Friday, April 04, 2014

Queen meets Pope Francis, with another outward innovation

Whenever the Supreme Governor of the Church of England journeys to the Vatican and graciously grants an audience to the Pope of Rome, protocol demands that she wear a mantilla or hat, and all non-Roman-Catholic monarchs are required to wear black, whether or not the meeting has any state formality. Thus is the theological heresy symbolised in the apparel. In 2000, the Queen wore black in the presence of John Paul II's radiant white:

Just as she had done in 1980:

And when meeting Pope John XXIII in 1961:

And when meeting Pope Pius XII in 1951:

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother obliged in 1959:

As did Diana, Princess of Wales in 1985:

Even Margaret Thatcher wore a black mantilla when she met Pope Paul VI in 1977:

And when she met Pope John Paul II in 1980:

And when she met Pope Benedict XVI in 2009:

But on 3rd March 2014, Pope Francis made no such demand of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England:

Some may consider this utterly unimportant and of no significance whatsoever. But it is not without symbolic meaning: this new head of the Church of Rome appears to have rather more respect for the historic and theological status of the Church of England. Indeed, unlike his predecessor, now Pope Emeritus, Pope Francis seems to acknowledge that Her Majesty is Supreme Governor of a sister church and not a mere "ecclesial community" (ie a non-church), as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in Dominus Iesus in 2000 - a view he reiterated as Pope Benedict XVI in 2007: is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Church” could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.

In saying this, however, it must be remembered that these said ecclesial Communities, by virtue of the diverse elements of sanctification and truth really present in them, undoubtedly possess as such an ecclesial character and consequently a salvific significance.
The Church of England is, of course, both Catholic and Reformed. Under Pope Francis, we are clearly moving toward a new era of ecumenism; perhaps toward acknowledgment of the validity of Anglican orders and recognition of a true episcopate in apostolic succession. Maybe even (eventually) toward a shared Eucharist.

The Queen dressed in lilac and not black means nothing to many, but to those who have eyes these are nuanced developments and very steady increments. Her visit to the Vatican was just one in a long line of Royal-Papal encounters since the Reformation:

29 April 1903 – King Edward VII met Pope Leo XIII.
1918 – Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII and then Duke of Windsor) met Pope Benedict XV.
1923 – King George V and Queen Mary met Pope Pius XI.
10 May 1949 – Princess Margaret met Pope Pius XII.
13 April 1951 - Princess Elizabeth (now Queen) and the Duke of Edinburgh met Pope Pius XII.
23 April 1959 - Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret met Pope John XXIII.
5 May 1961 - The Queen met Pope John XXIII.
17 October 1980 - The Queen met Pope John Paul II.
29 August 1985 - Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, met Pope John Paul II.
9 December 1985 - Prince and Princess Michael of Kent met Pope John Paul II.
10 April 1990 - The Duke of Edinburgh met Pope John Paul II.
3 November 1994 - The Duchess of Kent met Pope John Paul II.
17 October 2000 - The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh met Pope John Paul II.
27 April 2009 – Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall met Pope Benedict XVI.

There are still one or two apparently insurmountable hurdles in the path to Christian unity. But what are centuries to God?


Blogger Pétrus said...

The Church of England isn't Catholic.

It is barely Christian anymore.

4 April 2014 at 10:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"There are still one or two apparently insurmountable hurdles in the path to Christian unity. But what are centuries to God?" Will we even last that long the way the world is going? Presume SSM adds to that tally at least THREE then?... and still counting. *Chuckles*


4 April 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Why didn't the Pope wear a pair of gardening shorts and singlet dispensing with all formality altogether ?

4 April 2014 at 10:47  
Blogger Pétrus said...

I would suggest for any form of unity the Church of England would at least need to require a belief in God.

When an open atheist such as David Patterson can be a vicar in the Church of England for 40 years there is something wrong. He has been an atheist since before he became a vicar. This was with the full knowledge of his bishop.

He isn't the only one.

4 April 2014 at 10:49  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I think Her Majesty was overdressed for the occasion considering she gave the Pope beer and jars of pickled deer udder from her farm as gifts.Sadly a tango Mass was not celebrated for her
enjoyment. Maybe next time !

4 April 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger Jonathan said...

If the Roman church wants to catch up with the reformation I'd be more than happy to share the Lord's Supper with them. As it is, the CofE is theologically muddied enough without adding yet more erroneous teachings of salvation.

4 April 2014 at 11:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Enjoying the present His Grace on LBC.

It appears that it would have been better if Her Majesty had appeared and answered the difficult question as the Archbishop seemed lost on the reason for a doctrine ion canon law being doctrine and what this actually entailed (CofE Canon law states that marriage is only between a man and a woman...We'll then, what's the beef that the synod don't get from that and tries to make it mutton?).

Looks more like a PR frontman by the day! God help the CofE..I am watching it's dreadful demise as a member of the body of Christ by the minute!!!


4 April 2014 at 11:25  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I disagree with you Ernstie about the demise of the C of E.It is the first religion to champion the cause of homosexuality.The C of E will become the homosexual Mecca throughout the world.It has great marketing force potential for profit and strong political positioning with the new order.

4 April 2014 at 11:42  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

As I understand it there is in fact no specific dress code for such meetings, the only stipulation being that a person dresses decently and in good taste. Women are not even required to cover their heads, though many choose to do so. So you will see, for example, very colourfully dressed African or Asian visitors attired in national dress.

The colour white, though, is usually reserved to the Pope.

4 April 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

HG wrote:

"---and graciously grants an audience to the Pope of Rome--"

The correct order of precedence indeed.

Good Queen Bess would be proud.

4 April 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger Nath said...

Yes the CoE has problems but things can't be all that bad when both Catholics and Protestants are kicking us while we're down ( passing on the other side).

It does at least mean that within the context of the parable of the Good Samaritan we're not the one's in for condemnation.

Perhaps the Russian Orthodox church will ride up, bandage our wounds and take us to a hostel for our healing? Who knows.

4 April 2014 at 12:13  
Blogger Len said...

The Queen seems to have acquired a halo whilst the pope has none.

Just observing......

4 April 2014 at 12:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 April 2014 at 12:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Why abide by these silly protocols? "Only Catholics can wear white in the presence of the Pope." She is the Queen of England. She shouldn't acknowledge these cheap Vatican claims of Papal supremacy. It shouldn't matter whether Francis approves or not.

There is a reason the Pope got kicked to the curb.


4 April 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger William said...

Carl: If there's a dress code, one should either respect it or not turn up at all. That applies whether it's a Papal audience or next door's barbecue. Otherwise you get to look like Gordon Brown turning up to a white-tie do in his second-best lounge suit.

Of course, if the Pope, or the next-door neighbours, choose to change the dress code, that's entirely up to him/them.

4 April 2014 at 13:28  
Blogger Perry Butler said...

I understood that until relatively recent all Queens wore black on visiting the was the present Queen of Spain who revived the ancient custom of Catholic Queens wearing white.

4 April 2014 at 13:33  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Cressida 11:11
A few jars of Marmite would have sufficed.

4 April 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack thinks the Queen looks rather splendid in her outfit. It is good to see her and Francis getting along and she must be very pleased he was able to fit her into his busy schedule.

The Queen must have been chuffed too with the gifts she received. One was a copy of a Papal degree confirming Edward the Confessor is a saint. Any significance here? He is the patron saint of "difficult marriages" and homosexual *marriage* is proving somewhat awkward for the Church of England at present. The other, a nice little orb, will add to the Crown Jewels.

Carl, don't be so silly. White wouldn't suit Elizabeth's complexion at all - unlike Winnie Mandela who out-whited the Pope on her visit. Purple is such a refined, dignified colour.

Besides, we Brits respect protocol and understand when you visit someone on their territory you show them respect. We don't believe we are an exceptional people who can do as we chose.

One can see it now. Obama and wife, dressed in beech attire and straw hats, taking 'selfies', as they pop into to say "howdy" to Francis and share a brew.

4 April 2014 at 13:40  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Cristina Kirchner drops in from time to time to keep a presidential eye on her fellow countryman the turbulent priest, and from the photographs in the newspapers it seems she invariably dresses in black.

4 April 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Surely the Church of England, if not the Anglican communion (parts of it, that is), is moving further from any authentically-Christian position, as an RC/pope would understand it (and me too [CoE,me], really); full communion was surely much more justifiable and defesible in the past than it is now. Now, if asked, I would say to the Pope, "Don't go there!" (he's not asked me yet, actually, but ...).

4 April 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger starcourse said...

This is indeed encouraging. In conjunction with the extremely impressive spiritual leadership of Justin Welby who combines much of the best of both the Catholic and Evangelical traditions of the CofE it gives me real hope that we may see official inter-communion in my lifetime.

Unofficial intercommunion of course exists already, in response to the Command of Christ: "drink from it, all of you" (the Greek is very clear - pantes)

4 April 2014 at 13:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This isn't just a dress code. It is a dress code intended to enforce a demonstration of sorrow over one's failure to submit the the RCC. I would never do that. I can't imagine why the sovereign head of a sovereign state would submit to it. The Pope is not doing the Queen of England a favor by granting her an audience.


4 April 2014 at 14:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, Happy Jack doubts you will ever be Queen of England, so don't go losing any sleep over it.

4 April 2014 at 14:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, Happy Jack has been looking into this and it seems black is worn by women as a sign of modesty before the Pope, not as a " ... demonstration of sorrow over one's failure to submit the RCC." Certain Catholic queens and princesses have traditionally been exempted from this but all of them.

4 April 2014 at 14:39  
Blogger Anglican said...

Cressida - the CofE isn't the first church to champion homosexuality. That achievement surely goes to the (Anglican) Episcopal Church in America.

As for the CofE not being catholic, which some claim, presumably when they attend Communion (or Mattins or Evensong) they omit saying the Nicene or Apostles' Creed. The CofE is both catholic and reformed.

