Friday, December 13, 2013

"The Impact of Christian Thinking on the European Project"

Apparently there was a conference in the European Parliament on 3rd December, examining how the EU's Founding Fathers were led by Christian inspiration "to peace and reconciliation in a war-torn continent"; and how there is now a need to renew the 'soul of Europe' because the project is deeper than mere politics and economics.

His Grace has tried to contact the organisers, but they will not respond.

He has tried to obtain transcripts of the speeches, but no one will oblige.

Surely they have nothing to hide.

Or has the wheel has come full circle?

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have been complicit in the whole manipulative process of European integration since its inception: they have been content to be (or to be portrayed as being) the 'Soul for Europe’; willing accomplices and dogmatic advocates of political union. They have nurtured, nourished and encouraged it. They have affirmed, praised and exalted it.

Why, one may ask, have they helped to create the beast which is anti-family, anti-life, anti-Christian, and intent on destroying the very foundations of their liberties?

If it profits a man nothing to give his soul even for the whole world, why has the Church abdicated its spiritual authority for a façade of privilege and 30 euros?

Roman Catholic social teaching has been foundational to European integration, and yet the project of ever closer union has evolved into one of ever secularising Enlightenment, in which equality is deemed sacred and abortion has become a human right. And God forbid that a devout Roman Catholic might now attempt to become a Commissioner.

All that seems to remain of the "Christian inspiration" of the European Union are the mysteries of ineffable revelation, the mechanisms of curial bureaucracy and the impregnable structures of infallible governance. It is apposite to consider the observations of Lord Shore of Stepney:
…no one who has been engaged seriously in the business of examining draft EC laws and treaties can have any doubt about their quite extraordinary – and deliberate - complexity. Every new article or treaty clause is, with reference to articles in earlier treaties - generally to be located in a separate treaty volume. Indeed part of the whole mystique of Community Law is its textual incomprehensibility, its physical dispersal, its ambivalence and its dependence upon ultimate clarification by the European Court of Justice: and the Brussels Commission and their long-serving, often expert officials are, in interpreting and manipulating all this, like a priestly caste - similar to what it must have been in pre-Reformation days, when the Bible was in Latin, not English; the Pope, his cardinals and bishops decided the content of canon law and the message came down to the laymen, only when the Latin text was translated into the vernacular by the dutiful parish priest.
There does need to be some very deep Christian thinking within and upon the vexatious matter European Union. But the way forward is for 95 theses to be pinned to the door of the European Parliament.

We need Europe.

But not this one.


Blogger The Explorer said...

Macbeth, confronted with prophecy, was in a quandary. To act, or not to act?

In his seventh paragraph, HG refers to the beast (although not the Beast), and my thoughts turned in consequence to 'Revelation'.

'Revelation' implies some sort of global political and financial system. So does one say, "Bring it on!" in order that the end will come sooner; or does one fight it for being ant-Christian?

I have my own thoughts on the matter, but would welcome the insights of others.

13 December 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Comment by The Explorer is very apposite.

Attitudes to the European Union amongst some Christians seem to favour ignoring the beast, on the grounds that it is unholy and no contact should be the rule, or, on the other hand, that it begins to fulfil the prophecies about the apocalypse and therefore should be welcomed.

I believe that both those attitudes are fundamentally flawed.

The first is wrong because we cannot avoid contact with a system which governs every aspect of our lives, which is contrary to our constitution built on the Christian faith, which denies our freedoms and beggars our European neighbours.

The second is wrong, because to leave the fight against evil to God alone is to deny the responsibility He has given us to share in that fight.

The duties of membership of the Church of God, as they apply to members of the Church of England are clearly set out in the 39 Articles of Religion, which are written in the Book of Common Prayer. These are quite specific about government, both within the Church and within the nation.

Until Bishops and Ministers hold fast to the contents of Articles XX, XXV and XXVI and lay members hold fast to the contents of Article XXXVII, the Established Church will continue to fail to provide the leadership which can transform the broken society which marks Great Britain in 2013.

John Wrake.

13 December 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I can think of nothing that I could commend in the EU.
Clearly you were not aware of this conference and as such, one wonders who knew of it's existence.
I thought that organisations in benefit of Charity status tax refunds were not permitted to partake in political activity, re service at Salisbury Cathedral.
The only good thing about Cameron winning the next election would be the poll for in/out of the EU. On reflection, I'm not sure which is worse, Cameron or the EU.
Has your Grace been made aware of the consultation finishing very soon from the Office of Government Statistics who want to group all marriages together in one statistic rather than separate out Gay marriages as an individual statistic. Thus no one will know how many Gay marriages there have been whereas in the census there is statistical information now as to sexual orientation.

13 December 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Paved with good intentions.

Where there is a lie, there needs to be a truth.

Which truths need to be nailed to which doors?

13 December 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger Steropes said...

Re. John Wrake's commment. Being brought up by a local High church and later going to a similar boarding school, I was always told that although the 39 Articles are printed in the BCP they are not part of it. The CofE describes itself as "Catholic and Reformed" so I've always thought there was more flexibility of thought on this matter.

13 December 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

I have on more than one occasion written to a member of the EU commission, using the email addresses on their profiles.

