ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

The wages of apostasy

Shed no tears for the Anglicans. They departed from the Word of God and they are reaping the inevitable harvest of irrelevance:
The Church of England has suffered a dramatic slump in its followers, shocking new figures show. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons identifying themselves as C of E or Anglican dropped from 21 per cent to 17 per cent – a fall of about 1.7 million people.

Over the same period, the number of Muslims in Britain grew by nearly one million, according to a survey by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey warned last night that unless urgent action was taken, the Church was just ‘one generation away from extinction’.

The number of Anglicans in Britain has dropped from about 10.3 million to 8.6 million, and will raise fresh fears over the future of the Church of England, which has been in decline since the 1960s. Lord Carey, who has warned before about dwindling congregations, said: ‘These figures are a call to urgent mission. I have no doubt at all that the Archbishops, together with the whole leadership of the Church of England, are doing all they can to reverse this trend.’

The current Archbishop, Justin Welby, has also called for the decline to be tackled and is introducing measures to streamline the Church and strengthen its leadership.
I have a simple seven-point plan that will absolutely reverse the trend and revive the Church of England:
  1. Publicly repent accommodation with the world.
  2. Announce the Counter-Accommodation, a house-cleaning movement that throws out every reform and innovation since 1950 and openly rejects the false idea that tolerance and inclusion are Christian virtues or that unrepentant sinners are welcome as members of the Church body.
  3. Excommunicate every bishop and former bishop who voted for the ordination of women.
  4. Excommunicate every bishop and former bishop who voted for the ordination of homosexuals or officiated over a same-sex ceremony.
  5. Defrock every female and homosexual bishop or priest.
  6. Suspend every bishop or priest who publicly endorses social justice, tolerance, inclusivity, or ecumenicism.
  7. Preach the Word of God precisely as it is communicated through the King James Bible.
If the Church of England will not do this, it has no reason to exist and fully merits its extinction. Observe that the long term results have been exactly what the conservatives who opposed these reforms have been predicting all along. When a Christian church rejects the Word of God and hares after worldly approval, it is not long for this world.

And the UK's atheists probably won't be too pleased with the Church of England's demise. I tend to doubt they will find their new Muslim neighbors quite as easy to push around as lukewarm Anglicans.

Labels:

140 Comments:

Blogger Markku May 31, 2015 10:17 AM  

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
18 I counsel thee to streamline the Church, that thou mayest be rich; and strengthen its leadership, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear;

Blogger Markku May 31, 2015 10:21 AM  

No, wait....

Dammit, Anglican Bible.

Anonymous Unitatis Redintegratio May 31, 2015 10:21 AM  

Bibliolatry is still heresy.

Blogger J May 31, 2015 10:21 AM  

If I recall correctly, Carey recently threw his support behind euthanasia in the CoE's debate on the issue. Perhaps that is what he imagines by urgent action.

I'm not clear on the thinking of these loonies - the secular government can do all these things so much better than the church, so why people keep you around if you're no different from everyone else?

Anonymous baduin May 31, 2015 10:28 AM  

[14] Et angelo Laodiciae ecclesiae scribe: Haec dicit: Amen, testis fidelis et verus, qui est principium creaturae Dei. [15] Scio opera tua: quia neque frigidus es, neque calidus: utinam frigidus esses, aut calidus:

[16] sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo: [17] quia dicis: Quod dives sum, et locupletatus, et nullius egeo: et nescis quia tu es miser, et miserabilis, et pauper, et caecus, et nudus. [18] Suadeo tibi emere a me aurum ignitum probatum, ut locuples fias, et vestimentis albis induaris, et non appareat confusio nuditatis tuae, et collyrio inunge oculos tuos ut videas. [19] Ego quos amo, arguo, et castigo. Aemulare ergo, et poenitentiam age. [20] Ecce sto ad ostium, et pulso: si quis audierit vocem meam, et aperuerit mihi januam, intrabo ad illum, et coenabo cum illo, et ipse mecum.

Blogger JDC May 31, 2015 10:32 AM  

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13)

Blogger Salt May 31, 2015 10:37 AM  

I'm pretty sure the Church of England thinks that more inclusivity will revitalize it; it hasn't done enough, fast enough. Its destruction is inside the gates, holding power, and wreaking havoc.

Blogger Markku May 31, 2015 10:39 AM  

Scarlet ho needs moar scarlet

Blogger Tank May 31, 2015 10:46 AM  

Anglicangate !

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 31, 2015 10:49 AM  

I'm pretty sure the Church of England thinks that more inclusivity will revitalize it; it hasn't done enough, fast enough. Its destruction is inside the gates, holding power, and wreaking havoc.

Church of England, Islamic Diocease... coming soon...

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 31, 2015 10:50 AM  

Scarlet ho needs moar scarlet

There's always a competition to be Satan's bottom bitch

Anonymous hausfrau May 31, 2015 10:52 AM  

I'm curious, are Christians in Britain moving to a more orthodox sect or is Christianity just dying there?

Blogger Corvinus May 31, 2015 10:52 AM  

The Catholic Church needs to do that too (minus #7), and badly.

Especially point #2.

Anonymous fish May 31, 2015 10:55 AM  

Church of England, Islamic Diocease... coming soon...

Diocease.....? Intentional?

And the UK's atheists probably won't be too pleased with the Church of England's demise. I tend to doubt they will find their new Muslim neighbors quite as easy to push around as lukewarm Anglicans.

Well there's an upside to everything!

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 31, 2015 10:56 AM  

Diocease.....? Intentional?

Serendipitous typo

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 31, 2015 10:59 AM  

At least the monarchy should at least prove adaptable.

Prince William is a descendant of Mohammed after all.

All hail the Light of World, Caliph وليام V!

Blogger Dexter May 31, 2015 11:00 AM  

the UK's atheists probably won't be too pleased with the Church of England's demise. I tend to doubt they will find their new Muslim neighbors quite as easy to push around as lukewarm Anglicans.

The atheists are the ones who encouraged immigration precisely in order to disempower the Anglicans and other hated "traditionalist" institutions.

Be careful what you wish for...

(Group A hates Group B, and invites in Group C to help fight Group B. Then Group C turns out to be a big fucking problem, never goes away, and sometimes even winds up running the place. This has happened so many times throughout history, everywhere in the world, that you'd think people would know it is a very, very bad idea to bring in foreigners to combat your domestic political enemies. But noooooo....)

Blogger Randy McDonald May 31, 2015 11:02 AM  

Why the King James Bible? It's hardly the only, or the most authoritative, version out there.

Blogger Foster May 31, 2015 11:03 AM  

If C.S. Lewis was alive today, he would be a Roman Catholic. I suppose thank God he does not, otherwise Protestants like my former self wouldn't read his non-fiction.

Blogger VD May 31, 2015 11:03 AM  

Why the King James Bible? It's hardly the only, or the most authoritative, version out there.