4 April 2014 at 14:44  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Your Grace,

Thank you for interpreting these matters of protocol which would otherwise have passed me by.

I shall not attach too much eschatological or other great significances to this, but merely, and from a practical stance, welcome any growth in the Trinitarian Churches making efforts to communicate effectively with each other, in a spirit of Christian co-operation.

Like Luther I regard the Catholic Church, and indeed other trinitarian Churches, as true churches, even when I can not accept aspects of their teaching.

We all struggle to seek the truth but are inevitably influenced by our backgrounds, traditions and inclinations. So although I would defend my traditional protestantism, I do not believe myself to be in possession of perfect truth. However as Christians we are all on the right road leading to the Truth.

4 April 2014 at 14:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

His Grace said:

"Under Pope Francis, we are clearly moving toward a new era of ecumenism; perhaps toward acknowledgment of the validity of Anglican orders and recognition of a true episcopate in apostolic succession. Maybe even (eventually) toward a shared Eucharist."

And then .... maybe even (eventually) .... a change to the Constitution permitting a Roman Catholic to become Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

4 April 2014 at 14:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Happy Jack,

Over the months you have been posting here - insisting that the identity behind your persona is not and never has been the same as that behind Dodo - you appear to have moved from being a "truth-seeker" to being a staunch advocate for Roman Catholicism.

When did this conversion occur?

4 April 2014 at 15:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Your Grace

Happy Jack would consider himself a Catholic. He considers many of the attacks on Roman Catholicism and organised religion to be attacks on the Apostle Creeds which he accepts.

4 April 2014 at 15:17  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

starcourse said...

[. . .] Unofficial intercommunion of course exists already, in response to the Command of Christ: "drink from it, all of you" (the Greek is very clear - pantes)

4 April 2014 13:57

Assuming that the Wikipedia entry on the Eucharist is correct (link below), several churches appear to disagree with your translation of “pantes”. The page includes a table listing nineteen churches, specifying which of them practise “open” and “closed” communion. The Baptist Church, surprisingly, seems to be the most emphatically anti-Biblical, in this regard:

some Baptist churches restrict communion to their own members and require part membership or even full membership and thus members from other Baptist churches will be excluded from participating. Even members from other different churches, especially Catholics will also be excluded. The Strict Baptists in the United Kingdom derive their name from this practice. However, some Baptist churches fully practice open communion allowing members from other churches, including other Baptist churches, to receive communion.

I was even more surprised to see how many churches give Communion in the form of grape juice, or even water in some cases, instead of the authentically Biblical wine.

4 April 2014 at 15:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Happy Jack,

That wasn't an answer to the question.

You insisted some months ago that you were not (Roman) Catholic. So when did your conversion occur?

4 April 2014 at 15:28  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Apologies as not directly related to this thread, but will be of interest to most commentators here:

The chief executive of Mozilla (Firefox browser) forced to resign because he made a donation to keep marriage between a man and a woman (nothing to do with his work). Branded an opponent of 'gay equality' by an online dating website and therefore kicked out as Mozilla's new executive chairwoman issues a fawning statement of apology.

Let the denouncements begin.

4 April 2014 at 15:31  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Happy Jack - surely if the monarch is ever RC, that would be the end of the C of E? I believe RC's are duty bound (by the organised religion you seem to admire) to raise their children as RC's, even if their spouse is non-RC. Thus the end of the Protestant throne, for ever.
Of course the Pope isn't going to bother about what the Queen wears..the man of sin has almost won and he knows why not just let the remaining Protestants imagine he is somehow treating the Queen more respectfully than his predecessors did?

4 April 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Your Grace

Happy Jack recalls saying some months ago that he was not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Surely Jack's beliefs are a matter between him and God?

Happy Jack also posted this quote from Brother Ivo:

"The Alter Ego has attractions. If one wishes to be judged on the content of current writing, unencumbered by past decisions, actions, opinions or even mistakes, an alternative persona has much to commend it."

4 April 2014 at 15:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Happy Jack,

The question is nothing to do with your relationship with God, and neither do Brother Ivo's words have any bearing at all on the matter.

It is a question of whether the person behind the Happy Jack pseudonym - now suddenly, out of nowhere, insisting that the Church of England should admit a Roman Catholic monarch, having so very recently been a "truth seeker" of no fixed denominational abode - is, in fact, the same as the person who was/is behind Dodo, which you have repeatedly denied.

Did you lie?

4 April 2014 at 15:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...


I am not sure what you mean when you say the Anglican Church is Catholic.
I am assuming that you mean the Anglican Church has adopted some Catholic traditions.The Anglican order of clergy can never be recognised by the R C Church as true priests. Therefore communion in the Anglican Church is only symbolism not a sacrament.

Ecumenism is not possible because the precepts of both religions are in conflict without possible resolution.The chasm ever widening because of recent developments of ssm and women priests.

If the Episcopalian Church was the Anglican Church of America.What is the fundamental difference between the Anglican Church of England and the Episcopalian Church of America,
considering both now accept ssm and practising homosexual clergy?

4 April 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Your Grace

Happy Jack insisted on no such thing! He just thought if Rome and Canterbury settled their long-standing differences and were once again united, then whether a Monarch was Anglo-Catholic or Roman Catholic would be unimportant.

And Happy Jack has always tried to avoid debates about who might or might not be behind his persona. All he has ever said is that "Happy Jack is Happy Jack".

4 April 2014 at 16:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Ars Hendrick

Alarming, to think one no longer can support an opinion which does not subscribe to the popular view without being penalised .I imagine it must have been like this in the war where you had to be very guarded about what you thought or said just to survive. And it is a survival issue because most of us need to work to put food on our tables and cannot afford to lose our jobs
Who would have thought it would have come to this?

4 April 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Happy Jack,

"And then .... maybe even (eventually) .... a change to the Constitution permitting a Roman Catholic to become Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England?" is a manifest dig at the Protestant Constitution of the United Kingdom and the position of the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, precisely after the fashion of Dodo.

So answer this question directly and honestly, or leave and never return:

Is the person behind the pseudonym Happy Jack the same person who was/is behind the pseudonym Dodo?

4 April 2014 at 16:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...


4 April 2014 at 16:18  
Blogger DAD said...

I see that the Duke of Edinburgh is wearing a jacket and trousers, and is not copying the Pope by wearing a dress.

4 April 2014 at 16:23  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

That was a really bad dad joke...

4 April 2014 at 16:27  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...


And I predict it will get a lot, lot worse.

4 April 2014 at 16:45  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Well it never happened in my (fictitious) day of course- Queen Victoria would never have gone to visit Pio Nono, though she wore black an awful lot, and Cardinal Newman was always considered a bit of a bolter. I simply cannot see how RC and CofE can be reconciled with women priestesses on one side and celibacy on the other. As for infallibility, well...the politically correct brigade claim it all the time, especially that she-devil Alibaba-Bruin...oh me oh my! At least I have my Earl Grey, my hobnobs and the occasional visit from the Duke of Omnium to keep me level headed. My Lord the Bishop is off to some transgendered-Benedictine-Christians of the Left fandango in Slough. He won't like it, but if the Blessed Peter of Tatchell is there at least he will get a civilised debate. Sort of. Ish. Oh....bollocks

4 April 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Gasp! So Happy Jack you confess to being Dodo at long last! You denied it, you decried it, but now thanks to His Grace we have a confession. Well I never...

4 April 2014 at 17:07  
Blogger richardhj said...

Ars. Cressida.

It will get worse. We could try to fight back. There are enough of us. But not enough commitment on our side.
What if the 1/2 million people who signed the Campaign4Marriages petition all wrote to this company and informed them that we would not only be not using their products in the future but would be writing to their advertisers too telling them this.
There are too many "keyboard warriors"( is that the right phrase?)And not enough real warriors. (And I include myself amongst the keyboard type).
It's never too late to fight back. We just need to work together and better.

4 April 2014 at 17:07  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Your Grace would make a fine Inquisitor General, if I may say so.

4 April 2014 at 17:09  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Thomas 'Torquemada' has a certain ring to it...

4 April 2014 at 17:11  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

And fie on you, naughty Dodo Jack, for telling such fibs...

4 April 2014 at 17:14  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack is still Happy Jack. He is not 'Dodo' and trusts you will not deprive him of future hobnobs.

4 April 2014 at 17:16  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said... said 'Yes' when His Grace asked you directly - oh dear it is all so confusing! What will the Inspector and Blowers think of it all?

4 April 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, dear lady, to be clear, the person behind the pseudonym Happy Jack is the same person who was behind the pseudonym Dodo. 'He' is not 'Dodo'.

4 April 2014 at 17:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thoughts on the Happy Jack issue.

No surprise: identified by Carl and Avi a while back.

"But they couldn't stop Jack, or the waters lapping." Close him down as Jack, and he'll reappear as someone else. It's a compliment to the Blog.

Justin Martyr: "Whatever things have been well said belong to us Christians." What is said matters more than who says it.

Jack is very well informed. I read his posts with attention.

4 April 2014 at 17:44  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace - re HM and the papaseeto: hmmm. I can't like it, and I expect it's all part of the euSSR manipulation. Our enemies no longer permi us to be independent - everything our forebears fought to preserve is being given away.

As to the sometime bird ... that's also consistent with post-modern tactics. I suppose, though, that genuinely split personatilities can't quite help themselves. A pity they give advice to others with personal difficulties, however.

4 April 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Happy Jack

So which is the one, or which are the ones, who lived for a time in Brazil? Only Happy Jack, or the "person behind" him as well?

4 April 2014 at 18:12  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Today’s missal has sent the Inspector floating off to the realms of fantasy…

“Queen displays her alarm at what the CoE is doing to itself by discarding clothes, donning comfort blanket, refusing to wash, and engaging in dirty protest at synod”

But back down on earth, one would speculate that during the continuing SSM debacle in the church, she is far from amused at what she is supreme governor of.