Not once have I received so much as an acknowledgement. The contempt they hold us in is clear.

13 December 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger derek.buxton1 said...

Elby the Beserk,
I am not bit surprised that you got no reaction to your letters, that is consistant with the bureaucratic mindset of all EU Officials. After all, that has been the intention from the start, a bureaucratic, non democratic, single socialist state. And it is getting!

13 December 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger Nick said...

"We need Europe"

Do we? It depends what you mean exactly. We need good relationships with European countries, but do not need any kind of uber-bureaucracy, especially one which is as autocratic, secretive, and unaccountable as the European Commission.

I doubt the founders of the original European project ever imagined how it would evolve into the monster it is now. Attempts to impose peace usually end in oppression.

The EU clearly sees itself as an ever-expanding empire. I hear they want to extend the Eastern Front to include countries like kazakhstan. We were never at war with kazakhstan, so what other reason is there for including them other than spreading the empire and its vile ideologies?

Why are countries so eager to get between the EU sheets? Is it because they are frightened of not being on the bandwagon? Or maybe they are just not aware of the downside of membership.

I too see nothing Christian about the current EU, and can only guess at was said in that secretive meeting.

13 December 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Try writing to a member of the EU Parliament.

13 December 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The RCC has a long and distinguished (?) history of accommodating itself with vile regimes. For the good of the faithful dwelling within, you see. This pragmatic approach is to be commended rather than scorned. The EU hasn’t got to that state of affairs yet, and is merely an unruly adolescent in comparison. But make no mistake where the loyalties of the RCC truly lie – God and our Redeemer and the faithful on this earth.

13 December 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Your Grace,

The ECPM website does, in fact, provide a very brief summary of the proceedings:

13 December 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Cranmer must be away today; apparantly, Jack Chick is writing his post - and it looks like he's seen right through our nefarious Jesuit plot. (Speaking as an old-school Catholic, I miss the days when the Jesuits actually used to plot against the Protestants instead of the Vatican.)

13 December 2013 at 14:34  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Mr Integrity,

I have e-mailed re: the proposed deliberate mixing up of all the statistics on all types of "marriage", and it was acknowledged.

Governments collect statistics, and we have a 1000 years of doing this, in England, in order to rule wisely, to adjust policy decisions to reflect reality. This is a deliberate ploy to NOT know about the effects of a huge change in thousands of years of law. Regardless of where you stand on the central issue, researchers of all sorts should be able to access the facts. But then a previous Labour Government deliberately stopped collecting data on comings and goings across our borders didn't it ? This is tyranny not freedom.

13 December 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer, @ 10.15

I was about to comment on your question when I read the excellent reply from :

John Wrake @ 11.39 . This hits all the right nails on the head for me so I row in behind those comments. Thank you John Wrake.

I had to look up my BCP with the Articles at the back, first though, not having a photographic memory. The foresightedness, the prescience of those founders never ceases to amaze and humble me.

In the meanwhile I continue being a UKIP activist. Let us hope that, in the future Referendum, unlike when Edward Heath lied to the British people to deceive them, no such dirty tricks are used again. But we are now alert to that distinct possibility, having had all naivete concerning "our" so called "leaders" well and truly washed away in the strong current of their continuing deceptions.

13 December 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger Corrigan said...

No dirty tricks in a British referendum, David? I'm guessing you haven't been following events in Scotland recently.

13 December 2013 at 15:49  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

This is a pet peeve, but this - "like a priestly caste - similar to what it must have been in pre-Reformation days, when the Bible was in Latin, not English; the Pope, his cardinals and bishops decided the content of canon law and the message came down to the laymen, only when the Latin text was translated into the vernacular by the dutiful parish priest" - is cobblers.

All educated laymen in Europe could by definition speak, read and write Latin during the Mediaeval and Early Modern periods. The idea that only churchmen could read the Bible and other Church documents is nonsense. Poorer, uneducated laymen would generally not be able to read their own language, never mind Latin, so it would have to have been interpreted for them anyway. Latin was the intellectual lingua franca of Europe; publishing something in Latin ensured it could be read and understood by more people more quickly. It was the Mediaeval equivalent of putting something on Facebook.

13 December 2013 at 16:01  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 December 2013 at 16:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

John Wrake @ 11:39 & David H @15:33

My sentiments too.

Thanks to both of you.

13 December 2013 at 16:45  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

It's not every day that I find myself in full agreement with Dreadnaught. In fact it's so unusual that I'd like to celebrate the occasion by repeating his admirably expressed concluding paragraph:

Of the greatest threat to Christians, and everyone in Europe, especially now that Crusading is currently out of fashion, is not a perceived threat to civilisation as we have known it, from some non-existent, dedicated atheist lobby, but from creeping Islam; and that affects us all.

A few lines up in his comment, though, I have a suspicion that there's a negative too many somewhere in this bit:

I think it would be difficult to dismiss the view that the longest period of peace in Europe, is not directly the result of member countries focusing more on economic interaction and less on militaristic, territorial or sectarian motives.

Dreadnaught, don't you mean "is directly the result"?