Because it is the Church of England we are discussing here.

Anonymous zen0 May 31, 2015 11:04 AM  

> Bibliolatry is still heresy.

Bcz logic, reason, and detailed scholarship are tools of the devil?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 31, 2015 11:10 AM  

In the world or of the world. Pick one.
Like the American Episcopalians, the American PC-USA, and increasingly the American Methodists, the UK's CoE has chosen, now we see the results.

hausfrau
I'm curious, are Christians in Britain moving to a more orthodox sect or is Christianity just dying there?

Yes.
That is, there are independent churches attempting to hold the line, even in London, and they are growing slowly. The CoE is mainly populated by pensioners, therefore it is dying.

Anonymous zen0 May 31, 2015 11:10 AM  

hausfrau May 31, 2015 10:52 AM

I'm curious, are Christians in Britain moving to a more orthodox sect or is Christianity just dying there?



Here is a clue from an article in the Telegraph from 2011.

The Church of England will cease to exist in 20 years as the current generation of elderly worshippers dies, Anglican leaders warned yesterday.

So now it is 4 years closer to demise.

Anonymous The other robot May 31, 2015 11:12 AM  

I think it is too late. The women and fudge packers in positions of power in the CofE would scream to high heaven that the bigots want to burn them at the stake and those who are wringing their hands at the potential destruction of the CofE will wring their hands some more and nothing will change.

Well, the decline in numbers will probably increase. It seems likely that the Muslims will see quite a few converts.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 31, 2015 11:12 AM  

Dexter
This has happened so many times throughout history, everywhere in the world, that you'd think people would know it is a very, very bad idea to bring in foreigners to combat your domestic political enemies. But noooooo….)

Take one portion of "It's Different This Time", mix with arrogant "Smarter Than Any Other Generation" plus some "Smartest Person In The Room" et voila! The only thing some people learn from history is that some people learn nothing from history.

Blogger Mint May 31, 2015 11:13 AM  

Why King James Bible? Is this limited to Anglicans? I know you made this point for Church of England, but will you suggest the same for other Christians?

I am asking as speaker of English as second language. If Indonesian must use alien language in our worship service, I'd rather go back using Greek or Hebrew bible. For my mom or most Indonesians, it will be just as strange as King James.

Blogger Markku May 31, 2015 11:15 AM  

Why King James Bible?

Symbolic reasons. It is the one big thing the Anglican Church has given Christendom.

Blogger Dexter May 31, 2015 11:15 AM  

The Church of England will cease to exist in 20 years as the current generation of elderly worshippers dies, Anglican leaders warned yesterday.

It will exist in the future... as the Church of Uganda.

Anonymous The other robot May 31, 2015 11:16 AM  

Prince William is a descendant of Mohammed after all.

Though which lineage?

Blogger David-093 May 31, 2015 11:16 AM  

"Bibliolatry is still heresy."

Reading the Bible = worshipping the Bible? Who knew.

"I suppose thank God he does not, otherwise Protestants like my former self wouldn't read his non-fiction. "

Shut up, troll.

"The women and fudge packers in positions of power in the CofE would scream to high heaven that the bigots want to burn them at the stake"

Well they're not wrong.

Blogger VD May 31, 2015 11:16 AM  

Why King James Bible? Is this limited to Anglicans? I know you made this point for Church of England, but will you suggest the same for other Christians?

The topic of discussion is the Church of England. The King James Bible is their tradition and served them well for centuries. We are not discussing anything but the Anglican Church here.

Blogger Markku May 31, 2015 11:18 AM  

If you're looking for a Bible that is readable, but still faithful to the text and literal where possible, choose RSV or ESV. Either one will do, there are very few differences between them.

Blogger Mint May 31, 2015 11:19 AM  

I should refresh before commenting. I see you have answered Randy McDonald's question.

Anonymous Newjerseythomas May 31, 2015 11:22 AM  

A church founded so a king could marry his mistress, hardly seems worth saving.

Blogger Salt May 31, 2015 11:22 AM  

OT - in the vein of decline and what to do... Southern Baptists

Anonymous Orville May 31, 2015 11:26 AM  

This will be about as useful as the recurring Catholic vs Protestant bashing that happens here occasionally, but here goes anyway. It's not so much an issue of KJV vs all other translations (Japanese, Spanish, etc.), but which source texts the OT and NT were used in making the translation. My opinion is that the Textus Receptus is superior (more accurate) than Vaticanus.

But, leaving even that aside, I person can still come to the truth with the Catholic Douay Rheims translation with the apocrypha included. This issue that Vox is alluding to is stick to the plain truth as stated in the Bible in any version or translation and not the opinions of men or scholars.

Anonymous Discard May 31, 2015 11:34 AM  

If a church's clergy can get rid of their congregations, then everything belongs to them. Then they can sell the property to fund their retirements. Makes sense if you're an atheist in ecclesiastical robes.

Blogger Patrikbc #0344 May 31, 2015 11:36 AM  

Perhaps England should revisit recent history.During WWII, while the Germans were bombing and things were pretty Grimm it was C.S. Lewis 4 part broadcast (later combined into his book mere Christianity) that was attributed to have held England together.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 31, 2015 11:38 AM  

If you do all of these things do you seriously think there will be any vicars and bishops left?

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 31, 2015 11:44 AM  

As Anglicans, in addition to the KJB, they need to read from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and they need to do what they were told and what they inherited from the 17th century. The Anglicans are supposed to be the non-Catholic western Christian version of something like the Greek, Russian, or Serbian Orthodox Church - it is a national church, but it is not made to be like your average protestant denomination. The British monarch should still kiss the ring - whereas now it is not as Henry V or Edward the Black Prince did of the Pope, but of their own English archbishop.

Blogger David-093 May 31, 2015 11:51 AM  

"A church founded so a king could marry his mistress, hardly seems worth saving. "

Just like a child conceived illegitimately should not be saved either?

Anonymous Meh May 31, 2015 11:59 AM  

During WWII, while the Germans were bombing and things were pretty Grimm it was C.S. Lewis 4 part broadcast (later combined into his book mere Christianity) that was attributed to have held England together.

That, and the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

But mostly the RAF and the RN.

Blogger VD May 31, 2015 12:01 PM  

If you do all of these things do you seriously think there will be any vicars and bishops left?

Eleven is all you need.

Blogger Bruce Lewis May 31, 2015 12:18 PM  

On January 1, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI established the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter for those groups of Anglicans in the United States who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.

This is the second Ordinariate created in light of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, the first having been created for England and Wales on Jan. 15, 2011.

Pope Benedict's gracious response represents an important and exciting new step along the difficult path toward Christian unity.

Usordinariate.com

Blogger Noah B #120 May 31, 2015 12:20 PM  

I would predict that taking these steps would cause a large number of people to immediately leave the church, but after this initial decline, the Anglican Church would begin growing once again.