4 April 2014 at 18:14  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

By the way, whether or not a Catholic can sit on the throne is of no consequence for a very good reason. If the CoE doesn’t do a bit of quadruple lock picking and / or start marrying same sex types in secret to begin with, Big Gay will most likely press for disestablishment anyway. And remember, it’s THEM who have powerful friends these days, not the church.

If anyone thought continuingly unequal gay would go home having successfully polluted marriage, you are very much mistaken. There’s oh so much more still to do. Disbelieving ? Then follow the comments made on Pink News.

Mind how you go, it’s rather dirty there…

4 April 2014 at 18:15  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Well I shall send you some hobnobs to settle the nerves - rest assured, whether you are Dodo. Happy Jack or the man behind them, I shall still chat and invite you to The Palace. There are other issues of more import, such as the constant attacks on Christianity, the likelihood of another Bolshevik government in 2015 and whether Avi will share his whisky and herring! To arms, citizens, the hour is at hand!

4 April 2014 at 18:16  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Inspector, are you encouraging us to red filth? I must send you a tract, 'If thy eye offends thee: Specsavers and Page Three of the Sun...'

4 April 2014 at 18:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

that should say 'read filth. but this dratted keyboard is a pain...

4 April 2014 at 18:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Mr Slope is hoping to be elevated to the Bishopric of Sodor and Man...if the cap fits I suppose...

4 April 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 18:15

I believe you (without visiting Pink News.)

Marcuse said that sexual minorities are one of the groups that will comprise the new proletariat; and the new proletariat will bring about the social revolution that will enable the ultimate economic revolution.

So, yes, there's a lot at stake.

4 April 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I concur with Explorer. What is said matters more than who says it.Jack is indeed erudite and is a mine of information pertaining to all matters theological.Probably more so than anyone else who visits this blog.

Also, almost everyone here uses a pseudonym except for non mouse.

4 April 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie @ 18:19

Insofar as there's a Marxist agenda, 'red' for 'read' is not, in fact, a typing error.

4 April 2014 at 18:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I never realised Dodo was a busker in Durham and an ex-serviceman. How exciting! But anyway, I quite like this Bishop of Rome. As far as dress codes go, well-mannered people make their guests feel comfortable and if a guest prefers to dress one way or the other then it would be bad manners to make an issue out of it. That said, I would never have thought about the symbolism without this article. Interesting.

4 April 2014 at 18:53  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Cressida, who would baptise their child 'Non Mouse' apart from Gwyneth Paltrow and Bob Geldof?

4 April 2014 at 18:54  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Ah dear DanJ0, many a time I have felt the urge to clasp you to my bosom, but I suspect you would struggle...

4 April 2014 at 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mrs P: "Ah dear DanJ0, many a time I have felt the urge to clasp you to my bosom, but I suspect you would struggle..."

Well, everyone needs a bosum for a pillow, as the song goes, not just straight people. So clasp away! :)

4 April 2014 at 19:00  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh Explorer, I take your point

4 April 2014 at 19:03  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear DanJ0, did you write ' everyone needs a bosun for a pillow...; or do I need to o to specsavers? Giggles (how naughtical!)

4 April 2014 at 19:05  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

But on the subject of a Roman Catholic monarch, the Church of England came to a compromise when James II became king: the problem was that James had his own agenda. However, even though the Trial of the Seven Bishops was a disaster for the king and a victory for the CofE, many of those bishops refused to continue under William III and became non-jurors...see dear Cressida, some of us do know a bit about our history and the theological struggles that underpin it.

4 April 2014 at 19:11  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 April 2014 at 19:17  
Blogger Hannah said...

Our Queen looks fab, whatever she wears! G-d bless Her Majesty! The current Pope is also a fab ecumenical guy! And of course the future Monarch could also be Jewish as well as Catholic or Anglican (:

Shabbat Shalom to HIS GRACE and his readers (:

4 April 2014 at 19:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Hannah, you are a poppet! Kosher hobnobs heading your way...

4 April 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mrs Proudie

What is a hobnob anyways? A type of cookie?


4 April 2014 at 19:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thank You Hannah and the same to you.

4 April 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh my dear dear Carl, of course you would not know! Yes, it is a sort of wholemeal cookie (we say biscuit) with a milk chocolate topping. Totally wonderful comfort food when feeling down, It's the English version of the Jewish chicken soup I guess, though Hannah and David might correct me on that. I will send you some immediately...they will work wonders when you consider and evaluate the track record of your dear President, Mr. Oblimey.

4 April 2014 at 19:46  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Where are my manners! Shalom to you dear Hannah. I'll have you know my Lord the Bishop once considered voting for Mr Disraeli, but as one of the Lords Spiritual he couldn't...and neither could I being a woman. Oh well...

4 April 2014 at 19:49  
Blogger James said...

this new head of the Church of Rome appears to have rather more respect for the historic and theological status of the Church of England.

Or he doesn't believe in absurd outdated ritual. Salad days are over for Ray Burke and Bishop Bling.

4 April 2014 at 20:01  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 April 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Mrs Proudie/Ian Cad,

Thanks. As it is officially Shabbat, I can't write anything more or respond in depth to your posts or anything else until at least 9.00pm tomorrow. Mobile going off now!

Take care, Gut Shabbos!

Hi Carl,

Try a Jacob's Cracker too!

4 April 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

God bless, Hannah

4 April 2014 at 21:14  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Has anyone considered the possibility that at that time all her black things were still in the wash?

4 April 2014 at 21:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mrs Proudie of Barchester said... said 'Yes' when His Grace asked you directly - oh dear it is all so confusing! What will the Inspector and Blowers think of it all?" Ooh puhlease Mrs P.

Do you really believe old Ernst was shocked and horrified at that revelation? Knew from day one but as Ernst is very fond of said naughty fowl, Ernst played along with the caper, hoping dikkie had learnt his lesson...This blog is the best out there for religious/faith discussion and even if we disagree with HG on certain points, you would have to drag Blowers kicking and screams, chained to his disability scooter on the blog railings, from this site * Chuckles*

Blowers, Jack you are a very naughty 'boid', as Jimmy Durante might have said..

Thank God you have stopped irking and provoking His Nibs with gratuitous insults.

4 April 2014 at 21:20  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Dear Ernst, I stand admonished, but what a card - and sleuth - you are! But you raise a good point and made me think - I don't think I add much to the religious/faith discussion you refer to...indeed, one suddenly feels superficial and silly. I have had these thoughts before of course...mmmmm time for rethinking the rethink

4 April 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mrs P

I don't think I add much to the religious/faith discussion you refer to (Come, come now. There is always the need for a worker that looks to the needs of the church membership...Hospitality is paramount and the need for hobnobs and earls grey enhances the chatter and keeps it flowing, my dear lady)...indeed, one suddenly feels superficial and silly (Nonsense). I have had these thoughts before of course (Go into a darkened room and get forty winks, then come out refreshed knowing you serve a role for others)...mmmmm time for rethinking the rethink. (Why spoil the Blog cast..Can Pagliacci become Mr Bean??)


4 April 2014 at 21:45  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Erm, Archbishop. Look old man, this Happy Jack character. Damn well better behaved than that blasted bird ever was. Well, one asks if you could grant leniency and allow the present blighter to {AHEM} ‘enrich’ your site for the time being, so long as he continues to behave as he has done so up till now. Of course, it is your gaff and you rule supreme here. No problem with that at all.

There. Said it. One’s good deed for the day.


4 April 2014 at 22:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie:

This is a diverse blog, with scope for many kinds of contribution.


a) remind us of that time when the C of E was a force within the culture.

b) make us laugh.

Your departure would diminish us.

4 April 2014 at 22:26  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

One shall tighten one's stays and dip into he Booke of Martyrs to strengthen one's resolve. Hobnobs are off the menu for a while - I shall get my smackers round a Garibaldi instead.

4 April 2014 at 22:38  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, can Happy Jack tempt you with a plain chocolate digestive? Or, and these are offered in emergencies only, a chocolate crème?

4 April 2014 at 22:43  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

.... he's even prepared to serenade you with a tune of your choice.

4 April 2014 at 22:45  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie:

Or what else can you be tempted with?

4 April 2014 at 23:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

What are you offering, Explorer? A poem scribed by yourself dedicated to the finest woman south of the Watford Gap, perhaps?


4 April 2014 at 23:09  
Blogger Francis Arabin said...

I do not know if anyone has mentioned this before. But there is such a thing as "Il Privilegio del Bianco" - the Privilege of White".

It is customary that women of any rank that are presented to the Sovereign Pontiff do wear black, veiled. Only certain queens and consorts were given the privilege of wearing white in the papal presence.

Lilac is not white, hence, the privilege of white has not been extended to Her Majesty (not being Catholic). His Grace should beware not to misread such events.

5 April 2014 at 00:04  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Mrs Proudie said; I simply cannot see how RC and CofE can be reconciled with women priestesses on one side and celibacy on the other
Quite simple really, Put the women vicars with the celibate priests!

In view of the revelations tonight, I have often wondered whether Mrs Proudie is all that she makes out to be? She has a Barry Humphries persona to me, no offence dear but perhaps she could prove her DNA identity?

BTW, I prefer the original Hobnobs without the chocolate.

Thank God the Scoundrel behind DoDo has been exposed. Well done YG. HJ certainly did go from a simple enquiring fellow to a very knowledgeable discourser.

5 April 2014 at 00:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Mr Integrity, regarding Mrs Proudie I think you might be right, although 'she' is a delightful, hilarious, and clever character whose comments make really enjoyable reading. I do hope she stays around.

5 April 2014 at 01:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says: Mrs Proudie is Mrs Proudie! Do leave the poor woman be.

