Monday, March 17, 2014

Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury unite to combat slavery and human trafficking

Some ecumenical pursuits are laughably delusory; others are supremely vital. The fight against modern slavery and human trafficking is of the latter category, and ought to unite Christians across all denominations.

It is therefore a cause of great joy that the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Pope Francis have given their backing to a ground-breaking ecumenical initiative to combat this evil. The agreement to help eradicate an injustice affecting up to 29 million people was co-signed today by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Representative to the Holy See, Archbishop Sir David Moxon, the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Science, Bishop Sanchez Sorondo and Mr Andrew Forrest, the founder of the large international philanthropic anti-slavery organisation from Perth, Western Australia 'Walk Free'.

In a statement the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
“Anglicans and Roman Catholics have, since 1966, been in serious and prayerful dialogue with each other, to seek the unity that Christ wills for his church in the world. Jesus has said 'May they all be one', and this imperative has inspired and sustained the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, and the International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, for many years as an act of faith.

“We are now being challenged in these days to find more profound ways of putting our ministry and mission where our faith is; and being called into a deeper unity on the side of the poor and in the cause of the justice and righteousness of God. For this reason, the new Global Freedom Network is being created to join the struggle against modern slavery and human trafficking from a faith base, so that we might witness to God's compassion and act for the benefit of those who are abducted, enslaved and abused in this terrible crime.

“Many are already engaged in the struggle and we join them with much to learn as well as much to contribute. All are called to join common cause to end this crime and suffering. The more we share the pain and oppression of the poor and suffering in the name of God, the more God will draw us closer to each other, because we will need each other’s strength and support to make the kind of difference that is needed. We are struggling against evil in secret places and in deeply entrenched networks of malice and cruelty. No one of us is strong enough, but together we are ready for the challenge God is placing before us today, and we know that he will strengthen us so that all people may live in freedom and dignity.”
Salvation is not only concerned with eschatology and eternity: it can be realised in a believer's 'freedom' and redemption here on earth, as the first-fruits of what we anticipate and hope for. The freedom we have in Christ includes the removal of psychological barriers - liberation from "the bondage of the will". St Paul often contrasts the gospel of liberty with the law that binds, because Christ came to deliver us from the incapacity to obey. The law simply reinforces our impotence, rendering us nervous paralytics.

To be free we must be able to respond as we wish. Those who are bound in will or restricted in action may be free in spirit, but they cannot be free to participate in the fullness of the created order: in Christ, we are no longer slaves, but sons and daughters. This means not only that we can do now what we could not do before, but that we may do now what we were not permitted to do before.

This effort by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope is founded upon a clear scriptural principle - freedom for captives. These modern-day slaves will be liberated from the living death of isolation, depression, shame, abuse and hatred. They will given a new life in creation and a worthy place in community. They are walking side-by-side in the footsteps of William Wilberforce and giving meaning to the term 'humanity'.


Blogger davylongshanks said...

At risk of sounding trite, the church (like here) is at its best when outward looking rather than inward looking

17 March 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Something good to show unity about rather than hypocrisy, with brotherly love for our fellow man.

Faith must have practical fruits also or it is a mere empty profession. We can talk about the things that separate us profoundly later, but they must be held and no false unity promised.

Ephesians 2:10

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Jesus prayed for the unity of all believers:

I do not pray for these [my disciples] alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. John 17:20–23

Notice that immediately prior to these words, Christ prayed:

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. John 17:17–19

The context of Jesus’ prayer for the unity of those who would believe in Him is the sanctifying truth of God’s word – the very word that the Apostles subsequently delivered to the Church, and through which we now believe in Christ.

Through that word, we are being made ‘perfect in one’ – the word of God itself creates Christian unity. Anything else is false unity.

E S Blofeld

17 March 2014 at 12:22  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

What is this I see before me? Blofeld standing (even if only for a fleeting moment) on the same side of the Tiber as Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby?

Congratulations to all three. To all four, including Your Grace.

17 March 2014 at 12:45  
Blogger Anthony Joseph said...

"These modern-day slaves will be liberated from the living death of isolation, depression, shame, abuse and hatred."

Perhaps one day we'll be able to extend that courtesy to the unemployed and disabled.

17 March 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Anthony Joseph: Are you seriously comparing the plight of the unemployed and disabled with sex-trafficking, where women (and some men) are kidnapped, sold against their will, brutalised, raped and made psychologically dependent on men who see them only as a cash cow, an asset that can be sold and resold?

17 March 2014 at 13:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Uncle Brian said...

"What is this I see before me? Blofeld standing (even if only for a fleeting moment) on the same side of the Tiber as Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby?

Congratulations to all three. To all four, including Your Grace."

Dear Uncle Brian.

You see a comment about showing love for our fellow man in unity and claim more than offered..Which is infinitesimal to the full Unity demanded in larger things but which Rome cannot bring herself to do.

Bless you, old boy. Only an RC can see or claim a spiritual unity in Christ where there is none?
It's called a practical display of Christ's love and our command to obey Him as believers.

I do, whereas Rome and it's followers seems very 'laissez aller' regarding His full commandments on unity and therefore their freedom to be unconstrained by them as Rome's will determines His immutable commands.


17 March 2014 at 13:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

What is this I see before me? Pope Francis standing (even if only for a fleeting moment) in the ancient diocese of Canterbury as Blofeld and Archbishop Welby and His Grace? *Giggles*


17 March 2014 at 13:23  
Blogger Len said...

This is not going to make me any friends but what the.....

When Jesus wanted to get His Gospel out an option would possibly have been to have compromised with the Pharisees(For the common good of the people of course)The Jews were slaves to Rome and who wouldn`t want to alleviate their suffering?.
So Jesus could have started with a few(small )concessions and this unity would have been beneficial to everyone wouldn`t it?.

Did Jesus encourage' unity 'at the expense of His Word?. Don`t think so.

(Matthew 10:34-36) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."
(Luke 12:51,52) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."

There are hundreds of anti slavery organizations one doesn`t have to join a Catholic one!.

17 March 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger Owl said...

I was just using the internet to see where slavery is still a problem and immediately hit this:

"In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”

African slavery still seems to be a big problem (Asian?).

We still, at least in part, seem to be turning on the radical muslim merry-go-round.

17 March 2014 at 14:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len lad

"Did Jesus encourage' unity 'at the expense of His Word?. Don`t think so."

You live on a street with a Roman Catholic on one side and an atheist on the other.

The atheist has a terrible problem that affects his family and is in need of help.

You and your catholic neighbour agree to help sort his problems out.

Does this mean that because the man in need is an atheist, by helping him you therefore agree with his tenets that there is no god and even this atrocity is because of the role of uncontrolled atoms bouncing off each other randomly to create what he and his family must now endure? and because your RC neighbour has agreed to help wth the atheist neighbour you therefore naturally agree with the real presence he holds to and that you are a separated heretic from the one holy apostolic church...or are you acting as the good Samaritan helping in the needs of another who must see and hear the love of Christ in action..Did all those that Christ fed with fish and loaves believe on Him afterwards..He careth for them?

All things in perspective, my fine fellow.


17 March 2014 at 14:07  
Blogger Len said...

Ernst, Old chap you have fallen into a cleverly concealed trap.

Lets give you a hand out.
Perhaps this will help?.

17 March 2014 at 14:20  
Blogger IanCad said...

I've said it before -- Sometimes doctrine just has take a back seat.

17 March 2014 at 14:45  
Blogger Len said...

"Unity must be according to God's Holy Word, or else it were better war than peace. We ought never to regard unity so much that we forsake God's Word for her sake." (Hugh Latimer)

17 March 2014 at 14:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Ernst is against Evangelicals and Catholics together as it calls for “one mission” and “We Witness Together,”which I am totally against..This would therefore have to be a 'Spiritual Unity' and I have stated categorically I am against this totally in ECT and always have been, even with me own church a an option.

The true Gospel must NEVER be ameliorated to achieve a superficial “Christian” morality.