Blogger JDC May 31, 2015 12:32 PM  

The distinction between the church and the world disappears...the church shrinks...and the response is that we need to embrace the world harder with warmer and more tolerant hugs. If this isn't insanity, I don't know what is.

Blogger njartist May 31, 2015 12:36 PM  

@ Mint May 31, 2015 11:13 AM

" Why King James Bible? Is this limited to Anglicans? I know you made this point for Church of England, but will you suggest the same for other Christians?"

The KJV is the English version of the Textus Receptus . there is likely to be a version available in your native tongue.

A quote from the page:
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a
time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as
represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day.
The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text."


Anonymous baduin May 31, 2015 12:37 PM  

"Group A hates Group B, and invites in Group C to help fight Group B. Then Group C turns out to be a big fucking problem, never goes away, and sometimes even winds up running the place. This has happened so many times throughout history, everywhere in the world"

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nennius-full.asp

Nennius: Historia Brittonum,

36. After the Saxons had continued some time in the island of Thanet, Vortigern promised to supply them with clothing and provision, on condition they would engage to fight against the enemies of his country. But the barbarians having greatly increased in number, the Britons became incapable of fulfilling their engagement; and when the Saxons, according to the promise they had received, claimed a supply of provisions and clothing, the Britons replied, "Your number is increased; your assistance is now unnecessary; you may, therefore, return home, for we can no longer support you;" and hereupon they began to devise means of breaking the peace between them.

37. But Hengist, in whom united craft and penetration, perceiving he had to act with an ignorant king, and a fluctuating people, incapable of opposing much resistance, replied to Vortigern, "We are, indeed, few in number; but, if you will give us leave, we will send to our country for an additional number of forces, with whom we will fight for you and your subjects." Vortigern assenting to this proposal, messengers were despatched to Scythia, where selecting a number of warlike troops, they returned with sixteen vessels, bringing with them the beautiful daughter of Hengist. And now the Saxon chief prepared an entertainment, to which he invited the king, his officers, and Ceretic, his interpreter, having previously enjoined his daughter to serve them so profusely with wine and ale, that they might soon become intoxicated. This plan succeeded; and Vortigern, at the instigation of the devil, and enamoured with the beauty of the damsel, demanded her, through the medium of his interpreter, of the father, promising to give for her whatever he should ask. Then Hengist, who had already consulted with the elders who attended him of the Oghgul race, demanded for his daughter the province, called in English Centland, in British, Ceint, (Kent.). This cession was made without the knowledge of the king, Guoyrancgonus who then reigned in Kent, and who experienced no inconsiderable share of grief, from seeing his kingdom thus clandestinely, fraudulently, and imprudently resigned to foreigners. Thus the maid was delivered up to the king, who slept with her, and loved her exceedingly.

Blogger njartist May 31, 2015 12:39 PM  

@ Newjerseythomas May 31, 2015 11:22 AM
" A church founded so a king could marry his mistress, hardly seems worth saving."
Shall we discuss fornicating or homosexual popes or do you want to drop it?

Anonymous Imnobody May 31, 2015 12:40 PM  

It's not going to happen. Leaders of the Church are convinced that the way to go is more modernism. They will think the cause of extinction is another.

Although I am a Catholic, I grieve the disappearance of a denomination that has produced so many good to the world (before last decades). Just think about the music or C.S.Lewis.

About the atheist, this is a good outcome, because they are not atheist but anti-Christian. I can't count the times I have seen an atheist deffending Islam. Even when yo threat them with the Caliphate, they are surprisingly cool with that.

Blogger Rabbi B May 31, 2015 12:44 PM  

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled,
But now I only hear
It's melancholy long withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges near
And naked shingles of the world.

-Matthew Arnold

We may have at last succeeded in transforming the G-d of mercy into a god who is at our mercy. G-d help us all.

"Bibliolatry is still heresy."

An obtuse ans thoughtless statement. The first stage of apostasy is always the neglect of G-d's Word. VD's seven-step plan serves as the antidote to a pattern, a pattern which is almost impossible for the C of E to perceive because it is a pattern of which they are an integral part. The C of E and much of the modern church, perceives the problems as psychological rather than moral. So, it's not repentance that is demanded, but therapeutic solutions that promise 'psychological wholeness', and which solicits a knowledge of ourselves while passing judgment on none of it.

And yet the Bible I read promises persecution, suffering, pain, loss, damage, and humiliation. The faithful in the Bible that I read were scorned, beaten, imprisoned, shipwrecked, sawed in two, ridiculed, mocked, stoned, thrown to the lions, and executed. We are not promised sanitized comfort, however, His Word promises us that He will walk with us through all the dark places of life where even the shadows somehow manage to serve His glory and the best interests of those who love Him (cf. Psalm 23, Romans 8). Continued neglect of his precious Word will be the end of all of us.

The Bible tells us who we are and what is required of us. The Bible tells us that we are moral beings, not consumers. The C of E (along with much of the modern church) has evolved into an entity that has the deepest affinity for all that is relational, but has become extremely uncomfortable with all that is moral. The apostasy began a long time ago whenever the C of E became uncomfortable with the Word of G-d and decided it was more expedient to simply neglect it over time.

The C of E might do well to take a lesson from the playbook of King Josiah whose re-discovery of the Word of G-d transformed the nation. A simple return to the Word of G-d would transform not only the C of E but all of Europe, even if it were just one committed and bold man who was willing to stand up and preach the Word, the unadulterated Word, without apology or fear of repercussions, other than the repercussions for not preaching. Perhaps G-d, in His illimitable mercy, will raise up such a man.

Anonymous Suindara May 31, 2015 12:45 PM  

What about White flight from Christianity? Don't you think that's also happening and will not revert as long as Christianity is borderline negro worship?
Most Christians I meet regard the "N-word" as more sacred than the name of our Lord.

Blogger njartist May 31, 2015 12:47 PM  

O.T. BTW: I am reading Charles Minor's The Real Lincoln. The Southrons here will enjoy reading it.

Anonymous Nemo Maximus May 31, 2015 12:52 PM  

At some point soon, the numbers will have shrunk enough that a group of determined Faithful will be able to use entryist techniques to do a reverse takeover and restore the Church.

Blogger Rabbi B May 31, 2015 1:11 PM  

"A church founded so a king could marry his mistress, hardly seems worth saving."

I think you miss the point. It is a nothing less than a transformation that is being called for. A transformation that will restore its true purpose as a vehicle for the promulgation of the Truth, so that the C of E can become a place where the Bible is allowed to do its work and have its way with the lives of men. There is a vast difference between power and influence.

As one rabbi put it: "Power works by division, influence by multiplication. Power, in other words, is a zero-sum game: the more you share, the less you have. Influence is a non-zero game: the more you share, the more you have. Kings had power – including that of life and death (cf. Joshua 1). Prophets had none, but they had influence, not just during their lifetimes but, in many cases, to this day. To paraphrase Kierkegaard: when a king dies his power ends. When a prophet dies his influence begins." (R' Lord Jonathan Sacks).