13 December 2013 at 16:53  
Blogger ardenjm said...

Look, Cranmer, this bogey-man you've made up that is the Roman Catholic Church (quite apart from it being that organisation whose spiritual legitimacy you schizophrenically both reject and embrace - when you decided to take Holy Communion in St Peter's pilfered even as you repudiated the Church that offered Him to you) is the only body that has consistently spoken up for the Unborn Child - a cause that is, I believe, dear to your heart, and rightly so. You don't hear that from the Anglican Communion - and the Protestant Churches are so divided amongst themselves its virtually impossible to know what they think.

Yet inspite of this fidelity of the Catholic Church to the unborn child you have this astonishing Black Legend meme that refuses against all evidence to get dislodged and hinders you from being objective about the Catholic Church. The real one - not the one that exists amongst the strawmen of your imagination.

The EU is not the restoration of Roman Catholic hegemony - because that Roman Catholic hegemony never existed. There was always disputes, battles, wars, excommunications, repressions, appropriations, condemnations and shifting alliances. At no point since the fall of the Roman Empire to the Enlightenment do you ever see a politically stable Europe over which the Pope in Rome presided, issuing diktats that got applied in any meaningfully universal way. NEVER.

The Catholic Church isn't organised enough to be manipulating what's going on in the EU. And in any case - are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the Freemasons take such orders? What nonsense.
Now, that over a third of Anglican Clergymen were Freemasons is absolutely true. If you want to point fingers at ecclesiastical complicity with secret and manipulative organisations you don't have to go to Brussels. You just have to go to Lambeth Palace....

13 December 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Look, Ardenjm, there you go again.

Another post to which you object because His Grace has the audacity to mention your denomination, and all you can do is rant in your usual facile caricature fashion - ad hominem, of course.

Everything here is sourced by hyperlink, which in turn links to primary material (the Shore book you can buy). It is no conspiracy: it is all revealed, disclosed, out in the open. That is to say there is corroborative evidence, not least a bloody great poster illustrating the point. Do you grasp the meaning of 'evidence'? Do you know what it is? Do you understand how it may be used to affirm a theory? Can you reason?

You are not obliged to log in, read or comment here. The blog is Anglican, ergo you will object to its very foundation. His Grace does not believe as you believe. He does not share your understanding of your church, nor your grasp of politics.

Please, if this offends you, feel free to leave and dwell among your own. Either that, or have the grace, intellectual maturity and Christian charity to reason the issues instead of despising the man.

13 December 2013 at 17:49  
Blogger graham wood said...

Those bloggers who appear to believe Mr Cameron's second promise of an In/Out referendum on our membership are IMO sorely mistaken.
There will be no referendum in 2017 for several reasons
1 There will be no major policies returned to the UK as a result of his "negotiations. The EU has NEVER once returned such powers to a member state due to its "occupied field" , or. "Acquis Communitaire" doctrine.
2. The result of any supposed return of powers to the UK
would need the approval of all 28 member states, and that will not be forthcoming. (In fact some leading EU politicians have already strongly hinted that they will veto any proposals)
3 The time scale is not possible for 2017 as it could not accommodate the holding of the needed IGC
4. Cameron will not be in power after the GE 2015 !
5. The Uk and EU establishment will never permit such a referendum

13 December 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 December 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

We need Europe.

But not this one.

I agree.

No one can deny that the predominant religion for over a thousand years in Europe was Christian; as was every warring monarch and princeling since Ethelbert. A shared but enforced belief in Christianity proved no formula for unity right up to the 20th Century. The only genuine element states held in common, then as now, was the need for safe passage and free trade.

I think it would be difficult to dismiss the view that the longest period of peace in Europe, is directly the result of member countries focusing more on economic interaction and less on militaristic, territorial or sectarian motives.

It would be wrong for anyone to assume, that on demand abortion or same gender marriage is by any means universally accepted by atheists. Atheists exist primarily as individuals and not in some organised institutionalised monolithic forum. Certainly, no one has ever sought to ask my opinion or sought to indoctrinate me. If atheist philosophies are anywhere at fault, it is more appropriate to blame them for treating all religions with equal forbearance.

More to the point, we the electorate, give MEPs too much of an unaccountable and easy ride, through lack of scrutiny and national or individual apathy. We don’t challenge them enough and that’s our own fault and not Europe’s. Christian Displeasure in some elements of European legislation could be ameliorated through democratic involvement and not by detachment.
Of the greatest threat to Christians, and everyone in Europe, especially now that Crusading is currently out of fashion, is not a perceived threat to civilisation as we have known it, from some non-existent, dedicated atheist lobby, but from creeping Islam; and that affects us all.

thanks Brian

13 December 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger ardenjm said...


How can it surprise you - to quote that great Anglican author C.S. Lewis - that "the devil tempts best on the very steps of the altar"?

So OF COURSE the Catholic Church's history is going to contain stories of the effects of the weeds growing up amongst the good grain. Nearly always these will be because members of the Catholic Church, including the hierarchy failed to leave up to the Church's own mission and teaching of the Gospel.
This neither alters the nature of the Church nor the truth of her teaching.
When it comes to the European Project who can not be reasonably persuaded by a desire to end over a century of ever-more destructive wars and forge alliances in a mutually beneficial way? Many Catholics in Europe would have seen the wisdom and necessity to this. As did Winston Churchill himself!

