there are too many infectious sick people in them. I would have been sent there last week were it not for concerns about that vomiting and diarrhoea bug that has been doing the rounds, and which may or may not have contributed to by feeling so bad for the last few weeks, along with reactions to chemo. I tend to think it was a combination of the two, as do the local District Nurses.

It would be hard to exaggerate how horrible I've been feeling for much of the time.


17 January 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Don't look now, but private judgment is what you used to determine your evaluation of the RCC as the One True Church.


17 January 2013 at 18:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Joyous news David B. May God speed your revival and recovery old chap...

Incidentally, you could have asked to be barrier nursed in hospital you know. Worth keeping that in mind...

17 January 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Agreed. Julia was harming the party by publically expressing her views. But in her defence, it is refreshing to find at least ONE politician not prostituting their values by chasing after the tiny homo vote...

17 January 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger Bridget said...

Carl Jacobs:

Oh but the difference Carl is that in Dodo’s assent through private judgment he subordinates himself to the faith that addresses him through Christ’s Church and her Scriptural testimony, whereas through your private judgment you would subordinate the faith, Christ’s Church and her Scriptural testimony to yourself.
“Senseless Galatians, who is it that has cast a spell on you, that you should refuse your loyalty to the truth, you, before whom Jesus Christ has been exposed to view on his cross? Let me be content with asking you one question, Was it from observance of the law that the Spirit came to you, or from obeying the call of faith?”

17 January 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...

To appropriate the words of Churchill, in his famous Munich Agreement speech in 1938, this will be
“…the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health, martial vigour we arise and take our stand for freedom as in olden times

17 January 2013 at 20:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Very sad Julia to see UKIP caving into pressure from Pink News et al. A grave mistake I believe. The half a dozen stories on the removal of homosexual Olly Nevile from UKIP under banner Gay Tory: UKIP are behaving like the Communist Party make sobering reading. It is almost like homosexuality and all its character traits are unstoppable.

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

carl Jacobs said...
Don't look now, but private judgment is what you used to determine your evaluation of the RCC as the One True Church."

(Ah but was it free will and private judgement or was it predestined and my decision predetermined by God?)

Most Catholics will at point question their faith or some aspect of the Church's teachings.

The pre-Reformation idea that theology must be formulated according to three principles –Apostolic Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Apostolic Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church, is one I examined.

The rest followed.

The first two of these provides the data necessary to conduct theological investigation while the third serves to authoritatively formulate the correct interpretation of the data presented by the two material sources.

Thus Scripture and Tradition serve as material principles of theology, while the Magisterium, by enabling us to know with certainty the correct interpretation of this material, serves as a formal principle of theology.

Once this is understood and accepted then private judgement becomes essentially relegated to the Magisterium.

Protestant Reformers wished to hold teachings which were completely foreign to historic Christian theology. They had to reject the historic Christian method of formulating theology, and thus could not continue to accept the three principles of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. They had to reject the teachings of the Magisterium because the Magisterium disagreed with them, and they likewise had to reject Tradition as a source, for it also disagreed with them. They were thus left in the position of trying to formulate theology in terms of a single principle – Scripture– and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura was born.

The problem then arose as to how one is to formulate doctrines if one has rejected what has historically been the formal principle? What formal principal will you propose in its place?

The answer? In the absence of some group of Christians who were divinely commissioned with the task of formulating the material of theology, the individual himself must be divinely commissioned with this task. Thus the doctrine of an absolute right to private judgment – to decide for oneself what the correct interpretation of Scripture is – was created.

17 January 2013 at 21:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 January 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

When you said prayer to saint jude, I thought you were going to start singing 'hey jude'!

17 January 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

If the "far right" is to be dealt with, why not also the "far left"? As far as I am concerned one is just as bad as the other, indeed I see the political spectrum as a circle, and whether you go to the far right or the far left you end up with the same thing. Or are these people saying Hitler was worse than Stalin, something that I'd be happy to dispute.

17 January 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Charles Dawne said...

The UKIP adoption scandal was the Left just testing the waters - in time they will check again, and again to see what they can get away with.

This move by the CofE is just the thin end of the wedge. What is classed as 'far right' now will be different in five years time when cultural Marxism will have made further avenues into the public's lives.

17 January 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger David B said...

I just don't understand how people like Charles Dawne above can believe anything quite so out of touch with reality.

Is he so youthful, so foreign, or just so historically ignorant that he does not realise how far to the right the country has moved since the days when something that might well have been loosely called cultural Marxism did hold sway, back in thedays of Wilson, Heath, Home, Mac, when vast tracts of the economy were publicly owned.

Water, electricity, gas, public transport, communications, all or pretty much all tv, much of the car and aerospace agency....

Seriously, Charles, stop talking such arrant nonsense.

David B

17 January 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. One fears cultural Marxism is too sophisticate a model for you to get your head around. It has little to do with nationalised industries, but much to do with nationalised thought...

17 January 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

17 January 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The full passage is more illuminating:

"It is the part of man to prepare the soul: and of the Lord to govern the tongue. All the ways of a man are open to his eyes: the Lord is the weigher of spirits.

Lay open thy works to the Lord: and thy thoughts shall be directed. The Lord hath made all things for himself: the wicked also for the evil day.

Every proud man is an abomination to the Lord: though hand should be joined to hand, he is not innocent. The beginning of a good way is to do justice; and this is more acceptable with God, than to offer sacrifices."

Not so 'predetermined', don't you think?

18 January 2013 at 00:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"I'm searching now for the patron Saint of elderly, demented commode huggers." As long as it's not St Vitus, for those involuntary movements whilst running to and getting on the commode.