The C of E has lost its first love and its influence along with it. All of the communities in Revelation, with the exception of one, had something that G-d held against them which put them in danger of losing their lamp stands. The offer of repentance was held out to all of them. The C of E is no exception.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus May 31, 2015 1:13 PM  

You know, a good burning of a female pagan "bishop" or two, Victoria-style, would not be amiss.

Anonymous p-dawg May 31, 2015 1:41 PM  

Back to 1950? How about back to 0 A.D.?

Blogger rcocean May 31, 2015 1:53 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rcocean May 31, 2015 1:54 PM  

About the atheist, this is a good outcome, because they are not atheist but anti-Christian."

95% of the outspoken atheists do nothing but bash Christianity, they leave Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism alone. Its not about hating God, its about hating Christ and Western Civilization.

Blogger rcocean May 31, 2015 1:56 PM  

As for the C of E, its always been a weak kneed sister. The British have never been much for Christianity, they are a nation of materialists and prior to Victorian times were renowned for their drinking, fighting, and lawlessness - not their piety.

Blogger Nobody May 31, 2015 1:56 PM  

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Blogger Rabbi B May 31, 2015 2:03 PM  

" . . . they are a nation of materialists . . ."

Which Godless nation is not?

For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD (cf. Romans 10).

Anonymous McOxford May 31, 2015 2:06 PM  

I expect them to linger on longer than most predict, after all the church has a property portfolio running into hundreds of millions. I foresee a skeleton clergy allowing demolition for housing or selling to other 'growing religions' some of the most beautiful buildings in England as they pour money into gay rights, slavery reparations campaigns, third world sex ed etc. The one thing they will never EVER do is sell to an conservative Christian group, they will raise the church to its foundations before they are finished.

Blogger tihald May 31, 2015 2:12 PM  

A quote from the page:
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity....


No. Just no. The Textus Receptus is a compilation of Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition as edited by Erasmus. It has hundreds of variations from the Majority Text. Erasmus notes that he did change some quotations from the sources he had to match the Church Fathers in some cases. Also part of Revelation was translated from the Vulgate as he had no Greek source. Also the 3rd edition included the Comma Johanneum due to public demand even though Erasmus believed (as do most scholars today) that it was not part of the original text of 1 John.

I wouldn't characterize a translation of Scriptures that used the Masoretic versus the Septuagint for the Old Testatment as being the Bible of the early Church. But that's my particular hobby horse.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 31, 2015 2:15 PM  

It occurs to me that if any church should be using the King James Bible, it should be the Anglican Church.

Anonymous BGS May 31, 2015 2:18 PM  

Here is some church news from the UK. If you thought the gay shotgun weddings with the shotguns pointed at the cake bakers was bad.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/29/watch-christian-preacher-arrested-and-held-for-11-hours-after-lesbian-fakes-homophobia-complaint/

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 31, 2015 2:26 PM  

Which was, of course, Vox's point.

Blogger RobertT May 31, 2015 2:42 PM  

That should work.

Blogger Bruce Lewis May 31, 2015 2:54 PM  

I was raised as a Pentecostal but am now a Catholic. Yet even en though I do not believe in the doctrines of Pentecostalism any more, I do know that my grandmother and mother and many others among the people who raised me genuinely loved Jesus and worshiped Him as Lord and Savior. That love and worship will not go unrequited. I am confident that many if the Pentecostals and others who raised me will live forever in a Heaven.

But I am Catholic. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. How then can this be?

Simply: because the Church also teaches that whomever calls upon the Name of the Lord (that is, the Name of Jesus) will be saved. Let's examine this logically:

1. Salvation is found only in the Catholic Church

2. Anyone who calls upon the name of Jesus will be saved.

3. Therefore, anyone who calls upon the Name of Jesus is part of the Catholic Church.

In other words: those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and who obey His commandments to the best of their ability, WILL BE SAVED, because they ARE Catholic, even if they do not know it, or even if they vehemently deny it.

Now try this:

1. God is by definition perfect in every aspect.

2. God will judge all men.

3. Therefore, God's judgment of each man will be perfect.

In other words: we will each of us get exactly what we truly deserve in the World to Come.

And if that thought doesn't scare you, brother, then you're not thinking it through.

We all deserve Hell. I myself have run up quite a tab over my fifty years. Yet I believe that Christ paid the price for the sins that I have committed, and that by His Grace I -- and my Pentecostal grandmother, mother, and brothers around the world -- have hope of seeing God in Heaven.

Now is the time for Christians to come together -- not in the fraudulent One World Superchurch that our common Enemy is setting up even now -- but in the true and only Church. I know many of you think we Catholics worship Mary, or statues, or bread, but we don't. We adore Christ alone as our Savior, Lord, and God, just as you do. If you by reason of birth or upbringing cannot bring yourself to share in all seven if the Sacraments, Christ will not hold your honest ignorance against you, and neither will we. We Catholics consider ALL of you who call upon the Name if The Lord to be fellow Christians. For His sake, let us join forces now in order that we may support one another during the coming Persecution.

The Body of Christ is suffering its Passion. It is very possible that the institutional Catholic Church is being turned into a tool if antichrist. But rest assured that no matter what any bishop or priest may say, the True Church will remain. The Church can only pass down what the Apostles taught as the Lord's Truth. This means that no one, not even a guy who claims to be the Pope, can change one dot or comma of that deposit of faith. Any guy who teaches anything but what the Church has always and everywhere taught as Truth is NOT Catholic, and is therefore NOT the Pope. Any guy who teaches error is truth is NOT the Pope, no matter how pointy his hat may be.

No matter what happens, God will always preserve a Remnant of His Church. As the Persecution comes, let's all strive to be counted among the members of that happy band.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 31, 2015 3:33 PM  

Sounds like they should just become Catholic. That's a one point plan :) ...and...religious infighting in... -20, -19 oh yeah, we're already there...

Anonymous NewjerseyThomas May 31, 2015 3:49 PM  

Fair enough Rabbi B.

Blogger James Higham May 31, 2015 4:31 PM  

Uncanny. Only just put up a post on this, go to the email and there is this link from Vox. Uncanny. Shall insert this link now.

Blogger Michael Maier May 31, 2015 4:36 PM  

VD May 31, 2015 12:01 PM
If you do all of these things do you seriously think there will be any vicars and bishops left?

Eleven is all you need.


Well-played, sir.

Anonymous johnc May 31, 2015 4:39 PM  

Refer back to Our Lady of Akita, 1973.

That's what's coming.

Blogger AKFox May 31, 2015 4:53 PM  

The "Church" of England has been doomed since 1534. They're just getting mopped up, now.