You, however, want to present this process as somehow nefariously orchestrated by the Vatican down the decades - on view, of course - to a Global Catholic Caliphate that will snuff out sturdy British Independence and, presumably, see the Pope crown some Stuart descendent stooge as rightful Catholic monarch in these Islands - whilst, in fact, being THE eminence grise behind the throne.

In the history of the Church did such Popes and Monarchs ever exist?
Why, when even Isabella and Ferdinand wanted to set up the Spanish Inquisition they were met with resistance from the Papacy who only capitulated before the fait accompli of the Most Catholic Monarchs doing what they damn-well pleased!

The Magisterium of the Church has been as supportive as she can be of the EU. She has, likewise, been deeply critical: "The silent apostasy of Europe" is a phrase that comes to mind.
Here's a link to the papal exhortation Ecclesia in Europa on these very questions!
It appeared 10 years ago, so I appreciate you may not have had the time to read it. Pope John Paul II says nothing in that document that you couldn't agree with eg:

"The Church “is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution” for Europe, and for this reason she consistently desires to respect the legitimate autonomy of the civil order. Nevertheless, she has the task of reviving faith in the Trinity among the Christians of Europe, knowing full well that this faith is the herald of authentic hope for the continent. Many of the great paradigms of reference mentioned above, which are at the core of European civilization, have their deepest roots in the Church's trinitarian faith."

You tell me to engage with the ideas and the facts.

And you give me Dan Brown to argue your case.

As for the rest of your reply. It is guilty of those self same failings you accuse me of. Except one.
It IS your blog, you're right. I'm merely tolerated here. So you can censor my words as you see fit or, indeed, prevent me from posting at all.

As your Grace's conscience dictates.
But since that same conscience was able to reconcile receiving the Blessed Sacrament in St Peter's with this constant animus against the Church that gave you that Communion I remain sceptical about the wisdom of its judgement.
But, hey, you've got it right on Abortion unlike vast swathes of your own ecclesiastical community.

So thanks be to God for that.

13 December 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack agrees all the EU equality law have become instruments of oppression. All these financial rules, rules about health and safety and now these open borders, is bad too.

Jack thinks it may have all started out with good intentions but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Now we are here let's deal with it and not fall out about whether it was all the popes fault.

The people meeting at this conference want our Christianity protected. Politicians used to talk about their Christian beliefs without being made fun of. Not any more. They see Christian values as good in public life as well as in private life but now see Christian values are being pushed into private life.

13 December 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

His Grace’s article reminds me of a book called Windswept House written by Malachi Martin and the first part describes the division in the Vatican between the high Vatican officials notably the Secretary of State and the Pope. The Secretary of State is described as being very much in favour of the European project and keen to promote women priests, homosexuality etc. and downplay traditional Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints etc. It’s a book of fiction but it is not difficult to see a strong correlation between the book and events on the ground. In 1952 Bella Dodd testified before a congressional hearing that the communists had infiltrated more than 1000 priests into the Catholic Church. In view of that, it would not be surprising that some high church officials might be complicit in seeking a New World Order with Europe at the helm. Remember That the Book of Revelation refers to The Whore of Babylon that sits on 7 hills. Rome sits on 7 hills and the Treaty of Rome was what established the European project.

13 December 2013 at 19:59  
Blogger bluedog said...

Nick @ 13.09 says, 'The EU clearly sees itself as an ever-expanding empire. I hear they want to extend the Eastern Front to include countries like kazakhstan. We were never at war with kazakhstan, so what other reason is there for including them other than spreading the empire and its vile ideologies?'

Kazakhstan is of course a Muslim majority country with a failing post-Soviet dictatorship. On this occasion the EU may be doing something quite interesting if it subverts the Kazakh regime, which has been bought by China. This communicant could give details. The Kazakh steppe is a treasure house of resources and potential agricultural wealth, all useful to a highly-populated urban civilisation such as the EU. Far better that Kazakh lebensraum be available to Europe rather than China. One suspects the Russians will have the casting vote on this matter, as always in Central Asia.

As an aside, one can safely bet that the pro-EU riots in the Ukraine are largely a Catholic rather than an Orthodox phenomenon. The Ukraine being neatly divided between the two.

13 December 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Graham Wood @ 17.58.

I agree. Cameron is playing total politics. He doesn't care about this country's constitutional arrangements, one jot. He's just a vote harvesting opportunist, playing a game. I don't trust any of them at the top. I do believe that the Conservative Party still contains maybe 90 genuine , UK loving patriots, but they have careers to protect, and therefore are not going to do anything courageous, as they are followers, not leaders. It's UKIP all the way as the best bet.

13 December 2013 at 20:39  
Blogger Autonomous Mind said...

The start of the European project pre-dated the war. As always the beneficial crisis was seized upon as justification for development of a European state.

Time and again this fact is ignored as people sleepwalk into accepting the false notion of the European project being about preventing another war in Europe.

The European project is about power and control, eroding democracy, accountability and any remaining vestige of people power. Small wonder to see the Churches, part of the establishment, falling into line to support the action of other parts of the establishment to bring 'order' across the continent.