5 April 2014 at 01:48  
Blogger OldJim said...

I'm afraid that I must register my disapproval of "Happy Jack"'s equivocation, above. This torturing of fine semantic distinctions out of plain-meaning English words is like something out of the worst kind of Jesuit manual. I appreciate the usual contents of the posts of the contributer, though I acknowledge that as a coreligionist I might be predisposed so to feel. For this reason, I hope that he is permitted to stay, and permitted to stay under a more truthful understanding. But I couldn't stomach to see this dissolve into something merely partisan, because it oughtn't to be a matter for mere partisanship: this, under any definition, WAS lying, and lying IS wrong. That much is and must be clear cut, and if we deny it we bring our religion into more and not less disrepute.

5 April 2014 at 02:58  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Old Jim

And I'm afraid I must register
an objection to you attributing your own personal failing of bias
and croneyism to your other co religionists here.
I for one would not be sorry to see several of them depart.I would not include you in that group only because your theological and eshatological input is informative
and of value .

Catholicism has already been brought into disrepute with racist, heretical and misogynist comments made by other Catholic commenters on this blog far worse than lying about identity.

Yes lying is wrong..bias and croneyism is wrong...discrimination and unfair treatment is wrong..and quite frankly I find it hard to stomach your sycophantic Uriah Heep impersonations towards HG which is
decidely not a Catholic characteristic and is also wrong which is why initially I thought you to be a convert.

5 April 2014 at 04:19  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

I suppose there is also the argument of whether it can genuinely be considered a deception - not because of Dodo's semantics but simply because the impersonation was so obvious that very few people hadn't worked it out. I'm one of the more gullible online presences and even I had warned HJ he was "channeling his inner Dodo" on one conversation where he'd quoted Mundabor and I think hoped nobody would notice.

HJ as the Inspector says has managed to avoid the worst of the Dodoesqe excesses - perhaps he might be permitted to continue here for as long as he can manage to do so? People do learn from their mistakes :)

On a totally different note, I'd like to thank everyone here for their concern and good wishes sent a week ago when I had some very distressing news. I wasn't up to replying to you all then - but I did appreciate it and it meant a lot to me. God bless you all.

5 April 2014 at 07:49  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 April 2014 at 08:37  
Blogger Len said...

What is the lesson to be learnt here I wonder...?.
'The ends justify the means' some religions as well I suppose.
Of course this means compromise and collusion which I suppose is the message of' unity' between faiths as well.
What price a soul in today`s market?.

5 April 2014 at 10:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Can anyone tell me what this actually means: "not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church"? Is that a Eucharist thing, or an attendance thing, or a shared belief thing? Isn't the Eucharist thing mandatory for Roman Catholics at Easter as an absolute minimum?

5 April 2014 at 10:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 10:17

Although I'm not in a position to answer it, it's a really good question; and I hope somebody else can.

I find 'communion' a much-abused word.

In the 'Lady Chatterley' trial The then-Bishop of Woolwich described the sex scenes as "an act of holy communion."

1. Acts, surely, since the sex in the book isn't continuous. There's dialogue, and Laurentian preaching, in between.

2. What was he suggesting they were doing: eating each other? Search me.

5 April 2014 at 10:28  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 10.17,as this Anglican understands it, for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist they must first confess their manifold sins to a priest. At least, that's what my deliciously lapsed Catholic bitch tells me. No confession means no Eucharist and therefore not in communion with the Roman Church.

5 April 2014 at 10:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Old Jim @ 02.58 says, 'I'm afraid that I must register my disapproval of "Happy Jack"'s equivocation, above. This torturing of fine semantic distinctions out of plain-meaning English words is like something out of the worst kind of Jesuit manual.'

Seconded. A very disappointing episode.

It should be obvious to Happy Jack/Dodo/Larks and Doves that he has infuriated His Grace on a number of occasions, hence the Red Card. Only recently His Grace was thinking out loud as to whether to continue with His most excellent blog. It would be most unfortunate if the prolonged deceit that we have witnessed were to be the catalyst for closure.

We know that Dodo is a Catholic, and therefore considers himself a Christian, but does he never stop to think about his actions in repeatedly bearing false witness on this blog? The scale of Happy Jack's deception is remarkable. Time and time again he was asked the simple question, 'Are you Dodo?'. On every occasion the answer was a lie. In the opinion of this communicant there is something more than a little unusual, call it pathological, about a mind that needs to devise the Happy Jack deception and then carry it out so painstakingly for so long.

His Grace could be forgiven for re-instituting the ban, with quadruple lock.

5 April 2014 at 10:59  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...


Can anyone tell me what this actually means: "not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church"? Is that a Eucharist thing, or an attendance thing, or a shared belief thing?

It's an interesting question and I wonder why it's not asked more frequently. I look forward to reading what other communicants, Catholics or not, have to say. My provisional answer is this: No, it's not a Eucharist thing, that's "communion" in a different sense. Not an attendance thing either, because a non-Catholic whoi goes to Mass, no matter how often, doesn't thereby become a Catholic. A belief thing comes close to it, but what it boils down to, I suspect, is a membership thing. But that's not a real answer, either, because you would have to ask what "membership" means.

You've made me want to find out and I'll do some looking up.

5 April 2014 at 11:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "In the 'Lady Chatterley' trial The then-Bishop of Woolwich described the sex scenes as "an act of holy communion.""

I've not the read the book as it goes but perhaps it's tying notions of togetherness (hence communion), considerable joy or ecstasy, and some breathless "oh god, oh god, oh god" stuff? A sort of St Teresa of Avila thing, only in a more earthy way.

5 April 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 10:59

A while back now, Mrs Proudie made a light-hearted joke about bastards in a picture of politicians. Happy Jack was upset because of his own ancestry.

Mrs Proudie was upset in her turn: to the pitch of leaving the Blog. That's where identity issues become problematic for me; since Mrs P's fears of having given offence were, in fact, groundless.

I suspect memories of that episode may have had a bearing on her musings on this particular thread.

You yourself use a pseudonym. The difference is that no one believes (I imagine) that you are actually a dog.

5 April 2014 at 11:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 11:11.

Ingenious explanation!

I'll have to re-visit the book. My memory is that God doesn't crop up much; lots of good old Anglo-Saxon words do.

I've always found it a ridiculous work. 'Last Exit to Brooklyn' (also the subject of a trial) is much more problematic.

5 April 2014 at 11:20  
Blogger Len said...

Dodo I think sees himself as somewhat as the court Jester and performs to the amusement of his entourage but no one else.
His persona changes could not conceal his true identity for any length of time and the inner catholic burst forth on the blog like 'the thing' in 'alien.'.
Getting the thing off the ship was the ultimate purpose in the film and I wonder if the same principle should be applied here before there is no pilot or crew left.

There is a line to be drawn between freedom of expression (which I totally agree with) and I have had some interesting discussions with those of other faiths but if every thread is to be sabotaged (as happened in the past) then it will become beyond tiresome..

5 April 2014 at 11:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Explorer @ 11.15, yes, there is of course a deception in the use of a pseudonym. But possibly as for you, and many others, it is a useful screen for the maintenance of privacy. My name is such that by disclosing it I can easily be positioned in certain ways and anonymity is important to me in the context of participating in the blog.

I thought Dodo's blogs as Happy Jack were very good and completely different in style to his former and very strident self. An anger management course maybe. As to Dodo being a bastard, I just don't recall. HJ's persona was so finely crafted that exercise in 'outrage' may have been another bluff, a game to out-psyche Mrs Proudie. Who I happen to think is a woman, although Mr Integrity has doubts.

But given the history and the angst caused in the past, it seems to me that HJ pushed it too far. One thing I don't understand, having lied for so long, why suddenly tell the truth? A yearning for acceptance?

5 April 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger bluedog said...

Completely agree with your thoughts at 10.06 and 11.35, Len.
Dodo has put the whole blog at risk, yet again.

5 April 2014 at 11:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack concurs with Old Jim's comments earlier and apologies to His Grace and others here who were deceived by him and also for any upset caused. He also accepts Len's view that the end does not justify the means.

Jack's intention was not malicious and he has endeavoured to participate without being offensive or disruptive. He wanted to contribute to discussions here in a constructive manner with people he has grown very fond of during the past 3 years.

Happy Jack and his 'history' are real and he is person who was known to the author.

5 April 2014 at 12:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...


I can fully see that although the Happy Jack story may not be true of you personally it could be an accurate depiction of someone else. A true description of a type.

Len sees you as a court jester. The Fool in 'Lear', however, is not simply funny; he also utters some of the play's most important truths.

5 April 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger Integrity said...

Well Jack,
Your persona has been a whole load better than your forbear. May it have been a Damascene revelation of the light that leads us into true fellowship with the brethren.

5 April 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger Ivan said...

So the running joke of Dodo/Damien/Happy Jack may be coming to an end.

I would like you to know that you, Albert and Old Jim are among the posters that I learnt the most from.

5 April 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

To be in communion with the RCC is to submit oneself to the authority of the RCC doctrinally and sacramentally. Since the RCC sees itself as the body of Christ, that submission requires membership as a necessary implication.


5 April 2014 at 12:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ivan @ 12:33

Me too.

5 April 2014 at 12:48  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Len, Mrs Proudie, bluedog,
Integrity, Explorer
(and many others)

Protection of privacy is one thing. Obviously we’re not just chatting to one another as if we were propping up the bar at the Coach and Horses. This is a public place. But camouflaging your opinions and beliefs is a different kettle of fish.

In Happy Jack’s case, the fictional character “Happy Jack” seems to have declared himself, in a coyly tortuous and ambiguous manner, as a Roman Catholic. But we have still not been told anything about the religious beliefs of “the person behind Happy Jack”.

If Happy Jack should read this, I’d still be interested in getting an answer to the question I asked him earlier on this thread (4 April at 18:12).

5 April 2014 at 12:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Protestants define 'in Communion' organically. It is a natural product of a common Faith and the Protestant understanding of the Church as a spiritual entity consisting of all the Elect. We are in Communion with anyone who proclaims the same Lord and the same Gospel. We display that Communion by a willingness to publicly share the Sacraments. I am not in Communion with Rome because it does not preach the same Gospel and therefore I will not participate in the Mass.

