Friday, June 14, 2013

Archbishop Justin meets Pope Francis

Archbishops of Canterbury have been meeting with popes of Rome for more than 50 years: it is a sign of ecumenical progress and fraternal love. The Pope of Rome is head of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is spiritual leader of 77 million members of the Anglican Communion, so it's good to talk.

There are basically two ways of viewing this latest meeting. One is the sour and ungracious fashion of the infallible Catholic Herald, which believes that Anglicans are so far beneath the infallible way, truth and life that we aren't even worth talking to. The other is to value all dialogue as a positive expression of hope and grace: not to insist on ecclesial uniformity but to recognise that we all see in mirrors darkly.

There is no point talking about women priests: the two churches simply do not agree. If the Pope of Rome sees that as a barrier to unity, so be it. The Archbishop of Canterbury similarly sees the Council of Trent as a barrier to unity, and so be that, too. As the XXXIX Articles declare, 'The Church of Rome hath erred.' We do not agree on so very much, and that's a fact.

But surely we can work together where we do agree. Surely we can both love our neighbours? Surely we share the same concerns about poverty and the global economic crisis? Surely we agree on the imperative of restoring dignity to the poor and hope to the marginalised?

There is so much spiritual and missionary work to do that all ecumenical dialogue serves a purpose. Roman Catholics like William Oddie may speak ecclesiological truth, but its tone is so manifestly un-Christian that he must speak on behalf of so few of his co-religionists. He is like the older brother of the Prodigal Son - proud, aloof and judgmental. - consistent with neither the spirit of Pope Francis nor that of Archbishop Justin. Today they meet as brothers; fellow bishops and pastors of the Church. The Pope has said that the Ordinariate is 'quite unnecessary' and that the church 'needs us as Anglicans'. Whatever our theological differences and historical disputes, we are friends.

Our task of preaching the Gospel is primary: everything else is secondary. We may differ on the mode of that justfication, but every step toward salvation is one to greater truth. Surely, for Christ's sake, in this aggressively secular and increasingly intolerant cultural environment, we can stand together against those who assert that every public manifestation of the Christian faith is both an obstacle to human freedom and a scandal to human intellect.

Overcoming the obstacles to full, restored communion is never-ending this side of Glory. But we must encourage each other in that which engenders holiness; not tear down by harsh words. If we can stand together to recite the Lord's Prayer, we acknowledge the primary mission objectives of the Church. One senses that this is the primary calling and beating heart of Archbishop Justin and Pope Francis. Following the more cerebral and penetrating theological engagement and reflection of Pope Benedict and Archbishop Rowan, today is about Gospel action and readiness to respond to the most urgent needs of our time.

As Pope Benedict said at his Inaugural Mass in 2005, Christ takes away nothing that pertains to human freedom or dignity or to the building of a just society. 'If we let Christ into our lives we lose absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. Only in his friendship is the great potential of human existence revealed.'

The presence of Justin and Francis in Rome as fellow bishops is itself a sign of unity. The tedious bureaucracy of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission is largely irrelevant compared the task of working to establish the dignity of all human beings, and to resisting the aggressive secular-humanist-atheism which tolerates nothing of the transcendent in human affairs. Archbishop Justin and Pope Francis agree that we must be able to testify, argue and protest for the Faith that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. If we are no longer free to proclaim the truth to persuade our neighbours that Jesus is Lord, we are no longer free.

So, in today's meeting in Rome, pray for holiness, hope and a life of transparent joy. The alternative is a myopic existence of isolation,. doubt and fear. As Cardinal Newman said: "It is what is unholy on both sides that keeps us apart."


Blogger Bob said...

This is surely a good thing, Your Grace. But let us hope for more than talk - "a man is not called wise because he talks and talks again; but if he is peaceful, loving and fearless then he is in truth called wise."



14 June 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Indeed, Francis and Justin could talk about (begin to plan?) exactly how we will worship, and conduct mission, in societies (as our own will soon be) where the State hinders, actively opposes, and then proscribes, our work. Get organised early, I say.

14 June 2013 at 10:54  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Spot on! An excellent article Your Grace. Thank you.
It reflects my attitude exactly. We must honestly acknowledge the genuine doctrinal and governance differences between us, but then, stand shoulder to shoulder, as brothers and sisters in Christ, against those who seek to eradicate Christian truth and ways of ordering families and society. What unites us far, far exceeds that which separates us, and we must never be tempted to descend to petty, sinful sniping at fellow believers. We need to be united especially in the political sphere, to keep our rightful places in the public square. Division benefits only our enemies.

14 June 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

If we are to work together to establish the dignity of all human beings we must not only resist the tide of secular-humanist-atheism but also the advance of a major religo-political ideology that is invasive and intolerant.

14 June 2013 at 11:08  
Blogger Richard Watterson said...

it's as I thought, and Jay Bee confirms it: it is only certain types of "intolerance" that are an issue. Christian intolerance is just fine and dandy.

14 June 2013 at 11:19  
Blogger Martin said...

The bishop of Rome proclaims a gospel of works - what Paul called another gospel.

A Christian cannot have union of any sort with such a gospel when Paul says those who preach it are to be considered accursed.

14 June 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Martin said...

RW, Do you not consider intolerance of sin an essential for the Christian life?

14 June 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Nick said...

"If we are to work together to establish the dignity of all human beings we must not only resist the tide of secular-humanist-atheism but also the advance of a major religo-political ideology that is invasive and intolerant"

That's a very good point Jay, but what I've seen of Justin Whelby so far doea not leave me with any cosy feeling that he is going to stand firm against the tide of secularism and anti-theism. On the contrary, the evidence is that he is more likely to sell us Anlicans down the river when faced with pressure from politicians, activists, and apostate bishops.

As to meeting the Pope, I suspect it is more perfunctory than part of any spiritual quest.

Sorry to be so cynical, but very little about the CoE inspires me at the moment

14 June 2013 at 11:26  
Blogger Bob said...

We need to be very careful when it comes to using images and metaphors of war and conflict in our comments, as they colour our thoughts and thus our actions.

Remember, "victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live, giving up victory and defeat."



14 June 2013 at 11:26  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Roman Catholics like William Oddie may speak ecclesiological truth, but its tone is so manifestly un-Christian that he must speak on behalf of so few of his co-religionists.

How can "truth" be "manifestly un-Christian"? This wouldn't have anything to do with Oddie coming home, would it?

14 June 2013 at 11:29  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Can we say this plain and clear, so there is no misunderstanding and nobody is in any doubt? The Anglican Communion is not in any way, shape or form the equal of the Catholic Church. NOTHING is. There is one and only one Church founded by the Son of God, and it isn't the Church of England. Despite the much misunderstood doctine of Papal infalliblity, successive popes were mistaken in trying to talk to Anglicans. As the Herald stated, they are not at all like the Orthodox, there is no common ground. Protestantism in general and Anglicanism in particular is a religion founded for the purpose of validating whatever it is you want to do yourself. You know, whatever, it's all good, kind of thing. That's not Catholicism and they day we find common ground with that attitude, the gates of Heaven swing closed again. I just hope it doesn't happen before I get there.

14 June 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger David Hussell said...

My first reaction to Justin Welby speech re: SSM was similar to yours. But have a look at Anglican Mainstream, the article dated 13th June, entitled, " Marriage(same sex couples) Bill. The amendments being put forward by, amongst others, Bishops, are very useful, incredibly so, in fact, to provide continuity of the truth and tolerance of those who speak and live it. My current take on what the Bishops are up to, is 1. Vote against it, 9 did. 2. Recognize reality, namely both Houses want it. 3. Insert clauses that enshrine traditional marriage into the Act, allowing conscience to exist and truth spoken and lived, alongside this SSM stuff. Couples would have a choice of going traditional or not. Of course these clauses have to get through into the final Act, and I am not a drafting lawyer. But if they are struck out then that shows that harm is intended to us, and we have a deep problem. In which case I feel that we should be prepared to go "French" about it. I don't think that the majority of the public want us to be crushed. I may be wrong of course as I'm thinking on the hoof. Time will tell. Have a look at it.

14 June 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, relations between all the Christian denominations would be greatly improved if the RCC could resist its tedious insistence on primacy. The Orthodox left in 1054, the Anglicans in 1536, both to distance themselves from being lectured by Rome. After all, once the Church had split, claims of primacy and infallibility became redundant. The reform group set up by Pope Francis could do Christianity a considerable favour by recommending a more collegiate approach to ecumenical relations on the part of the RCC.



14 June 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Martin said...


The church of Rome is not a Christian church, it hasn't been for centuries and is guilty of having, unrepentantly, killed God's children, including the man whose name our blogger has adopted.

It does not preach the gospel that saves, indeed it opposes that gospel.

A minister of the gospel has no place visiting a prelate of such an organisation unless it is to preach the gospel to them.

14 June 2013 at 11:51  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Is that a fact, Martin? Remind me, who founded this "non-Christian" Church?

14 June 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger William Lewis said...


"Despite the much misunderstood doctine of Papal infalliblity, successive popes were mistaken in trying to talk to Anglicans"

Luckily we have you to put us aright. Good job you don't practice what you preach isn't it?

14 June 2013 at 12:04  
Blogger Martin said...


Who else but the father of lies.

14 June 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger Corrigan said...

And who would this "father of lies" be, Martin? Because according to my Bible (Douay-Rheims version, of course) His identity is revealed in Matthew 16:18

14 June 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger MFH said...

Corrigan said...

How can "truth" be "manifestly un-Christian"? This wouldn't have anything to do with Oddie coming home, would it?

Never read the book of Job then?

14 June 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger Martin said...


That wasn't the foundation of the heretical church of Rome but the foundation of Christ's Church, founded by Christ on Christ, not founded on a fallible man whom the apostle Paul had to rebuke.

14 June 2013 at 12:27  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

All the anti-Catholic moonbats are out again.

I wish you wouldn't encourage them Your Grace.

As long as the CofE has a God King/Queen at its head it will always be compromised and subject to worldly secular fashionable distortion.

14 June 2013 at 12:41  
Blogger LEN said...

As both Anglicans and Catholics have compromised God`s truth in favour of their own interests I suppose further compromise is inevitable?Once you go down the pathway of compromise who knows where it will end?.

Catholicism seeks to either eradicate or to assimilate opposition so Anglicans I suppose are 'fair game' having strayed from the truth by being led by those who have bowed to the dictates of politicians and 'Worldly value systems'.

If all we can agree on are 'social issues' then what bother with the Church at all?. There are many secular societies why do just as 'good works' without being embroiled in 'religion' especially religion which does not honour the Word of God or give Christ His rightful position as Head of the Church.

'Unity' may be a good thing but the price to pay for this is too much if it means compromise by association.

Jesus never tried to 'do a deal' with the Pharisees for' the greater good' but spoke God`s Truth regardless of the consequences.

14 June 2013 at 12:41  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...


14 June 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well I have a certain amount of sympathy with Mr Oddie. ARCIC has become an expensive farce. It is the Church of England which has caused this by forging ahead with unscriptural innovations such as women's ordination and will shortly (I am sure) cave in to demands for openly gay bishops.

How can one have reconciliatory dialogue when one side ignores the other completely and changes the rules? It is not that Catholic Church that has changed. (I speak as an Anglican.)

There is nothing to stop Anglicans and Catholics working together, but doctrinally we are poles apart and drifting still further. ARCIC is dead in the water.

14 June 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Ah, good man, Martin. So, now we know what actually happened, do we? The real Church was founded by Jesus, but had to remain hidden for fifteen hundred or so years, presumably practicing in secret, tucked away discreetly in a dark corner of the false church until it was safe for Martin Luther to bring it out. Thanks for clearing that up.

14 June 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 June 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 June 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


No, no, no!

As a Reformation specialist I hope Martin and Corrigan carry on - it's great fun :o)

14 June 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Well, I wondered how Papa Francis was going to deal with the "elephant in the room" of the Ordinariate.

This is quoted from the Rorate Coeli blod and is apparently the Pope's words from today's meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but they don't give a source, will try to find it.