That MEPs don't even know the history is no surprise. They are taken in by the narrative and are too ignorant to look at the facts for themselves.

13 December 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Bluedog, Happy Jack was interested in your comment about Ukraine and checked the figures on religion. This is what Jack found:
Orthodox - 26.8%
Catholic - 5.9%
Protestants - 0.9%
Jewish - 0.1%
Other - 3.8%
No religion - 62.5%
So most people have no religion. Jack doesn't think the trouble is about religion and there are more Orthodox people than Catholic. From what Jack can gather, the demonstrations are all about Ukraine being more independent from Russia and wanting to join NATO and West Europe.

13 December 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The start of the European project pre-dated the war.

Which one?

13 December 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Fat Sam said...

Happy Jack

Yes, but in Ukraine religious affiliation doesn't just mean religious belief or going to church. As also in Northern Ireland, it's about ethnicities or ethnies, a word that now seems to be coming into fashion. In Norn Iron it's not just a joke: there really is a difference between being a Protestant atheist and a Catholic atheist. In Ukraine, there's a difference between being a Catholic atheist and an Orthodox atheist.

13 December 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Hello Fat Sam, your name made Happy Jack laugh!

If what you say is true, then this just confuses Jack. Isn't it more likely the atheists want to get into Europe for all its liberalism and human rights legislation? Jack has read too that the Greek Catholic Church is more favourable towards a Russian identity.

13 December 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Happy Jack @ 21.15 the non-disclosure of confession by so many Ukrainians certainly complicates matters. However, for many years a large part of the Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a broadly Catholic agglomeration of states. If you over-lay the boundaries of the PLC on the Ukraine, things start to make sense. in the meantime, you would find that the Orthodox settled areas of the Ukraine are Russian orientated, the others look west. One hesitates to mention the Third Reich, but at its greatest eastern extent in 1942 it largely replicated the PLC. Armies are invariably successful when the civilian population broadly accepts the objectives of the military, irrespective of the source of that military power. Thus an alien force that is accepted by a population will usually defeat a domestic force that is rejected by that same domestic population. So it was with the Third Reich which presented itself as an anti-Bolshevik liberator in eastern Europe. It took some time for the Big Lie to be exposed.

In the view of this communicant, once the EU strays outside the limits of European Catholicism it is getting into foreign territory where the population has a different identity and value system. This is particularly true where the population was at some point subject to the Ottoman Empire. It should be no surprise that the third world elements in Europe come from that source.

It also seems to this communicant that a certain idea of Germany (to misquote de Gaulle) is starting to infuse the EU. That idea is the deeply held belief of the virtue of the Teutonic Knights and their historic civilising mission in eastern Europe. As the Germans say, 'Asia begins at the Polish border'. Which these days is uncomfortably close to Berlin. Thus the EU is embarking on a crusade out towards the Golden Horde on the Kazakh steppe.

Don't laugh, they can't help themselves.

14 December 2013 at 00:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Bluedog, Happy Jack takes his hat off to you. You are a wise watcher of events and he will pay attention to your posts.

14 December 2013 at 00:46  
Blogger graham wood said...

David @ 17.58. I think you are so right. What a terrible indictment of Cameron and the 3 parties for playing politics with our future.
Naively the Tory 'Fresh Start' group actually believe that Cameron has some sort of power to extract major concessions from the EU !
Clearly they don't have an inkling of the realpolitik.
Their awakening at some point next year will expose them as the political quacks that they are.

14 December 2013 at 10:09  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Graham Wood @ 10.09,

Thank you.

Huge numbers are still unthinkingly voting for their "usual" party, one of the anti-UK three, out of habit, ignorance, indolence or being too busy to compare reality against expectation.

But huge numbers are also switching to UKIP. After a slow start, the thinking, patriotic, traditional Labour supporters, including Trade Unionists, are joining Ukip too now. I see it locally. It's good to see a cross-section of society, formerly isolated in the three anti-UK parties, working together for the country in UKIP. The CONservatives are no longer the party of Queen, Flag and Church, for all types of loyal Brits., and Liebor have certainly betrayed the working class, big time.

14 December 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger Len said...

As the Tower of Babel rises in Europe all who see it and admire it want 'a piece of the action'.

The RCC has had many attempts throughout history to regain control over Europe and has backed (and got into bed with) many losers. What it started and tried to accomplish by outright force and failed dismally at the cost of millions of lives is now being accomplished by deception.

Politicians have long since sold their souls to compromise and convenience and the state church is following suit.
We are going to end up(perhaps already have )a multi -apostate church bound to a corrupt political system

(sound familiar to anyone?)

True Christianity (faithful to the Word of God) is in the process of being sidelined and eventually outlawed.
The wheel is turning full circle.

14 December 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger ardenjm said...

Of course Catholics and even some Priests, Bishops and Cardinals are going to be involved in the ultimate apostasy. Thus was it foretold by Our Lord Himself.
Just as, in the past, members of the Church have been Judases.

Why, 500 years ago, some of those members - an Augustinian Canon in Germany, a Catholic King in England, assorted Bishops and Priests also rejected the fulness of the Faith and sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage.