Being in Communion therefore means to be common members of the Body of Christ. Protestants differentiate between the Church (spiritual) and church (temporal organization.) RCs make no such distinction.How does one become a member of the Body of Christ in RCism? Through participation in the Sacraments of the RCC. Which one is allowed to do by submitting to the authority of the Roman magisterium.


5 April 2014 at 13:08  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Sorry, Uncle Brian, but His Grace has absolutely no interest in that at all.

The most depressing thing about this saga is that, once again, Dodo becomes the centre of attention, exactly as he purposely engineers and pathologically requires. It is all so depressingly familiar - each thread becomes all about him, his beliefs, disruptive behaviour and warped psychology, instead of the religio-political matter to hand, being the subject of the post.

We've been here before. He has had second and third chances, and always reverts to CofE-swiping, host-insulting type. His behaviour is reprehensible. This thread is not going to be hijacked by Dodo, Damian or Happy Jack or whatever he's calling himself today. Nor is any future one.

5 April 2014 at 13:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl @ 13:08

Agreed. We Protestants are bound by, "It is finished." For Catholics, it isn't. The gap cannot be breached by either side without a change of belief.

5 April 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

I get your point, Your Grace. "Dodo" is known to me only by hearsay. I arrived on the scene too late to have been an eyewitness.

5 April 2014 at 13:36  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 April 2014 at 14:04  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...


We Protestants are bound by, "It is finished." For Catholics, it isn't.

Extremely interesting -- though I have to say I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you meant it abolutely literally, it would mean that the Christian religion itself came to end that Friday afternoon in Jerusalem. But if you meant that, you wouldn't be here. In what seems to be your less strictly literal meaning, it sums up very neatly why I am now a Catholic and can't imagine myself going back to being an Anglican. But that can hardly have been your intention, either.

5 April 2014 at 14:06  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

" Deliver me Lord from the wicked
who sharpen their tongues like a serpent
venomous asps upon their lips"

5 April 2014 at 14:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

It's a reference to the completed work of Christ on the Cross, and by extension to the differences between RC and Protestant concepts of justification. Trent is why I say Rome teaches another Gospel. Trent is why a RC can never agree that Jesus said "It is finished." Because it isn't finished according to Rome's teaching.


5 April 2014 at 14:21  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

carl jacobs

The Seven Last Words are a subject I have regrettably neglected to study or even to read about. I can only tell you what “It is finished” seems to mean to me. Above all, it means the Incarnation has reached its end. Everything else that has happened from that moment on is post-Incarnation. But “post-Incarnation” doesn’t mean “irrelevant”. If that were the case, nobody would read St Paul, for a start, who came on the scene quite some time after the Crucifixion. So what does it mean? How can “It is finished” mean one thing to some Christians and something different to others?

I know the Council of Trent is central to your argument about Catholicism because we’ve talked about this before. But if you object to those people at Trent having drawn up a detailed statement about the doctrinal content of their Church’s teaching, why shouldn’t you make the same objection to the Thirty-Nine Articles, for instance? Or to Calvin’s Institutions of Religion? Or to any other publication issued by any Christian Church for the purpose of serving as a compendium of the beliefs that it teaches, and comparing them with other beliefs that it rejects?

5 April 2014 at 15:07  
Blogger Simon said...

H.M. was in Lenten array.

I had read that she met the Pope with less formality than hitherto, both in form and in venue.

5 April 2014 at 15:40  
Blogger richardhj said...

Uncle Brian. 15:07

If "it is finished" was meant the way that certain people seem to understand it, then it would appear to mean that the resurrection was irrelevant.
If you haven't already done so, it's always worth reading now Catholic, former Presbyterian, Dr. Scott Hahn, and in particular his "The Fourth Cup".

5 April 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

The word is 'tetelestai.' It's an accounting term and would be equivalent to stamping 'Paid in full' on a bill. It means the full debt of sin had been paid, Atonement had been accomplished and is henceforth properly referred to in the past tense. Nothing more needed to be done, and the Son of Man had as of that moment actually redeemed a people for God.

My problem with Trent is not the it was written, but what was written in it. Trent is the dogmatically defined infallible anathema of the Gospel. To understand what is wrong with Rome, you begin with Trent.


5 April 2014 at 15:46  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Thank you, Richard. Your first point takes my argument a step further than I was intending to go myself.

Scott Hahn, I'm sorry to say, is one more name on the seemingly endless list of Catholic writers whose books I have never read. I must rectify the omission.

On the question of the Council of Trent, I didn't repeat this time around a question I think I raised in a previous conversation with Carl, which is this: Trent was the nineteenth council in the history of the Church, beginning with Constantine's Council of Nicea in 325. (And that's if you don't count the so-called Council of Jerusalem, reported in Acts 15.) Carl doesn't reject (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) any of the earlier councils, but only Trent. Why the exceptionalism? If he rejects Trent, why doesn't he reject the eighteen earlier councils also?

5 April 2014 at 16:03  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

carl jacobs

Sorry, Carl, it took me a long time to write that comment addressed to Richard. (I had to break off to go and see what the dogs were barking about -- it happens all too often.) Only now, after posting it, have I spotted your comment at 15:46.

My point stands. Everything that you say about the Council of Trent is equally true of the eighteen earlier councils. Why the exceptionalism?

5 April 2014 at 16:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

I am a Protestant. I don't know what it means to say I accept or reject a Council except in so far as it agrees or disagrees with Scripture. I reject Trent because Trent flatly rejects Scripture. I likewise reject Vatican I for the same reason. I reject the infallible Papal bulls and the Papacy itself. I reject Rome and all its works and all its ways.

The councils to which you refer are subsidiary authorities. They cannot and do not bind my conscience. Scripture is the Norm above all Norms - not Popes and Councils.


5 April 2014 at 16:23  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

If you assert that "Trent flatly rejects Scripture", I think you ought to specify the points at which the "rejections" are said to occur.

One or two of them, at least.

5 April 2014 at 16:32  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Sorry, that was supposed to be addressed to carl jacobs. I must have hit a wrong key.

5 April 2014 at 16:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Canon XXXII on Justification from the Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

5 April 2014 at 16:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

carl jacobs

The text you quote seems to be entirely consistent with the epistle of James. Which, after all, was accepted into the canon of Scripture, despite doubts as to the true authorship.

5 April 2014 at 16:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

Generally, I prefer to focus on what unites Catholics and Protestants - a lot - rather than on what divides. However, this particular thread invites comment about differences.

"It is finished." All I meant was that this is a problem for Protestants in respect of the Mass: which re-presents Christ's sacrifice. Why it should make the Resurrection - belief in which is, for me, the key definition of a Christian - redundant I have no idea.

The authorship of 'James'. For Protestants, James was the head of the Jerusalem Church, and the brother of Jesus. For Catholics, Jesus could not have had a brother.

These things are not crucial for me. When I lived in France I would attend Mass without participating (the alternative was solitude) and drew spiritual strength from the experience. I made no secret of the fact that I was Protestant sympathetic to Catholicism.

5 April 2014 at 17:31  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh dear, it really is time to go. What fun it has been. My Lord the Bishop and I are going on an extended sabbatical, leaving the affairs of Barchester in the hands of Mr. Harding. His Grace deserves to be left in peace...adieu my friends, adieu...

5 April 2014 at 17:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs P:

If that is indeed your decision, it must, of course, be respected.

Thank you for the wit, Mrs Proudie: I feel enriched to have encountered you.

5 April 2014 at 17:42  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Mrs Proudie

Please rethink. Once again.


5 April 2014 at 18:08  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer

What I meant about the authorship of the epistle of James was something a bit different. It was only at a late stage that this book was accepted into the canon of the NT, which suggests that there were doubts at the time. If it had been known for certain that the author was James the brother of the Lord -- so the argument runs -- nobody would have hesitated to accept as canonical the work of such an eminent leader of the Church.

5 April 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

I expressed myself badly.

'James' was written early and accepted late into the Canon because of a) apparent conflict with Paul, b) the identity of James the Just.

Even if the Paul/James theology can be reconciled (as it can) there is an issue between Catholics and Protestants as to who 'James' would have been (for different reasons than those at the time of the original dispute).

5 April 2014 at 18:51  
Blogger Integrity said...

Dear Mrs Proudie, whoever you are?
Your presence on this site has lightened and enriched the enjoyment of reading this Blog. Your cool analysis, succinct and adept application of the subject to your Personas period placement have been one of the greatest pleasures. Even when you mocked my Tomb for Tome. As we all said at the onset of the year, your presence would be sorely missed.

5 April 2014 at 18:54  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer

If we accept (as evidently you and I both do) that Paul/James on justification can be reconciled, wouldn't that leave the Calvinist view out in the cold? When Carl accuses the Council of Trent if "flatly rejecting Scripture", isn't he implying that Paul is right, James is wrong, and never the twain shall meet?

5 April 2014 at 19:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

You aska da qvestions!

I'd rather let Carl answer on his own behalf, lest I misrepresent him.

When I say they can be reconciled, I'm thinking of, "The devils believe, and tremble." Faith of that sort is not enough. Works are evidence of saving faith. That is how Protestants reconcile Paul and James.

5 April 2014 at 20:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Farewell Mrs Proudie and safe travels, your posts have always been a joy to read.

5 April 2014 at 20:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Uncle Brian, if I may, Trent on "good works" has to be seen within overall Roman Catholic doctrine. Remember that analogy of being in the sea and needing Christ's grace to make it to the boat?

The teaching is consistent with and flows from the Catholic view of justification and salvation. We are called by Christ, accept His call and a process begins whereby we cooperate with grace and continually become perfected and made are made ready to stand before God.

Catholics believe two things that are distinct from some/all protestant teaching. Grace and salvation can be lost through grievous sin and, even if we die in a state of grace, unless perfected in this life, we have a period of purification before we are ready for the beatific vision.