Anonymous Freddy May 31, 2015 5:16 PM  

Bruce Lewis,
"In other words: those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and who obey His commandments to the best of their ability, WILL BE SAVED, because they ARE Catholic, even if they do not know it, or even if they vehemently deny it."

I don't think so.

It is Christ's keeping of every commandment in our stead imputed to our account as perfectly righteous and taking our sin upon Himself as double imputation transaction.

Anonymous AnalogMan May 31, 2015 5:41 PM  

It's even crazier than you think:

Women priests are campaigning to refer to God as 'She' in prayers, hymns, and in church services.

Pressure group Watch, or Women and the Church, claim that referring to God as a man suggests that men are 'more god-like than women' and argue that both male and female language should be used in religious services.

The Rev Emma Percy, chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford, and a member of Watch said: 'When we use only male language for God we reinforce the idea that God is like a man and, in doing so, suggest that men are therefore more like God than women.'


I'm actually more concerned with the continued degradation of the English language than the theological implications.

Pardon me for getting pedantic, but someone asked this question on another thread, and the captcha wouldn't let me reply to it there. Whoever you were, I hope this answers your question.

It's quite simple:

Man (the species) has sex. He is more or less equally divided between two sexes, male and female.

Words have gender. They may be masculine, feminine, neuter or common.

The personal pronouns he, she, it, they, have the obvious applicability when referring to people who are identifiably male or female only, or objects that are neither. But what do you say when referring to someone of unspecified sex? What is the common gender personal pronoun?

The simple rule is, it's the same as the masculine pronoun. "The masculine embraces the feminine". It has always been so, and not just in English. Feminists can't stand that and have been waging war on language for decades. Hence "he or she", or the illiterate "they" as singular, or switching randomly between "he" and "she", and now finally defaulting to "she" even for God.

To each his own. Not his or her own. Not their own.

Everybody has his own preference.

Every student must hand in his assignment.

Man, being a mammal, suckles his young.

Each citizen votes for his preferred candidate.

Every nun has her own duties.

See how that works?

Anonymous Unitatis Redintegratio May 31, 2015 5:56 PM  

You boys and girls see how the Heresy of the Reformers works yet?

A man-made denomination breaks off from the True Church. Why? To "reform" and worship a book. Later it is a shitlib cesspool.

So what do the shitlib reformers here suggest? To "reform" s'more and worship a book s'more. Same shit, different day.

This is the fashion in which the first of the great heresies which
threatened at one moment to undermine and destroy the whole of
Catholic society disappeared. The process had taken almost 300
years and it is interesting to note that so far as doctrines are
concerned, about that space of time, or a little more, sufficed to
take the substance out of the various main heresies of the
Protestant Reformers.
- The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc

Blogger S1AL May 31, 2015 6:03 PM  

Freaking Catholics and their holier-than-thou hypocrisy.

The Anglicans kept all the worst parts of the Catholic church.

Anonymous Anon1 May 31, 2015 6:12 PM  

"It is very possible that the institutional Catholic Church is being turned into a tool if antichrist. But rest assured that no matter what any bishop or priest may say, the True Church will remain. "

Lulz. You know, 2 years ago, every neoreactionary Moldbugian was beating their drums about how the Pope was the vanguard of Western Civ, the only thing back holding back the darkness, etc. Back then, the Papacy was a feature not a bug.

Suddenly we get a far-left socialist Pope, one seemingly hellbent on destroying Christendom... and now it's all whole new tune...

Blogger pyrrhus May 31, 2015 6:55 PM  

As I recall, in the novel "Victoria" a female Bishop who is actually a pagan is burnt at the stake when she refuses to repent or apologize. "Pour encourager les autres", one would think.

Blogger Corvinus May 31, 2015 6:59 PM  

@Anon1

Benedict XVI was simply a much sneakier, more subtle relativist than Francis.

Blogger tihald May 31, 2015 7:08 PM  

The Anglicans kept all the worst parts of the Catholic church.

Outside of our Book all I can think of (off hand) that they kept were some words. And they don't understand those words to mean what Catholics understand them to mean.

Why are Anglicans bad at chess? Because they can't tell the difference between a bishop and a queen.

Anonymous The other robot May 31, 2015 7:16 PM  

The ePOPEscalians seems to be going the same way in the US.

Blogger Nobody May 31, 2015 7:29 PM  

The Church is built on the confession, not on Peter. Not on, or in, walls.

And on this rock, the confession, I will build my Church.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

He doesn't say, when you gather in whatever denomination and interpretation of my word. Or, within these walls.

Anonymous Anonymous May 31, 2015 7:36 PM  

Curious thought I've had recently.

For much of history, the social purpose of the Church (Catholic and Protestant) was, essentially, to feminize the population (or, to 'civilize,' to temper it). From the virtually feral animals of Ancient Greece and Rome, to modern man: the Church was there to reduce murder, to reduce aggression, encourage empathy, encourage fellowship (Nietzche talked about this extensively).

Conservatives today look to the Church to do the opposite: to uphold standards, to uphold proper masculinity, to essentially 'masculinize' culture.

In other words, western culture has become so feminine, we conservatives are hoping the Catholic Church (an organization of celibate men, close to half of whom are homosexual, who renounce violence and physical aggression), will fight for masculinity.

It is a bizarre state to be in.

anonymousse

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 31, 2015 7:55 PM  

AnalogMan: "It's even crazier than you think: Women priests are campaigning to refer to God as 'She' "

In a few years, when they're calling Him an Omnitrans, we'll yearn for the good old days of when they only called Him "Her".


25 years ago I attended a L.A. Symphony performance, which was preceded by a small "tour" of the concert hall, given by some middle-aged Jew. At one point in his speech, he says "And God, in all Her wisdom...", which produced a smattering of haughty guffaws from his social peers in the audience.

It was eye-opening, to a young man raised in a church-going household, and led to believe that these "Jews" had some special relationship with God.

OpenID simplytimothy May 31, 2015 8:11 PM  

Would love to see your 7 thesis nailed to Anglican church door in London.

Anglican London disocese here:

http://www.london.anglican.org/

Twitter handle: @dioceseoflondon

Anonymous Nigel Tufnel May 31, 2015 8:15 PM  

If you do all of these things do you seriously think there will be any vicars and bishops left?

Eleven is all you need.

hallelujah!

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus May 31, 2015 8:27 PM  

No. Just no. The Textus Receptus is a compilation of Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition as edited by Erasmus. It has hundreds of variations from the Majority Text. Erasmus notes that he did change some quotations from the sources he had to match the Church Fathers in some cases.

Incorrect. Erasmus was not the primary mover behind the TR, and it cannot be credited to him. Further, TR readings have been observed in very ancient papyri dating back to the 2nd century, which predates the critical text readings by at least two centuries. As well, the TR is clearly related to the text which underlay most of the medieval German translations (Tepl, etc.) and which were translated from the Old Italic (pre-Vulgate Latin), which was itself translated from the Greek by as early as 100 AD.