If what Welby and Francis are asking for is this, then it must be resisted but to care for the poor needy, etc is what we are called to do. Discernment in actions is required and must be loudly stated.

Ernst must advise IF RCC is the Church at Thyatira they are one of His BUT IN DIRE NEED OF REPENTANCE as the truth was abandoned and Christianity was replaced by the old pagan form of sun worship dressed in a garb of Christianity. Forms, rituals, objects, and works replaced the elevating truths of the Gospel.
Pagan deities masquerading in statues under Gospel titles replaced Jesus, and the ancient Babylonian mysteries were reintroduced.

Even the pagan vestments with their prominent purple and crimson colors were introduced as the vestments of the priesthood. The symbols of Dagon, the fish god, became symbols of the so-called “shepherds of the flock.”

The promise of the ultimate victory of Christ stands as a rebuke to the Church of the Middle Ages and all churches that follow falsehoods:

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron (Revelation 2:26-27).

We are to go to them ceaselessly and tell them to repent and get their house in order in Love.

Jesus warned that he would cast the compromisers in Thyatira on “a bed of suffering…unless they repent” (2:22). The Greek word here is simply “bed.” But the translators have caught the Old Testament idea behind being on a bed. It meant to be sick or injured (Exodus 21:18). To be cast on a bed would mean someone had inflicted suffering upon you.

The Jezebel/Marion faction in his church– if they remained unrepentant – would become an object lesson and be brought to justice.

The fact that God is a God of justice as well as mercy – that being a Christian is serious business – would become evident to “all the churches” (2:23).

The message to each church applied to all seven. The majority at Thyatira who did not hold to this “gospel of expediency” was counseled by Him to hold on to their spiritual understanding (2:24). They would have no other “burden” imposed on them.

A purpose is NOT a mission and it is for us to state this vigorously sine fine!!

Blowers, my fine evangelical.

17 March 2014 at 15:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

IanCad said...

I've said it before -- Sometimes doctrine just has take a back seat."

A false application as the Good samaritan had no doctrine about it but motive and righteousness.

However, Man has applied it to a Good Samaritan Doctrine

A principle of Tort Law that provides that a person who sees another individual in imminent and serious danger or peril cannot be charged with Negligence if that first person attempts to aid or rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is not made recklessly.

Even a good act cannot always or never go unpunished!!!*Giggles...Good old mankind. We can make a legal drama out of an act of kindness*


17 March 2014 at 15:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Oh good, uniting on common ground.

17 March 2014 at 15:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Marie1797 said...

Oh good, uniting on common ground."

In that we all are of one flesh and because the Lord cares for all as Creator but especially for His elect uniquely as 'Their Father' as we are precious in His sight, there is a commonality of purpose but NOT of Spirit, in that purpose.
It must be so until Rome examines itself in depth and repents for any unity of believers.



Good try, my lass but no cigar *Chortles*

17 March 2014 at 15:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Ernst trusts that Welby is not just making CofE some subservient grovelling sidekick .

17 March 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger IanCad said...

"Sometimes doctrine has to take a back seat."

Ernst wrote in response to that statement:

"A false application as the Good Samaritran had no doctrine about it but motive and righteousness"

Do we live in such a cynical age that we cannot understand that the two churchmen in question quite likely also have no doctrinal dog in this game but a sense of humanity only?

17 March 2014 at 16:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Ian lad.

Ernst is agreeing with you, my dear.

Blowers *Giggles*


"Do we live in such a cynical age that we cannot understand that the two churchmen in question quite likely also have no doctrinal dog in this game but a sense of humanity only?"
Hope you are as eager as Ernsty to see the full wording of said agreeal/concurrment between the 'Babylonian Sunday Apostates'??


17 March 2014 at 17:16  
Blogger IanCad said...


You're telling me that I completely misunderstood your post?
Well, it's happened before.
Several times.

Please accept my abject, humble contritions.

17 March 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“In that we all are of one flesh and because the Lord cares for all as Creator but especially for His elect uniquely as 'Their Father' as we are precious in His sight, there is a commonality of purpose but NOT of Spirit, in that purpose.
It must be so until Rome examines itself in depth and repents for any unity of believers.”


Ernst trusts that Welby is not just making CofE some subservient grovelling sidekick .

17 March 2014 15:42

I shouldn't think so Mr B. Looking at the no frills Holy Father who champions the poor and disadvantaged and Archbishop Welby who seems a very practical, down to earth, caring sort also champions the poor and disadvantaged it's no surprise that they are linking arms where they can.
Both are real practising Christians in this sense their good works is spreading God's word too.

“Even a good act cannot always or never go unpunished!!!*Giggles...Good old mankind. We can make a legal drama out of an act of kindness,”

Yes man is truly wicked all-right. Maybe Archbishop Welby along with the Catholic Church can do something about this too and also the way the government are currently treating the genuinely sick and disabled in the UK.

17 March 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The Christian way can be very confusing sometimes, even to those that profess to know their onions.
I came upon a list of biblical contradictions and this was claimed to be one;
Slavery and oppression ordained -Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
Slavery and oppression forbidden -Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
It was I believe the North African Arabs that brought many of the slaves to the west African ports to sell their slaves.

Next Arabic business opportunity; 'Slaves R Us'.

17 March 2014 at 17:54  
Blogger Len said...

Well 'the fisherman' is certainly reeling in a few in today.

That unity stuff makes good bait ..

Lets see if he can get few more...

17 March 2014 at 17:59  
Blogger Anthony Joseph said...

Thomas Keningley. No. Now jump on Marie 1797 who also mentioned the disabled.

17 March 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This is a commendable development on an important and urgent matter. At the same time, there is dire emergency, a horrific situation pointed out by His Grace in the post preceding this one regarding the fate of Syrian Christians who are being tortured, killed and having their heads sawn-off even as we post. Can someone appoint a triage nurse?

17 March 2014 at 20:29  
Blogger Frater minor said...

Well, which is it going to be?

Do we wait until we have complete doctrinal unity before we dwell together in unity, or do dwell in unity first and then seek to resolve our doctrinal disputes?

I do recall Jesus at the Last Supper praying for all of his people to be one, united. It seems that this is a higher priority for him than doctrinal unity.

Frater minor

17 March 2014 at 20:57  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Avi, I am that triage nurse! I can slap on the vaseline and crochet the odd wound with the best of 'em. Why, during the last Crimean adventure I was out there with Florence bringing succour to the wounded. If you are in need of a rub down you can call on me, or Mr. Slope, depending on taste. On the more serious side, I do feel we need to show solidarity with our Christian brothers and sisters in Syria, as well as our Jewish brothers and sisters. Yes, I do regard Jews as kin, I reject Europe's long standing anti-Semitism and feel kinship. I shall now put on my steel-lined poke bonnet and lead-lined crinoline and await the barrage...

17 March 2014 at 21:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said...

Well 'the fisherman' is certainly reeling in a few in today.

That unity stuff makes good bait ..

Lets see if he can get few more..."

Dear fellow.

Ernst cannot quite see what you are implying here and I don't know the full implications of the accord.

If the CofE decides to go along with Rome irrespective and revert back to Popery that saves no man..Then good, they shall join them on the bed with Thyatirans.

If they can lead Rome away from it's fables and myth, perhaps both can benefit from re-examining themselves for Christ's purpose and His Glory.

Rome is most definitely wrong, deceived by arrogance that IT and only IT can be called 'The Church' and that it can NEVER be wrong..the counter reformation was merely an outward show of shoring up your loses but CofE started of well, then went skew-whiff and is still going that way at a rate of knots but this does not stop you or I coming here to read 'His Nibs", who is CofE.

We are to love them (RC and CofE) and pray they look at themselves and repent, as we are commanded to do, else why do we frequent this blog?? For His Grace's wit, knowledge and the twinkle in his eye on twitter or merely because, thank God, he is NOT Damian Thompson..Holy 'Something?' indeed!!

Will they repent of going off path at a crucial moment in history?(RC and CofE).

Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't, but vitriol taken undiluted from a website that supplies information does not help and makes our hearts hard and self righteous and unable to show love...Have you never been deceived? old Ernst has my lad!!

Well imagine deceit as theirs is, that they are told stories of them being superior/special, the RCC is the only way, truth and the light rather than Christ or vicariously of Him, and they must recite the catechism from very young and tell your innermost failings/feelings in a little box with a person infinitely likely to be more sinful than them.

May Ernst say this to you in love as a brother in Christ.

When you gain knowledge on your subjects from books or the internet...warn by garnishment what you have discovered by checking that what you have cut and paste is written for others to read in love first..Read it thoroughly first, alter if necessary to your thoughts in love for them, for them to look again and repent if needs be, 'being witty' helps if it is not too overcooked and then Admonish in love rather than Demolish with a shove.

Blowers, my old boy.

17 March 2014 at 21:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dearest Mrs Proudie, there were so many things I wanted to say on the Syria post, but in such a jumble, that I decided to hold my peace for once...lest I wind up having vaseline slapped on me and my wounds crocheted. Should such become necessary, though, I would for the record prefer your ministrations to Mr Slope's. In a heartbeat.

And on the serious side as well, I marvel at the talk of doctrinal issues and the power of prayers, but wonder when these will be followed up by effective collaboration and concrete action. As you, I feel a kinship, in spite of and because of history, with my Christians. When not improperly distracted by the idea of your lead-lined crinoline, that is.

17 March 2014 at 21:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So what is this Global Freedom Network actually supposed to do? I stereotype groups like this as committees that gather together and write reports that will only be read by the committee. But that isn't necessarily fair. What then is the agenda?

As an aside, the multi-faith aspect of this group is not troubling so long as it avoids syncretism or universalism or some other silly liberal nostrum. No multi-faith worship services, and no claims that we are all praying together to the same God.


17 March 2014 at 22:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Well, which is it going to be?

Do we wait until we have complete doctrinal unity before we dwell together in unity (What did Christ ask for?), or do dwell in unity first and then seek to resolve our doctrinal disputes (What did Christ ask for?), ?

I do recall Jesus at the Last Supper praying for all of his people to be one, united.(Glad you asked, mio piccolo fratello) It seems that this is a higher priority for him than doctrinal unity (Did He say this? Say we look again?).

Who would question the importance of unity in the body of Christ? God wants every Christian to be united and at peace with every other Christian (Philippians 2:1-4). He wants us to be knit together cohesively in love and fellowship (Ephesians 4:1-3,16; 1 John 1:5-7). He wants us working together harmoniously to accomplish the same objectives (1 Corinthians 12:12-26). Far too many congregations of the Lord’s people have been racked by division and discord due to petty jealousy, immaturity, prideful self-assertiveness, and unjustified disagreement over matters of opinion. Agreed?

What is the solution to division? Can division be eliminated? How does God want us to achieve unity? Perhaps the premiere proposal being advanced to solve the matter of division today is—de-emphasise doctrine, as you have implied!

Appealing to Jesus’ prayer for unity, as you have done, as justification for replacing unity based on truth with unity based on undiscriminating acceptance, and an emotional sense of togetherness, is both unfortunate and unscriptural.

If anyone here will take the time to read John 17, one will see that the unity for which Jesus called was unity based on correct doctrine.
Do notice His repetitious reference to the “truth,” the “word,” and the need for “keeping” and “receiving” that word (John 17:6,8,14,17,19). Clearly, obedience to a body of doctrinal truth must precede unity, Ipso facto!.

John 17:9-11
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.
11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

Are those that are goats/wolves in churches really those who Christ said" And glory has come to me through them. " Doubtless NOT!
The believers for whom Jesus prayed were members of the church of Christ—not members of denominations that profess faith in Christ. Jesus was praying for unity in His church. To identify adherents of denominationalism as “believers” is to redefine the term in an unscriptural sense.

A better case for unity is made in 1 Corinthians.The entire letter constitutes Paul’s plea for Christians to be united. Many things are listed that are causing divisions so he deals with them. How?

Their aberrant (i.e., divisive) behavior was directly due to their doctrinal error. Consequently, the solution was not to de-emphasise doctrine! The solution was not to lessen or downplay doctrinal commitment. The solution was not to relegate all but one or two doctrines to an optional status as you may wish, Frater Minor.

17 March 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The solution is clearly stated: speak the same thing! Be joined together in the same mind and judgment! Christians have the divine obligation to study their Bibles, and to arrive at the truth on every matter that God sets forth as essential. God’s doctrine concerning salvation, worship, the church, and Christian living is critical, and every believer must come to knowledge of that doctrine, and submit to it. Anything less is disobedience!

The pathway to unity is therefore very simple. God’s truth can be ascertained, known and understood (John 7:17; 8:32). All who truly SUBMIT themselves to the Word of God can and will be united.

Those who do not conform to the boundaries of truth expressed by His Word will automatically be separated from the obedient. But they will be held RESPONSIBLE for the disunity that results.

Those who remain faithful to God’s words will continue to enjoy the unity that Jesus said was possible.

Doctrine, and compliance with that doctrine, take precedence over unity.
No wonder Jesus declared: “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division” (Luke 12:51).

That sounds pretty clear to old Ernst, what say you, Frater minor?

17 March 2014 at 22:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Ernst @ 22.20 says, 'What is the solution to division? Can division be eliminated? How does God want us to achieve unity? Perhaps the premiere proposal being advanced to solve the matter of division today is—de-emphasise doctrine, as you have implied!'

It always amuses this communicant that God has allowed His Word to be spread in diverse ways and yet there is so much criticism of diversity from certain quarters. Perhaps the Almighty understands the benefits of competition and a spread of risk.

17 March 2014 at 23:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear multicoloured woof woof.

Ernst is reminded that when Elijah complained that he was the only doctrine believing Jew, that the Lord informed him that 7,000 had been placed in his predicament in regards unity with His purposes.

"And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”" Not many considering the hundreds of thousands in the Northern kingdom of Israel. There seems a parallel in history?

Unfortunately, many Christians unknowingly bow their knees to others, men statues, popes, celebrities rather than God!!!Was it ever so?

"It always amuses this communicant that God has allowed His Word to be spread in diverse ways and yet there is so much criticism of diversity from certain quarters. Perhaps the Almighty understands the benefits of competition and a spread of risk."

Ernst believes that as Satan has spread his poison amongst mankind and into the church, as we cannot speak or read Koine, we struggle with the structure that English presents when translated from it.

Koine is precise and answers questions and answers to believers the authors expressed via its TENSE, VOICE, MOOD (or "MODE"), NOUNS, CONJUNCTIONS AND CONNECTORS, CONDITIONAL SENTENCES etc etc..It's all Greek to old Ernst *Chuckles*

Ernst recommends as a good tool.

Ernst, me fav woof woof

17 March 2014 at 23:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl Jacobs asks, "So what is this Global Freedom Network actually supposed to do?"

Well, you are not paying attention, are you Carl? True, the article is tad on the vague side, but there is a side link titled "Praying about Human Trafficking" and if you click on the Catholic news release link below it, you'll find even more stuff going on; mobilizing youth sections, education, a global fund and scrapping, bowing and shuffling to foreign governments to "slavery-proof" their government and corporate supply lines, whatever that means. Add forming of sub-committees and creation of interesting neologisms and jargon to the list. There appears to be five-year plan (echoes of the old USSR) and one fears that at any point they get behind schedule, they might attempt to emulate Mao and take the Long Leap Forward.

So, cut the cynicism and consider the problem solved.

18 March 2014 at 01:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 01:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Hey, now. I admitted that I shouldn't be pre-emptively cynical, and I did look (a little) for an answer. But I couldn't find one. It's true I might have a small tendency to see the worst in things, but I am fighting it.


18 March 2014 at 01:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I was being sarcastic, Carl, you couldn't find an answer because there wasn't one. It looks like a Christian version of the Bnai B' folks are picking up some bad bureaucratic habits from our large service organizations, I fear.