Mrs B reminded me of some 'others' here on Cranmer's blog with a strange request.
She actually asked me to set up 3 Facebook accounts under various assumed female names. Ernst asked why she felt the need to do this as she has her own, replete with friends?

"I will still use my own account but as none of my real friends ask the questions I want from them or give the answers I would like to hear, I have decided to give myself some loyal supportive 'friends', who will respond how I want, when i want".

Bit like Rigsby, who sent Christmas cards to himself but then wondered who hey were from as he had problems reading his own writing!

The blog disease that abides here appears to be highly infectious and has brought down 'her indoors'!! * Huge sniggers, chortles, chuckles and snorts*


18 January 2013 at 01:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Oh dear, not back to that are we? Evidence dear chap, otherwise it is "bearing false witness" and that, my friend, is a serious sin.

18 January 2013 at 02:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Evidence dear chap, otherwise it is "bearing false witness" and that, my friend, is a serious sin."

As is idolatry, praying to dead saints etc but don't let little things such as these spoil your religious piety and do remember some people were chastised and 'fessed' to said terrible sins on this blog.

Mother Church does love a good catholic and it gives so much to tell padre about in the box! *multum ridere*

Na Night Dikkie

18 January 2013 at 03:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 04:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

You know the study you guys keep quoting (knowingly or unknowingly) to justify the claim of 25,000 ... typically the claim is 35000 ... Protestant denominations also listed around 1000 RC denominations.

You did know that, right?


18 January 2013 at 05:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Dodo’s assent through private judgment he subordinates himself to the faith that addresses him through Christ’s Church and her Scriptural testimony

There are many claimants to the title of infallible interpreter. How did you come to choose the RCC? Could you determine it from Scripture? No, you can't understand Scripture without the Magisterium. Tradition? No, you have no access to Tradition absent the Magisterium. Upon what basis then did you make this private judgment about Rome?

In fact, you presume the authority of Rome and then submit yourself to its dogmas. In so doing, you remove from yourself any ability to use scripture to correct the dogmatic errors of Rome. As I have said many times, the difference between a RC and Protestant is that a RC presumes about the Magisterium what a Protestant presumes about Scripture.


18 January 2013 at 05:26  
Blogger John Magee said...


There is the one Catholic (Universal)and Church with the Bishop of Rome as it's head. It has a Latin rite in the West and also Many Eastern Rite Churches in the Ukraine and eastern Slovakia. There are also several ancient rites (going back to the time of the Apostle's) in Middle East and in Egypt as well as Iraq and even in India who use the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy but their beliefs are completely in agreement with the Magisterium in Rome. So I would imagine there are probably at least 10 rites in the Catholic Church. All in union with and all recognizing the pope as the successor of St Peter and head of the Universal (in Greek Katolikos) Church.

I forgot the ancient Arab Maronite Catholic's in Lebanon. Until 1973 they were 54% of the population There. Their rite goes back to the time of the Apostle's too. They are also in union with Rome.

Please list 10 of these so called 1,000 "catholic" churches. Please remember they must be in union with Rome.

If there are 1,000 I am stunned. This would be the most incredible job of rewriting and inventing church history ever recorded.


18 January 2013 at 06:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And it shall come to pass
 that from one New Moon to another, 
and from one Sabbath to another, 
all flesh shall come to worship before Me, says the Lord.

And they shall go forth and look 
upon the corpses of the men
 who have transgressed against Me. 
For their worm does not die, 
and their fire is not quenched. 
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

What a contrast.

Towards the end of days there will be a universal celebration, as all people will come to Jerusalem to worship Jesus the Messiah and celebrate the Lord’s feasts. But as they come they will see the horror of those who transgressed and are eternally burned with fire.


18 January 2013 at 07:31  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, would you be kind enough to explain cultural Marxism? I did, perhaps, miss a distinction between Marxism and Cultural Marxism.

I am not at my best at the moment.

I do seem to remember in my youth reading about a distinction between Marxist and Marxian, the former applying to politics, activism, revolution and stuff, the latter to a very real and very important paradigm shift regarding the study of history,

In short, as I recall it, pre Marx history was pretty much the study of the acts of the great and the good (or bad) whereas post Marx history was viewed from a wider viewpoint, with special ref to the effect of economic pressures on the course of events.

Since then other viewpoints have been seen as useful in understanding how things went. Technology, access to resources..

Something I've found interesting is to look at major historical changes (changes in dynasties, stuff like that) alongside periods when tree ring anomalies indicate periods of climatic stress.

But that is an aside. As I understand it Marxian is a concept regarding the study of history from points of view other than the acts of men. As such it was an important and sensible shift.


18 January 2013 at 08:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Ernsty and Dodo

I hope you are both wrapping up warm and have plenty of food in the house- this weather is going to be really bad over the next couple of days and you older folk need to be especially aware of keeping warm etc...

18 January 2013 at 09:50  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

And also for those who aren't well either, like David B. Glad to read that your sister is there to help. Take care.

18 January 2013 at 09:54  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

This presbyter believes that no cleric should be a member of any secular party as he considers they are set apart as a separate "estate of the the Realm."
This enables him to proclaim God's Law [and the infringements therof] effectively to parties of left, right and the middle without bias.