"I am grateful, too, for the sincere efforts the Church of England has made to understand the reasons that led my Predecessor, Benedict XVI, to provide a canonical structure able to respond to the wishes of those groups of Anglicans who have asked to be received collectively into the Catholic Church: I am sure this will enable the spiritual, liturgical and pastoral traditions that form the Anglican patrimony to be better known and appreciated in the Catholic world."

14 June 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger ukFred said...

Both have something to fear from what has happened in Scotland with the arrest of street preacher and Jeremiah Cry Ministries member Don Karns. Full details on UK Repent dot com.

Francis will have his clean-living priests and bishops arrested, and Julian might find the same with his evangelical wing if the cops start to target the RC and Anglican churches.

14 June 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger Martin said...


The Church was persecuted but there is plenty of evidence of its existence in the persecution of the Waldenses, Albigenses, John Wickliffe and William Tyndale. Not, of course, that we should forget archbishop Cranmer.

Indeed when the papacy came to these isles it killed the leaders of the indigenous church to cement its power.

14 June 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...


Having read several sermons of Pope Francis, I can assure you that he preaches the Gospel. I wish Anglican clergy would speak with such clarity, directness and fervour, pitched to where people are at and full of the pure Word of God.


It is truly tiresome to hear the 'one, true church' mantra repeated by RC's to devalue other Christian communities. You will win adherents not by your tribal rants but by love of the truth and love of souls.

Regardless of how Anglicans are classified ('church', heretics, ecclesial communities = churches, 'separated brethren') we remain 'one remove' from Rome and Roman influence, both historical and contemporary remains strong in liturgy and theology. This doesn't only apply to the Anglo-Papalists.

So Anglicanism is a mode of doing what you like? A sort of 'love and do what you will' creed in true Augustinian style...I quite warm to that. Sort of like 'creative fidelity' as practised by some of your ecclesial brethren when it comes to contraception and numerous other teachings they don't happen to like?

I seem to recall an historic battle over a now 'infallible' dogma between Dominicans and Franciscans. Both were told to shut it by papal decree but the Franciscans eventually got what they liked in 1854. Those who can pay for annulments of their marriages get what they like (except poor old Henry Tudor who just wanted what many a mediaeval pope readily acquired: a son) and those who lobbyed for the prophylactic use of condoms to limit HIV-AIDs seem to have got what they liked from that old 'progressive', Benedict XVI.

Unlike the words of blinkered RC's, the words and actions of a man like Francis can have great effect on the global Christian community. I pray for both Justin and Francis and their pastoral ministries. I'm sure they'll get on very well indeed. Maybe the Ordinariate will be disbanded?

14 June 2013 at 14:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


"Indeed when the papacy came to these isles it killed the leaders of the indigenous church to cement its power."

Where did you get that little gem of complete cobblers from?

There were two missions to the pagan Saxons who took over from the Roman Empire; one from Rome, led by Augustine of Canterbury, and one from Iona led by Aidan of Lindisfarne. The Roman Church and the Ionan Church had certain differences, such as the date of Easter and the monastic tonsure, which were finally solved at the Synod of Whitby in 664, after which Bishop Colman of Lindisfarne, who wouldn't accept the Roman changes, went back to Iona. No one killed anybody.

If you're going to make blatantly inflammatory statements, at least make the effort of doing some research first.

14 June 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Well, pardon me for living, but if you don't think your own church is the true church, why be a member?

14 June 2013 at 14:58  
Blogger Martin said...


The gospel is that God saves by grace alone through faith alone without any act on the part of the sinner.

I doubt that you would get any pope to admit that the sinner does nothing to be saved.

"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

14 June 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger Jim said...

Martin, Trent follows Scripture 'You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone'.
James 2:24

Do you follow Scripture and call Mary 'blessed'? Luke 1:24

14 June 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger IanCad said...


"--Faith without works is dead--"
James 2:14-26

Faith first. Works are a
manifestation of our faith.

In some Protestant denominations works almost seem to be of no account. Certainly, works will not save us and on this issue I tend to sympathize with our RC communicants.

14 June 2013 at 16:17  
Blogger David Hussell said...


More very useful articles on Anglicanmainstream explaining the work that that is taking place in The Lords, led by the Bishops, to protect freedom of conscience, say for Registrars, the right to free speech for everyone, and the option to have a traditional meaning of marriage ascribed to ones own marriage. I have no formal legal training, except in my own professional field, but the devil really is in the detail in any Act, not the headlines and spin so beloved of all newspapers. Getting the right freedom loving clauses in is terribly important and that's what they are labouring on. Of course it would be excellent if the whole thing had been defeated, but that's not the reality that they, the Bishops, are dealing with, so on behalf of the country they are defending the principle of Christian marriage as much as they are able to in the circumstances. Those accusing them of surrender (The Telegraph for example ) are spinning it. They are not surrendering anything. Have I read I suggest.

14 June 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Martin said...


Works are, as Ian has said, the evidence of salvation. They do not, in any way, add to the the salvation of the sinner.

Mary is blessed by the honour of having the Messiah as her child. However she was born with original sin and a sinner all her life.

14 June 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger Jim said...

Where do you find any other reference to 'faith alone' in Scripture, apart from 'NOT justified by faith alone'?
Your criticism of Trent ignores Scripture.
Even the act of believing is a 'work'.

And you didn't answer my question. Do YOU call Mary blessed as Scripture dictates? I do, as do Catholics and Orthodox worldwide.

14 June 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 June 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, there you are Justin, you’re late !
And a good morning to you too Frank, and why do I get the italics ?
Because I’m the Pope, or at least one of them, and you’re not. By the way, less of the Frank. I’m successor to Peter, for God’s sake.
Fair points, holiness
Right, get the tea on. Everything you need is in the kitchen
I thought I was here for talks ?
You can talk all you want while you’re making the tea. The nuns certainly do
So the Archbishop of Canterbury only comes here to serve the Pope tea ?
What else, my son.
Meaningful talks perhaps ?
Yeah, right. How about on women priests in the RCC, and the repeal of the sin of sodomy. And then the proposed new holy sacrament of same sex marriage afterwards
You’ve got me there
Before you start on the washing up, sign this peace of paper
What is it ?
A joint statement from both of us, saying meaningful talks have taken place
More tea, holiness ?
And be quick about it man, and find me the remote – Channel 4 racing is on in a minute, and that Clare Balding just does it for me

14 June 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

By the way holiness, I’ve brought you a gift
What is it ?
It’s a leather bound copy of the thirty nine articles of faith {BEAMING SMILE}
You bast…I mean, thank you. Put it over there, er, by the bin. Here’s somewthing for you.
My gosh, a wicker basket with the lid down, what can this be ?
It’s one of Benedicts cats. I don’t care what you do with it, just get it out of here
What’s his name
“Your Eminence”. Benedict made him a cardinal when my back was turned.
Any little ways he might have ?
He only eats Foie gras off a silver tray, the fussy blighter. Damn embarrassing – he has to go !

14 June 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Francis, my favourite cat is missing
I know Benedict. Justin Welby took a liking to him and carried him off
The Archbishop of Canterbury ?
The Same. He left you this in his place
What is it
It’s a leather bound copy of the thirty nine articles of faith {BEAMING SMILE}
The Bastard !

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

For the delectation and amusement of His Grace’s following, the Inspector brings you a genuine headline from Pink News…

“In meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope does not specify marriage as between man and woman”

You really have to ask yourself whether all this amyl nitrite these degenerates sniff has addled their brains, what !

14 June 2013 at 17:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Call me heretical, or naïf, or what you will; but I refuse to define myself as anything other than Christian.

My question to myself is what would Christ call me? The answer to that, I hope, would be neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Anglo-Catholic nor Orthodox, nor any other permutation we have managed to devise if it had more weight than "good and faithful servant".

14 June 2013 at 18:44  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

This business of unity is a great difficulty because we all follow our own political inclinations even when we are dealing with religious matters. We see it in arguments that say the ends justify the means as in case case of abortion - the end being the predicted good for the mother and ignoring the death of the child. To achieve unity we must accept God will but what is that? Looking back we can see abuses by all denominations but media has for centuries focused on the Catholic ones. A short look at the beginnings of Protestantism reveals a very aggressive and domineering movement and the reign of Terror under Henry was much worse than the Inquisition. We all have to accept that no denomination is free of guilt even Our Grace's predecessor who annulled a completely valid marriage for political ends. So how do we resolve this? Sometimes it is useful to look back to earlier events and see if there is a pattern in Old Testament times. Were the Old Testament Jews guilty of brutality, did King David have one of his soldiers killed because he wanted his wife? Yes. We see in many places in the Old Testament statements about the Kings who betrayed the teaching and these seem to outnumber the ones who were faithful. There was plenty of reasons for Almighty God to reject His covenant even before they crossed into the Promised Land. The fact is that He didn't and we have to view current debates in the same light. In the Old Testament, we have an amazing statement:

And when that time comes, I will summon one who is a true servant of mine, Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 clothe him with thy robe, gird him with thy girdle, entrust him with the power that once was thine; to rule all the citizens of Jerusalem, all Juda’s race, with a father’s care. 22 I will give him the key of David’s house to bear upon his shoulders; none may shut when he opens, none open when he shuts.[5] 23 I will fix him securely in his place, like a peg that is to carry all the royal honour of his father’s house; Is 22

This was a statement of authority similar to the statement is recorded in Matthew 16 giving authority to Peter. The arguments about abuses did not deviate Almighty God during the Old Covenant and I think it reasonable to assume that Almighty God follows the same modus operandi during the new Covenant. We will not achieve unity by political debate but by recognizing the clear directions from Almighty God as recorded in Scripture.

14 June 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer,
Well said. Count me in. Most of us are born into specific denominations. So wallow not in disputes, but recognize with honesty the differences, and celebrate the similarities, which overwhelm. It is embracing Christ in the humility of acknowledging our fallen natures, our need for forgiveness, for redemption, and the grace that flows from God's generous love for us, that makes us His.

14 June 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say chaps, room for one more ?

14 June 2013 at 20:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector: Honoured, dear fellow!

David: Thank you for your comment, and for your own thoughtful contributions.

I was brought up an Anglican, but liberal theology led me into atheism.

My eventual return to faith was assisted by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sources alike.

Out of gratitude to all of them I decline to be defined by any one of them: only by the One they have in common.

14 June 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Explorer. Watch out that man, Peter D will have something to say about this. I can tell you...

14 June 2013 at 20:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector: Thanks for the warning! I'm going out in a few minutes anyway, so this is my last post for the time being.

David: I agree with your point about our being born into specific denominations. I have no problem with that, provided Christian comes first, and denomination second.

In 'Revelation' 7:9 there is the throng from every tongue and nation: no suggestion we should all be exactly the same. Ditto the four creatures: different aspects of creation, but united in what they worship.

(This isn't Universalism, or everybody has their own truth etc. As I said, I rejected liberal theology).

14 June 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger LEN said...

I too did the 'Church thing'. Lucky for me that I did eventually met Christ( but not within the church system!)

Jesus said "I stand at the door and knock". Rather sad that this is at the door of the CHURCH!.

14 June 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 June 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said and seconded, Messrs Explorer @ 18.44, David Hussell @ 20.07 and the inimitable Inspector @ 20.05. Sectarianism/tribalism is soooo 16th century.

If we are to defeat Islam we do at least need a reasonably united front. Leave the Sunni/Shia type of doctrinal split to the Mahommedans.

14 June 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well that makes four of us 'Heretics' & Jesus himself was Jewish, not an Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Quaker etcetera & so on ad infinitum, around then. But those Christians were not afraid to Preach Christ crucified. Even if it cost them (as it often did) their lives.