18 March 2014 at 02:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


See, now, how can I stop being cynical when you encourage me in my cynicism? Here I am trying to rise above and believe this isn't just an effort in "Awareness Raising" and you go and push me right back down.

I've a good mind to remind you once again about your affinity for that fine Canadian beer, Coors Light.


18 March 2014 at 02:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Carl lad.

Just noted a new book by Calvinists for Calvinists regarding Definite atonement (From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective ). It seems it is the new 'Limited Atonement' but snazzier and puts a positive spin on the lost having no great part in God's plan of redemption and the traditional ‘Calvinist can feel good about themselves and 'Their' God.

Calvinists do appear to enjoy, nay revel in speaking to themselves?.

"Here’s a succinct definition:(Aaah) the doctrine of definite atonement states that, in the death of Jesus Christ, the triune God intended to achieve the redemption of every person given to the Son by the Father in eternity past, and to apply the accomplishments of his sacrifice to each of them by the Spirit (Limited Atonement then?). In a nutshell: the death of Christ was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone; and not only was it intended to do that, but it actually achieved it as well. Jesus will be true to his name: he will save his people from their sins.(Limited Atonement then!)"


"We want to move away from ‘limited’ atonement for two reasons (Go on then, if you must lads). First, because ‘limited’ carries an innate negativity, when in fact this doctrine is immensely positive (How so?); and, secondly, because everyone limits the atonement.(it's because it's called Limited Atonement it's soooooo limiting, ain't it then?)"

"We should preach the gospel exactly as we would if unconditional election is true or if God’s foreknowledge of who will come to believe in him is true (That's called double speak fellas !)).
In other words, no one knows who the elect are or who God knows ahead of time will choose him, or, in this case, those for whom Christ died. It’s none of our business (Not from where Ernst is sitting and reading your PR manifesto). The secret things belong to the Lord our God (Then e silent and not waffle like fools?). The Father has his elect (because He foresaw who would believe?!)), Christ knows his church, the Spirit knows those whom he will draw – we will have to wait until eternity to know who exactly these people are (Make yer mind up, will ya?). In the meantime, our job is to get on with preaching the gospel universally and indiscriminately to all (Oooh you lucky eternally lost sinners you).


18 March 2014 at 03:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Even though God has always foreseen the destruction of the wicked at the end of the world, it has never been His will that they should be lost.

Peter wrote that God is "not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). The point is that God's foreknowledge is not equivalent to His will for mankind.

Paul emphasised the same message. God's design is that all humanity should be saved. He "desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). The Lord knows that, because not all will choose Christ as Savior and Lord, not all will be saved. Only those who "receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness" will have "life through the one man, Jesus Christ." (ROM 5:17). But God wishes that all would receive, and He does all that an infinitely loving God can do to make it so.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11).

God's grace has not been made available only to those whom He has predestined to salvation; it is readily available to all. As Jesus so beautifully explained it, "God so loved the world" that He planned for "the world" to be saved through Christ (John 3:16, 17).

His grace and love were not reserved for a select class, while the rest were left untouched and unmoved. God has no favorites in respect to salvation. All people are His children, and He wishes to save them all.

God most certainly did not will that some would be lost because He foresaw that it would be so.

Despite God's foreknowledge of the ultimate damnation of the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 21:27), He moves upon their hearts with earnest entreaties. In fact, He foresaw and rejoiced that some wicked people would respond to His pleas and finally be saved.

Isn't it a terrible insult to God to argue, as the Calvinists and their like do, that all God foresees is His will for humanity?


18 March 2014 at 03:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Did God will that Adam would fall into sin, that pre-Flood mankind would live in moral degradation and ultimately be destroyed, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah would become so debased that He would have to rain fire and brimstone upon them, that the Jews would reject Christ's love and subject Him to merciless torture, and that the history of our world would be filled with the record of hatred, violence, disease, and death?

To credit all that to the will of God is monstrous and preposterous in the extreme!

Such a doctrine drives people away from Christ because they cannot believe that a loving God would will such evil.

What God foresees will happen in the future is often not His will but the will of Satan and of those who reject Christ.

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

"one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them" (2 Cor. 5:14, 15).

In other words, Christ died for all, hoping that all would accept Him and be saved from sin.

In this sense, "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (verse 19). He foresaw that He would not be able to save all, because not all would accept Christ and repent of their sins (Rev. 2:21; 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11).

Nevertheless, God provided all with the same wonderful opportunity by atoning for their sins and giving them the ability to choose Christ as their Substitute (see 2 Cor. 5:20, 21).

Paul announced that Christ's sacrifice made justification available for all humanity (ROM 5:18), so that everyone willing to receive can have life (verse 17).

Rejection of Christ is the greatest of sins because His infinite love led Him to suffer our eternal loss on Calvary.

As those who are ultimately lost face the judgment throne of God at the end of time (Rev. 20:11-15), they can never argue that Christ did not love them, die for them, or make justification available to them.
They can never claim that they were predestined to be damned and had no choice in the matter.

Christ offers Himself as the Savior of the whole world (1 John 4:14; John 6:51; 12:47), not as a discriminating judge who, apart from human decisions, chooses some to life and the rest to eternal destruction.

Praise the Lord, all classes, races, and nationalities have a Savior from sin and destruction.

Whoever you are, Christ offers you eternal life. Every provision has already been made that you might be saved. The only ingredient that the Lord awaits is your acceptance of His free offer of grace. Act now!

Blofeld the Biblicist

18 March 2014 at 03:59  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

I posted this once before in another discussion

At the time, my parish was trying to get involved with a multi-denominational charity which works to find homes and jobs for people who've come out of prison, and the other Christian churches involved were debating whether they were going to let us in or not because they've "never had a Catholic church in the organisation before." We didn't know whether to laugh or cry when the letter came through. Judith (elderly lady, parish factotum, mother to 5 and grandmother to 21 and staunch Vatican II Catholic) said "Well, I guess we've only got ourselves to blame given how we treated all of them back in the 50s". Our parish priest looked at her and said "Yes, but aren't they supposed to be learning from all our mistakes rather than repeating them?"

In the end the whole thing came to nothing, which I still think was a great shame. Because if differences between Christian faiths are such that we are not allowed to follow the direct commands of Our Blessed Lord in each others company, then we're getting something horribly wrong. All of us.

Matthew, chapter 25

"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

I see no qualifying statement that lets us out of this obligation simply because we disagree on the status of the Mother of God. Or whatever dispute you wish to insert here.

18 March 2014 at 07:43  
Blogger Frater minor said...

The pathway to unity is therefore very simple. God’s truth can be ascertained, known and understood (John 7:17; 8:32). All who truly SUBMIT themselves to the Word of God can and will be united.

Very true.
ALL those who submit to God's word are united to Christ and to one another.

I would suggest, however, that it is unjust of you to persist in 16th century polemics against brothers and sisters who are Catholics and who do submit to God's word.

Frater minor

18 March 2014 at 08:06  
Blogger Len said...

Can Christians of all denominations unite?.
This probably depends on how you define' a Christian.'..
The Church of Rome considers itself to be 'the one true church'..and curses all Christians outside of her circle...

The Reformers saw the corruption within the Church of Rome and tried to reform it from within when they realized this was impossible they broke away from the Church of Rome...The Reformers were Catholic Priests.
Satan was quite prepared to leave the Roman Church alone so he went for the Reformers most who ended up
tortured until they converted or burnt at the stake if they didn`t convert to the Roman Church..
Satan couldn`t kill the Reformed Church so he corrupted it.The Reformation was betrayed by shepherds who were 'hirelings' who cared more for themselves than their flocks.
Now Rome holds out her hands and want all 'her children ' back and the price is to bow to Rome who cannot and will not change.