In this context, "good works" are a response to grace - Christ acts in us - but also our volition/effort is required. These "good works" achieve two things. First they help keep us in a state of grace as through them we endeavour to become more Christ like. They demand effort. Second, they help erase the imperfections left in our souls through sins committed, albeit already forgiven. These "good works" perfect us; as do the sacraments and, most especially, Holy Communion.

Hope this assists.

5 April 2014 at 21:07  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Mrs Proudie,

I do not think you should stop posting here, you've not 'done anything wrong' to the blog owner or anyone else and I enjoy reading your posts.

I'd note that there is an accusation that there is some form of masculinity to your posts. I believe your are parodying a character of Anthony Trollope's fictional work. Well QED, as Trollope was a man.... but I don't doubt that you are really a woman of kind heart and devout Anglican belief. Stay and give communicants hobnobs and Earl Grey tea. If not, come and say hello from time to time at my internet space.

5 April 2014 at 21:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack @ 21:07

Paragraph 3. "Irresistible grace" is the 'I' of the Calvinist TULIP, but some Protestants believe that it is possible to lose salvation.

5 April 2014 at 22:26  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Re Happy Jack/Dodo.

For what my opinion is worth as one who has swum the Tiber and now finds Canterbury too lukewarm, I hope he stays, subject to the issue of continually hijacking threads.

I have been entertained by the HJ persona.

PS Rambling Steve Appleseed is a (justly) unknown Hamble delta bluesman from the cider plantation. He can be found on YouTube and elsewhere under his true identity with little difficulty.

5 April 2014 at 22:27  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Forgot to add, I hope HJ gets to remain here and basically in concurrence with similar sentiments as other bloggers have noted here. Appreciate we need to focus on the topic, so shall say no more on this matter.

5 April 2014 at 23:00  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Mrs Proudie, return soon, dear heart. No woman has rubbed the Inspector’s laughter bean as you have.


5 April 2014 at 23:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

What a load of old cobblers you lot are talking about today...Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lords Supper then becomes salvation and works as Paul VS James as one shows the other.

Classic Reformed VS Roman Catholicism on one sided arguments, never seeing the whole counsel of God from ALL scripture?

What silly rubbish!!

Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lords Supper, all conflated as if the ones equal the whole!!

Holy Communion - Romish nonsense that the Lord is present worldwide within each wafer raised and supposedly blessed as He (Jesus is physically present in more than one place at a time). He still has His divine nature and is omnipresent but has 'Physicality' as Jesus in the flesh. He is only in ONE place...His Fathers Throne!!(A Preemptive RC 'God can do anything he wants; therefore, it is the actual sacrificed body and blood of Christ.' is NOT an answer, It is IMPOSSIBLE!)

So what did Jesus say about His supper?

"for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this FRUIT OF THE VINE from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:28-29).

“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 “Truly I say to you, I shall never again drink of the FRUIT OF THE VINE until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God," (Mark 14:24-25).

When Jesus was explaining the Communion supper to His disciples he refers to the wine as the "fruit of the vine." This is a reference to WINE and NOT literal blood. Therefore, Jesus himself still refers to the WINE as WINE even after he said "this is my blood."

Therefore, we must conclude that Jesus was speaking symbolically as he did in other verses. "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1).

The Communion Supper is a REPRESENTATION of the actual sacrifice of Christ. It is NOT the literal body and blood of Jesus.

5 April 2014 at 23:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Despite what Reformed say about the Lord's Supper/Eucharist, He is to be Our Bread and Wine/Our FOOD (We need food because, for heterotrophs like humans, it serves as an energy source. Food also supplies us (hopefully) with the necessary vitamins and minerals required for normal body functioning.) and DRINK (Water is required for most of the chemical reactions going on within the body. It is required for hydrolysis reactions; its high latent heat and heat of evaporation helps the body to maintain a constant temperature; it is the closest thing we have to a universal solvent; its regulation allows us to maintain an isotonic environment; and it permits diffusion across membranes.), as believers for our daily sustenance. It is that simple, when we partake of the sacrament. He wants to fulfill ALL our bodily needs SPIRITUALLY, metaphorically!!

They are memorials of Jesus’ death on the cross...As Paul said, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s DEATH until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

The Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.We should receive it with great gratitude, as an expression of great love towards us that believe. If we have tears, they should be tears of joy.

We rejoice that Jesus has conquered death, and has set free all who were enslaved by a fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). We can remember Jesus’ death with the happy knowledge that he has triumphed over sin and death!

As Jesus said, our mourning will turn into joy (John 16:20). Coming to the Lord’s table and having communion should be a celebration, not a funeral.

Paul wrote, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). In the Lord’s Supper, we show that we share in Jesus Christ. We commune with him. We are united in him.

It reminds us of Jesus’ return..Paul wrote that "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26


5 April 2014 at 23:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Salvation and works as Paul VS James as one shows the other.

Both are statements of faith and works but you can be saved and NOT have good works, so how do you know they are believers then!!!
Doubt old Ernst, do you?

Lets see what Paul says about the Judgment of believers as he speaks to believers at Rome, shall we? " Romans 14:10–12

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;

11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."

This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9

8 For by grace you HAVE BEEN saved through faith. And this is not your own doing (You have not WORKED/BEEN FAVOURITISED WITH MERIT); it is the gift of God,

9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives in service to Christ.

Our position in Christ is the “foundation” spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.

That which we build upon the foundation can be the “gold, silver, and precious stones” of good works in Christ’s name, obedience and fruitfulness—dedicated spiritual service to glorify God and build the church.

Or what we build on the foundation may be the “wood, hay and stubble” of worthless, frivolous, shallow activity with no spiritual value.

The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal this and His Bema seat judgment reveals how His fire burns appearances from reality, false works from true.

1 Corinthians 3:15.

15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer LOSS, though he himself WILL BE SAVED, but only as through fire.

How do we do good works which God approves?:

- Good works are motivated by love, not to attain something (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
- Good works are steeped in humility and are never self serving (Luke 17:7-10).
- Good works are often done in secret rather than to be seen by others as false piety (Matthew 6:5-18).
- Good works are empowered by God’s Spirit and y human hard work for praise (Galatians 5:16).

The second judgment is that of unbelievers who will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

This judgment does not determine salvation, either. Everyone at the Great White Throne is an unbeliever who has rejected Christ in life and is therefore already doomed to the lake of fire.

No amount of good works and the keeping of God’s laws can be sufficient to atone for sin and sin is NOT or EVER in view for the judgment of believers.

All unbelievers thoughts, words and actions will be judged against God’s perfect standard and found wanting.

There will be no reward for them, only eternal condemnation and punishment.



For the RC's that like Jimbo Akin as an authority...I offer his RC statements on Salvation.. Please feel free to quote him in your comments to bolster or refine your own arguments and Ernst will dismantle whichever part of his 'script' you choose to use, SOLELY by quoting above and below his chosen texts used, to show what a deceitful chancer he is!!

6 April 2014 at 00:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

" It is finished" These words uttered before Christ's death mean literally that his suffering as a man is over.That he has completed his task and will not be back again which makes it clear that the Messiah has been and will not return.

6 April 2014 at 00:43  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

i.e. completed his task in dying as a man. The Resurrection proved that he was more than just a man that he was God.

6 April 2014 at 00:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cressie, Lass.

Before He died, Our Wondrous Saviour cried out “Tetelestai!” This is often translated as “It is finished” and that translation is an accurate translation… But did you know how Tetelestai was also used in New Testament times, Cressie, my dear?

It was used as an accounting term. It was written on a bill, on an account and it meant “Paid in Full”, it meant that account was now closed, the debtee no longer owed anything.

The Bible is clear that Christ’s death on the cross was the full payment of a sin debt that we ALL owe. As one of the great hymns declares, “Jesus paid it all” and He paid it in full.(Unfortunately, not one in the RC hymnal?!)

This sin debt? According to the Bible in Romans 6:23 that sin debt is death, eternal separation from God, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Who owes that debt? The Bible declares that we ALL do.

It declares that there is none good, NO NOT ONE. How much sin makes us guilty and worthy of that debt? Just ONE sin puts us in debt! , God’s standard is perfect holiness and we fall short often if we are honest with ourselves. That has us in deserve of death, but what’s this gift mentioned in Romans 6:23? " 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

We learn in various verses but Romans 5:8 shows it to us clearly, “8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” God shows his love toward us through Christ’s death on the cross.

God is a righteous God with a Holy standard. He is also a God of Love and he balances that perfectly with his Righteousness. Our sin demands payment, if God is to be fair and maintain perfect balance, He MUST demand this payment.

He Loves us though. That’s where the cruel cross of Calvary comes in. Jesus was cursed for us, He became our sin and when He died His death had the potential to pay for our total sin debt.

Only a potential payment? How do we give reality it? By believing, by putting aside our own feeble attempts (Paul called his own attempts at holiness before meeting Christ on the Damascus road, “Dung!”) to somehow deserve Heaven – we don’t and we can’t, if we are honest with ourselves we see our faults, we see our sin and just one sin is enough to fall short of God’s holy standard.

We need to put aside our own feeble attempts at saving ourselves and trust in Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Romans 10:9 tells us, “ 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus (IF you do this) , and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead (and IF you do this) , thou shalt (THIS will happen GUARANTEED!) be saved.”


6 April 2014 at 01:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Hear it sung and cry, as I have just done by hearing it again, at the great cost that caused Our Saviour to free us from our debt owed on a cross nearly two thousand years ago and remember this next week!!!

I hear the Savior say,
“Thy strength indeed is small;
Child of weakness, watch and pray,
Find in Me thine all in all.”


Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

For nothing good have I
Whereby Thy grace to claim,
I’ll wash my garments white
In the blood of Calv’ry’s Lamb.


And now complete in Him
My robe His righteousness,
Close sheltered ’neath His side,
I am divinely blest.


Lord, now indeed I find
Thy power and Thine alone,
Can change the leper’s spots
And melt the heart of stone.


When from my dying bed
My ransomed soul shall rise,
“Jesus died my soul to save,”
Shall rend the vaulted skies.