14 June 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len ,

I feel closest to God walking in the woods, which is not a nature worship, or a God is nature thing. But it is because I see His beauty and wisdom more in the created order than within a church, which is often heavy with the hand of man and man's pride. I see God in landscapes, but someone else may see Him in the face of a child. I should have been a Celtic Christian really. But I suppose we need some sort of organizational structure to ensure that the faith is passed on, I suppose.
The Explorer.
Agreed. No single denomination has a monopoly on the truth. As Christians we can learn from all the orthodox, Trinitarian denominations, and I do. But at a practical level I am "parked" in one, which I was born into, and which is far from perfect. Yes, I'm Christian first, and just about, Anglican second.

14 June 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Preacher said...

Sorry Five! Bluedog, you posted while I was writing. Len joined up too. It could be the start of a revival!.

14 June 2013 at 21:46  
Blogger Preacher said...

David Hussell.
I know what you mean, I feel closer to the Celtic Christian influence than to any other group.

14 June 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Surely we can both love our neighbours? Surely we share the same concerns about poverty and the global economic crisis? Surely we agree on the imperative of restoring dignity to the poor and hope to the marginalised?"

This is such a modern, liberal outlook. Atheists, secularists and humanists can do all the above - and many do. However, the point of the Church's mission is not to improve life on earth but to lead souls to Heaven. Being "good" will not get you to Heaven!

And let's be clear, Catholics have always believed there is One true Church and whilst salvation may come to those outside, this is by no means guaranteed.

Let me also add, just so no one thinks I'm being presumptuous, salvation isn't assured to those within the Catholic Church.

14 June 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Jim said...

Jesus 'was Jewish'..... I'd say that He is God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.
And in Matthew 16 we see that He established 'my Church'.
Your comment diminishes our Divine Lord and Saviour.
As an aside 'Celtic Christianity' is an invention of 19th century Protestant romantics. These Celts were Catholics, Mass in Latin etc.

14 June 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger Martin said...


I find that grace alone, together with the gift of faith is quite clearly taught in Ephesians 2:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 AV)

As to Mary, the only requirement I see in Scripture is to remember her, not to worship her.

14 June 2013 at 23:02  
Blogger Walpurgis said...

@ Martin: And who exactly do you suppose "worships" Mary?

May I suggest that you think carefully (I rather suspect, for the first time) before assuming that you know the answer to that. The enormity of the accusation demands that you not merely trot out your preconceptions, but actually attempt to grasp what is the Catholic understanding of Mary's role in salvation, and the appropriate recognition of that role. Are you prepared to subject your prejudices to that kind of an examination?

15 June 2013 at 01:05  
Blogger Peter D said...


As I see it, the 'problem' with protestants is that they obsess about each little word and phrase in Scripture. They isolate passages and overlook other passages that qualify and enrich them. In doing so, they miss the 'big picture'. They use passages a grenades to hurl about at one another.

Regardless of whether the Catholic Church has gone astray, and I don't believe it has, Christ established an Apostolic Church invested with His authority. That is clearly and unambiguously stated in Scripture. So too is the preaching and teaching mission of the Apostles and their successors. Christ also promised His Church would survive until His return.

Christianity is not a religion limited to 'The Book', nor is it a faith based on individual interpretations of Scripture. These are contrary to Scripture. The evidence for this is staring you in the face if you look at the heterodoxy of Anglicanism.

The Bible does not have the complete Truth. The Church has the Truth. One should first believe what the Church teaches and then where to find it in the Bible. No quote from the Bible can be taken authoritatively, unless it is clear what the quote means and it is interpreted in accordance with what the Church teaches.

15 June 2013 at 01:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Excellent article by Dr. Oddie in the Catholic Herald.As any Catholic knows "there is no ecclesiastical fantasy island in which one day all things will be possible " The twain shall never meet ...Gene Robinson, homosexual Bishops women priests in the Anglican Church has widened the chasm to the point of impossibility of any union.

Regardless of Catholic renegade Bishops and homosexual priests and Cardinals Catholics who have received an authentic Catholic education know the truth regardless of what some of their leaders promote.Best summed up in the words of Dr William Oddie

" Truth is what we do as Catholics. The absolute primacy of the truth. The absolute primacy of the truth is what we are committed to above all else."

15 June 2013 at 02:22  
Blogger Peter D said...


Well said and welcome back! Where have you been?

You'll note the Inspector is becoming ever more 'via media' in outlook (except on his 'single issue' platform ... oh, and women) and I'm beginning to wonder whether he should really establish an Ordinariate for 'Catholics' who are drawn to Anglicanism.

As the blog owner said: we all see in mirrors darkly"; some more darkly than others, it seems.

15 June 2013 at 02:44  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter.... you have summed up the problem with Catholicism with one sentence.

'The Bible does not have the complete Truth'

So this gives 'anyone' free license to add anything they wish to God`s Word. This is the error of the Pharisees whose 'traditions' rendered God`s Word null and void.As Jesus said "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."(Mark 7:13)

This is the reason Jesus stands OUTSIDE the Church knocking seeing if anyone desires His Truth over and above the Church 'traditions'.

There are two types of people who are opposed to Christ. Atheists who deny the Truth and prefer to look to 'science' and reason to explain Creation and use these to deny the existence of God.

Secondly, those bound up within 'religion' (as the Pharisees were) who have devised a religious system which doesn`t require God because they have devised their 'own way' to reach God their own system to obtain 'righteousness' with God.

Both these systems atheism and Pharisee- ism have their roots in pride, intellectual pride and pride in their' own ability' to please God.

15 June 2013 at 08:44  
Blogger Preacher said...

Jim @ 22.33.
Dear brother you are free to believe whatever you like. Yes Jesus was & is God. But he practised Judaism when He was here, to fulfil the promises & prophecies about Messiah, given to the Jewish nation.
Agreed He established His Church, but that was a long time before men set up their Churches.
With reference to the Celtic Church, I would suggest you research more. The Celtic Christian church,as Darth Noster points out earlier were present at Whitby in the 7th century & had been well established long before that. If my maths are right that pre-dates your 19th century protestant romantics by quite a few centuries.

Blessings. Preacher.

15 June 2013 at 09:00  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Why thank you Doddles...I am so glad you are still here posting because if you were not I doubt very much if I would return. The general tone of discourse on here is so ungracious and unwelcoming to women.You should be thankful that for some reason you have been spared that embitterment and misogyny which seems to characterise a lot of the men of your age on here.

The Inspector loves flirting with the concept of Anglicanism but unfortunately or fortunately for him (depending on one's perspective) he most likely was raised as a Catholic and not being completely stupid and as a history scholar he probably has difficulty in reconciling himself to the validity of there is nowhere for him to go except to remain in the bad catholic boy box.

15 June 2013 at 09:05  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter... further to my post above I realise that Catholics are taught that they have 'cornered the market' on salvation as the Pope has recently stated that 'salvation can only be found in the [Catholic] Church. (In fact going through the whole Catholic' religious system'.) But... this is patently not true.I realise that this is a ploy to keep' numbers up' but it is controlling and manipulative which is not God`s way!. God does not interfere with peoples free will as does Catholicism,Islam and other cults.

Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Salvation is only found IN Christ and it is a gift from God and cannot be earned in any way.The only way anyone can be IN Christ is to be' born again' One Spirit with Christ.

Religion may give one a 'feel good' even a 'feeling better than others' delusion but it will not gain any advantage with God.God`s standard for righteousness is Christs`s and if you cannot match that you had better fall on your knees and repent.

15 June 2013 at 09:16  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter D

Augustine distinguished between the visible and invisible church. It's the parable of the wheat and tares, really, or the sheep and goats: seemingly identical when seen grazing at a distance, but the difference apparent to the eye of God.

For Augustine, all true believers were within the Catholic Church. The Donatist Tyconius widened this to the view that true believers were within the Catholic and Donatist churches.

Wesley widened this again: the true Church is made up of those within denominations (and, perhaps, further afield) who have responded to Christ. Some 'Christians' are not true believers; some 'non-Christians' may be. That, broadly, is my own position.

I quite agree with your concerns re interpretation. A problem made worse since the idea arising within Postmodernism that the meaning of the text resides with the reader rather than the author. Carte blanche for every kind of crank with every kind of text. Fortunately, such movements tend to eventually generate their own reaction.


15 June 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Richard Watterson said...


"RW, Do you not consider intolerance of sin an essential for the Christian life?"

I thought Christianity taught that we are all sinners, including Christians? In which case I think Christians should have enough to do worrying about their own sins, and leave others to worry about theirs.

15 June 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Archbishop is a spent force after his capitulation over homosexual marriage. Position and preferment over principle and Godly righteousness, Church of England RIP.

15 June 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Et Expecto said...

How pleasing it is to see that Your Grace acknowledges that the Catholic Herald is infallible

15 June 2013 at 12:32  
Blogger LEN said...

For a human agency(or any person apart from God) to declare itself' infallible' is to place itself above and beyond correction of its error.

What an unfortunate position to be in!.

15 June 2013 at 13:02  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Really, len? And would the Pope be more or less infallible than, say, a "saved" evangelical?

15 June 2013 at 15:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Your resistance to the Truth of the Catholic Church is unbiblical and irrational, rather than reasoned.

You clearly do not know the difference between the Pharisees of Jesus' time and Apostolic authority A basic error which you need to rectify.

The Pharisees claimed Moses had been given verbal laws by God at Sinai which were as binding as the written 10 Commandments and could not be changed. Jesus condemned them for misusing this claim to entrap people and to get around God's law. Modern day Rabbinical Judaism is founded on this belief and the Talmud has these supposed verbal laws written down.

The Apostles, on the other hand, were actually given Divine Authority to teach God's message of salvation and to interpret and apply God's laws as guided by the Holy Spirit. Can you really not see the difference?

And you misquoted me, so I repeat:

"The Bible does not have the complete Truth. The Church has the Truth. One should first believe what the Church teaches and then where to find it in the Bible."

If one knows the Catholic Church is the true Church, where God's Truth is taught and practiced, why would one want to remain outside?

There is only one Truth and only one sure way to salvation. God, in His Mercy and Justice, may not hold people to account for ignorance. Culpable resistance and a refusal to listen is quite another matter.

15 June 2013 at 15:41  
Blogger LEN said...

Why do I resist the 'truth' about the Catholic religious system?.
Because a false religious system is exposed when It does not Honour the Word of God above its own 'traditions' and the authority of its' Pope'(who usurps the rightful place of Christ)

There is only One Truth and that is within Christ not the' Catholic religious system.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(John 14:6)

Strange that if the Catholic Church were that important in the purpose in salvation(as you suggest) Jesus would have mentioned it?.
So I think I prefer my Truth from Jesus and you can have your truth from your 'religion'.

A 'no brainer 'to use common parlance!.

15 June 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...


The traditional Catholic position (Cyprian/Fourth Lateran Council) is no salvation outside the one visible organised Catholic Church.

Augustine's principle of the invisible church is that what saves you is not membership of the Church (although non-membership will exclude you from salvation), but response to Christ.

My position is an extension of that principle. Some Catholics are genuine Christians, and some are not; and the same goes for the other strains of Christianity.
The true Church collectively is the true believers within the different Trinitarian denominations. (Like some from every nation, but no one nation as a whole, who collectively constitute a new unity.)

The situation does not end there There is then the question of Karl Rahner's 'anonymous Christians'... Too big a topic for now, but I quite agree with you re the difference between ignorance and wilful resistance.

15 June 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D / Cressida. This man an Anglican ?

Try Nordic Roman Catholic. Had it not been for the shock of the Reformation, history would have had a fine line of Nordic popes, and not 470 years of Italian and only Italian influence in that holy seat.

15 June 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Pete D/Inspector

I have known Catholics of unimpeachable good works and radiant faith, and Protestants who saw their good works as the natural outcome of their saving faith. And both types a blessing to the World around them. (And Catholics and Protestants alike, it has to be said, who have been the reverse.)

15 June 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Still don't get it, len. You claim the Church founded by Christ Himself, the one given the keys of the Kingdom, the one against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, CAN err in its doctrines, guidance of the Holy Spirit or no, but one who is "saved" (such as yourself, presumably) cannot? No, sorry, you'll have to explain this.