The true church will have to go underground as it was in the beginning before Constantine corrupted it and replaced Christ with the Pope which was just a paganized 'Christian' version of 'Emperor worship.Roman Catholicism is merely 'paganized' Christianity.
(I don`t doubt that their are true followers of Christ within organized religion not because of it but despite organized religion perhaps this is a time to decide exactly where your loyalties are?)
This is a time of Judgement within the house of God separating the wheat from the chaff.
The reason corrupt religion has remained on Earth for so long is because God tests people to see if they will love the truth more than the lie(Job is a good example of this!)

18 March 2014 at 08:50  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Len, the RCC does not curse all Christians outside her circle. I don't know where you got that from.

"From the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis Redintegrato 3)

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

We may lament the lack of unity. But would you expect us to do anything else?

18 March 2014 at 09:16  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


I see that there is concern over the potential for belief to be watered down in the ecumenical dialogue in this comments thread. True enough, but reading the horrors being rent upon Syria Christians below, it seems to me (and I reflect on this re the divisions within Israel and Judaism) that when Christians get killed they get killed for being a Christian - not whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Calvinist etc. The people who wish to see you all dead (and Jews for that matter) will make zero distinction in that regard.

18 March 2014 at 09:23  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

David, well said. I couldn't agree more

18 March 2014 at 09:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

Ernsty, some very fine comment from you in the dog-watch. It has always astounded this communicant that predestination found its way into the 39 Articles of the CofE. The authors clearly had not thought of your arguments.

Perhaps we should leave the last word on the topic to Rudyard Kipling:

18 March 2014 at 10:01  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thanks for the link bluedog.
I love Kipling but this one is new to me.
Well, perhaps I may have seen it before, but, as it is long and I lack patience, I probably passed it by.

18 March 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 11:00  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Sister Tibs,

Thanks for the compliment. I sure that my observations will go in one ear and out the other, but it is worth saying it sometimes anyway. You'll have to excuse me whilst I batter my head against a brick wall having just read this comment by blogger busy mum, on the Bishop of Chester thread below & ask myself if I should reply to it or not :

"If I am correct in thinking Messianic Jews are Jewish people who believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then Orthodox Jews have been out to get Messianic Jews ever since the Jewish Jesus was crucified, followed by the martyrdom of his Jewish disciples and the Jewish apostle Paul. To give the Orthodox Jews credit where credit is due, they firmly believed Jesus was an impostor and guilty of the most terrible blasphemy. All explained in John 16, first few verses.

I can see why David K does not like this thought in much the same way as moderate Muslims are horrified by the thought that they are personally responsible for the atrocities carried out by Extreme Muslims."

18 March 2014 at 11:02  
Blogger Len said...

Sister Tibs,,
Is Catholicism like Islam where the last statement made takes priority over any other statement?.

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification.
CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"

(Seems pretty clear to me?)

18 March 2014 at 11:40  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Len, since Pope Paul stated we all had to accept Vatican II, I would say VII takes precedence over Trent on this matter :) Though I'm sure that my Traditionalist friends will find some loophole to reconcile both (and good luck to them, I don't have the patience for the mental gymnastics) :)

18 March 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

"Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be whole hearted and without reserve; it must be willing and prepared to give them the service of our thought, action and conduct. The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrine must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.

(Paul VI to the Roman Curia, 23 April, 1966

18 March 2014 at 12:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Very true.
ALL those who submit to God's word are united to Christ and to one another. (Indeed, lad. But RC's Do NOT! See below.)

I would suggest, however, that it is unjust of you to persist in 16th century polemics against brothers and sisters who are Catholics and who do submit to God's word. (My boy, brothers and sisters? but estranged from his family by your actions and words? Some of you may well be brethren, but you have added to God's word by unauthorised Papal statements and your tradition.
God's word stands on its own and tradition is NOT apostolic oral tradition if NOT written by the Apostles confirming it so and confirming it so forever. They would never have established something pertinent to faith and morals without first writing it for the churches as a living testament.

It, your tradition, becomes mere religious conjecture to serve an end and NOT to serve God!!! Simples?)

Blofeld, mio piccolo fratello.

18 March 2014 at 13:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 13:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

bluedog said...

"Ernsty, some very fine comment from you in the dog-watch. It has always astounded this communicant that predestination found its way into the 39 Articles of the CofE. The authors clearly had not thought of your arguments."

If scripture and God's whole counsel is to speak, it establishes itself..It is when we start searching it for our own means to formulate a doctrine such as His Sovereignty, that we come across His mysteries and we feel the urgent need to reveal what He has not in depth.

We then present an uninformed opinion of His attribute at opposite purpose to His other attributes and His relationship therefore to we pathetic sinners.

To try and reveal His mysteries is to claim we are Him, but we only damn ourselves and our fellow man through our error by making Him a monster to the lost, when He is most certainly NOT!!

If He has not clarified it is because we cannot comprehend as we are finite and truly know little if anything, about the important things that truly matter in the Spiritual.

"Predestination found its way into the 39 Articles of the CofE" as Ernst has said regarding the writing of the City of God by Augustine of Hippo, that equally applies here, we are sometimes a creature of our times and circumstances when we declare things and we must therefore be on guard from establishing falsehood as Biblical fact..Look at the churches today with SSM etc!!

What would a generation away from us say about this and Biblical truth?


18 March 2014 at 13:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Where have you been, man. Definite Atonement has been around since forever. The updated points were intended to be better aligned with modern usage of words. I still use the old points however.

It's the traditionalist in me.


18 March 2014 at 14:28  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David, my sympathies for your predicament, but there is little to be done.

There is no evidence whatsoever in our histories and commentaries that Jewry noticed Jesus and thought of him as "an impostor and guilty of the most terrible blasphemy," Busy Mom's reference to Gospel claims notwithstanding. All lost in the "noise" of revolts, resistance, profusion of sectarian claims and tens of thousands of other Jews being crucified for every possible reason or excuse by the Romans. Perhaps this seeming indifference is even more insulting to some.

Serious conflicts emerged later, well after Paul made the split between Pharisaic Judaism and Judeo-Christians and turned to better hunting grounds for converts; the Roman Pagans and assimilated Jews scattered in small communities without the unifying influence of the Christian-dreaded Pharisaic rabbis.

Nor is there evidence that Orthodox Jews are "out to get" Messianic Jews nowadays. They are rightly rejected from the community and its synagogues as sinners and heretics and organizations such as Jews for Judaism simply conduct anti-missionary and anti-cult education campaigns among Jewish youth, secular Jews and immigrants, the most vulnerable sectors to messianic activity. The expensive campaign by missionizing Evangelical groups to sneak in the Messianics, to have them accepted as just another variation among many in modern Judaism and to trick a significant number of Jews into conversions failed and many are understandably angry. Best not to hit your head against the brick wall and to ignore a lengthy debate, would be my offhand advice.

18 March 2014 at 14:58  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


You've saved me the time and the wall! It seems with blogging it is about who you engage with on a site and sometimes it can get exhausting. I have a rolling list of people I'm prepared to debate with, depending on the blog and my previous interactions there. Oh, btw, Hannah says 'hi' to you [& Carl] and is back blogging on my site as a co-author. But I don't think you'll see her around here, much.

18 March 2014 at 16:34  
Blogger Len said...

Sister Tibs,

I think I will stick with the bible this business with the Popes is getting too confusing.
I think I almost grasped what Catholicism is all about?.
lets try it out.
One Pope can contradict the previous Pope and overrule him(although both are infallible)Some Popes are not Popes at all(because they were excommunicated by a previous pope)One Pope sold the Papacy to the highest bidder so that person became the Pope?
And this 'unbroken line 'of Popes goes right back to the first Pope who was Celestine .

A further thought;

At first the 'Donation of Constantine' was considered to be the claim for the authority of the RCC as the 'true Church'... However, since the Donation of Constantine was unquestionable a fraud, the RCC prefers to base its primary claim of title of Vicarius Christi for the Roman Pontiff upon apostolic succession but strangely none of the Church fathers claimed this position or title until after the fraud of the donation of Constantine was discovered.

18 March 2014 at 19:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A "hi" back to Miss Hannah, David K, and hoping to see her here from time to time. Btw, I've been off and on here, so what happened to Happy Jack? Or is this a question one better not ask?