Also part of Revelation was translated from the Vulgate as he had no Greek source.

Which is fine, because that wasn't Stephanus' source for Revelation anywise.

Also the 3rd edition included the Comma Johanneum due to public demand even though Erasmus believed (as do most scholars today) that it was not part of the original text of 1 John.

Emphatically incorrect. http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Blogger tihald May 31, 2015 9:52 PM  

Titus,
You're using TR as a synonym for the Byzantine text. The TR refers to Erasmus' edition and those that descended from it. The phrase was even coined by his publisher. Accepting that does not denigrate the Byzantine text versus others. That's a separate issue.

Actually I'm emphatically correct on the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus and most scholars today do believe it was added. Whether it was or not I'll leave for the interested individual ilk to decide.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum May 31, 2015 9:56 PM  

Where the Anglicans are today, every other protestant sect will be tomorrow. It's just a matter of time.

Protestantism, by its very nature, breaks apart. It can be founded by a bunch of Saints, with the best of intentions, but at the end of the day, it doesn't have the Fullness of Truth. It can have aspects of it, it can even have 99.99999% of The Truth. But it does not have, nor will it ever have, 100% of The Truth.

That's what the Catholic Church has.

THe Church founded by Jesus could be filled with nothing but horrible, unrepentant sinners of the worst sort... So what? I don't care about the membership rolls, I care about its Founder. I care if it has The Truth. I care if it has Jesus! Everyone and everything else is a distant second place. If your focus isn't on Jesus, you're always going to miss the mark.

By my own calculations, a new protestant denomination has come into being every 4-6 weeks since Martin Luther nail his 95 Thesis to that door.

Blogger Corvinus May 31, 2015 10:27 PM  

The Church is built on the confession, not on Peter. Not on, or in, walls.

And on this rock, the confession, I will build my Church.


@Nobody
Uh, question: if that's the case, why did Our Lord call him "Peter" rather than his confession? IOW, He did not say: "For thy confession is a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church", He said "for thou art Peter".

Anonymous speaking of same shit, diffrent day... May 31, 2015 10:34 PM  

CATHOLICS.... ATTACK!!!!

Anonymous Wyrd May 31, 2015 11:00 PM  

You know, a good burning of a female pagan "bishop" or two, Victoria-style, would not be amiss.

I'd contribute to the collection plate.

Blogger David-093 May 31, 2015 11:53 PM  

"Uh, question: if that's the case, why did Our Lord call him "Peter" rather than his confession? IOW, He did not say: "For thy confession is a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church", He said "for thou art Peter"."

Again with the concept of nicknames being difficult for people. It's not like Protestants are saying Jesus isn't Lord here, they (and we, since I'm a part of it) are saying that Peter isn't the foundation of the Church, Jesus is. The rock He built His church on is the proclamation of Jesus being Lord, the Messiah, the son of God. If He meant Peter was the rock, why would He say "on this rock I will build my church" rather than "on you I will build my church?"

Anonymous Ain June 01, 2015 12:11 AM  

Salt: I'm pretty sure the Church of England thinks that more inclusivity will revitalize it; it hasn't done enough, fast enough.

Yep. That's exactly the impression I got when he mentioned urgent action.

Blogger tihald June 01, 2015 12:27 AM  

If He meant Peter was the rock, why would He say "on this rock I will build my church" rather than "on you I will build my church?"

"Rock" in this instance refers to Our Lord, Simon, and Simon's confession of faith. We have Our Lord acknowledging He is the Christ and conforming to the Davidic kingship model making Peter the 'prime minister' by giving him the 'keys to the kingdom' (see Isaiah 22). The authority Peter has always has Jesus as its source. That's the quick version.

I hope we have time to split theological hairs when we're all splitting rocks in the gulag. In the end remember my brethren they'll take all our heads as long as we proclaim Christ is Lord like Peter. So there's that. Maran atha.

Blogger David-093 June 01, 2015 12:41 AM  

@tihald

Agreed, this theological arguing between Catholics and Protestants is tiresome. We have bigger issues coming our way.

Blogger automatthew June 01, 2015 1:36 AM  

Matthew Fox wept.

Blogger Nobody June 01, 2015 4:34 AM  

Uh, question: if that's the case, why did Our Lord call him "Peter"

Petra = Rock

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

So what do you think? The Church was built on Peter, or on his confession? Is Peter the Church? Or the body that confesses Christ?

Blogger Nobody June 01, 2015 4:53 AM  

Agreed, this theological arguing between Catholics and Protestants is tiresome.

It's like the Pharisees and Sadducees arguing.

And, I would in fact say that the Church has also become a market place.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 01, 2015 6:20 AM  

Every time something bad happens in a Protestant church we get these Roman Catholic tub-thumpers - who seem utterly blind to how Vatican 2 and the like is eating their favourite denomination from the inside out.
The average RC pew-warmer nowaways generally thinks that what you believe doesn't matter, as long as you are a "good" person. "Social Justice" is their creed.

Blogger Markku June 01, 2015 6:26 AM  

I think they sour people's opinions on Catholics, so I'm glad that they do so. However, if I had legitimate reasons to believe that these are actually Protestant trolls, then that's a dishonest tactic and I would support a ban. But I don't.

Occasionally they have used a name on which they also have a blog, and looking at the blog it has seemed to me that they are the real deal.

OpenID simplytimothy June 01, 2015 7:33 AM  

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

God's enjoyment of the language is a wonderful thing. He is a creator and creative people have a lot of fun. This is not to say that everything is fun and games, but the element of playfulness is an attribute of Him and His church that I find remarkable.



Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 01, 2015 9:32 AM  

Titus,
You're using TR as a synonym for the Byzantine text. The TR refers to Erasmus' edition and those that descended from it. The phrase was even coined by his publisher. Accepting that does not denigrate the Byzantine text versus others. That's a separate issue.


No I'm not. I mentioned "TR readings" because there are readings in these papyri that are TR specifically because they differ from the Majority text, yet are still there "hundreds of years before they should be."

Actually I'm emphatically correct on the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus and most scholars today do believe it was added. Whether it was or not I'll leave for the interested individual ilk to decide.

No you're not. "Scholars" also believe that global warming is an established fact and that the gay gene is a sure thing. The issue with the CJ is the same as these - the "science is settled" not because the evidences say so, but because the textual critics want for it to be, therefore it is. Fact is, the arguments against the CJ rely on several very poorly constructed arguments.

Blogger Corvinus June 01, 2015 10:05 AM  

Every time something bad happens in a Protestant church we get these Roman Catholic tub-thumpers - who seem utterly blind to how Vatican 2 and the like is eating their favourite denomination from the inside out.
The average RC pew-warmer nowaways generally thinks that what you believe doesn't matter, as long as you are a "good" person. "Social Justice" is their creed.


@FrankNorman
Yeah, that's exactly why I insist that the Catholic Church has been taken over by SJW entryists in the same way the C of E was.