Mr Blofeld and Tiddles

"Dzień Dobry" to you both.
As No 1[now emeritus?] of SPECTRE can I really believe that you have "embraced the LORD?" and, even if you wanted to, would the cat [I have always thought that it was the real No. 1 hiding, with devilish and low fiendish feline cunning, between the human] let you?
Anyhows-it is, of course, without question that the LORD could do everything for us if He so wished, but He doesn't as He likes us to have a share in the workings of His Creation [Think of Angels and Disciples]. Otherwise we would be mere dependent infants or slaves.
It is an error, in my opinion, to think of the material and spirtual worlds and separate and distinct and that there is no communication between them.
Therefore, as in Earth, when one is unable to do something for himself, he asks for help. Similarly, when one is need, we can ask for spiritual help. This can range from the mundane to sublime. But, as one wouldn't bother the LORD when one wants say a new washer on a tap, so we wouldn't bother Him when we cannot find our keys. However St Anthony [in charge of the Heavenly Office for Finding Lost Objects [HOFLO] is delighted to assist.
An American Lady [prot. I think] once gave me the best description of Heaven and Hell I've ever read.
In Hell, every wish, every desire is instantly and fully granted to the point of satiation-and beyond.
In Heaven, one is given a problem and, when it is solved, the reward is a to be receive a more challenging one.
It is realistic to think that, give that we are "sons by adoption" that we do not sit idly in Heaven with the only the occasional "casting down of a golden crown" to enliven the ennui. No, I feel certain that we will be active and useful helping run the LORD's realms.
God bless [this includes the cat of course!]

18 January 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Found the saint for senile demented commode huggers.
Saint Austremoine Issoire Rosy Bottom
If you ask him Blowers he will stop you getting stuck in the hole and remove your head from your sunless dark place:)

Any more of this nasty born again old man rant agin Catholics and nursie is going to wheel you into a Church and force you to sit next to the decaying corpses... you know,the ones in the glass display cases that all Catholic Churches have.. if you put 3 quid in the slot they sit upright and sing " Hail Queen of Heaven"

18 January 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Galant said...

Wasn't going to comment but since I've been thinking about it lately - and Carl has beaten me to it somewhat (and Carl, would you do me the honour of emailing me some time?) - Dodo, you mentioned three things, Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium but is it not the case that in fact there are only two because Tradition and the Magesterium are in fact one and the same thing?

18 January 2013 at 12:21  
Blogger Galant said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 12:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Today's Tory Diary page of Conservative Home suggests for the first time from the Tory's that Cameron might lose on on His pro homosexual (so called) 'marriage' Bill. Praise God. Here is the link

18 January 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...

"In fact, you presume the authority of Rome and then submit yourself to its dogmas."

No, I accept the words of Christ concerning St Peter and Apostolic authority and the way this developed as indicated in The Acts of the Apostles. It is really clear to me from the Gospels that Jesus established a Priesthood, a Church invested with His authority until His return and Apostolic succession is documented. Add to this that nowhere in Scripture does it say Christianity and its unfolding understanding depends on Scripture alone - quite the contrary - and the decision was easy.

"In so doing, you remove from yourself any ability to use scripture to correct the dogmatic errors of Rome. As I have said many times, the difference between a RC and Protestant is that a RC presumes about the Magisterium what a Protestant presumes about Scripture."

No. In doing so I accept the Church through its Divine teaching authority has the responsibility to lead.

As I've said, Protestant Reformers wished to promote teachings at odds with historic Christian theology. They had to reject the historic Christian method of formulating theology and could not accept the principles of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. The teachings of the Magisterium had to be rejected because the Magisterium disagreed with the Reformers. They also had to reject Tradition because it also disagreed with them. All that was left was formulating theology in terms of a single principle – Scripture.

But how one is to formulate doctrines if one has rejected what has historically been the formal principle? What formal principle was proposed in its place?

Individual personal judgement in interpreting Scripture entered the scene - it had to. And it clearly doesn't lead to Truth!

Let's take the Calvinist Presbyterian denominations in Scotland today as an example. We have the 'Church of Scotland', the 'Free Church of Scotland', the 'United Free Church of Scotland', the 'Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)', the 'Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland', the (*gasps breath*) 'Associated Presbyterian Church (Associated Presbyterian Churches)', and (almost forgot one) the 'Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland'. I've lost track of the theological nuances and differences between them and their different confessions of faith.

And in the United States, because of doctrinal differences, the situation is more confusing. Presbyterian churches often overlap, with congregations of many different Presbyterian groups in any one place. We have the 'Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'. the 'Presbyterian Church in America', the 'Orthodox Presbyterian Church', the 'Evangelical Presbyterian Church', the 'Reformed Presbyterian Church', the 'Bible Presbyterian Church', the 'Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church'. the 'Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America', the 'Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States', 'The Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians', and (*sharp intake of breath*) the 'Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States'.

Are you seriously arguing that this confusing tapestry is what Jesus Christ wants for His people? He wanted shepherds for one flock - not competing shepherds ushering the sheep in different directions!

18 January 2013 at 14:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

We may disagree on matters theological however, this does not excuse you bearing false witness.

Repent, apologise and do shut up, there's a good chap. One can make only so much allowance for your confused, befuddled state.

(Three Hail Mary's and three Our Father's will suffice as a penance given your age.)

Why thank you for your concern.

I have abandoned the Kelvin Klein's for now and am wearing extra thick thermal underwear - vests and long-johns. Very cosy they are too.

18 January 2013 at 14:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Galant said...

Dodo - again, Tradition and the Magesterium are the same, for as far as I can tell, and I've looked, the Tradition or Traditions are no where to be seen. It is an invisible authority alleged to be known by the Magesterium but which is never itself presented. So it is that we have three supposed authorities, but in reality, on two visible ones, and of those two, only one can be primary, and the primary authority in all practicality is the Magesterium.

Carl's last point remains pertinent, Roman Catholics treat the Magesterium as Protestants do Scripture.