15 June 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Len said ...
"Strange that if the Catholic Church were that important in the purpose in salvation(as you suggest) Jesus would have mentioned it?"

You cannot be serious!

"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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Are you disputing the fact that Christ established an authoritative Apostolic Universal Church?

The Catholic Church has always accepted some Christians (or, indeed, atheists or followers of other faiths, may be saved through Christ. It is a biblical position.

However, this cannot be guaranteed and the Church teaches that visible and active membership of the Church, based on the acceptance of Christ and faith in Him, offers the path to salvation.

Inspector said ...
"Try Nordic Roman Catholic. Had it not been for the shock of the Reformation, history would have had a fine line of Nordic popes, and not 470 years of Italian and only Italian influence in that holy seat."

No; I'd say you're definitely more Anglican in outlook than Catholic.

There is only one Catholic Church. Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit is more available to Nordic peoples than others?

A time will come when we have an African Pope. What of that? Just think, the Holy Father drawn from an inherently inferior race!

15 June 2013 at 19:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Just think, the Holy Father drawn from an inherently inferior race!

Nice try, smart arse, but no where will you find this man referring to ‘inferior races’. You are probably thinking of his oft use phrase ‘less successful races’.

How do we know there are less successful races ? Documentaries and the news. It's the same old crowd every time. You may also have been invited to dig into your pocket to help them out too...

15 June 2013 at 19:26  
Blogger LEN said...

The 'Keys' that the Catholic Church claim 'sole ownership of' ,somehow received from Peter and held by the Catholic Church for all time?.

It is interesting to note that in Revelation 3:7 (NKJV), Christ talks about
the key of David that also opens and closes a door, “…These things says He who
is holy, He who is true. ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one
shuts, and shuts and no one opens.’” This key of David is also spoken of in
Isaiah 22:22 (NKJV), “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder;
So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall
open.” The key of David is the same key as that key that Christ gave to Peter
in Matthew 16:18–19. These “keys” are simply the gospel message that tells mankind
that salvation is through Jesus Christ.

'The Key' is that Jesus is the Christ the Saviour!(As Peter stated!).....Christians are supposed to GO into the Whole World with this message!!.

If people accept Christ they are 'loosed if the reject Him they are bound(by their sins)

Whatever DO they teach you in that Catholic religion thing?

15 June 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter.... no doubt the confusion caused by your religion(when it departs from the Word of God) will take some amount of' undoing perhaps this will help?.

Matt 16:19—Binding & Loosing
The Greek for Matthew 16:19 is difficult. Almost any interlinear
will show that there are words in the Greek text which do not have any corresponding
word in most English versions. Most translations make it sound like God must
bind 'whatever' Peter says, whether He agrees or not. However, Young’s literal
translation is more clear: “whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth
shall be, having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon
the earth shall be, having been loosed in the heavens.” This version
gives Peter permission to bind and loose things on Earth, as long as they are
bound or loosed in heaven. This exact same wording is given in Matthew 18:18
where the same power is given to all of the disciples (not just the 12 apostles).


15 June 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 June 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger bluedog said...

Cressida, maintaining a pious vigil on His Grace's site @ 02.22, reverts to a familiar theme, ' Catholics who have received an authentic Catholic education know the truth regardless of what some of their leaders promote.'

This will be devastating news for Anglican converts to the RCC like the blessed Albert. Are we to believe that there are two classes of Catholic? Officers (those born to the purple) and men (those lesser beings who merely volunteer to serve the colours)? Does it matter in which arrondissement one happens to be educated? This communicant is no expert in the Christian faith but believes it to be highly inclusive in that Christ was sent to us as the saviour of all mankind irrespective of status.

But the RCC is different, no?

15 June 2013 at 22:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

One can receive an authentic Catholic education at any time. Those who join the faith later in life receive this formation as part of the process of being received by the Church. Even 'cradle Catholics' attend Catholic study groups to gain a deeper understanding of Catholic teaching.

There are not different classes - this is nothing to do with status. And I believe Cressida was referring to those Catholics, laity and clerics, who promote ideas that contradict orthodox teaching.

Are you challenging the establishment of an authoritative Apostolic Church by Jesus Christ?

Twist and wriggle all you like but it is clear the Apostolic Church (leaving aside the proper understanding of Papal authority for now) was promised guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding and correctly applying the message of Christ. That's why the Church cannot err.

Okay, so "less successful races". Why are they less successful. You frequently attribute this to lesser IQ.

My point was your suggestion the Holy Spirit was more accessible to Nordic *races* as opposed to southern European *races*. Do you really believe this and what's your evidence?

15 June 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, it would be rather grand to think the Holy Spirit guides humanity in a way a colony of ants go about their business, but history finds differently. And of course we have “Whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven” etc. Not very hopeful for a guided church, what ! Why include that statement when whatever is bound on earth is the result of Holy Spirit activity....

We are on our own, and a good thing too. That is what being human is all about. We are but God’s pets, and yes, we foul the nest...

16 June 2013 at 00:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

As I've said on previous posts, you either slept through religious lessons or you are wilfully setting aside Catholic teaching.

16 June 2013 at 01:08  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter... 'Your Church cannot err'?.

That is breathtakingly arrogant!,and inaccurate to anyone with a glimmer of intelligence.

Successive Popes(infallible Popes) have constantly contradicted each other on matters of theology.
How do you explain how each Pope cannot err?.

Two opposing Popes excommunicated each other.Popes sold the Papacy to the highest bidder(so much for' papal succession').Pope`s committed each and every crime known to humanity.
Your statement "The Church cannot err" would be laughable if it were not so tragic for those duped into believing that the Catholic Church was the church ordained by God(which it quite obviously in`t!.)
I honestly believe that if religion(apart from God) is what you want then God will let you have it.God will make you believe the lie .I sincerely pity you.

16 June 2013 at 15:24  
Blogger Jim said...

So your answer (14 June 23:02) is that you do not find any other reference to 'faith alone'.
Your Ephesians quote is selective and out of context. The text continues 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works'. Have you read New Perspectives on Paul? NT Wright catching up with Catholic theology about Works of the Law.

As for Mary, 'worship' is a word of shifting meanings with its origin in 'worth-ship', acknowledging the value/worth of someone. We have 'his worship the mayor' and magistrates being addressed as 'your worship'. So strictly speaking, Mary is to be given worship, since she has 'worth'. In recent years, the meaning is becoming more restricted, particulalrly in American Protestantism to be applied only to God. But this is unhelpful.
I find that 'adoration' is a clearer term for the unique worship of God.
God is adored, Mary is worshipped, as indeed is 'his worship the mayor'.

I have a glimmer of intelligence and I see that you are conflating 'Church' with Popes. They are not the same, The last Pope went to Confession more than once a week, acknowledging his errors and sins.
Perhaps you should explore Infallibility as a teaching. It is not the same as Impeccability.

The fist Pope denied Jesus under oath and abandoned His blessed mother at the Cross.

16 June 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger LEN said...

The first' Pope' was Constantine.

16 June 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger LEN said...

No' bishop of Rome' considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops,
nor any sought authority over all Christendom,until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I,( whose most celebrated accomplishment is recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia,) attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches.

Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter. Nor will you
find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril,Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of
Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter.

(This is just to illustrate the 'fallibility' Of the Catholic Religion.)

And of course this citation of Matthew 16:18 only came into being after the original 'authority' of the Catholic Church 'the donation of Constantine' was found to be a nor very cleverly forged document(by catholic' theologians')

16 June 2013 at 19:59  
Blogger William Lewis said...


"So your answer (14 June 23:02) is that you do not find any other reference to 'faith alone'."

How many references do you require?

"Your Ephesians quote is selective and out of context. The text continues 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works'."

Here's the full quote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

So it's clear. We have been created for good works but have been saved by grace through faith!


16 June 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Jim said...

You fail to cite any commendation of 'faith alone'. The key point is 'alone'. You won't find me arguing that we are not saved by the unmerited grace of Christ or that faith is the gift of the Spirit which leads us to Salvation.

Catholics read Scripture and don't find 'faith alone' apart from the NOT statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that the fourth century Emperor Constantine was the first Pope?
He wasn't a cleric and died an Arian.
Read the Roman Canon for the list of first and second century Popes after St Peter -- Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius. Lots of martyrs there.

16 June 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Peter D said...

You really don't get Catholic teaching on Apostolic authority despite over two years of discussions on here about Papal and Magisterium infallibility and the nature of indefectibility under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Do read up on it on an objective site.

Constantine the first Pope - ROLF!

16 June 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger William Lewis said...


So you say that salvation by grace through faith, apart from being wholly from God and nothing that we can do ourselves, is also not sufficient alone for our salvation.

However, the Bible seems clear that it is all that is required. Even James, who speaks of works, explains that works are an indication that faith is alive rather than an extra requirement, on top of faith, for salvation. The context is his contradiction of the assertion that "You have faith and I have works." which he summarises as "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

So what else is required, other than grace and faith alone?

16 June 2013 at 23:48  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Still no explanation from len regarding the infallibility of the "saved".

17 June 2013 at 00:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

William Lewis said ...
"So what else is required, other than grace and faith alone?

I see you slipped in the word "alone" there. Just where in Scripture does it say this?

God's grace and faith in Christ are absolutely necessary - the question is whether are they sufficient? Can grace be lost? Can the gift of faith be lost through our own fault? Does man have any choice in responding?

17 June 2013 at 00:47  
Blogger Martin said...


And the Augustine inspired massacre of Celtic Christians at Bangor did not happen I suppose.

17 June 2013 at 08:33  
Blogger Martin said...


The church of Rome quite clearly worships Mary, tho' it dresses that idolatry up in words such as 'venerate'.

17 June 2013 at 08:37  
Blogger LEN said...

Bimey Corrigan... I have a life apart from posting on this thread?.
well here goes,

Can we lose our salvation seems to be the question?.

Well assuming that we 'are saved' in the first place?. 'Salvation' only occurs with the new birth.People say "I gave my life to Christ". God doesn`t want your life what God wants is to get His LIFE into you.This can only happen when we become united with HIM in the new birth.That is why Jesus commanded(not suggested) that we become' born again'. This re- birth is purely a work of God.We cannot earn it, no way can we ever deserve it.It is purely an act of God`s Grace and Mercy.It is received after repentance and a desire to turn from ones' fallen nature'.When Peter saw the righteousness of Christ the Love within Christ the comparison between Christ and himself became unbearable. He said "depart from me for I am an wicked man". There comes a time when we are confronted with our own weakness, our own fallibility, our own pre disposition to sin,that we either shut our eyes to it or desire to change and the only way to change is the way Christ has explained in the Gospel.
God respects our free will and if after being born again and experiencing the fruit of the spirit(love joy , peace etc) one wished to return to their former state God would respect that decision(why one would want to do that is beyond me)
After' being born again' which is an initial act there is a path to follow'('Pilgrims progress' by bunyan)describes this process.We enter by the Gate(Christ) and then we 'walk the path'.

There are many pitfalls along' this path'but Jesus promises success for those who 'overcome 'The World, the flesh and the Devil'and this can ONLY be done through the Power of the Indwelling Holy Spirit (sometimes called the Spirit of Christ) Jesus said take heart I have overcome the World and His Spirit gives us this ability.

People may think I hate and despise those within 'the church' (Catholic or otherwise) but this is not so I hate' the system' which entraps people within its system and sidelines the true savior who is Jesus Christ.

Jesus said the Truth(about Him) would set people free and my most earnest desire is to see this Truth uncovered.

If we decide to 'go it alone' and try by following 'Church teachings' alone(no re birth no new spirit ) then we will fail either by just becoming hypocrites and ignoring all our failings or give up in despair.
These are the people to whom Jesus will say"Depart from Me I never knew you".Jesus says this in respect of someone who claims to have a relationship with Him but Jesus knows this never happened.

We become' united with Christ' through His Spirit joined to our human Spirit.This is how we have eternal life. All die in the first Adam.
The last Adam[ Christ] became a Life Giving Spirit.