So will it be in the Last Times - whenever they should come.

But that doesn't stop the Church from being what she is: The Bride of Christ, through whom Christ gives His saving grace and teaches His saving Truth: The Holy Trinity, The Incarnation of the Word, the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross, His glorious Resurrection, His Ascension into Heaven and His Glorious Return. The gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Sacraments, the Real Presence, Sacred Scripture, Our Blessed Lady and the Communion of the Saints. And an infallible proclamation of the fulness of that Gospel Truth down the ages in union with the successor of St Peter to whom Christ gave His authority precisely so that there be a lasting visible guarantee on earth of the Church He instituted whilst He was with us.

Christ did not promise that all Catholics would be faithful to that Truth: Martin Luther, Henry VIII and a host of bad Catholics are proof enough of that - including some Popes who almost certainly failed to live in Divine Charity and will be judged accordingly.
NEVERTHELESS - the Church as it is now constituted is the Church that Christ established and is His Bride.
That He chooses to bring some who are not members of that Bride into the Marriage Feast of the Lamb I do not doubt for an instant: I've met many non-Catholics who impress me with their faith, hope and charity. But the Catholic Church is that Body that He identifies Himself with and contains within it the fulness of the Truth He taught and the means by which He communicates His saving grace to sinners for their salvation.

Whatever it is you possess of that Truth is proportionate to the degree with which you are in communion with His Church. What you reject is the idea you have, in ignorance, prejudice and malice created of the Church not the Church yourself. What you reject and repudiate that is against the moral law is what the Church herself must reject and reform within herself. But when it comes to doctrine - what you reject is because of your commitment to the teaching of men, not of Christ nor of the Church He inspires, guides and preserves from error thanks to His Holy Spirit.

You think you honour God by reviling the Catholic Church. You don't. You merely confirm what Our Lord prophesied:
"yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them." John 16.

15 December 2013 at 00:15  
Blogger Len said...

Thanks for you contribution ardenjm.

What is the church?. certainly not the RCC.

You really should check the History of your RCC it has opposed the true Church and killed its members since its inception.
Ask His Grace if you are feeling brave?.

15 December 2013 at 09:50  
Blogger ardenjm said...

Christ established His Church on the Apostles. He designated and delegated Peter as chief of these - in service, of course, but also in authority whenever the Gospel Truth was disputed. Just as He promised to be with us until the end of Time, so too certain essential elements of His Church have the same permanence.
The visible guarantor of that continuity is the Church that is united to St Peter.

That's just how it is.

No one disputes that many Catholics down the centuries including some Popes have failed to live according to the Truth their Church professes. They have been unfaithful. Our Lord predicted that some, possibly many, would be.

That does not alter for one second what the Catholic Church is nor the constiution that Christ established for her 2000 years ago.

But these arguments have been rehearsed wiith you many times already. I have patience with those looking to understand. I have less patience with those who repeat ad naseum the tired tropes of the Seventh day adventists, jehovah witnesses or that wierd Chick guy.

Holy time of Advent.
(If you observe that season. If you do, it's because if the Catholic Church. As will be the date on which you celebrate Easter, Pentecost etc etc.)

15 December 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Certainly, the EC will eventually destroy itself, or be destroyed; it is simply a question of if it destroys Britain first (historic, ongoing Britain, I mean, not something that could possibly be re-created out of the shambolic ruins that will result).

15 December 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger Len said...


Christ established His Church on Himself not that unstable' pebble' Peter.
Your foundations are unstable and need underpinning with the Truth.

15 December 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger ardenjm said...


Yep. Take it up with the Holy Spirit.
He's the one that inspires the Apostles to start Apostolic succession in Acts 1 vs 21-26 when they vote to replace Judas.
The Holy Spirit is also the one who inspired 1 Timothy 1 vs 6 and 4 vs 14 and 5 vs 22 and the instructions of Paul to Timothy on that very question.

And the first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).

Just as, arguing with you from Scripture is so often a sterile, useless business. The Pharisees would often use Scripture with which to trip up Our Lord (to say nothing of Satan himself in the wilderness). Our Lord corrects them time and time again in different ways but this remark from Our Lord comes to mind whenever I read one of your posts:
"You are quite wrong."

The light in you is darkness, Len. So how great is that darkness!

15 December 2013 at 20:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Romish nonsense that they are the true church stands or falls on St Peter having gone to Rome and set up an episcopate as the first 'bishop' and then handed it on to others?!

!. He was an Apostle. Were the others he handed it on to APOSTLES? NO!

He supposedly set up in Rome from
AD onwards for 20-25 years and was martyred and St. Linus was chosen as the next Bishop/Pope.
However as Linus was not an Apostle but we know there was definitely one still alive at this time who wrote the Book of Revelation and A gospel, St Linus succession as apostolic succession is invalid.
He was NOT an Apostle so could not take what he was not empowered for and as St John was still alive and Christ had commanded this 'establishment, St John should have known it was his duty to take the mantle on. HE DID NOT!..because it is all made up!

Much is made of a mention by Ireaneus in his writing about Linus but the wording is specific not vague, unlike how RC miss out the last bit which is definitive.