18 January 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Nonsense, Mr Falant!

Do you know nothing of early Church history in formulating the sacraments, for instance?

And how do you answer Scripture where authority is invested in Peter, the Apostles and where a Priesthood is established? Apart, that is, from arguing over whether it is 'Rock' or 'rock'. Or the fact the New Testament is silent on the unscriptural doctrine of 'scripture alone' and, indeed, contradicts it?

18 January 2013 at 16:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

David B

Cultural Marxism today is defined by political correctness (this term was coined by the Soviets after WW II to give a name to the process they used to "reeducate" the peoples of Eastern and Central Europe the Red Armies had suppoesdly liberated) and the enormous influence the far left has in our media, educational institutions, and pop culture. Cultural Marxism today uses PCness to tell us how we should think and what we can say in order that we do not "offend others". By doing this the Cultural Marxists cleverly censor anyone (without any legal authority), cleverly undermining our freedom of speech through "guilt", name calling, and personal threats who dares contradict their efforts.

For example: Anyone who denies Global Warming, is against Gay "marriage" because of religious beliefs, loves their country, or hates abortion also because of religious beliefs they are immediately labled a "Nazi".

Cultural Marxists use their influence in the media, our educational institutions,and pop culture to brainwash young people to hate their national traditions, culture, race (but only if the happen to be white), ashamed of the past accomplishments of their individual nation's and religion. They do all this by rewriting history.

I am ashamed to say that the American movie director and producer Oliver Stone is doing a wonderful job for the left by making his counterfactual PC versions of history in his movies and documentaries. Michael Moore does the same thing in his own unique lying and obnoxious way.

We see this around us everyday and over and over in articles posted here by HG. The left, supported by the Cultural Marxists who degrade our Western Christian Culture, delight in the total moral and societal collapse we see around us every day. They hate Christianity, our traditions and values, and most of all Western Christian Civilization and all it stands for. This is their enemy. Nothing has changed since the Russian Revolution other than the fact the Left has embraced stuff Marx and lenin could never have dreamed of: radical environmentalism, radical feminism, special Gay rights, global warming, and even radical Islam.

They will support anything from legalized drugs to all forms of abortion as a form of birth control to undermine our values and destroy individual lives on their path to create another "utopia".

The tens of millions of bodies the left in unmarked graves during the last century in the USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, etc are their memorials to past forced uropia's in the name of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro,Che Gueverra, Pol Pot, etc. are their memorial to the failure of Marxism. They want to start the evil process all over.

This is Cultural Marxism, it's past, present, and future.

Most of HG articles are in some way about this attack on our religion and culture by the Cultural Marxists.

18 January 2013 at 16:49  
Blogger Galant said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 16:50  
Blogger Galant said...

All of that is aside from the issue. I don't deny that orthodox Christian teaching existed which was not written down. The issue is whether that unwritten teaching is vitally different from what is recorded in Scripture as is suggested by the three-legged stool analogy.

So Dodo, the very simple question is, if Tradition exists in the vital way that the RC church says that it does, and I've honestly wondered this - so maybe you can put my mind to rest - why has it never been written down or shared? Why does it remain 'invisible'? All of Christian teaching was at once time verbal only, so why, when the Church decided it was a good idea to write that teaching down, did it decided not to write down all of it that is so vital for the proper understanding of the rest of it? Why would the Church not solidify the orthodox faith beyond such erroneous Protestant heresy by providing those writings? Why would it not protect the precious gospel from the threat of loss faced by the martyrdom of its teachers? Most of all, if it exists now, why won't someone show those teachings plainly?

The truth is that Tradition doesn't exist in the way the RCC teaches and this is evidenced by the fact that the RCC itself is divided over the issue of the nature of Tradition. Is tradition a collection of teachings not found in the Scriptures but which are complementary? Are they actually nothing different but simply complimentary expositions of what can be read? So on and so forth go the questions.

Ultimately the only real answer to the question, 'What is Tradition?' is, "It is the invisible, untouchable doctrine which gives indisputable authority to the Magesterium."

And so we find that the RCC fully understands that a two-legged stool is unstable, and so provides a third leg. Fortunately, the stool in question is an immaterial stool, the falling off of which cannot be demonstrated until after death, and therefore the stability of which must be taken by faith. This being the case, the third, invisible leg of Tradition provides indemonstrable stability for a stool that is entirely imagined in the first place. Last I checked, "my hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness". Stools, imaginary or otherwise, don't enter into it.

18 January 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Luther said...

Surely, and logically, as your thinking is, Your Grace - if any CofE minister (of whichever of the three orders) supported\supports Obama publicly they should be thrown out - give that Obama is pro-abortion. Or is the CofE now pro-abortion and I've missed that change?

18 January 2013 at 17:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Sacred Tradition comes from Christ. It's the full, living gift of Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through each generation. Sacred Tradition is what the Church has done and believed in since the time of Christ.

Scripture testifies to Tradition as the normal mode of transmitting the Faith:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
(2 Thess 2:15)

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...."
(1 Cor 11:23)

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received...."
(1 Cor 15:3)

"...I know whom I have believed [i.e., Jesus], and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us."
(2 Tim 1:11-14)

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
(2 Tim 2:1-2)

"...I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
(Jude 1:3)

The Apostles by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.

Catholic Tradition stands with Scripture in forming the one single deposit of the Faith. For Catholics, Sacred Tradition is not in opposition to Scripture: they compliment and confirm one another.

Vatican II's Dei Verbum says:

"Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity."

What happens if we jettison Sacred Tradition and let Sacred Scripture stand on its own?