17 June 2013 at 08:37  
Blogger Martin said...


No, Christ did not establish an apostolic church with authority. You will find only local churches in the New Testament, no overarching 'authority' aside from the Apostles.

And once the Apostles died their authority was absorbed into the existing authority of the Word of God, not to some politico/religious authority in Rome or elsewhere.

17 June 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger Martin said...


I'm afraid I don't rate N T Wright too highly. He seems to be of the devious type of commentator akin to Humpty Dumpty in his use of words.

As to 'faith alone', did you not realise that Paul is pointing out that even the faith we have is the gift of God? I somehow doubt you would move from your position whatever I say.

17 June 2013 at 08:48  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Peter D

I did not sneak the word "alone" into my comment. It is the very word in contention. So what else is required for salvation?

Can we lose grace? Grace, by definition, is unearned by us. How can anything we may do cause us to lose it?

Can we lose faith? Well, Ephesians says that Faith is also a gift from God that cannot be earned by anything we do.

Can we refuse these gifts of grace and faith? I believe we can.

17 June 2013 at 09:17  
Blogger Jim said...

I commented on Mary earlier
As for Mary, 'worship' is a word of shifting meanings with its origin in 'worth-ship', acknowledging the value/worth of someone. We have 'his worship the mayor' and magistrates being addressed as 'your worship'. So strictly speaking, Mary is to be given worship, since she has 'worth'. In recent years, the meaning is becoming more restricted, particulalrly in American Protestantism to be applied only to God. But this is unhelpful.
I find that 'adoration' is a clearer term for the unique worship of God.
God is adored, Mary is worshipped, as indeed is 'his worship the mayor'.

To answer your last question, 'Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him' according to Catholic teaching. I haven't contradicted this.

By the way, you may prefer James White, who is co-author and holds the same 'new perspective' on Paul (not new to Catholics).

17 June 2013 at 09:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


If you read the Gospels Jesus was apparently Jewish. Or was Mary NOT a Jew and descended from King David? True enough he was apparently his own father though, but some people do seem to think G-d is an Englishman.

Besides which there is other evidence to suggest Jesus was Jewish :

*Because he lived at home until he was thirty
*he went into his father's business,
*his mother thought he was God
*and he thought his mother was a virgin...

17 June 2013 at 10:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

How very well stated LEN @ O8:37

17 June 2013 at 10:24  
Blogger LEN said...

The' first Adam' was Created with enormous potential.He was also created with free will and the ability to use it.Love can only be returned to the sender if free will is allowed.
So the first Adam was given the choice(the two trees)to either derive his life source from God or from' other sources' ie Adam`s 'own reason' and Adam`s own estimation of what was 'good' and what was 'bad'. This is still the dilemma of 'modern man'.

We see the results of man choosing a life apart from God which has opened man up to 'other spiritual influences'(demonic)and a moral decline which has lead to chaos. God is a God of order' Chaos' is not His doing' .God spoke into the darkness and created Light'

Jesus came to restore(and to give back more) than was lost 'in the fall' BUT we must follow God`s ordained route to salvation not make up our own path.

17 June 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter D @ 00:47

Two quick points.

1. Right at the end of Part 1 of 'Pilgrim's Progress' there's the sentence "Then I saw there was a way to hell, even from the gates of heaven..."

2. We tend to think of election etc in relation to Calvin, but it was Augustine who raised it all first. Irresistible grace etc. The issue runs across the Christian spectrum.


17 June 2013 at 10:32  
Blogger Jim said...

I think we all know that Yeshua bar Yosef was born into a Jewish family, brought up as a Jew and closed the day before his execution with a Passover meal. He isn't his own father though. One God, three Persons, one with two natures.

17 June 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


(are you the poster 'old' Jim or another Jim?).

I have to admit, I'll never get the Christian concept of the Trinity... especially the Jesus and Father God bit...

I sometimes grasp it as 3 Gods as one (a bit like Hinduism), but apparently that is not the correct view of the trinity,being one God with 3 aspects/persons or whatever.

Ahhh, I think I'll stick with one G-d full stop; less complicated (to me anyway).

17 June 2013 at 10:50  
Blogger Jim said...

You write "following 'Church teachings' alone(no re birth no new spirit )".

This isn't Church teaching, the Church is clear that Baptism is rebirth - 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit'. It is the gateway to life in the Spirit. As John 3:5 has it 'born of water and the Spirit'.

17 June 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger Jim said...

I have posted as Jim in the past.

The Trinity is beyond our understanding, the Church calls it a Mystery. Augustine used the analogy of the single human mind having memory, understanding and will to envisage the Trinity. Another of his approaches was based on John's insight that 'God is love'. If love is the fundamental of the Divine from 'before' all eternity, then there must be a beloved for the lover to love, Augustine saw the lover, the beloved and the love between them as being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Christianity holds that the second divine person took on a human nature in the womb of a young Jewish girl 2000 years ago.

A common error is modalism, water can be solid, liquid and gas. This is not the Trinity.

This probably doesn't help....

17 June 2013 at 11:29  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, len, are you or are you not fallible after you've been "saved"? Remember, you're the one who's been kicking about the hubris of Papal infallibility. Every time I hear an evangelical banging on about being "saved" and how sorry he is for the poor, benighted Papists, I think of this

As you will see, the idea that, once united with God, you can do no wrong is hardly new.

17 June 2013 at 11:55  
Blogger LEN said...

Corrigan ...God respects our free will and IF we place our trust in the Holy Spirit of God(who is infallible)we will succeed.If we place our faith in ourselves(tragically fallible) we will fail this is a certainty.

In short we can and will fail .God cannot and will not fail.Its all a matter of where our faith/trust is.

I do not subscribe to the' once saved always saved' school,such is the deceptiveness of sin that if we keep on willfully sinning after we have been saved then there is the possibility of a 'hardening of the heart' where we can fall back into sin and not place enough value on our salvation that we do notreally care if we lose it..We cannot just 'lose' our salvation but if we continue in sin we can eventually [tragically]reject it.Jesus says we must be 'overcomers'and we can only do this through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

But the remedy for this 'hardening of the heart'(when we sin because we all will sin)is given by the apostle John " But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.!(1 John 1 :7)
We should not deceive ourselves but come before God and be totally honest(God is not fooled by us) and be honest about ourselves) and our Mediator (Jesus Christ) pleads for us before God and offers His (Jesus`s)atonement to God for our sins.
It is only through being spiritually united with Christ that this 'atonement'
can apply.IF we died with Him we also will Live with Him.This is total identification with the death and resurrection of Christ.

17 June 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger LEN said...

Jim... are you talking about' infant Baptism 'or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?.

Jesus said you must be born of water(natural birth) and of the Spirit( Born from the Spirit of God.) Now this second birth can only come after realising your fallen condition repenting and seeking God.An infant cannot appreciate any of the matters necessary for salvation.

17 June 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 14:02  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Ah. There is a poster called 'old Jim', who is also Roman Catholic you see, hence the question.

I have to admit, the trinity is a whole other topic, but one which is quite confusing. I'll be content with the explanation that it is a mystery- if that explanation is good enough for Christians, it is good enough for me!

17 June 2013 at 14:03  
Blogger LEN said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger LEN said...

Deleted last comment (too many typos) here it is again hopefully better presented!

The Trinity'
There is One God.! .God states it so!. (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5). 'The Trinity' is a mystery because man has made it so in an attempt to grasp an infinite God with a finite mind.Nowhere in scripture does it state there are 'three Gods.' God says' I am One!.

We should remember that God is Spirit not a man.

God states that a man and a woman should marry and become 'one' that they should become united. This is 'a picture' of the union between man and God, Christ and the Church and perhaps why God dislikes 'marriages' which dishonor this God ordained union. Spiritual matters cannot be discerned in relation to material matters.Jesus (as the last Adam) became a life giving spirit) He can give His[Spiritual] Life to whoever and how many he chooses.
The realm of the Holy Spirit is something the church needs to get in touch with if it it is to survive and preach Christ to a dying World.

17 June 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Jim said...

I am talking about the Trinitarian Baptism decreed by Jesus at the end of Matthew's Gospel and described by Paul as the circumcision of Christ. It can take place at any stage in life, as we read in Acts.
Remember that circumcison was usually carried out within 8 days of birth, apart from the case of adult converts - like most Baptisms today.

I have not met the inclusion of 'natural birth' in the Scripture about Baptism. Is this a teaching of man?

On the Trinity, Jesus claims Divinity and was attacked for blasphemy. He speaks of his Father and that he would sent the Holy Spirit.
Are you denying the Trinity?

You are correct that marriage is the sign of the union of Christ and his Church. One husband, One wife - One Christ, One Church.

17 June 2013 at 15:09  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Martin said,

"And the Augustine inspired massacre of Celtic Christians at Bangor did not happen I suppose."

No, Martin, it didn't. The Celtic monks at Bangor were massacred by the army of the PAGAN king Aethelfrith of Northumbria, because they were seen praying for the army of the Christian Britons to win the battle.

When I said 'do some research', I didn't mean go away and find a website written by a mad Celtic fantasist to confirm your prejudices; I meant actually look at some reputable history.

17 June 2013 at 15:12  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Oops forgot to mention - St. Augustine had been dead for around 12 years when most historians believe the massacre took place.

So according to your theory, Martin, a dead St. Augustine managed to command, from beyond the grave, a massacre by a pagan King who'd probably barely even heard of him, in order to further the aims of a Papacy Aethelfrith didn't care about.

I have to say, Martin, it's looking a little shaky...

17 June 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K

Your comment about this thread on the Cameron/Pope thread drew me back to this one.

Feminists go on about patriarchal religion without saying how strange it is. Baal had his female consort: ditto Zeus, Jupiter, Odin etc. And all of them human couples writ large. And then the Jewish God whose bride is the nation (eg 'Ezekiel'). Really strange.

Compare the afterlife in the 'Aeneid' with anything in the NT. Virgil can be far more detailed, knowing it's invention. (Aeneas emerges through the 'horned gate': sleep). Those who believe themselves to be bound by data are much more restrained.

The Trinity is so odd, who would invent it? Monotheism, polytheism: so much simpler. Maybe Christians are crazy. Or maybe the nature of God is strange beyond our understanding.

17 June 2013 at 15:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


'An infant cannot appreciate any of the matters necessary for salvation.'

So does that mean infants who die are therefore in the Christian hell?

Also, I still cannot see how this born again business is coherent- one minute you say that we 'must be born again'(spiritually I assume) and become Christians and the next you say you cannot be 'once saved, always saved'. So I assume you have to constantly born again then?

In respect of your explanation of the Trinity, that is even more confusing than anything else I have read.

If god cannot be man, why do you follow Jesus? Secondly if god is spirit, why have Jesus.

And thirdly I see why Christians put Jesus there in the religion and god (the father-still can't see how Jesus is god and god the father and he fathered himself), but in respect of the Holy Spirit, what exactly is the difference between that(him? her?) and god and Jesus?

Do you pray to all these three 'bits' of G-d or just depending on the subject matter (as I think I understand, you have saints and mary for that? ).

17 June 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I am told that the Trinity isn't mentioned in the New Testament, but it is inferred and that is how 'the church' came up with the belief (which does make some form of logical sense).

As for me, I find no such issues to grapple with in my own faith. We pray morning and evening the Shema Yisrael (Devarim or Deuteronomy 6 vs 4). There are various names of G-d in our scriptures, but these are, (like the trinity?) words for aspects of G-d and his character.

In respect of the 'bride' in Judaism, there is a hymn sung before Sabbath called the Lekhah Dodi which refers to welcoming 'the bride of Shabbat'.

I think that in the context of G-d and Israel, the scriptures do use this analogy as a way of understanding G-d's mercy as well as G-d's justice.

As Hannah said the other day it is a bit of a misunderstanding that Judaism is all about endless unreachable rules of a stern and unforgiving G-d.

17 June 2013 at 16:09  
Blogger Jim said...

Infants who die baptised are guaranteed Heaven, those who die unbaptised may be saved, we entrust them to the arms of a loving God.