And when before the throne
I stand in Him complete,
I’ll lay my trophies down
All down at Jesus’ feet.


6 April 2014 at 01:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

For Calvinists and those of that persuasion, Easter must be a hard time to use to evangelise the lost about Jesus and the meaning of His death on the cross.

I could not for the life of me imagine going up to someone on Good Friday to Easter Sunday and saying to someone, “you know, Christ MAY HAVE died for you.”


6 April 2014 at 01:32  
Blogger Manfarang said...

According to the Sawaguchi family's claims, Jesus Christ did not die on the cross at Golgotha. Instead his brother, Isukiri, took his place on the cross, while Jesus fled across Siberia to Mutsu Province, in northern Japan. Once in Japan, he became a rice farmer, married, and raised a family with three daughters near what is now Shingō. While in Japan, it is asserted that he traveled, learned, and eventually died at the age of 106. His body was exposed on a hilltop for four years. According to the customs of the time, Jesus' bones were collected, bundled, and buried in the mound purported to be the grave of Jesus Christ.

6 April 2014 at 04:01  
Blogger Ivan said...

And according to Dr Jonathan Spence, the zany followers of Hong Xiuquan, the crazy Chinaman, had in support of his claims to be the God's Son triggered the Taiping Rebellion costing many millions of lives. Apparently it is an unfailing rule of Nemesis in these type of celestial matters involving false claims of messiah-hood, that the so-called sons of Gods, Hong Xiuquan, Jacob Frank and Jim Jones, that their end is accompanied by the death of countless deluded followers.

6 April 2014 at 05:12  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Just so Ivan. As it is written of false messiahs, ' their fruits you shall know them.'

6 April 2014 at 07:06  
Blogger Len said...

We see in so many tragic cases how satan uses deluded people to kill others then more often than not take their own lives.
We see this not only in the tragic cases in recent history but throughout history.

6 April 2014 at 07:30  
Blogger Len said...

Jesus said' IT' is finished Not 'I am 'finished.
God cannot be killed.

It is blasphemy to think we can add to the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

6 April 2014 at 07:33  
Blogger Len said...

Jesus came to effect a reconciliation between a Holy God and fallen man.
God could not just' turn a blind eye' to the sin of man.Perfect Justice demands a penalty be paid in restitution.A morally bankrupt man cannot pay the price.
So God Himself stood in the dock and declared Himself guilty and paid the price.He then becomes the perfect(and Only ) Mediator between fallen man and God.

The along comes well meaning ' Mr religious' and says "I want to pay the price too" which places him in the dock and under the authority of that master prosecutor Satan Himself.

One can only look on in bewilderment.

6 April 2014 at 08:19  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Catholicism perceives the problems inherent in Antinomianism - 1. I am saved so I don't need to do anything, b. I am saved, so it doesn't matter what I do - and seeks to keep faith active.

In your view, and mine, it over-prescribes, but it does address a real issue. For that, I applaud it.

6 April 2014 at 08:38  
Blogger richardhj said...

Len. 07:33. You appear to be responding to someone but I can't see who. Perhaps you could say who

6 April 2014 at 09:37  
Blogger Len said...

Explorer,(6 April 2014 08:38) I think Paul had problems when he preached the Gospel of Grace.
Paul`s teaching can easily be understood to give 'licence' to the sinner to continue in sin...
This is not the case!!.
Jesus said quite plainly that God`s Law would stand forever.The Ten Commandments have not been' done away with'.
What has happened is the God has written His Law on the Heart of the born again believer.God` Law has become 'internalized'.

The old covenant was that God gave His Law to Man and man tried to follow it.Man tried but could not follow God`s Law he might have had the will but not the power.. History bears this out!.

The New Covenant (written in Christs blood at Calvary ) is that God gives His law and God carries this out through His Spirit in the Man.

6 April 2014 at 09:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len @ 09:39

Agreed. Antinomianism can be countered within Protestant parameters.

6 April 2014 at 09:43  
Blogger Len said...


I was addressing anyone who might be under the delusion that Christ came to 'do his bit' towards salvation and then departed leaving 'the church' to finish what He has started.
I think Cressida was of that opinion?.
There seems to be a faction who think Christ came to start a Church or a new religion and' He got the ball rolling' then handed over to the church to complete what He had started?.
Jesus fulfilled everything necessary for salvation than handed over to His Followers the task of preaching the Gospel.
The church has failed dismally in this respect and has sought to use the authority given to Christs 'followers 'for its own glory.

6 April 2014 at 09:52  
Blogger richardhj said...

Explorer. These are all genuine questions. I am not trying to trip you up. Indeed it is possible that I am completely misunderstanding what I think I am finding out about the Protestant faith.
(1). What was the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? Why all the promises that if you do certain things you will see God, or the kingdom of Heaven is yours? Why not just if you believe in me?
(2). What about the Pharisee and the tax collector? The tax collector went home at peace with God, the Pharisee did not. Surely they both believed in God as much as each other. Is it not necessary to be at peace with God, just to believe?
(3). I asked this question yesterday though perhaps in a slightly less friendly way. If by Jesus coming into the world to die on a Cross was what it took for all men to be saved, then I can see the logic in "it is finished " meaning what you appear to be suggesting. However, if you also have to believe that he was the Son of God, then surely it wasn't finished. How many people would have believed that he was the Son of God if he hadn't risen? Not many I suspect. Therefore he had to rise again to give people the opportunity to believe in him and therefore be saved. So then why was it finished, using what appears to be the Protestant definition? It surely wasn't finished until he had risen and shown people that he had.
(4). This is really for Ernst but you may answer anyway. I am not a great Biblical scholar, hence my questioning. But I am an accountant, and I have often seen invoices stamped "Paid in Full". Often that is at the end of the transaction. But sometimes it just means that the cash has been paid in advance. The vendor might then just have a little work to do to get the goods or services to the purchaser (believe) or he may have to do a lot of work, manufacture, transport (good deeds and works. Contrition isn't always necessary but it would certainly help if delivery was late or the product was faulty)?Paid in full just means that one party has done their bit. It doesn't necessarily mean that the transaction is complete, or even nearly.
As I said these are genuine questions and points and you seem like the right person to give a properly thought out and reasonable answer.

6 April 2014 at 10:35  
Blogger richardhj said...

Len. I did wonder whether you were addressing Cressida but wasn't sure.
Cressida said that "it is finished" referred to the suffering. Just as someone might say when they have died after an illness, or indeed torture. She certainly didn't suggest to me that she understood it to mean I am finished. She also didn't suggest anywhere that God did die. She said Jesus as a man died. I trust that is not in dispute.
I am sure though that she is more than capable of answering for herself, but as I had asked the question I thought I should explain the reason for my confusion.

6 April 2014 at 10:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Thank you for the compliment.

I need to think about your questions more, but I'd like to make two points to explain my general position.

1. When I, as a Protestant layperson, read the Bible, I often find the meaning unclear. I resort to a commentary. That is, I defer to the judgement of a professional with linguistic/historical/theological understanding greater than mine. That does not seem to me very different from what the Magisterium seeks to do.

2. Suppose I have a moral or emotional problem, and pray to God for an answer. The resources to answer the problem may not lie within me; so what does God do? God might direct me to a book, or to a wise Christian friend who could analyse the problem and outline a course of action. That does not seem to me very different from confession and penance.

I can see the logic of the positions Catholics hold, and it is why I find them my allies rather than my enemies.

6 April 2014 at 11:32  
Blogger Len said...

When Jesus made atonement for the sins of humanity He stood in our place.He who was without sin became sin.
It is only by total identification with Christ on the Cross that God can accept us as 'redeemed'. If we died with Him we shall also live with him.
Christs death was our death Christs Life becomes our life.
How can this be? people ask. Jesus died 2,000 yrs ago and rose again how can this apply to us?.

The answer is that if we are One Spirit with Christ then we share the same experiences His Spirit went through at Calvary.It is God who places us in Christ at the new birth.

This is the mystery of salvation planned by God and revealed through Christ at Calvary.

6 April 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Three brief answers.

1. The Sermon on the Mount. I take it to illustrate different manifestations of common faith, a bit like the gifts of the Spirit.

2. Pharisee and tax collector. Simply to believe is not enough. Hence the parable of the sheep and goats. "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord', but he who does the will of my Father..."

3. The wages of sin is death. Christ came to undo death by dying sinless. "It is finished." That part of the mission accomplished. The Resurrection could follow: as a prelude to the general resurrection of the dead at the end of time.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." I am sure that is true of all pure-hearted Catholics and Protestants.
I look forward to when our differences dissolve in the light of the Father of Lights.

Hope that helps a bit: the explanation had either to be brief, or very detailed beyond the confines of the blog format.

Regards to you.

6 April 2014 at 12:12  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Richard 10:46
Thank you..that is correct.I do not think I could be more lucid or concise in my statement.


It is very different from confession and penance.Your friend can advise and comfort you but your friend cannot forgive you your sins.
A confessor is rarely your friend in the sense of someone you know well.He is able ,according to Catholic belief, to forgive you your sins so that you can be restored to a state of grace.

6 April 2014 at 12:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Cressida @ 12:36

Good point: it is an inexact comparison. For that, I apologise.

The friend could not, and would not seek to, forgive sins. Once the issue had been clarified, the Protestant would pray directly to God, with Christ as the mediator.

I do not have a problem with the confessor as a delegated authority; I just do not see the necessity in the light of 'Hebrews'.

6 April 2014 at 12:50  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

One of the differences between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants take a personal direct communication line to God and omit the priest. I am not a canonical expert like Dodo, Albert or Jim but I am versed in the way Catholicism works and in my own case have a better understanding of spiritual matters through verse.

Our first instinct in times of trouble is to beseech God communicate with the Divine. This is prayer whatever form it takes. Catholics believe in this form of prayer but it is not sufficiently effective to have your sins forgiven. In urgent situations e.g.with the imminence of death it is possible with an act of perfect contrition to be forgiven without the presence of a priest.