Heresies based on modern culture start to creep into the interpretations of scripture. New people pop up who say that the Eucharist is only symbolic, and not the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ (the word "symbolic" is not mentioned in scripture. None of the writings of the Early Church Fathers used the word either, always referring to the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus). Artificial birth control and abortion become part of certain churches' "OK list" too. And today, Episcopalians and Lutherans are saying that it's acceptable to have practicing homosexual ministers and homosexual marriage.

The Catholic Church guarantees the faithful handing on of the Word of God through the teaching authority of the Pope and his Bishops. The Magisterium ensures that no erroneous doctrine or heresy pops up to lead the people astray. Like a three legged stool, the trinity of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium makes sure that the Word of God is faithfully handed on to each succeeding generation.

If any of the three legs goes away, error is certain to creep in, like in many protestant churches today who interpret scripture based on their personal opinion of what they think it says. Sin is now being enshrined in many of their doctrines as they overturn centuries of their tradition with a simple majority vote of their delegates!

18 January 2013 at 17:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Cultural Marxism is what is happening right now under our noses. We see it in the CoE. We see it Parliament. Complete abandonment of what went before and a new control by the senior Marxists of today. A new way of doing things. But to achieve that there has to be changes - the following has to happen first.

One. Complete abandonment of the old ways. They were wrong apparently, every one of them.

Two. We must be ‘Inclusive’. Now that means not just accepting minorities, but championing them. The cultural changers have been practicing on black / brown types for years. Now it’s the homosexuals turn. Remember, if you are not inclusive enough, and you have a public life, they will pillory you for it.

Three. Redefinition of received wisdom. Similar to point one, but with people. The chosen few speak for all of us, apparently. Religion is by Dawkins. Sexual morals is by Tatchell. The family by any feminist. Society by Cameron.

Four. Individual free thought suppressed in favour of the majority. The majority of course is what the cultural Marxists says it is.

Five. The individual must be dependant on the state. The ultimate is to tax everything you earn, then give it back to you as ‘benefits’.

Everything is of the sameness. It can only be a matter of time before Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms is replaced by ‘comrade’ or ‘citizen’. There must be no deviation from the norm. Don’t think you, think us.

An absolutely awful future awaits free men…

18 January 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Avellanos said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 January 2013 at 17:48  
Blogger Galant said...

Dodo - Erm, none of that addressed any of my questions.

I shall take it, once again, that my assumptions about the nature of Tradition are valid - no-one has a clue what Tradition actually is or says, it's just an illusory third leg to an illusory stool devised to provide illusory support to help people believe the teachings of certain men.

Or have I jumped the gun and you are going to actually answer my questions soon?

18 January 2013 at 17:49  
Blogger John Magee said...


Well said. I agree with many, but not all, of your views. Please remember the Catholic Church (East and West), is an ancient institution and it has accumulated a train load of traditions since Pentecost. The Church is a humane institution and wants it's childrn to feel at home and comfortable in it's churches and in their personal lives which traditions accomplish. The problems arise when a church (or any ancient or even a not so old established institituion) starts to make drastic changes becauses it imgines this will bring back the people as we see in the example of the C of E which has for decades caved into fads and will immediately conform to passing social and even political crazes which vainly allows it's leaders and many of it's clerics to feel good about themselves. Pope Benedict XVI does not suffer from this form of religious vanity.

Feel good religion doesn't survive very long. This process of change for change sake causes enormous pain among the faithful and anger starts to rise. They will lose, as many already have, their faith in the national church. The C of E is changing the rules in the middle of the game and still wants the visual perks of ancient traditions to make it look good. It's people are not dumb. They reject this arrogance by their leaders.

The C of E wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They forget you can only have it so good. You can't have it all and it's people know it.

18 January 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Erm ... I did actually. The problem is you want a concrete text labelled 'Sacred Tradition' which is accessible. This is a misconception of Sacred Tradition.

If you're genuinely interested, have a read of these sites:

John Magee
As a professing Catholic you would do well to properly understand one of the cornerstones of your supposed faith.

18 January 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger Charles Dawne said...

Only just came back to this post. Good to see others who are able to educate Mr David B.

Thanks be to OIG and Mr Magee.

18 January 2013 at 21:02  
Blogger David B said...

Hmm. I don't really see what Inspector says has to do with Marxism, cultural or otherwise.

Cultural Marxism doesn't seem to have been invented when my formal education was going on.

I can agree, without necessarily agreeing with the precise details, that there is some sort of tendency towards group-think in some areas of life.

Implicit assumptions that causing offence is something to be avoided at all costs, the idea that faith is good independently of the truth of it, stuff like that.

But, unless someone can further educate me otherwise, the connection with Marxism seems tenuous to the point of non existence.

Maybe someone with a down on anything to do with Marx coined the phrase in order to spuriously hint at guilt by association? Or something?


18 January 2013 at 21:28  
Blogger Galant said...

Dodo, I'll take a look at those sites, however, the issue still remains. Tradition, is seems, cannot be simply defined or explained. It's always shrouded in mystery and abstract explanations. I referred to the three-legged stool before you mentioned it, questioning the nature of that third leg, and yet you simply rattled it off as though it's nature is self-evident. The fact remains that it's not. I find this surprising because generally the arguments given for Tradition tend to paint a clear picture of what sort of thing Tradition is without ever revealing the specifics.

The first of these are the Scriptures you yourself quoted. In them we finds terms like "handed on", "received", "teachings", "truth", "sound words", "teach", "entrust" and so on. All of these, especially those that compare writings with the spoken word in the same breath, plainly suggest some sort of teaching or explanation which can be spoken or written and which can be passed on correctly or incorrectly.