But that doesn't change anything about the Catholic Faith. It simply means we don't know who the real Pope is, or if there is one.

In fact, I think the authentic Popes were "he who holdeth, until he be taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:7) just before the Antichrist comes in. The Catholic Church was essentially body-snatched and buried in 1958 and with Vatican II.

And it was prophesied. Nearly the entire Catholic Church becoming some stupid SJW hugfest perfectly qualifies as the Great Apostasy which was repeatedly prophesied about.

Blogger Bruce Lewis June 01, 2015 10:19 AM  

Thread Winner: Corvinius
Reason: 100% Correct

Blogger Cail Corishev June 01, 2015 10:45 AM  

Corvinus, exactly right. Which is why no real Catholic who has a clue about what's going on in the Church should be chastising non-Catholics for error. We have way too many problems at home. Those who do that may or may not be Catholic, but they're definitely stupid trolls.

Besides, Francis would not approve of telling Anglicans (or anyone else) that they should convert.

Blogger Quadko June 01, 2015 10:54 AM  

I also again highly recommend Dr. Rodney Stark's books on the topic of the sociological aspects of religion for anyone interested. Regarding the community and "club/society" aspects of a church, the higher the price to join and stay, measured in differences to non-members, the more committed and energetic the group.

If membership doesn't matter and there's no difference, no one joins or stays.

If you are the light in a dark place, the tribe doing necessary good and paying the price - then people feel it matters enough to commit.

It works for good or evil, as that's the draw of cults, too. But even if my list would be slightly different, VD's list is practical, implementable, and serves both the human nature of groups Dr. Stark discusses and the theological nature of true Church making sacrifices to follow God's instruction.

As it is, the Church of England is just the instrument to a slower and less violent transition to secular humanism than the French took.

Blogger tihald June 01, 2015 11:08 AM  

The average RC pew-warmer nowaways generally thinks that what you believe doesn't matter, as long as you are a "good" person. "Social Justice" is their creed

Basically yes that's the real problem. As it's also known: Moralistic therapeutic deism. It's a problem all over Christianity. Unlike the discussions here, which I find enjoyable, this is the problem that angers me.

Anonymous Quartermaster June 01, 2015 11:32 AM  

“In other words: those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and who obey His commandments to the best of their ability, WILL BE SAVED, because they ARE Catholic, even if they do not know it, or even if they vehemently deny it.”

The Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. One becomes a member of the Catholic Church by conversion. One is not converted by joining the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of God is indeed universal and encompasses every believer. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, does not.

“It is Christ's keeping of every commandment in our stead imputed to our account as perfectly righteous and taking our sin upon Himself as double imputation transaction.”

This fine as far as it goes, but stops far short of what Christ himself had to say about the issue. We can’t earn our salvation, but faith without works is dead, being alone. There is a reason 1 John 1:9 is in the canon.

"It is very possible that the institutional Catholic Church is being turned into a tool if antichrist. But rest assured that no matter what any bishop or priest may say, the True Church will remain. "

The false Church of Revelation will be built around the Roman Catholic Church as the remnants of other Churches meld with it. The Woman that rides the beast is coming, but she isn’t there yet. Recent Popes have been preparing the RCC to be the core around which the rest coalesce.

“You boys and girls see how the Heresy of the Reformers works yet?”

This might work if there were an actual heresy. The reformers had problems, but the RCC had degraded itself to the point either it reformed, or it had to be abandoned. The Council of Trent was the coup de grace of the RCC, setting in concrete the heresy of the RCC.

“Erasmus was not the primary mover behind the TR, and it cannot be credited to him.”

The Wikipedia article on the Textus Receptus is actually correct and I would refer the reader there for more. Erasmus Greek text was included in the TR as were readings from the Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus was influential in the formation of the TR, but his text was not the TR.

“Petra = Rock”

The gender of the word petra is also feminine and would not have been used a reference to Peter, the man. The masculine form is Petros and was his actual name.

“Protestantism, by its very nature, breaks apart. It can be founded by a bunch of Saints, with the best of intentions, but at the end of the day, it doesn't have the Fullness of Truth. It can have aspects of it, it can even have 99.99999% of The Truth. But it does not have, nor will it ever have, 100% of The Truth.

That's what the Catholic Church has.”

The Church is not made up of unrepentant sinners. If that were the case then the Apostle John is an idiot and liar. This issue matters. A lot.

Leaving aside the fact that the RCC does not have the 100% of the truth, (there are far too many medieval accretions to accept it as such - It has wandered far from the patristic faith. Evangelical Christians are actually far closer) the old chestnut about splits is silly. The RCC has split repeatedly. That is has not resulted in new denomination is utterly irrelevant. The Papacy has simply been unwilling to deal with the heretics in the RCC because if they actually imposed Church discipline, the RCC would cease to exist tomorrow. This is now more important than ever as the unwillingness to deal with the Jesuits has now resulted in the coup of placing a Jesuit in the Papal seat.

If the popes had not held power as being more important than being a Christian church, Martin Luther would not have been declared a heretic, the reformation would not have resulted in the Protestant Churches and the RCC would look far different. The RCC ceased being a Christian Church with the Council of Trent. The rest of the councils have just been about finishing the degradation of the RCC to what it is now.

Blogger Corvinus June 01, 2015 12:35 PM  

The RCC ceased being a Christian Church with the Council of Trent.

Quartermaster: try the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). There was nothing wrong about the Council of Trent, and I would be rather interested in hearing what you consider bad about it.

And about this:

The false Church of Revelation will be built around the Roman Catholic Church as the remnants of other Churches meld with it. The Woman that rides the beast is coming, but she isn’t there yet. Recent Popes have been preparing the RCC to be the core around which the rest coalesce.

The modernist body-snatched Catholic Church starting with John XXIII and Paul VI is the Whore that fornicates with all other religions. With John Paul II kissing the Koran and getting the mark of Shiva on his forehead. And Francis telling the damned Muslims that Ramadan will bring them abundant spiritual fruit. Not to mention all the kissing up to the Jews that all these recent putative Popes have been doing, telling them their covenant with God is still valid, i.e., that there's no point in being a Christian at all.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 01, 2015 1:01 PM  

With John Paul II kissing the Koran and getting the mark of Shiva on his forehead.

Wait, whut? when did that happen?

Blogger Markku June 01, 2015 1:40 PM  

I appears that there's this Jimmy Akin guy who has researched these photographs. The evidence indeed suggests that the pope kissed the Koran in 1999, but did not receive the mark of Shiva

Blogger Cail Corishev June 01, 2015 1:41 PM  

Stilicho, May 14, 1999, and Feb. 2, 1986, respectively.

Blogger Corvinus June 01, 2015 4:05 PM  

@Markku

Jimmy Akin of "Catholic Answers" is a (very well-paid) spin doctor for the Vatican. I'd take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

Blogger Nobody June 01, 2015 4:37 PM  

“Petra = Rock”

The gender of the word petra is also feminine and would not have been used a reference to Peter, the man. The masculine form is Petros and was his actual name.