18 March 2014 at 19:15  
Blogger Len said...

Sister Tibs .,

sorry 'Linus'....
Some say Peter was the first Pope but he would never have accepted that position even if it were offered to him..
As Peter himself said;

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away."(1 Peter)

18 March 2014 at 19:25  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 19:42  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Greetings Avi,

Your humble DK will pass that message onto Hannah. As for Happy Jack, I dunno what's happened to him, he's not been on this blog's radar for a couple of days it seems.

18 March 2014 at 19:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

From a design point of view HJ's great big yellow sonsie face adds a spring feeling to the thread, which in the sub-zero run of weather we're still having here, is a pleasant break.

18 March 2014 at 20:18  
Blogger Claudio said...

@ Len & Sister Tiberia; there's no contradiction between the Council of Trent and the Vatican II council and more generally no Pope/Council has never and will never contradict another Pope/another Council in matters of faith amd morals. The 'be accursed' is a translation of 'anathema sit' ; it does not mean that evangelicals are 'cursed',the anathema is a formal ecclesiastical ban, namely a form of excommunication. In other words, the view of justification presented is a Dogma and who denies the catholic view of justification is excommunicated and cannot therefore be considered catholic . So was then, so is now. The Unitatis Reintegratio deals with other issues , namely the relationship between catholics and other denominations, so it's pretty pastoral in character and does not define any dogma.
This of course does not rule out the fact that christians of different denominations along with 'people of good will' can and should cooperate when they have similar practical/political/social/aims or whatever, or that heretics like Len or Carl or Ernst cannot be saved, but theologically speaking, calvinism-lutheranism-sola fideisms-sola scripturism were an heresy back then and are heresies now. But now we talk of 'separated brothers rather than of 'heretics'. still...

18 March 2014 at 20:39  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 21:25  
Blogger Claudio said...

sorry , the views on justification is not a dogma, as far as I know are de fide tenenda whereas Dogmas are 10 and are de fide credenda.

18 March 2014 at 21:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Hannah @ 21.25 says, 'which gets way too personal, is combative for no good reason'. But Hannah, you only have to ignore the personal and remain detached. It's just a blog, and physical biffo is never a threat.

18 March 2014 at 21:48  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 21:59  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 22:02  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 March 2014 at 22:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Claudio wrote:

There's no contradiction between the Council of Trent and the Vatican II council and more generally no Pope/Council has never and will never contradict another Pope/another Council in matters of faith amd morals.

Yeh. By definition. No matter what was taught then, and no matter what is taught now, there is by definition no contradiction between the two.

"Is it the sun, Kate?"

"No, Petruchio, it is the moon."

"I tell you it is the sun."

"But yesterday you said it was the moon."

"And now I tell you it is the sun."

"So were you telling the truth yesterday or are you telling the truth today?"

"Kate, you do not understand. I told you the truth both days. There is no contradiction between what I said yesterday and what I say today."

I just love this Roman system.


18 March 2014 at 22:37  
Blogger Claudio said...

Hi Carl, we had a similar chat before with regard to extra ecclesia nulla salus.
Can you please tell me the articles of faith or morals that have been dismissed etc then?Faith (de fide credenda and de fide tenenda) and morals; not political-pastoral-materia certa etc; articles of faith and morals, defined ex cathedra or by a Council.

18 March 2014 at 23:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Are Popes still granting indulgences before the fact to raise armies for crusades? Does that count?

But really. Why should I need to go any further than EENS? The idea that what is taught today is consistent with what was taught in 1560 is historically risible. Martin Luther was then a heretic in Hell. Is he still? Those consistent RCs that I know will affirm tbis unconditionally ... with qualifications about whether he might have repented at the end. They know the historic teaching of the RCC.

Even so much as 100 years ago there was no question about this. All non-Catholics were not in subjection to the Pope and cut off from the sacraments. They could not be saved. Unam Sanctum (at least part of it) is still infallible dogma after all. My mother remembers the Catholic family up the hill saying of my grandfather "He's such a nice man. Too bad he's going to hell." Where do you suppose they were taught that?

So don't tell me. Go tell those Catholics who remember what the RCC used to teach and still believe it. They are quite clear on the matter. As are all those other less strict (less consistent) Catholics who call me 'separated brother.' And then they talk about how the anathemas of Trent aren't really anathemas. Yes, I wonder how that assertion would have played in 1565?


19 March 2014 at 04:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, your ideas about justice and fairness, tolerance, racism, antisemitism, democracy, human rights, social responsibility, everyday etiquette and such are, decidedly, Modern. It's fair to ask you, then, how they would have played out in 16th century Geneva.

Have you no theological mechanism, a system of rules or a body of experts to allow for and authorize and legitimize scripturally acceptable changes, or do you view the different approaches to the world you and your coreligionists have today as an unfortunate aberration, an unimportant add-on with no connection to your theology? A straight-forward question; not a challenge or mockery...regardless of your merciless digs at Canadians and my beloved herring.

19 March 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Yes HJ is very yellow which makes one feel happy. But today is the budget day so I've spent the morning raiding Sainsbury's for cigarettes, Whisky and stocking up on as much fuel as I could. Because whatever bull the politicians come up with two things are constant in life- death & taxes. And in the UK tax rises on petrol, alcohol and tobacco. Now hopefully my PA will have set up the TV so we can all watch the Chutzpah that is the UK budget day.

"DK" (I'm warming to that as a nickname).

19 March 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger Martin said...

“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14 NKJV)

Len has it entirely right.

19 March 2014 at 12:54  
Blogger Claudio said...

first of all, let's get rid of a misconception which unfortunately is very common both among protestants and (more and less bigoted) catholics alike; the Church does not claim and has never claimed NO JURISDICTION on the final destiny of a soul; in other words, the Church does not and cannot 'send people to Hell'(or free souls to Purgatory; the prayers for the dead are a form of suffrage), the final judgement belongs to God, for He alone can sctutinize consciences. What the Church has the right/the duty to do is to tell you how not to go to Hell. But again, Grace can work in different and mysterious ways, perfect contrition on the death bed/ a baptism of desire are possibilities,so only God knows.
To sum up, here's the Catholic view for you: are you, Len,Ernst and the other protestants going to Hell/spend a huge amount of time in Purgatory? You are at risk;some of your doctrines are deeply misguided, you are cut off from crucial instruments of salvation such as Confession or a valid Eucharists, so yeah.Are you definitely going to Hell? That's for God to decide, and the way Grace has worked and is working with you guys despite your being objectively separated from the Church.
And, pace your grandfather neighbours and or the 'true catholics who still remember what the Church used to teach', this has been teached way before the 1965

Separated brothers and heretics are not mutually inconsistent ; we are brothers in Christ (your Baptism is valid, as you guys use the Trinitarian form) but nonetheless we are separated, and we are so because of your αἵρεσις (choice) tthat is the fact that you choose (pick and choose?) a part of the Truth and not the 'entore pocket', so to say. My humble suggestion is to go for the real thing (say, what the Church really teaches) and study the Catechism-A good manual of theology-the documents of the Church. what we believe (or are supposed to believe) is there, not in what your average catholic(layman or priest) will tell you.And reading your comments you sound like a really reasonable and lucid person, so you should go for 'The Real thing' and not to hearsay. Once you said you know more about catholicism than many catholics, and I believe you (in the land of the blinds...) but not enough!

19 March 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DK it is, then! Pity you don't have First Nations reserves with "tobacco shacks" where you can pick up a pack of 20 for around $2.00 CDN and unpackaged in a plastic bag, for around $10-17 per 200 cigs. A legally grey area here, where one can buy directly from semi-independent reserves (usually from Mohawk Nations ones which straddle the Canada-US border) for personal use, but not in bulk and for retail...although many small convenience stores do this at the risk of losing their license to sell tobacco products. This caused the province to roll back their absurd, endless tax gouging which once brought up the price of a pack of 25 up to almost $20. Chastised thus, they dare not try this out with booze now because they know that many, including the reserves, are poised to enter that market too. If your government crosses the line into the ridiculous, there no Native reserves to go to, so you'll likely see Britain swamped with black market cigs, probably brought in by Albanian or Russian mobs in the classic "cigarette boats" in the dead of the night. The Laws of Economics are harsh and inflexible past a certain bending point; no amount of moralizing, reasoning or wishful thinking will sway them.