Iraeneus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, PAUL (Note, NOT St Peter then!) makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate (Office of bishop, NOT AN APOSTLE). In this order, and by this succession (EPISCOPATE!), the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)

Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - not Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:

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

Notice, ArdenJM, that Peter's name is not found in the above list.

Notice also that according to Iraeneus, it was PAUL, not Peter, who appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome. So much for early papal authority. Oooh the irony!!! *Guffaws, Chortles and Sniggers*

15 December 2013 at 23:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

If the blessed apostles (note that St Peter is NOT singled out by Irenaeus as 'The Apostle' which is strange as he was supposedly the first 'Bishop' you say. It only means Linus was a simple bishop, nothing more!!) founded and built up the church than St John sinned and failed the great commission by not taking on the role as only he was empowered to do and not this Linus!

Strange that no other apostles confirm this popery office with St Peter in residence especially the Apostle to the Gentiles.
A good example to show this is all nonsense is the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.

The custom of the times was to include greetings to friends and important people at the end of a letter. Paul was most definitely no exception. At the end of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul sent the following greetings; Romans 16: 1-15.

Paul was very conscientious in greeting the saints in Rome and recording their names. We can also see that Paul doesn't mention Peter. Why would Paul ignore his own boss? Did the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul this salient fact?

The answer - Peter was not in Rome and was not Paul's superior.

Another point arises from the Epistle to the Romans. If, in fact, Peter was the Bishop of Rome, what right did Paul have to send the Romans instructions in the Faith?


Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End states that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and NOT Peter.

How can Rome claim Peter as first Bishop of Rome, and an 'infallible' pope, when "fathers" of the church seem to be so ignorant of the fact? Could it be that Rome is lying when she claims that she has a direct line of papal succession from Peter as the first bishop of Rome? I'll bet that's it!

In Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII we learn:
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.

According to these sources that Roman Catholicism trusts and by which they claim they base their interpretation of Scripture, we have harmony in citing LINUS as the FIRST bishop of Rome.

15 December 2013 at 23:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Testimony of Clement said : "There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government.
This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it is later in point of time, and because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility.

It is this. Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then, some men ask, can Clement in his, letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher.
The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows.
Linus and Cletus were, no doubt," Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time." (St. Clement, Addressed to Bishop Gaudentis, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, Vol III. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III)

So, how could Linus be bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive if Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Correct silly old Ernst but Papal succession occurs after a pope's death right (Did he do a Bennie and Abdicate his duty?)?

Also, if Linus was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter (THE ROCK!!) and Paul - two living Apostles. Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark, er, um,oops, I mean, Rome!!!

Rome the eternal fraud when it comes to legitimacy.

You are just one church out of many and in dire need of bended knee and godly repentance, "tout de suite" but Ernst ain't holding his breath!!

E S Blofeld

15 December 2013 at 23:44  
Blogger Len said...

The question about who is' the rock' on which the Church is built Peter or Christ is quite easy to answer, because we [surprisingly] can actually ask Peter to settle this question for us

'As you come to him(obviously Christ) the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,” and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
(Please not this is PETER talking.. I Peter 2 4-8)

(Ardenjm.... you were saying something about darkness?. it appears to have engulfed you)

16 December 2013 at 10:09  
Blogger Len said...

(Please note this is Peter talking!.)

16 December 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Len said...

Ardenjm... IF you want to be bound to anything I might suggest that it is Christ not the Roman pagan religion.

16 December 2013 at 10:20  
Blogger ardenjm said...

As the Church contemplates the Revelation entrusted to her she "brings out of her storehouse things both new and old", she is "led into all truth" by the Holy Spirit who "will tell her the things to come". Such are the words and promises of Our Lord as Scripture reports.

The role of Peter is clear and unambiguous in Sacred Scripture - unless you're re-reading Sacred Scripture in the light of subsequent divisions in the Church. The passages in Luke, Matthew and the end of John's Gospel show that Peter's apostolic role was the same as all the other apostles BUT that in that role he had the mission confided to him, and him alone, of affirming the brethren and strengthening ALL the sheep in the Faith. His role, therefore was as a focus of unity and a guarantee for the WHOLE Church of the teaching of the Gospel. This did NOT make him the holiest, the best, the most insightful nor even always right when he was using his own personal judgement. It DID mean that in his office and role grace was given to him to keep the Church true to Christ. And so it continues down the centuries. In so far as each Apostle shared in the power of the keys entrusted to Peter they did everything that Peter did. All the same - as we see at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts when the Council's decisions are announced (after much legitimate debate) it is Peter's intervention that is referred to by James as the "line to follow". In the essentials, then, nothing as changed very much down the ages. It's the same for Bishops around the world today: in so far as they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome they exercise the authority that comes with their office. When they reject that communion they still have the authority of their office (it is valid) but it is illegitimate - because Communion with the locus of unity has been ruptured.

That the Church - even at the start - perhaps especially at the start - didn't have structures in place is hardly problematic. No organisation looks the same after 50 years. The question is - is there an essential, constitutional continuity between what was at the start and what there was now?

With apostolic succession and petrine authority there most certainly is.