'Born again' is a loaded phrase for some Protestants implying only an adult conversions. Catholics and Orthodox hold that the reference is to a rebirth through Baptism with water using the Trinitarian forlmula 'in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'.

I think that you'll find that St Augustine's approach to the Trinity (which I summarised earlier) is closer to orthodox Christianity than Len's.
God became man in the Incarnation, the second Person of the Trinity took flesh (carne) and was named Jesus.
We see that God has revealed more of Himself in this action. And just to add to your confusion,... the Father isn't the father of Jesus, rather the Holy Spirit (the love between the lover and the loved) caused Mary to conceive after she agreed to bear the Messiah.

There are specific prayers to each of the Persons of the One God. Jesus taught us the Our Father prayer, we often pray in Jesus' name and will invoke the Holy Spirit.

Protestants dodn't tend to ask saints to pray for them. Catholics and Orthodox do. We believe in the Communion of Saints, where w,e on earth, can pray for each other to God and ask those who are with God in Heaven to pray for us also. Of these Saints, we believe that Mary is desrving of greater attention. Just think how powerful the requests of a Jewish mother to her son would be!

By the way, the Church includes figures such as Abraham and David as Saints.

17 June 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...


You're right; it is inferred. Eg in 'Luke': the father welcoming the prodigal son; the shepherd searching for the stray sheep; the woman looking for the lost coin. Three different aspects of the same thing. You give an excellent definition in your second paragraph.

Re your last para., I don't think Christianity is the denial of anything in Judaism (Islam is quite another matter): only the fulfilment.

C S Lewis said our debt to the Jews is greater than we can ever repay. (A Jewish friend of mind observed: stress, if you're quoting that, that you mean it in a SPIRITUAL sense.)


17 June 2013 at 16:50  
Blogger Jim said...

“Spiritually we are all Semites" Pope Pius XI, 1938.

17 June 2013 at 17:06  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 17:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Thank you for the clarification regarding infants, as I've know one or two (friends and family) who have lost children.

You'll have to forgive me for the 'born again' question, because it is somewhat of a mantra that I've read from a few people on the 'net (we have one sternly Protestant 'crank' on my sister's blog who gabbles about nothing but, along with various conspiracy theories about how Jews control the world either a puppet of or controlling of the Vatican via reptiles from space or something equally absurd).

In respect of the Trinity, I'll google Augustine, but yes that is somewhat confusing as 'father' (in the christian sense) I've always meant to believe as in the father of Jesus, rather than the holy spirit.

[In Jewish liturgy we refer often to "Avinu Malkeinu," our Father, our King. The Talmud teaches that there are three participants in the formation of every human being: the mother and father, who provide the physical form, and G-d, who provides the soul, the personality, and the intelligence. It is said that one of G-d's greatest gifts to humanity is the knowledge that we are His children and created in his image, or at least that what my mother told me when she was pregnant with Hannah and Rachel, even though the medical advice was to have abortions.]

But I digress,

'Requests of a Jewish mother to her son'.

Ah! Now I get why the Orthodox/Catholic Christians pray to Mary!!

17 June 2013 at 17:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Jim said...

I agree. We use the term 'procreation' for human beings, rather than 'reproduction'. God creates the soul at the moment of conception.

As for Father, the second Person of the Trinity is the Son of the Father eternally. I was referring to the Spirit being the 'spouse' of Mary.
The second Person was born into history as Jesus and is now resurrected and reigning in Heaven as King of kings and Lord of Lords.

By the way, I think that Shema Yisrael made it easier for the first converts to see a distinction between YHWH and Adonai. It only got complicated when they started converting Pagans like the Greeks.

17 June 2013 at 17:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I am sure that is the case, although the view in respect of the Jew seems to vary with people.

I used to believe Protestants were more interested in Judaism and to an extent the modern day state of Israel, but I see now there is more of an even split there, with a lot of opinions either way.

As a total aside and as we Jews like to share an anecdote or story :

I was on a biz trip to Scotland, it cottoned onto the landlady of the local hotel that I was a Jew, having initially thought I was, because of my olive skin, ahem, a muslim -who as she admitted don't wear nice black skill chaps or have curly side burns.

Btw- She did admit that Kavanagh didn't sound very Muslim but was respectably Irish or is that 'coloured' or as I pointed out Jewish ( as in 'the way of the heart', transliterate Kavannah/Kawanah/ Kavanot?)

From then on the 'sky' TV only allowed me to watch the 'G-d channel' with Pastor John Hagee Ministries TV show, which was this chap giving sermons - support of Israel against terrorists,Messiah Jews (?) & Christian parenting were 3 common themes.

Anyway, enough of my pedantic musings.

PS- I have to admit, I think the lion the witch and the wardrobe is cracking book...

17 June 2013 at 17:45  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


got to go now, but I guess at least there is some common ground there (not to get all 'Bob' about this, of course!).

Btw- Adonai (Lord) is the 'formal' substitute word we use whenever G-d's personal name is used in the Torah. (That is the 'four letters', you've used in the post above- alas as I'm not a high priest and as the temple is gone- I'm not allowed to pronounce or write the name).

17 June 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger Jim said...

Some Protestants are strongly in favour of the State of Israel because they believe that the Temple must be rebuilt so that Jesus will return.

For Catholics 'Spiritually we are all Semites'. The Catholic Mass is the descendant of the Todah Sacrifice from the Jerusalem Temple.
Google From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist: The Story of the Todah.

Also, Gregorian chant is directly derived from the Priestly chant of the Jerusalem Temple.

17 June 2013 at 18:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

I hope that your romantic meal with 'Mrs K' goes well, not that she will *know* that her sister in laws helped out with the cooking, to make it look like my oldest bro -who couldn't cook a tin of baked beans & who wanted to put a load of salted herring & whiskey on the lamb's leg which has been roasting for a couple of hours- is 'master chef' of the year! (:

And of course me and sister Rachel with look after our nieces and nephews (and step nieces and nephews) in the meantime.

#shock horror# from Mr Inspector and Peter D; a lesbian and her twin sister, is being trusted to look after her bros children and teenagers! *for the umptheenth time*

How very dare you!

17 June 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger LEN said...

David ,infants are not held accountable to God until they reach 'an age of accountability' which is when one consciously knows when one is doing wrong.
'Infant baptism' does not affect the infant in anyway whatever..It might be a nice gesture, 'a dedication' but that is all. No infants are' lost' all go to be with Jesus.

Jesus would not have warned us of the possibility of losing our salvation if it were not possible?.

Listen carefully to some of the warnings He
gave to backslidden churches as well as some of the promises He
gave to overcoming Christians.

"If you do not repent, I will come to you
and remove your lampstand from its place" (ch 2, v 5).

"He who overcomes will not be hurt at all
by the second death" (ch 2, v 11). The opposite is also
true. If you don't overcome, you will be hurt by the second
death, which is the lake of fire.

"He who overcomes will be dressed in
white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life"
(ch 3, v 5). The
name can be erased from the book of life if you don't overcome.

"Hold on to what you have, so that no one
will take your crown" (ch 3, v 11).

"So, because you are lukewarm—neither
hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" (ch 3 v 16).

(Seems rather clear to me?.)

There seems to be a conspiracy to conceal God`s proper name.' God' is a term which can apply to any 'god' (even when letters are missing.) God clearly states His Name is Yahweh. The Biblical names only really make sense in Hebrew.

17 June 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger OldJim said...

Mr Kavanagh,

Not to overburden you with explanations lest I confuse you even more, but I think that the best way to approach the doctrine of the Trinity is to approach it historically, because the early church fathers were naturally hesitant to go about defining these sorts of sacred matters, and if we see what prompted them to do so, we will begin to see what caused them to formulate doctrine in the way that they did.

Usually, what happens first is not that the Church wades in with some new definition that Christians are suddenly bound to accept, but rather that some dubious chaps come along with a definition so obviously wrong that the Church feels the need to clarify its meaning in response, specifically to exclude these new pernicious ideas.

So one of the big heresies of the early Church was Arianism, which asserted that God the Father was God, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were kind of superbeings created by Him. We can see what might have been attractive about this doctrine - it's something you can wrap your head around and it's nicely, straightforwardly monotheistic.

However, it would involve doing violence to the Biblical text and cast a very strange light on some of the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. Because at several points Jesus does quite obviously arrogate to Himself titles and powers that one would expect to be absolutely reserved to God. Most famously, by way of example, at one point, he announces "before Abraham was, I am" - he's not simply asserting that he preexisted his own birth, which would be sort of consistent with Arianism; he's either arrogating to Himself the Divine Name God gives to Moses, or he is claiming eternal pre-existence, or both, and we know this because the Orthodox around him immediately attempt to stone him, and the reason (as in John 10:33) is that he claimed to be God.

The scriptural texts are even more explicit: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

So, Arianism cannot be true - we are committed to the idea that Jesus is also God in some way.

17 June 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger OldJim said...

Another doctrine that came along in the early Church was Modalism. This basically taught that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, were God appearing to us in different forms, kind of like different masks that He might wear, and performing different functions. Again, we can see what might be attractive about the doctrine - again, it retains a clear form of Monotheism, because there is the promise that in Heaven, we will see the masks drop away and have God in his Oneness; it also neatly explains how all three persons can be God all at once - they're just "personas" God takes on like the burning bush or the column of fire to make a point or perform His purpose.

But again, the doctrine would involve doing violence to the text, because the text seems pretty clear that God has a division of persons in all eternity

So, the opening passage of the Gospel of John again: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

It's clear here that God is supposed to be two entities and One all at once.

Again, in Revelation 22:3 we see a picture of eternity, as the Heavenly Jerusalem is described: "No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his
servants will worship him."

Again, the Lamb and God are separately designated, but they are given one throne, and we are told that His servants will worship Him, not that Their servants will worship Them.

So, Jesus is God, but not just a temporary manifestation of the One God, but a permanent person within God.

17 June 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger OldJim said...

To try an analogy: if I had a son, he would have a separate set of genes, a separate personality, and so on.

If I had a clone son, he would have the same set of genes, but a separate personality and separate experiences.

But God exists from all eternity, His Will and His Intellect are timeless and unchanging.

So let's say that I had a clone son whose brain was hooked up to mine, so that all of our thoughts and experiences were immediately synchronised.

Now, there is a sense in which we are precisely the same; if this conceit was used for a science fiction show, I guarantee that there would be some long dramatic storyline about which was the "real" person.

The only sensible way to differentiate between us, given that the contents of our genetics and personality are identical, is our origin, or you might prefer to say the relationship between us: one of us is the cloned one, and one of us is the clone.

If I put it like that, you might also be able to see why Christians are best described as Monotheists who are taught that there are three Persons in God, rather than tritheists who believe that their three gods have a single purpose or will.

It's not that the clone and I are two chaps who have come together for some common purpose or who share an awful lot of stuff.

Rather, there is a primary "me-ness" that we now both share - all that distinguishes us is that one was cloned and the other wasn't, we are otherwise identical.

That's a sacrilegious analogy, but it's the closest I can get to explaining the thing.

17 June 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len,

I see you spreading the gospel of Jesus, but you quote chapter and verse, but where is it from?

Anyways, you say 'the biblical names really make sense in hebrew'

Doh! What bloody language do you think Jews use?

Now the reason why we put a - when we refer to 'G-d' is because Orthodox Jews are tend not to use the sacred personal name of G-d, either in written or verbal usage.

That personal name is, the one beginning with "Y" which you've used btw or the Hebrew letters of Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei .

So no-one is trying to conceal G-d's name...

perhaps Jews here should use Hashem, or 'the name', which is more informal than Adonai but then you wouldn't get that Hebrew I guess.

But for educational purposes -

Jews do not casually write any Name of G-d. Whilst Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name, it prohibits erasing or defacing a Name of G-d, so because we are bservant Jews we avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities.

Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our G-d. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of G-d.

So therefore us Orthodox (ley) Jews avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God."