19 March 2014 at 14:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS, DK is one of the Native cigarette brands that comes in a red packaged and is assumed to suggest an over-the-counter brand, DuMaurier "kings." Certainly tastes like them and rumours have it that the company sells them without markings through the States to the reserves and right back to Canada.

Oh, and check out Rav Natan's latest post. Quite a resounding shot across the bow of the Haredim.

19 March 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Bluedog,

I see what you are saying there. I just struggle to keep myself from getting personal you see. If the forum was just about discussing politics and religion, then I'm OK with that. It is just when every thread seemed to boil down to

1. Bringing gay people into every discussion
2. Which ID's are a certain avian
3. Catty remarks for no good reason
4. The perpetual civil war between Protestant and Catholic as if it were 1600 AD.

Although to be fair, after spending a while catching up on here (I was at Carl Jacobs having a bad day on the Mandela thread in December), it seems stuff has calmed down a little now. So perhaps I may entertain you will a nice juicy bone for you to chew on after all.

19 March 2014 at 14:43  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Carl,

I'm sorry for taking 5 months to get back to you. I am glad that you accepted my apologizes over various posts I made last time I was here. I think I learned by lesson after I got bitten by a camel when I was in Israel. Hope you are OK - and as optimistic as a Calvinist can be -now.

19 March 2014 at 14:44  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Avi,

Thanks for the 'hi' back to me up above. I hope you are OK? A while back, I went to Israel with my sister, for a month and really enjoyed it (aside from a certain camel incident & the occasional rockets fired by the terrorists), I think I've become more Zionist than ever. I can see me dying in Israel rather than Britain.

Hafia is such a beautiful place, it is amazing what Israel has done to the Negev desert, Tel Aviv's vibrant culture and art deco buildings are really fascinating and the ancient city of Yerushalayim- pesky women of the wall aside- is breath taking and having visited there and I and my sister are more than ever convinced it should NEVER be given to anyone else.

Also went to Judea and Samaria to see the facts for ourselves. What a different reality is to the propaganda of the hysterical anti-zionist Corrigan gives readers here.

Oh and bro- 'DK'- is probably scrambling around with his partners on how to deal with the 15% tax that's just been slapped onto stamp duty for companies buying real estate and other such budget small print ideas.

19 March 2014 at 15:04  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Heh, I guess if you buy the line as given to s by Johnny Rottenborugh, Inspector and others here, when we get to the stage of the Islamic Republic of Britainistan we will have 'first nation', liquor and tobacco shacks & all, although I'll be long gone before that time (dead or emigrated). Now I think we do have smugglers, but because other EU states have either cheaper cost of living or lower taxes on tobacco and alcohol, it is easier to just buy your booze and fags from, say, France than it is to get involved in 'back of the lorry' escapades. And then there is the 'duty free' at airports for non EU countries [providing of course you don't over exceed your 'personal allowance'].

PS- I'll check out Rav Natan's latest post.


19 March 2014 at 16:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha ha ha! Count yourself lucky if get to lounge in a native reserve in future Britainistan, DK.

Greetings, Miss Hannah, good to see you here. I did hear about your trip to the medinat and I'm glad you had a swell time. I trust you will investigate matters if planning aliyah; too many folks I know make it out there and then return. Life is too expensive and decently paying work hard to find, but then, younger folk have an easier time of it. I'm sure you noticed the prices there.

Too late for this old goat, unless we squirrel away a goodly sum for retirement. It would be either one of the Yesha hill-top communities or my dream, a Winchester-toting cowboy on a mustang running a ranch in the Golan. Would need a few million...greenbacks, not shekels...for that little fantasy, though.

I never, ever got on or will get on a camel as long as I live, though. I have vague memories of Dad trying to put me on one at a fair when I was four or five and I screamed and peed myself in sheer terror and disgust. Rather be catching Grad rockets in Sderot with a catcher's mitt than to get on one of those horrible beasts.

20 March 2014 at 04:23  
Blogger Len said...

When the Catholic Church found that burning people was no longer socially acceptable they threw them out of the Catholic Church instead and since the Catholic Church (falsely) believes that their is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church then the Catholic Church consigned these people to Hell.(in their opinion at least)

Of course the relatives of these people could always 'spring' them out of Hell if they could cough up the appropriate amount of cash.

A bit more info for those who are ignorant of their own Church History

'The Great Schism, also known as the East-West Schism, was the event that divided "Chalcedonian" Christianity into Western (Roman) Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.^[1]^ Though normally dated to 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other, the East-West Schism was actually the result of an extended period of estrangement between the two bodies of churches.'


20 March 2014 at 08:30  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Avi,

I have seriously considered aliyah and of course I came into this world feet first, but on this occasion I'm thoroughly looking through the options. For yourself and your dream retirement you never know you might win a lottery or something, ['a Winchester-toting cowboy on a mustang running a ranch in the Golan...', I could see that, but I guess you'd get lessons from Carl Jacobs re guns first, as aren't the Canadian gun laws as strict as the UK's? - I'm quite proficient with firearms as I grew up on a farm].

Right now I'm staying put in Blighty. Re camels; lol! I'm glad I'm not the only one who has issues with them.

20 March 2014 at 09:00  
Blogger Claudio said...

First, people have been burnnt at the stake by Catholics and Protestants alike before and after Trent, so what's your point exactly?
with regard to your other "points":
1)find me a document.encyclica -Bull-whatever in which the Church claims jurisdiction over the final destination of the departed.
2)Find me also a document in which the Church claims that people can be freed from///Hell using cash. Indulgencies are a form of suffrage, they degenerated during Luther's times (he was right on that score) but they were offered for the souls of purgatory. The stuff you have in mind sounds more like the Mormon's baptism of the deads...

seriously mate, we can argue for ages about catholic doctrine, but first get your fact straight rather than accusing me of ignoring my history ( incidentally, yeah, I've heard of the Great schism and in my hometown's Basilica Orthodox and Catholics have always prayed together,
Again, what is your link supposed to prove?)

20 March 2014 at 12:13  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Avi,

Forgot to add to my earlier note, re the cost of living in Israel. To be honest compared to London it was either cheaper or about the same (depending on where you were in the country). I do remember that the US/Canada was much cheaper for food and other stuff than London, so perhaps for us it wasn't such a shock.

20 March 2014 at 22:41  
Blogger Len said...

You for real?.
I thought you might be Catholic but you seem to know less about it than I do?.

20 March 2014 at 23:20  
Blogger Claudio said...

for the story of indulgencies, what they are and how they were abused, have a look here (I hope you are not one of the 'I don't read stuff coming from Babylon the Great'type evangelical, for this, I am afraid, will somewhat prevent any further discussion

With regard to the Orthodox-Catholic relationships; they are a mess. Orthodox churches are autocefale, which mens every Church decides on her own (for instance, according to some Orthodox Church we catholics are heretics while for other Churches we are pretty much fine and the issue is political only.crazy, huh? but here's authocephaly for you...) but we consider their sacraments valid (as they have a valid apostolic succession) even if illicit (as they are not in full communion with Rome).
On the extra ecclesia nulla salus, (again:) yes, being catholic is not optional in order to be saved. Still, the Church roughly recognises roughly two ways of salvation outside the 'visible'Church':
1) docta ignorantia (you never knew anything about the Gospel and the Church; still, you follow the natural law and search God with all your hearth. I personally think in 2014 there are no excuses, but again, let's leave the final word to God)
2) invincible ignorantia; The Church 'places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church. Whoever indeed has recognized the true Church of Christ, but contrary to his better knowledge refuses to enter it and whoever becomes perplexed as to the truth of his belief, but fails to investigate his doubts seriously, no longer lives in good faith, but exposes himself to the danger of eternal damnation, since he rashly contravenes an important command of God. Otherwise the gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution "Singulari quadam" of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle:'But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger-Bannwart, 11th ed., Freiburg, 1911, n. 1647.)
More on this score here:
Like it or leave it, this is catholicism for you.question is; are you in good faith?