Take a look at this: In his 251 AD De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, St Cyprian asks, "He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?"

If St Cyprian were with us today and was looking for the Church that he belonged to, to whom do you think he would go? The Archbishop of Canterbury? The Patriarch of Moscow? The Patriarch of Constantinople? Of Jerusalem? The Copts in Ethiopia?

You can parse it any which way according to your prior denominational commitments.
No-one likes to have to admit that their cherished beliefs - and prejudices - are not based on Scripture and Tradition but on something man-made and sectarian (in the sense of limited and less than the fulness of the Faith Our Lord gave to the Church).
Our Lord chose Peter to have the role that was entrusted to him. Our Lord established a Church that would have that charism down the centuries.
Your refusal to admit that is, alas, bad faith.

Hence your logorrhea in trying to defend it.

16 December 2013 at 11:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Why on earth do we bother?

The come here making dubious claims of biblical fact and historical veracity and when it's pointed out neither claim holds water, they go off into realms of rhetorical emotive language and dubious scriptural references/inferences not there.

" All the same - as we see at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts when the Council's decisions are announced (after much legitimate debate) it is Peter's intervention that is referred to by James as the "line to follow".

The full message is different than you claim!

"Then the apostles, the elders and the whole Church agreed to choose representatives and send them to Antioch (in Syria) with Paul and Barnabas. Their names were Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, and Silas, both leading men of the brotherhood. They (Judas and Silas) carried with them a letter bearing this message:

"The apostles and elders who are your brothers send their greetings to the brothers who are Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Since we have heard that some of our number (the "Judaisers") have caused you deep distress and have unsettled your minds by giving you a message which certainly did not originate from us, we are unanimously agreed to send you chosen representatives with our well-loved Barnabas and Paul - men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we have sent you Judas and Silas who will give you the same message personally by word of mouth. For it has seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no further burden upon you except what is absolutely essential, namely, that you avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of whatever has been strangled and sexual immorality. Keep yourselves clear of these things and you will make good progress. Farewell."

The message is received with delight"

Do read Galatians, fella and you will see that St Peter, (AHEM), forgot what had been codified and sent to Christians that you give mention to?

16 December 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Not only did Peter and James appear to endorse Paul's early ministry, but 14 years later, Paul brings Titus, a gentile convert to Jerusalem (2:1-2). James, Peter, and John now give explicit approval to Paul and his gospel by extending the "right hand of fellowship, (2:8-9), and by not compelling Titus to be circumcised (2:3-4). The point is stunningly clear. Peter, John, James and Paul are united in their concept of the gospel. Paul is not the lone-wolf radical seeking to overturn church or biblical tradition. Rather, he and the big-name leaders are united, in agreement, working together in harmony. Such agreement, especially with Peter and James, seems more plausible in a context after the Jerusalem council than before.

Paul finally cites his story of confronting Peter in Antioch.

This confrontation seems to make more sense if the incident happened after Peter's public support for non-circumcision of Gentiles at the Jerusalem council (As Peter seems to have fallen by the wayside,, again, to please others rather than Christ). Paul thus chastises Peter for failing to apply the principles codified at the Jerusalem council and at which he gave a bravura performance, that seems to have slipped his mind.

More critically, Peter appears to have accepted the correction from Paul, thus affirming in a new way that Paul's Gospel is correct.

Paul's point is abundantly clear. He is not acting alone, independently. He and Peter are on the same theological page, { even to the point of being able to correct Peter publicly over the matter}. In Gal 1-2, then, Paul goes out of his way to demonstrate to the Galatians that he was in harmony with the larger church body and its leadership, and that he was not acting independently of the body, as some kind of lone-wolf radical.

Paul's statements in the book of Galatians gives evidence of a centralized governing body for the church, located in Jerusalem. Peter, James, and John appear to be highly visible figures in this organization (With James having authority to rubber-stamp what was discussed and NOT Peter). Second, Paul was not happy with those opposing the world-body by offering dissenting views of the gospel. He refutes them by arguing his message was received by divine revelation and that it had been approved by the authorities in Jerusalem.

Paul and the high profile leaders are united on the gospel. Furthermore, Peter, the patron apostle to the Jews, submitted to the same policy.

Thought St Peter was infallible when speaking doctrinally?...He submitted to Paul's correct stance on the Gospel and humbly accepted the correction...unlike your good RC selves *Humungous Chuckles*!!


16 December 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Len said...

Ernst, why do we bother?.
Because Biblical Truth is important to us .

Ardenjm has swallowed the lie hook line and sinker.And recommends us to do the same.

Speaking Biblical Truth to Catholics is somewhat like banging ones head against the wall,but I keep on because the truth must never be overtaken by the lie.

Keep up the good work Ernst and regards to Tiddles.

17 December 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger Len said...

I am firmly convinced(now more so than ever) that one can only really see religion for what it is when one has stepped outside of it.
Its rather like being in a photograph with loads of people you cannot really see the whole picture until you view it from the other side of the lens.
Religion is OK if it acts as a 'signpost' pointing people to Christ but religion becomes extremely dangerous when it points to itself instead as it does with Catholicism and other cults.

17 December 2013 at 12:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older