Hope that helps!

17 June 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Ah, I see, Len. So it is not YOU who is infallible, it's actually the Holy Spirit working through you. Which is kind of what the Church says about infallibility. You'll notice I capitalize the word "Church" because I'm referring to the one that He founded personally, which, when you think about it, is exactly what He would do if He's trying to save us. After all, there has to be an arbiter on Earth because if there weren't, then every man becomes his own intermediary with God and then Christianity would fragment off into thousands upon thousands of different sects, continuously subdividing into ever smaller and smaller...ok, maybe I'm cutting just a bit close to the bone here.

17 June 2013 at 19:51  
Blogger OldJim said...

But just to show the limits of any analogy:

It's helpful, because in this example we can illustrate why if my mind-sharing clone were to go out for an ice-cream it would be proper to say "the clone went out for an ice-cream" or "OldJim went out for an ice-cream" but not "the cloned man went out for an ice-cream".

So we can equally see why we can say "the Son became man" or "God became man" but not "the Father became man"

But the limit is that there was a time at which I was cloned

Whereas God has always existed in relationship to Himself. We might say that at His very root, God is a relationship.

17 June 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Peter D said...

"#shock horror# from Mr Inspector and Peter D; a lesbian and her twin sister, is being trusted to look after her bros children and teenagers! *for the umptheenth time*"

A somewhat unnecessary and tiresome comment. Are you looking for a cyber scrap? Why associate me with the views of Inspector Javert?

And are you a lesbian? To me, the term only applies if one chooses to actively engage in a homosexual relationship.

17 June 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

Poor old you. No I do not want an internet scrap...

Yes I am a lesbian.... are you asking me if I've found a girlfriend? The answer is yes! But nothing, other than the odd hug and kiss.

17 June 2013 at 22:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s always interesting when someone sees something in you that you are not...

17 June 2013 at 22:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I think you should be you, which you are !

17 June 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger Peter D said...


Then tread carefully, Catholic's call what you're engaged in putting yourself in an "occasion for sin".

Have a read of Genesis 3 for the way temptation works.

Btw, nothing "poor" about me, or "old". I just don't do self pity these days.

17 June 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter,

If I may say, not having gay sex is one of the many mitzvot I am supposed to uphold (like not eating pork or shellfish). This may sounds strange, but the temptation or sin to have sex is no different to having a bacon buttie or eating prawns.

Besides which, I think companionship or a good friendship is perfectly normal.

17 June 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger LEN said...

Hannah.... when referring to the Hebrew meaning of names I am comparing them to the Greek.I do realise that Hebrews spoke(of course) ......Hebrew. But did not Jews in Jesus`s time occasionally speak Greek?'.Koine Greek'?

Anyway.... I am no expert but here is what I mean; The name' Yeshua' literally means The LORD's Salvation, or Salvation from the LORD. In comparison, prior to being transliterated from the Hebrew Bible, the name 'Iesus' did not exist in Greek. Through multiple translations and changes in pronunciation, a tradition of saying "Jesus" has obscured His name, "Yeshua." It has shifted His perceived message and identity from Hebrew to Greek.
The Church deliberately distanced itself from its Jewish roots and became under the influence of a 'Greek thinking' philosophy and seems to have remained so.

The ignorance of Christians has been purposely orchestrated by a church that has historically sought to distance itself from its Jewish background. It all began in the last part of the first century as the church became more and more dominated by Gentiles in demographics, in philosophy of ministry, and in theology. It was insured in 325 C.E. when Constantine the Great issued the imperial edict that the church should thenceforth have nothing more in common with Judaism .

In distancing itself from its Jewish roots much of the original meanings of names has been lost.

I (hope) this makes things clearer?.

17 June 2013 at 23:11  
Blogger LEN said...

Brave attempt to describe' the trinity' Jim but it remains a mystery(to me at least)

I suppose we will understand one day but probably not this side of eternity?.
Until then we have our Faith.

17 June 2013 at 23:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len,

I'm not a scholar, but as I understand it Greek and Latin were the 'English' and 'French' languages of the time, so yes the more educated Jews (such as Paul) would have spoken those languages. I think thanks to Greek Empire building, Jews had translated Torah into Greek by then, calling it the 'Septuagint' (incidentally the Church used a Hebrew to Greek to English translation, so, for example 'genesis' is the greek translation of the Hebrew and the greek got translated into English). I think that the New Testament was written in Greek, which was like the English of the day ( a 'global' language).

As for the ordinary Jew (such as Jesus or Peter or any of the other disciples),I think Jews would have spoken Aramaic as a day to day language, which is a accented and slightly changed version of Hebrew (a bit like American English verses English English)- apparently I think it notes in the gospels Peter is from Galilee and people can tell because of his 'regional' accent (like he's a Geordie or something).

Hebrew remained the 'holy' language of the Torah, both written and oral versions. I think Peter D mentioned this earlier in the thread, but what he didn't note is that the 'oral law' itself is written in Hebrew (the same as the Torah), but the commentary of this, by the Rabbis is in a version of Aramaic.

17 June 2013 at 23:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

And as if that were not confusing enough, despite Israel having modern Hebrew (the difference between Shakspearian English and our English today), thanks to the diaspora, we also have Yiddish ( a Germanic/eastern europe & Hebrew fusion, spoken by the Askhanazi Jews),Ladino (spoken by Sephardi Jews, which is Spanish and Hebrew fusion) & Mizrahi Jews (from North Africa and the middle east) who speak Judeo-Arabic (Hebrew and Arabic).

17 June 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len,

As I understand it Jesus (as Christ is the Greek translation of Messiah),is the translation into English of the Greek word for the Hebrew Yeshua or in English Joshua... But I could be wrong there.

17 June 2013 at 23:42  
Blogger Peter D said...


I'd stick with the occasional bacon buttie then. Far less addictive.

17 June 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger LEN said...

Corrigan... , 'do we have to rely on the church to be 'our arbiter'?.

The question might be re phrased as.. Should we rely on an 'earthly Priest'to guide and sustain us?.
Or... should we go directly to Christ?.Jesus, though God from eternity, became a man in order to suffer death and serve as our High Priest (Hebrews 2:9). As a man, He was subject to all the weaknesses and temptations that we are, so that He could personally relate to us in our struggles (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus is greater than any other priest, so He is called our “Great High Priest” in Hebrews 4:14, and that gives us the boldness to come “unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16 KJV).

We must give Christ His proper position, His proper Authority as the Head of The Body.
God said through the prophet Jeremiah (31:34) No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

This shift from' the Church' to Christ might seem to be small but it is vital in the process of salvation.

The Church should only exist as a 'signpost ' to point people to Christ if it attempts any more than that it has exceeded its function.

17 June 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter,

I guess you can say my 'friend' is simply 'just a good friends' then....

17 June 2013 at 23:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

As a final note I think it was Jim who said that the gregorian chants were similar to the Hebrew prayers and I personally like the great Anglican music/songs of the Psalms. Although the Hebrew is equally majestic.

PS-If anyone is interested I suggest googling the Bevis Marks Synagogue, which is a Sephardi Shul and the oldest in our country...

17 June 2013 at 23:51  
Blogger Peter D said...


The problem is there are as many 'Christ's' as there are protestants - all made in their own image from their private readings and judgements - or plagiarised from a variety of websites.

Evidence? Just review some of your own comments and compare and contrast them with equally ardent "born again" evangelists.

The Truth existed before the writers of Scripture. It can be found in the Church - not in the minds of individual men.

18 June 2013 at 00:51  
Blogger Peter D said...


Its really none of my business and its what you think, feel and say that counts.

18 June 2013 at 00:53  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter... Truth is a person not a 'Church system'.

Jesus said "I AM .. "not the Church is.. the Way.

Sorry but you are STILL wrong on this matter and will be until 'your philosophy' comes into line with the Word of God.

18 June 2013 at 07:24  
Blogger Jim said...

Did Paul write that Jesus is the pillar and bulwark of truth? No.
Did Paul write that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth? No.
He wrote that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

There was no New Testament text for the first couple of decades of Christian life. Where did people seek the truth? The Church.

Who wrote the contents list for the New Testament? The Church.

18 June 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger Corrigan said...

And Len will tell you what the Word of God is.

18 June 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I think Hannah has responded quite well to your post to me, above. I'm only add that, whilst one can refer to a god as in any old deity, I am not referring to any old deity when using the word G-d. I am usually loath to quote a lot of scripture at people, but as you raised the point-

"I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things." (Isaiah 45:6-7).

I can use the various Hebrew titles for G-d, but it would confuse most readers here, so I don't.

18 June 2013 at 15:59  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Old Jim,

Thanks for your posts, as ever. I think I'll give the bit about the clones a miss, too confusing for my tiny mind!

18 June 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger LEN said...


You seem to be putting 'Paul' above Christ in matters of doctrine. This is somewhat worrying can Paul correct Christ?. Can the Catholic church negate the teachings of Christ in favour of Paul?.

This could be the key to your problem. Who are you following?. If Paul contradicts Jesus do we ignore Jesus?.

The 'contents list' of the bible has not been selected as diligently as some might assume?. Some books were assessed by the method of "does this sound right?. Others were incorporated and later rejected.
Indeed Catholics have added and subtracted where they felt this 'necessary'.

18 June 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger LEN said...

Jim... whilst we are on the' control element 'prevalent within the Catholic' Church'.

Catholicism was actually born out of a desire for power. The' Eastern Church 'can be traced back to the Apostles. However a' power play' came into being;'The Bishop of Rome wanted to be 'supreme bishop'. Additionally, the Roman church modified the Nicene Creed, after having agreed to not do so. “A council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON The Orthodox bishops objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son. Rome would not listen. Their faith in the Holy Spirit began to erode, and it showed in their doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide the Church, Rome continued to falsely boost the centralized power of the Papacy. In time they came to believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit’s ability to pray with us and for us, they elevated Mary and the Saints to almost be a means of “getting around Jesus…. In 1054 the crisis came to a head. A Papal legate, in a fit of anger over [the Orthodox Church's] “refusal” to acknowledge the Pope’s inflated claims and warped doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.”'(WBMORES WEBLOG)

So, The Roman Papal Legate excommunicated the Patriarch of the Orthodox church in Constantinople because the patriarch refused to accept Rome’s inflated claims to power and poor doctrine.

“Efforts were made to reconcile. But the Pope would not give up his claims to power, and [the Orthodox church] would not compromise [their] doctrine.

“Rome went independent. Unchecked by any kind of “peer review” by the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome’s theological innovations proceeded unchecked. Within 500 years after the Great Schism, they had become so warped that they incited a revolution – the Protestant Reformation. “

18 June 2013 at 16:48  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Oh for the love of God!!!

I do wish people would stop finding websites written by blatantly biased people and citing them as reliable sources.

The Great Schism is a lot more complicated than 'evil Pope wanted power'. The power that the internet gives people to produce biased claptrap and present it with academic authority is just as worrying as its ability to distribute porn.

The "sources" quoted by LEN are 1) a blog written by a Protestant evangelist and 2) a web site which you can write for without even having an undergraduate degree in a subject. If an undergraduate student of mine presented that as an explanation of the Great Schism they would get it thrown back at them.

If you want to understand these enormously complicated and protracted events, go and find some peer-reviewed scholarship, not unreliable and biased websites written by people with an agenda.

18 June 2013 at 17:09  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Darter ,

"oh for the love of G'D"

If only.... But Len is, like the trinity, a bit of a mystery to me. I ask questions of him and get strange or incoherent answers or implications that I'm part of a conspiracy to conceal G-d's name (???).

But I do find the dialogue here helps me to understand the Christian religion in greater detail. It is quite an educational experience.

18 June 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Peter D said...


So now you're challenging Scripture!!! Mind, there is a protestant precedent for this and even for adding the odd word here and there.

There is only One Truth. If the Bible appears contradictory then turn to the Church's interpretation of it. The Church has the Truth; that's why Christ established Apostolic authority.