21 March 2014 at 09:21  
Blogger Len said...

It would seem that a sinner has to be 'processed' by the Catholic Church to be set on the path to salvation.
Not only this but there has to be constant ongoing assistance even reaching beyond the grave...
This does not appear to be the Gospel that Jesus the disciples or Paul preached which leads me to only one conclusion.

21 March 2014 at 14:00  
Blogger Claudio said...

Jesus did not leave us a book, Len, he left us with a Church with a structure (Apostles disciples etc) and duties, namely to announce the Gospel, administer the sacraments, defend the truth and condamn the errors (even in the Scriptures you can see many heretics and heresies condamned; see Simon Magus, the 2nd letter of Peter, etc). You have the Bible for the Church decided which books were inspired and which ones were not!why was authorative then, to the extent that you base your existance on this book, and is not authorative now, considering that the Lord said that 'the gates of Hades will not overpower it.?'
No 'process'here Len, but on this earth sanctity/christian perfection is not is not a state but a JOURNEY, and at times a very meandering one(see St Peter; he fails, he is forgiven, at times he is full of indecision etc) and in this process the sacraments play a crucial role, thus the Church has an important role.for each and every doctrine of the Church there is a Scripture based rationale (while sola not scriptural!) and you seriously have an intellectual duty to at least study the doctrines you are rejecting, and fro attendible sources (i.e what catholics really say) not from the likes of Jack Chick!

21 March 2014 at 15:47  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Greetings Claudio,

Whilst it is not for me to tell you how to spend your afternoons, I'm not sure your health will be enhanced by trying to seek out a dialogue with our Mr Len (who is, the only Christian worth listening to on this blog, apparently).

21 March 2014 at 16:51  
Blogger Claudio said...

Dear David,
first of all, thanks for the advice but
1) I have an optimistic nature (plus, for Lent I'm giving up boozing & partying so it was supposed to be a lame week end anyway:)and dialogue it's always worth a shot. Len is christian, so he has been touched by the Grace, he just needs to work a little bit on the details, so to say:)
2) I don't expect to impress him, let alone to convince him, but at least to show him/the random reader that the catholicism they have in mind and they despise so much.... simply is not catholicism. If someone gets that, it's already an achievement for me. It's like when the randomer anti-semite comes here and starts howling stuff like "Jews believe that Gentiles will all burn in Hell' or 'Jewish curse the Christians and spit on the Crucifix on a daily basis as a mitzvah' and you and Avi politely explain them that this is not exactly the case.... Is it useful? is it not?It's worth a try anyway. In doubt, have a nice Shabbath (and maybe have a drink for me, momentarily teetotal for the Reign of God....::)

21 March 2014 at 21:46  
Blogger Len said...

Jesus did not leave us with a 'Church' !.

I know this revelation will shock you but this is a fact. Jesus said His 'Ekklesia' would be group of called out believers who`s uniting fact would be the revelation that He {Jesus ] was the Messiah.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to remind us of what Jesus had said and that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.The Holy Spirit was to be our Guide.

The Church was never meant to be an 'Institution.'The Church[Ekklesia] is a group of' called out believers.

Once the 'church' was formed and became a legal Roman religion [by Constantine] it became a paganized version of Christianity.
The church as it existed today could not be further away from God`s intention for the Gospel.

23 March 2014 at 09:14  
Blogger Claudio said...

I know this will shock you, but I've heard this before and I don't buy it anymore, even if I did for a long time (I've been a 'churchless christian' too.Maybe that's why we are still managing to speak without retorting to insults...yet:).Way before Constantine the 'ekklesia' had already a structure and the believers in the community had different duties-responsabilities (the apostles and their successors had the duty and the authority to teach, administer the sacraments and defend the faith against the errors; again, see Simon Magus, etc) and in this, like it or not , the successors of St Peter played a crucial role.
Just to give you the idea, St Clement (the forth Pope) had authority not only in Rome but..on every Church, to the extent that he ordered to the Church in Corinth to take back their bishops (see his Epistles to the Corinthians) and this 96-97AD, namely when John the Apostle was still alive!!!!!
The historical significance of this event alone is huge; the last of the Apostles was still alive, and still the successors of Peter were considered more authoritative.
This is history, Len, no 'Popish propaganda' or "Proddie mithology', just plain facts. As it's a plain fact that (see the 2nd letter of St Peter) private interpretation and sola scriptura are...non-scriptural!
Just a last thought; the post Constantine Church is pagan-has lost the assistance of the Holy spirit etc, ok; still, the Canon of the Bible we both read was fixed in the fifth century AC, so by that same neo-pagan institution that in your mind 'cannot be further away from God`s intention for the Gospel'.Are you cool with that? what's your next step?Will you decide which books are inspired and which one are not, as you are assisted by the Holy spirit (I hope the others here were joking when they've asked you ' do you still believe that st Paul's letters are demonic...)?
The personal relation of friendship with Christ is the most important thing a human being can have , Len, and thanks be to God for this Grace which He accorded to you, but again this is the beginning, not the end of your journey, alone you can and have a huge chance of be led astray by the Adversary and Len, you are not a Mennonite in 17th century with virtually no contact with anything remotely catholic, you are a schooled englishman of the 21st century with an Internet connection so I'm afraid you have really few excuses, I've read studied and considered these things, you can , should and have the duty to do the same. You are self-secluding yourself from the Church because 'all Churches are bad' while, I guess, Len is good, with no further inquiry in the Church history and doctrine... and this is pride,Len, and pride is a sin (THE sin, arguably).

23 March 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger Len said...

This is not 'pride' Claudio it is preservation of spiritual integrity.
If you have 'sold out' to organized religion that is entirely your business but don`t expect me to agree with you or it.
The RCC is a travesty of the Gospel and I can only hope that you see that someday?.
(There is a wealth of info on the internet which is slanted as to what you want to hear)
The Bible however is the Truth and RCC theology do not line up with the Word of God.This is a fact.

24 March 2014 at 15:25  
Blogger Claudio said...

Len, on the internet you can read pretty much everything, even that the world is ruled by reptilians and-or that Our Lord is an alien. Obviously a little bit of discernment is needed, and you should look for reliable sources (not necessarily catholic ones; just scholarly stuff, not the delirious ramblings of some evangelical snake handler or whatever)
"The Bible however is the Truth and RCC theology do not line up with the Word of God.This is a fact".

This is not a fact,with all due respect this judgement of yours is based either on ignorance or on prejudice (or both). do show me (either here or via mail via my profile, maybe His Grace here is fed up already with this debate on his blog) which doctrines are contrary to the Gospel and I'll show you that they are Scripture based or, alternatively, they are straw men (that is, you think we believe that stuff but we actually don't, as I've shown you supra with regard to the 'extra ecclesia nulla salus', the 'catholic curse' on the protestant or the "Church send people to hell' issue). and again, you don't need a degree in theology, you just need a willingness to at least know what exactly you are rejecting. If you are up to it, I can help; if you are not, try at least to avoid your neverending anti-catholic ramblings, cos you clearly don't know what you are talking about . Sine ira ac studio.

PS The religion vs faith issue; I quite agree; religion, in a broad sense, starts from men trying to reach /make sense of the divine; on the contrary, Christian faith stems from God,as He looks for a relationship with us. But in this relationship the Church plays an important role. Deal with it.

26 March 2014 at 03:30  
Blogger Len said...

I firmly believe that if we made Christ central to our Christian walk many issues would not seem so important its all the other stuff which causes division.
Christianity is Christ not' the church.'
Deal with it!.

26 March 2014 at 07:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older