Second, we are often given the Old Testament time oral tradition as an example of what is meant by tradition. Historically we know that for however long any specific story or message was passed along orally, it could be, and was, eventually written down.

Then you yourself referred to Tradition as a "source", and that "it" is "something" which is complementary to Scripture.

All of these, as plainly understood, and I think it is fair to say that as Tradition is usually presented and explained, show Tradition to be something which is real and specific which can be learned and transmitted. They show tradition as stories, or teachings.

Again, all of Scripture, Old and New, was at one time oral teaching (perhaps with the exception of the Epistles), and then later they were written down.

What I want to know therefore, is, if Tradition is presented this way by the RCC, then can we say that Tradition is a collection of specific teachings and/or stories passed down from Pope and Elder and Bishop and Cardinal to their future generations. I don't so much care if a textual document exists right now. What I want to know if whether Tradition is a specific collection of teachings which are taught from generation to generation as is plainly suggested.

Then, if so, the next question I so earnestly desire to ask is, why hasn't that beloved teaching being written down or declared?

18 January 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger Galant said...

However, if the Tradition of the RCC is not specific, if it is not a certain collection of truths and sayings and teachings and stories, I want to know exactly what its nature is, because that plainly means it is not at all similar to the Old Testament oral traditions, nor is it like the other teachings and truths which the Church taught and passed down.

I believe this is very important, because a specific collection of teachings is finite and, even if they go to validate every single RC dogma presented to the present day and even beyond, they will apply only to help interpret or explain the rest of Scripture (as is always asserted).

If, though, Tradition does not refer to a specific collection of teachings, if Tradition is not finite or limited, then not only is not like any other oral tradition, but it becomes some sort of abstract authority, something which can be applied as and how and when the person(s) in authority chooses and gives them carte blanche to write whatever teachings and gospel they so please.

As we know, humans are sinful, and many have desired and attempted to do that very thing. So this desire is not the expression of an irrational thought or fear. It is the desire for truth, plainly presented.

If RC Tradition is not the passing down of real teachings and truths, then I call deception on the part of all those who knowingly sold and sell it as such. For this sort of thing has been the hallmark of deceivers and false gospels throughout the centuries.

I do not by any means intend to condemn all Roman Catholics to damnation, I never could make such a determination. I know a number of friends and family who are true Christians and RC. Nor do I wish to present all Protestant or Evangelical believers as certain of finding their name written in the Lamb's book. All such knowledge belongs only to God.

What I want to do, earnestly, and hungrily, is get to the truth. To discover it and dig it up daily. Sadly, we live in a world when not everyone cares for or defends the truth. As mentioned there are many, on all sides, under every name, who have desired to profit by the gospel in a worldly fashion. Men and women who have prized money and power and pride over grace and love and the knowledge of God and salvation.

Paul condemned such people.

So then, what I want to know, is, can this ever so important Tradition of the RCC (by which their distinctive beliefs are defined) by itself defined and presented, or will it forever be shrouded in mystery and secrecy, never to see the light of day outside the halls of Rome?

If so, why? Why keep such wonderful, eternal truth, locked up for only a special few? Because whatever may be said about a Scriptural defense of Tradition, I struggle to see any such defense for secrecy.

So which is it? A collection of specific truths, sayings, teachings and the like which have actually been passed down as suggested, or some invisible, unknowable, inscrutable thing?

As you said, "As a professing Catholic you would do well to properly understand one of the cornerstones of your supposed faith."

18 January 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Don’t take ‘Marxism’ so literally. Look at what Marxism hoped to achieve and ultimately failed, and compare to what our ‘popular’ illuminati would bounce us into now. There is precious little difference. Few seem to appreciate this. Don’t make the mistake of boxing in Marxism to revolutionary Russia. It’s here, in the UK today, and unlike Russia and the desperate poverty associated, it’s an evil discussed and encouraged here at middle class dinner tables ...

18 January 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


But you haven't read the links, have you? Do so and we can then discuss this fruitfully.

Sacred Tradition is as much a consciousness as a specific set of maxims. It is wholly different to the Judaic oral law, supposedly given to Moses by God on Sinai and then millennia later written down in the Talmud.

Sacred Tradition unfolds as the Church grows in understanding. An example is Mary's Assumption into Heaven. The Church holds this was always believed and taught by the Apostles and early Christians. Yet it is not in Scripture but exists in early records of the Church. Through the Magisterium, this was declared a dogma of the Church as its significance became better understood. Other doctrines flow from it and likewise it rests on other beliefs such as her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity and life without sin. These are Traditions long held by the Church and passed down and more fully revealed by the Holy Spirit. Another example is the Real Presence. Catholics maintain it is in Scripture, as is the basis of a Priesthood, yet it is disputed by some. Sacred Tradition maintains it has always been recognised but it had to be taught using philosophical concepts available at the time. It's the same with infant Baptism; always believed and taught infallibly by the Church. So too, the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, the Church in Council and Papal infallibility. Again, these doctrines developed as the truth became more fully understood. It was Sacred Tradition that gave us our Christology and our belief in the Triune God. Neither are clearly stated in Scripture.

I could go on ...

18 January 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger David B said...

Would that be metaphorical or allegorical Marxism or what, Inspector?

I keep being told not to take things literaally, biblical and otherwise, and yet I keep seeing points about sexuality, women clergy, stuff like that being discussed on the basis of very literal interpretations of texts from Leviticus, Paul etc.

All very confusing to someone actually concerned about the truth of things.