In John 20 Jesus appeared to the apostles and conferred on them the power to forgive sins.He would not have bothered with this if everyone could pray to Him personally and be forgiven instantaneously .There would be no need to.

Thus the apostolic succession was formed and passed down through the years giving a consecrated priest through the sacrament of Holy Orders the power to forgive sins. But you probably know this anyway

I have no intention of playing
a game of scripture badminton, like Len does with his crazed fantasies of Catholic Babylonian pagan rites, to gain one upmanship and score points.

I am prepared to listen to any reasonable and considered point of view that is in opposition to my own and in fact I find it very interesting... Avi and David being a good example of this when they explain Judaism.

6 April 2014 at 15:02  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer today at 11:32

I can see the logic of the positions Catholics hold, and it is why I find them my allies rather than my enemies.

And vice versa, Explorer. It's a two-way street.

6 April 2014 at 15:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha ha ha ha, don't worry, Happy Jack didn't deceive me at all. Was onto you the moment I saw your yellow visage, and said, "Hi Dodo!"

6 April 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Cressida and Uncle Brian:

Thanks to both of you.

I suppose we Protestants set a lot of store by the Veil of the Temple torn in two. Christ, by being the sacrifice becomes the High Priest, and we have, through Christ, direct access to God.

On the other hand, I find Catholicism a very consistent and coherent system. The Catholic view of works leads to its view of saints, leads to its view of intercession, leads to its view of Purgatory. It makes sense.

I find it no problem that some Catholic doctrines are inferred. The same holds for Protestants: the Trinity, Original Sin, Calvinism's Total Depravity.

I love the Middle Ages. With that, goes a love and respect for the religion of the Middle Ages. I am very conscious that Catholicism gave us our greatest religious buildings, one of our great philosophical systems, and one of the West's greatest poems.

6 April 2014 at 17:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Avi @ 17:04.

Well done to you. You and Carl were way ahead of the rest of us.

6 April 2014 at 17:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Explorer, that's because I was the last here to clue-in that Peter Damian was Dodo while, as Danjo gleefully pointed out, the only ones unaware were me and Dodo. Danjo was having a riot with me over that one, so I decided to keep an eye on things from then on. I din't have enough text from HJ when he first made his appearance to run a good text-recognition check, but compared punctuation patterns, which are pretty hard to mask. Still everyone else clued-in pretty quickly.

In any case, if HG decides to solicit views from his communicants, I will advocate for HJ's retention primarily on grounds of originality, sheer hutzbah and entertainment points. Never been on a blog where anything like this has ever happened.

6 April 2014 at 17:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS, we cannot entirely dismiss the speculative possibility of the poorly understood psychological phenomenon alternate personae. Most of us have a bit of it in us, but Dodo/Peter/HJ is a master of the craft. For example, there were only one or two occasions I recall where he appeared to have lost his cool over stuff he would have gone ape-shit over before. And I tried to push a few old buttons, but the closest to revealing Dodo views, in my case at least, was the theological bit about kabbalah and mysticism in general. It's the abstract belief system stuff that's most revealing, because much of it is closest to the core of our identities.

I'm sure HJ will forgive the silly games, after all, two can play, no?

6 April 2014 at 17:49  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer at 17:15

In the field of religious poetry, I suppose it would be only fair to list Paradise Lost as a great Protestant poem, along with The Divine Comedy on the Catholic side. Unfortunately I am not the one to do it. I have always found Milton unreadable, both in my schooldays and whenever I’ve made the attempt again since. I don’t mean unreadable in a literary sense, his style or use of metaphor or whatever, but at the most basic level of syntax. Searching for the subject, verb and object in Milton’s verse is not only hard work but, all too often, unrewarding work, since you end up despairing of ever disentangling his sentences. For me, Paradise Lost remains, to this day, a closed book.

6 April 2014 at 18:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Uncle Brian, funny, this. I don't go for potry, but only poem I ever read from start to finish, over and over again and actually enjoyed, was Paradise Lost. Far superior to the Bard's sonnets...something I liked in Milton's language which appeared, then disappeared, never to be seen again. Doesn't mean that I figured how to dis-entangle his sentences, just that I liked the "sound" of it....

6 April 2014 at 18:49  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Avi, other people have told me much the same thing, that I ought to leave my prejudice aside because, in Milton, it's the sound that counts rather than the sense. I'm afraid that doesn't work for me. "Look after the sense and the sounds will look after themselves," Lewis Carroll said, in a pun on an old adage about the pence and the pounds. I'm with Carroll.

6 April 2014 at 19:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

Both are in my personal Top Ten.

I know Milton is a closed book for many. Some of those, however, would acknowledge Eve's paean to Adam - 'With thee conversing I forget all time...' (Bk IV 639-656) as one of the most perfect love poems ever written.

6 April 2014 at 19:20  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Well as it is about a week to go to Passover, we've been engaged or conscripted in a thorough cleaning of the household (Mrs K makes my ex drill sarge look like a laid back pussy) and been on ruthless inquisition in respect of expelling chametz, except for a bit which has been hidden by my brother Samuel for us to find on Passover eve (my brother's idea that we could Flambé my fine malt Scotch with a brisket, in keeping with burning chametz, didn't go down well, so I've instead done a repro agreement with Mr & Mrs Chang of no 65 in our street).

As for the rest of this thread. Interestingly enough this weeks Torah reading is Leviticus 16 to 18, covering Atonement, not drinking blood and sexual prohibitions... Not that I could get into the discussion of the book of 'Hebrews' and the Christian vs Jewish view of penal substitution et al.

I have got a copy albeit 20 years old, of Milton's complete works, including Paradise Lost. Perhaps I should fish it out and have a gander some time.

6 April 2014 at 19:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Well, Explorer, with such a warm recommendation from Avi and now from you as well, maybe I'll give it another try. I'll start off with the bit you quote and see how it goes.

6 April 2014 at 19:30  
Blogger richardhj said...


Thank you for that. I too believe very strongly that we should be allies. In my present job there are 4 directors, Catholic, CofE, Methodist and independent/born again. We don't discuss deep religious meanings but the fact that we are all Christian helps us to work together. In my last job, my friend is another born again Christian. Again we didn't discuss deep religious meanings but we got on very well due to our shared Christianity and views on abortion, gay rights groups etc (we would have talked ourselves into rioting had we still been working together when "gay marriage" was first proposed.)
I have to say I have never come across anyone like Len in real life. And I have worked in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he's not like that in real life. It seems such a pity. Half of what he writes is exactly what I would write. The rest is total nonsense.
Anyway enough about Len.
Thanks again for your comments. I will, more than ever now read your comments with interest, even if I am not always nodding in total agreement.

6 April 2014 at 19:34  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Uncle Brian, as with Shakespeare, there are on-line interpretations and 'study guides that put Milton's words into modern-speak. Not good poetically but they do assist with understanding and appreciating the original work without hours of research.

6 April 2014 at 19:54  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Uncle Brian - funny you should mention the Divine Comedy - I'd just done a post on my own blog about it. Were you listening to Radio 4 this afternoon by any chance as well? :)

6 April 2014 at 20:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...


"I don't go for potry.

Well, who does and what on earth is it?

6 April 2014 at 20:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"richardhj-This is really for Ernst"

Dear Boy, old Ernst would be delighted to assist you.

You are using the term in how the accountancy world today may view it. Ernst is talking about New Testament times and the ways of slavery and the debt owed by the person in bondage or through imprisonment because of uncleared debt and how this relates to the specific one off act of Our Saviour on the cross!

People have said it is a made up word and that Jesus said something different. This is NOT the case and Paul elaborates on this himself throughout his epistles.

Colossians 2:13-14 NKJV
(13) And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
(14) having wiped out the 'handwriting of requirements' that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

This word “Handwriting”, in the Greek, Cheirographon, as it turns out had a very specific meaning, richardhj.

This is the same passage from the English Standard Version:

Colossians 2:13-14 ESV
(13) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
(14) by canceling the 'record of debt' that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Paul is actually referring to a common practice at the time where criminals serving time in jail would have their crimes listed on a note that was posted at the prison where they were kept, and it correlated the crimes to the amount of punishment they were to serve. Then, at the end of their sentence, the jail keeper would stamp the paper with "Τετέλεσται", meaning "PAID IN FULL."

So the apparent correlation with Christ's redemptive work of atonement is that He served our prison sentence for us, and when He cried out, "IT IS FINISHED", this is exactly what he was alluding to.

In 1896, archeologists began the excavation of Oxyrhynchus, in Egypt. Or more specifically, the local landfill dump. Among other things, they found 1000's of papyri. Papyrus was hand-made paper, made from reeds, very expensive, and they used every scrap. Court records had shopping lists on the back, and personal notes in the margins. Scholars have continued to translate these 1000's of papyri, and have learned many things of the society, customs, and practices of the 3rd largest city in Egypt during the times of the Apostles.

Yes, τετέλεσται (Tetelestai) was really stamped on paid bills and debt certificates in the first century. Not all the time was the root τελέω in this same third-person perfect passive form, but from the earliest records, including works of Plato (e.g. Alcibiades), Aristophanes and Xenophon, this verb has been used to refer to the payment of debt or (usually) taxes.

In papyri fragments dating from the first century (as well as other centuries) the same verb is used with reference to debt complaints, receipts of payment and tax documents.

This is where we learned that “Tetelestai” - “It is finished”, as Jesus spoke from the cross - was written across a certificate of debt when it was “paid in full”. And this is where we learned that those certificates of debt were called a “cheirographon” - handwriting.

6 April 2014 at 20:34  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Sister Tiberia

No Radio 4 where I live, I'm afraid. This is something I would certainly like to listen to if I could. I don't suppose they'll be using the Dorothy L. Sayers translation, now deemed hopelessly wrongheaded (or something like that) by academic officialdom but still my favourite.

6 April 2014 at 20:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older