Oh, you're not still suggesting Saint Paul encountered Satan rather than Jesus Christ? I recall you doing so in the past. Gives you a bit of a problem with Roman's, wouldn't you say?

18 June 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Len, are you actually Bob in disguise? Because you're just as irritating. In a previous post you took a swing at the Catholic Church (plus ca change...) based on the fact the Paul chided Peter in one of his letters. Now you're saying that the Church has negated the teaching of Christ in favour of Paul. So Paul is the top man when it suits, and an upstart when it doesn't, which is the very fallacy which the Church repeatedly points out to Protestants, particularly your kind of Protestant - you find a bit of scripture which suits your immediate desire, then ignore it later when it doesn't.

As to the Church picking and choosing which books to include in the Bible, well, I think the word I'm looking for here is "duh". Of course we did - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Are you starting to see how this works now?

18 June 2013 at 20:01  
Blogger Jim said...

Others have dealt with your cut-n-paste history tosh.

You do not respond to my question about the first decades of Christianity, when no New Testament texts existed. Where did people go to find the truth?

As for the 'contents list', I limited the point to the NT to keep the argument focused on the NT canon, not the whole Bible as you tried to include. The New Testament was canonised by Church Councils in Africa and Rome. These Councils were made up of Catholic Bishops. The Church gave us the NT canon, as approved by the Pope.

18 June 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

Anyone seen or heard from Len?

He'll resurface in a few days and make the same diabolical assertions - for the silent reader - then disappear again.

Corrigan - personally, I much prefer Bob the Buddhist.

18 June 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger LEN said...

I don`t seem to have the same ability(or the time) to monitor this blog constantly as some [Catholics] do. Don`t Catholics work?.

Every Truth that appears they leap upon to try and crush before it can blossom.'The Truth' especially the Truth of God`s Word seems to infuriate and irritate those bound within religion.God`s Word tells us this will be so",For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."(2 Timothy4:3)
So Catholic response comes as no great surprise to me.

David, The Jewish religious leaders created man-made laws to protect “HaShem (The Name)” by using the replacement name Ba‘al (Lord, Master, Adonai). In proper context, to replace YHWH with Ba‘al (Lord, Master, Adonai) is a willful neglect of a commandment and a grievous transgression of Torah, Elohim’s Law.Exo 9:16 KJV) 'And in very deed for this cause have raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Declare what name... ' G.d?.'

The Catholic Church is a political/ religious organisation which owes more to 'Mithra' than Christ. 'Catholicism' was initiated by Constantine to prop up his crumbling Empire and has attempted throughout history to destroy those who follow Christ rather than the Catholic Church system.
So... no surprises here!.

PS. I thank his grace for his tolerance during these 'revelations.''

PS. to the Catholic 'Blogwatchers' keep reading some of it might sink in.

19 June 2013 at 08:28  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


As far as I'm concerned your doctrinal positions are entirely your own affair, and you are entitled to your beliefs.

What neither you nor anyone else is entitled to do is present blatantly sectarian and factually inaccurate versions of history as truth to further an ideological agenda.

That sort of prejudiced pseudo-history can be very dangerous (stories like the Blood Libel and Little St. Hugh of Lincoln leap to mind, of which I'm sure David K. is aware) and the rise of internet publishing has opened the floodgates for authoritative-looking websites to spread it.

Having written about the dangers of internet porn, perhaps HG could look at internet conspiracy and pseudo-history sites, which are just as corrupting...

19 June 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Having read Len's reply to me, to wit Jews used 'Baal'as a replacement for the sacred name and by implication worship baal (on of the biggest load of crock I've ever read btw).

I would have to agree that Len is referencing some dodgy sites to assert this conclusion. I'm only going by his views on Judaism, but if his views on Catholicism are as 'accurate' then I can see why people get pretty upset with him.

19 June 2013 at 10:23  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 June 2013 at 11:03  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Looking at your post it seems that you haven't really read the posts from me and Hannah, explaining why the more Orthodox Jews do not render G-d's name in full and where we find this idea from our Torah, so to us it is not 'a man made law'.

I also note that you are trying to imply we worship 'baal' , the Phonecian/ cannanite spirit deity as a result. That’s a good one, alas the Hebrew form for Lord or Master is Adonai, not Baal.*

You see where you have got confused is in using another semitic language, that is the Phoenician /Cannanites, that is similar to Hebrew in sense of French and Spanish being European languages and translating them both into English.

Furthermore, if you actually read the Torah, I think that the religion of baal was in conflict with the Jewish religion, to wit the stories of Elijah (one of our most important prophets).

Whilst you are at it you are getting increasingly confused with various bits of Hebrew. Elohim is the generic Hebrew for god or a deity as well as the G-d of the Torah - the first lines of Genesis are bereishit bara Elohim, (“In the beginning God created”). There are also other titles for G-d, such as El-Shaddai, Elyon,Avinu Malkeinu,Ehyeh asher ehyeh etc.

In respect of The King James version (yes I do have a copy) and other Christian Bibles, you will note that the word lord or the lord of hosts or the lord almighty in modern versions, is spelt in capitals. This is because not even the Christian writers use the personal, divine name of G-d in the text and therefore use these words as a substitute (a bit like we do with Adonai). So even if Protestants don’t use the sacred name, what’s the problem with us Jews doing the same? Or do you worship Baal as well ?

I trust that this clarifies things for you.

*The Hebrew is btw, bet-ayin-lamedh and the generic use of the word, when not being used as a title for a deity can refer to master, as in master of the home/ownership of property /husband.

19 June 2013 at 11:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

David K said ...
"I trust that this clarifies things for you.

Do pigs fly? Let's wait and see what Len says.

What with Catholics and now Jews *monitoring* this site, (a conspiracy?) the poor man can hardly find the time to search the websites to cut and paste responses.

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.

19 June 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger Jim said...

Baal worship indeed!
That's as accurate as him claiming that the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine who lived more than 200 years after the first use of the term 'Catholic' and was Baptised by a non-Catholic Arian heretic.

19 June 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger LEN said...

David.... you seem to have totally misunderstood my posts and the reason for presenting them!
Please retrace the posts and your confusion might become apparent?.
My comments(addressed to Hannah) were about the hijacking of the Jewish roots of' the Church' to the deliberate severance of all things Jewish from 'the Church'. Eusebius wrote that the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not the Jews, and the curses were for the Jews. He argued that 'the Church' was the continuation of the Old Testament and thus superseded Judaism. The young Church declared itself to be the true Israel, or "Israel according to the Spirit" heir to the divine promises and found it essential to discredit the "Israel according to the flesh" to prove that God had cast away His people and transferred His love to the Christians. This false supposition was one of the root causes to anti Semitism and ultimately contributed to the Holocaust and the present conflicts regarding Israel.

I do not expect to get much sense from the Catholics (others than sarcasm and denial)so no great surprises there!.They either have no understanding of the history of their Church or prefer denial to the truth.

20 June 2013 at 09:43  
Blogger LEN said...

'Dodo'..'.Peter 'whatever you are calling yourself today.

I going to 'cut and paste' all your reponses to me and render them' null and void'(according to your theory anyway. LOL.

20 June 2013 at 09:46  
Blogger LEN said...

'Jim' (still in denial I see?.)

Try 'searching the scriptures' for the Truth as 'the Bereans' did instead of being just' a piece of blotting paper' adsorbing all the Roman Catholic 'theories' and suppositions.

Roman Catholicism as a break away faction of the original' Catholic Church'.Today, as it was in the beginning, the true “Catholic” church, is not the “Roman Catholic” denomination, but rather it is the WHOLE Christian church of “born again” - “saved” Christians who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord no matter what denominational group they belong to. The True “Catholic" Church has existed within and apart from the “Roman” Catholic Church thoughout the past 2,000 years.
'Roman Catholicism' was born out of a lust for power wealth and position.If that is the organisation you wish to belong to instead of 'the church' founded by Christ and the Apostles then that is entirely your decision.

20 June 2013 at 10:24  
Blogger LEN said...

In case anyone else is still 'confused' about the origins and intentions of Constantine the first Roman Pope and His' Roman Church';

Constantine himself said, "Let us then have
nothing in common with the detestable Jewish
-(Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19,
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979,
second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525).

20 June 2013 at 10:48  
Blogger Peter D said...


Constantine wasn't even a Christian at this time; let alone Pope!!!

So, come on then, you attack Catholic views towards the Jews. Just how do you regard modern day Rabbinical Judaism, based on the teachings of the Pharisees so criticised by Jesus?

20 June 2013 at 13:29  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I can see that post, which is why I thought you somewhat confused, given the later posts about Judaism,Baal and the idea that we 'cover up' G-d's name, which you have told us (with full Rabbinical authority) is a'a willful neglect of a commandment and a grievous transgression of Torah, Elohim’s Law.'

20 June 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 June 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter D,

Yes, I fully understand that you don't think much of Judaism. Alas, to portray us as the gospels do as legalistic and unforgiving 'pharasies', is a total misunderstanding of Orthodox Judaism.

I think Jesus would have been quite a good Talmudic scholar and Rabbi; he wasn't the only guy out there who said that G-d's law (and G-d himself) was justice tempered by mercy, as Rabbi Hillel is know for (the golden rule and all that).

Trouble was, he declared himself to be more than that, the rest is history, because as we know and why there are two separate faiths- Judaism and Christianity.

20 June 2013 at 17:05  
Blogger Peter D said...


According to Jewish tradition, written many years after the comment, the comment attributed to Hillel is:

"“What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; now go and study it.”

the book of Tobit, accepted by Catholics as Scripture, also states: “Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”

Here's what Jesus' said:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Can you recognise the difference?

20 June 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger LEN said...

It was tragic when' the Church' decided to sever itself from its Jewish roots.
'The Church' when it became dominated by gentiles decided to sever itself from any traces of Judaism. The Church embraced ' Greek Philosophy 'and incorporated Greek thinking into what was formerly uniquely Jewish. The teachings of Yeshua' the Jewish Rabbi' became(under the Church system) not so much a way of life but a philosophy.
So much of the Church teaching today is involved in creeds, and religious performance, (ie following the rulebook)
But God`s intention is for man to have His Spirit within the man leading and guiding him.This can only happen with the 'new birth.'

Of course those within 'the Church system 'will point to their 'works' but if these are not the 'fruit of the Spirit' then these 'works' can and are held up as deserving of reward which means that one is 'deserving' of salvation as a reward for these' good works'.

The re birth is essential for salvation but the church seems to neglect this teaching[by Yeshua] in many cases and rather than this supernatural event initiated by God the church seems to prefer to take a doctrinal approach aided by 'philosophical concepts'.

21 June 2013 at 10:37  
Blogger Athelstane said...

"But surely we can work together where we do agree. Surely we can both love our neighbours? Surely we share the same concerns about poverty and the global economic crisis? Surely we agree on the imperative of restoring dignity to the poor and hope to the marginalised?"

Your Grace is not only pushing an on open door here, you're pushing on the wrong one.

The Catholic Church was open to doing this sort of thing long before Vatican II and that ring exchange between Paul VI and Archbp. Ramsey. Working together on these concerns as the opportunity arises does not require the farce that is known as ARCIC; it doesn't even require meetings between the Pope and the AoC, or at least none beyond cordial handshakes-and-photo-opp.

It's the farce that is ARCIC that really bugs Mr. Oddie, and which needs to be put out of its misery. ARCIC is about corporate reunion, and there's zero prospect of reunion now, given these fundamental differences - and the ongoing fragmentation of the Anglican Communion.

21 June 2013 at 16:15  
Blogger Peter D said...


Doesn't it bother you at all that you are spreading lies about Christian history and Catholic teaching?

If not, it should.

21 June 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter.....(21 June 2013 19:18) Is that the only response that you have to the vital matters regarding salvation?.

'Salvation' is a vitally important matter to Jesus Christ as He surrendered His Life to accomplish it and you trivialize this act of Grace and Mercy by your sectarian response to serious questions asked regarding God`s Truth.

22 June 2013 at 09:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older