18 January 2013 at 23:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Obviously the new age participants are not about to implement the teachings of Karl Marx per se. But using the term Marxism to describe the all controlling all binding ideas that THEY have to offer in a state controlling atmosphere are chains enough, don’t you think.

One wonders what the fate of dissenters will be....

By the way, the truth is what this man is after also, whatever the weather – welcome aboard...

18 January 2013 at 23:35  
Blogger David B said...

More than a touch of irony in using the buzz-word Marxist to describe a state controlling atmosphere when Marx himself was very much the anti-statist, though, don't you think?

Problem was that in practical terms most of his ideas involved a view of humanity that was out of touch with reality. With terrible consequences in practice.

In retrospect, however, viewing history from the POV of economics, and then, by extension, all sorts of other PsOV, as opposed to the acts of kings and generals, was a great contribution to the understanding of history, for which he rarely gets any credit.

BTW, was the fate of dissenters better in some sort of Conservative CoE golden age?

Fox and the Wesleys on the one hand, Bradlaugh and Foote on the other, didn't, as I recall, have an easy time of it, any more than those concerned with universal suffrage and the rights of the Irish and other - in their day - colonials.

So many people who comment on this blog seem to think that everything is heading downhill fast, when actually we are more free than we used to be in many ways. For one thing the influence of the Church has faded enough for us to be able to play and/or watch cricket on Sundays.

I'll try and get some sleep now - my sleep patterns are pretty shot at the moment though.


19 January 2013 at 00:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 January 2013 at 04:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

David B

Please remember that neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels ever worked a day doing physical labor in their entire lives. Marx lived off his wife's family wealth and Engels also lived quite well on his family's wealth most of his life too. Though he did write numerous books on subjects you can guess and you will be correct. It's interesting that two of his books were about the Reformation. One was the life of Martin Luther and the other about the peasants revolt after the Reformation. He spent the last few years of his life in genteel poverty in London.

It's amazing Marx and Engels, those hero's of the working class and left today, never rubbed shoulders or associated with those same unwashed masses (in the 19th century those were honest workers. Today's unwashed masses are usually left wing stuedenst at our finest schools and universities). For Mar and engels the working classes and class struggle were great in theory but not in practice. Just like their ilk today. The "occupy movement" losers being the latest example.

These two Parasites inspired parasitism. Living off of the sweat and labor of others which is what the modern welfare state is all about.

Are you aware the German born Marx and Engels died in England and not Russia as many people assume? Marx is buried in a cemetary near London and Engels ashes were scattered off of coast of Eastbourne on the English Channel.

19 January 2013 at 04:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


No, I accept the words of Christ concerning St Peter and Apostolic authority and the way this developed as indicated in The Acts of the Apostles. It is really clear to me from the Gospels that Jesus established a Priesthood, a Church invested with His authority until His return and Apostolic succession is documented.

So ... let me get this straight. You used private judgment in order to conclude that you can't use private judgment.

I just love Roman Catholic Apologetics.


19 January 2013 at 06:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Carl, would you do me the honour of emailing me some time?

I do not know your e-mail address. Or at least I am not savvy enough to figure it out. ;)


19 January 2013 at 06:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

Please list 10 of these so called 1,000 "catholic" churches.

For example, the author listed every country as possessing a separate denomination of Catholicism. But you are focusing on the wrong issue. The point is that the author of that study didn't define 'denomination' in a typical way. That's why he came up with those hugely inflated figures. If he can come up with 1000 separate denominations in union with Rome, then what does that say about his figure of "35,000 protestant denominations."


19 January 2013 at 06:30  
Blogger David B said...

@Carl 06.23

Nicely put.


19 January 2013 at 09:02  
Blogger David B said...

But of a rant there, back at 04.37 John.

Well, there is parasitism and parasitism.

Some may think the granting of massive livings to clergy by people living on inherited wealth often gained in conquest or other disreputable pursuits like people and/or opium trading as rather parasitic, the granter and receiver of the livings both.

OK, you get the odd Gilbert White, but also pompous parasites with an inflated view of their own importance, like Mr Collins in P&P.

Welfare has its swings and roundabouts - one doesn't want, sure enough, to encourage a parasitic underclass, but poverty is not the fault of an innocent newborn.

One of the criticisms of the ill-named pro-life movements is that is massively concerned with what it perceives as the right to life of the unborn, yet pays scant to nil attention to the needs of those who have been born.

Some justice in that sort of criticism, don't you think? If you would deny them a safety net?

Or perhaps you would prefer a return to the days of the workhouse or the church run Magdelin Laundries?

I've read the reports, and I would prefer a better safety net than that, myself.

I tend to favour being humane and charitable myself,


19 January 2013 at 09:21  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Cutural Marxism?

Fascism is for the only liberty which can be a serious thing, the liberty of the state and of the individual in the state. Therefore for the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.
—Benito Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism (1932)

Here you go. replace the word facist by any of the new trendy words and you have the what is in reality the "Mission Statment" of all three major parties in Govnernment.

That is why I don't bother to vote.


19 January 2013 at 10:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Watch some the current speakers for Women Bishops in action,

Mussolini would be proud of them.

You are either with us, shut up, or we crush you.

The church is learning fast to "reflect society".


19 January 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Marx talked of the ‘withering away’ of the state, but only in the context of nation identity. He was shrewd enough to realise that unless the whole world became communist, his experiment would fail. The world would be one state. You don’t get more statist than that.

Agreed, he did have a rather simple view of humanity, ultimately expecting working for the common good and not creaming off a percentage for the individual by the individual. Did you know he had a maid. When it was suggested she too be ‘released from her chains’, he replied, “No, she’s mine”. Curious fellow.

19 January 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger John Magee said...

Carl Jacobs

I respect your point of view in your well written posts.


"The point is that the author of that study didn't define 'denomination' in a typical way."

Of course he didn't. The author didn't know what he was talking about. There are no "independent" national Catholic Churches. The author was redefining the Catholic Church to fit his needs.

Every diocese in every country in the Western half of the Catholic Church is under the authority of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome: Latin (the majority) and the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Eastern Catholic Churches refers to 22 of the 23 autonomous particular Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. (Every diocese is a particular Church, but not an autonomous one in the sense in which the word is applied to these 22 Churches.) They follow different Eastern Christian liturgical traditions: Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Byzantine and Chaldean. Canonically, each Eastern Catholic Church is sui iuris or autonomous with respect to other Catholic Churches, whether Eastern or Latin, though all accept the spiritual and juridical authority of the Pope. Thus a Maronite Catholic (Lebanon)is normally subject only to a Maronite bishop. However, if members of a particular Church are so few that no hierarchy of their own has been established, their spiritual care is entrusted to a bishop of another ritual Church. For example, in Eritrea Latin Rite Catholics are in the care of the Ethiopian Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Catholics are broken up into a numerous national churches headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, currently Bartholomew I. He is widely regarded as the representative and spiritual leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians, although this role has been disputed by the Moscow Patriarchate, which represents the numerically largest Orthodox community.

Ask Dodo.

@ David B

Rant? LOL. Marx and Engels didn't practice what they preached and neither did Lenin. The only sign of labor on their soft hands was from ink stains or maybe they developed carpal tunnel syndrom from writing too much nonsense most of their lives.

@ Phil

When you don't use your vote you give your opponent a vote. Which is surrendering your freedom.

19 January 2013 at 14:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

The author didn't know what he was talking about.

Then I trust you will be dropping the "35,000 Protestant denominations" canard in future posts?


19 January 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...

"So ... let me get this straight. You used private judgment in order to conclude that you can't use private judgment."

Yep ... with the gift of Grace and then faith to guide me.

What's so unusual about that? Once one accepts Scripture as the foundation of one's beliefs then it becomes a question of following the road Christ laid before us. And, to my mind, my private judgement, influenced by Grace, Scripture is pretty clear on the Divinely sanctioned authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition. Then it was a question of choice - a free choice - to accept or reject this.

Look for a moment at the vast array of Calvinist churches and their organisational confusion and doctrinal differences. Really, you use private judgement to follow the private judgement of another man or his predecessors, his or their interpretation of Scripture and rejection of the Church's teachings, and accommodate whatever differences with him you choose.

19 January 2013 at 15:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


What's so unusual about that?

You mean besides the glaring "set the Elephant right there in the middle of the living room and point at it" inconsistency? Nothing much at all.

I am surprised you admitted it though.


19 January 2013 at 16:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John M

"When you don't use your vote you give your opponent a vote. Which is surrendering your freedom."

Since people started having a "vote" has christian freedom increased or decreased?

God does not work that way, because a democracy works counter to Christian values. Take the countries that Christianity has increased most in the last 50 years. How many of them are democratic?

Also take the stories where God's people have made the greatest gains. Since power to women are in fashion lets take Queen Esther.

No democracy there but big gains for God's people.

People did not "vote" to give the Jews their freedom as a protected minority. But God and Esther changed everything.

Anyway if Carl is right then voting makes no difference. In fact nothing that we do will make any difference.


19 January 2013 at 17:50  
Blogger Tony B said...

I think Giles Fraser is organizing food and shelter for homeless people, amongst other things. Not arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

19 January 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Good for Giles

So what are you saying?

Does this make Giles a better Christian than me because I am having a good dinner and watching TV?

There are no "better Christians" Tony.

No first or second class.

Just Christians.


19 January 2013 at 19:51  
Blogger John Magee said...


"Anyway if Carl is right then voting makes no difference. In fact nothing that we do will make any difference"

We didn't get our free societies by people sitting on their tail bone and we will surely LOSE our freedoms within our lifetimes if we sit on our tail bone and give up.

To use borrow a few wonderful words Churchill used when England faced invasion by the Nazi's in 1940. It took a lot of "blood sweat and tears" over many generations to create the freedoms you enjoy in the UK and I enjoy in the USA.

Our way of life is at stake and the threats we face are real. Radical Islam allied with Marxist's and secularism are two examples.

20 January 2013 at 02:24  
Blogger John Magee said...


I will drop 25,000(that was the number I used) when you can prove to me every Protestant church and the churches who broke off from Protestant churches over the past almost 500 years from the Lutherans to the Mormons share EXACTLY the same theology.

20 January 2013 at 02:27  
Blogger Tony B said...


I know that, and the comment wasn't directed at you or anyone else in particular, merely an observation.

20 January 2013 at 09:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


I know what you are saying and I think on a secular level that what you say is true.

However, for us as Christians, democracy seems to be working against us.

We seem to have created the conditions where those opposed to Christianity are able to manipulate the system to make it increasingly difficult for us to operate.

Do we as Christians really want the "freedom" that democracy brings? (Attack on the family, promotion by government of immorality, restriction on "Christian" free speech etc etc etc)

To take your example. We had voted in the 1930s we voted to spend less money on weapons and we also voted for appeasement.

Our vote got us a piece of paper and nearly lost us the war.

Our vote did not get Churchill and in fact our vote got rid of him ASAP

Our vote gave us socialism... nationalisation..etc etc

Britain became Great Britain and a Christian country when most people did not have the vote! (Not because of the vote)


20 January 2013 at 10:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older