Which did Christ establish His Church? Was it on Petros, a movable stone, or Petra, an immovable rock?

Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immov­able rock.

Blogger Joe Keenan June 01, 2015 5:32 PM  

Nobody, You are incorrect; see:

Faith in Christ Shown by Loyalty to the Pope
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J

'Having accepted Peter’s profession of faith in Himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, Christ then makes the promise that He was to fulfill shortly after His Resurrection from the dead. Jesus had just called him “Simon, son of Jona,” which means “John.” That was his first and his family name, frankly, Simon Johnson.

'Then Christ proceeded to change Simon’s name. He said, “Thou art Peter.” To see that in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, Tu es Petrus, is to realize that we are standing on rock. The Savior spoke Aramaic, in which language the word was kepha. But in Greek, in which Matthew’s Gospel has come down to us, the term became petros, although the normal Greek word is petra. But Petros was evidently a man. Jesus broke the law of language. He gave him a masculine name, appropriate to his gender, in order to bring out what no one dare forget: behind the gender was the meaning, and the meaning was “rock.” This is no pebble, no little rock. This is a stone, the kind you quarry. The Greeks had a word for every shade of distinction.

'Having given Simon his new name, “The Rock,” Jesus went on to declare what would be Peter’s [the Rock’s] role in the Church that Christ was founding. The word “founding” in the context we are examining has a much deeper significance than we commonly give it. There is the sense in which a founder is one who starts, and that is true. But even on that level, even before Christ left this world, He had made Peter His created, visible Vicar on earth. Moreover, after Christ’s Ascension into heaven, the Savior was the invisible head or, if you wish, the invisible foundation of the Church no less than He was during His visible stay on earth."

God changes Simon's name. This doesn't happen too often in the Bible, but when it does it indicates a change in mission for the person. Matthew 13 to 20 is pretty much all about establishing Christ's Church and naming His Vicar. It was Peter, He even gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom

'The key to understanding Peter’s role relative to Christ’s is the word “visible.” This Church that Jesus was establishing was no hierarchy of angels; it was no community of disembodied spirits. It was a society of human beings, who would need a visible basis or foundation to which they could adhere. They had to hear an audible, sensibly perceptible voice. They would have to see these sensibly perceptible words expressed in doctrine and laws. It was not for nothing that, as far as revelation records, Jesus wrote nothing that He left to posterity. But since Christ wanted His Church to be a visible, sensibly perceptible society, just as in any other human visible society, there must be someone who is in charge.

'We must take note of various biblical translations. Some modern English Bibles translate the Greek basilea as “reign.” Not so. Basilea is “kingdom.” “Reign” is an abstraction; “kingdom” is sensibly, visibly perceptible. Especially in our day, how necessary this is, to stress that apart form the See of Peter there is no certainty, no security, and no unity in Christianity.'

Blogger Nobody June 01, 2015 6:56 PM  

Thanks Joe, I am not interested in all the various denominational interpretations and squabbles.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cor­nerstone, a sure foundation. - Isaiah

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. - Peter

Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I. - David

Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven; But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. - Matthew

Call no man your father. - Mark

The head of every man is Christ. - Corinthians

God gave Him to be the head over all things to the church. - Ephesians

Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone. - Ephesians

He is the Rock, His work is perfect. - Deuteronomy/Samuel

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders. - Acts

John to the seven churches of Peter which are in Asia??? Ephesus. Smyrna. Pergamos. Thyatira. Sardis. Philadelphia. Laodicea.

Ah. I see Rome is not mentioned. Must be because it is the one and only true Church of Peter. All the others are just fakes.

Blogger Corvinus June 01, 2015 8:24 PM  

Ah. I see Rome is not mentioned. Must be because it is the one and only true Church of Peter. All the others are just fakes.

We're not saying they're fakes, you dishonest poseur. They were archdioceses. You do by any chance know what an archdiocese is?

Or because it's not in your Scofield bah-bull, you haven't bothered to ever find out?

Blogger Nobody June 01, 2015 9:32 PM  

I never said "we're" did. But the Church was not built on Peter. The Church is built, and grows, on confessing Christ. The body of Christ, the Church, is made up of the multitudes who confess Christ. And Christ is the head of the Church. This whole thing about the "true" church is just garbage. No one is going to Gods Kingdom because they have the Popes blessing. Or Peters blessing. Or belong to the Catholic church. Or, are Baptists. Or, are, the multitude of any other "Church". But that, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Seriously, is that so hard?

Blogger Corvinus June 01, 2015 11:12 PM  

Matthew 7:21.

Mormons and JWs claim they confess Christ, but nobody (except themselves) think their beliefs are anywhere close to being true. Heck, even Muslims claim to venerate Jesus. Are they in the Church?

Anonymous FrankNorman June 02, 2015 6:42 AM  

It's possible to see that passage from Matthew as meaning that Simon Peter had an important role in the first-century church, without at all buying the Roman Catholic argument. Simon bar-Jonah died a long time ago. Jorge Bergoglio is not Simon. And he doesn't become the name as him just because a group of old men in robes and hats choose to say so.

There is nothing in that passage about apostolic succession.

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 5:12 PM  

Nobody, Several points, firstly, there was no Bible till the Catholic Church gave it to the world. The scripture cited in the Bible is the Old Testament, the New Testament did not come into existence (was declared and closed) till 380 AD at the Council of Rome, this means for approx 350 years there was no Bible, what then guided the people (hint, the Church). Sola scriptura is nowhere in the Bible, so citing the Bible as the authoritative/normative source is self defeating; as in the Bible, there i no claim to scripture alone. Scripture alone is a man made originating in the Reformation..

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 5:18 PM  

To be clear, there is One True Church (think of Amber), of which all others are mere shadows. That One True Church has the authority (given by God), to declare and advance infallible teachings. That Church is the Catholic Church, it is not any others. 33,000 different Bible Only Church's prove it. If the Truth of the Bible was so self-evidently True, why are the so many different Bible Only Church's. Are they all right?

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 5:27 PM  

FNorman, See: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm for a quick and concise address of your points. Here's something more detailed:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Blogger Corvinus June 02, 2015 5:36 PM  

Jorge Bergoglio is not Simon.

Well, I do agree that he isn't, and nor is he his successor.

It's frustrating being a member of a religion whose official structures are completely run by not just non-members, but anti-members. It's a fricking PITA, to be honest.

I don't know of any other religion on earth that has this problem.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 02, 2015 5:53 PM  


I don't know of any other religion on earth that has this problem.


Anglicanism?

Anonymous FrankNorman June 02, 2015 5:57 PM  

And Joe Keenan - do you seriously believe that the books of the New Testament didn't exist until the 4th century?
Or that nobody considered Paul's letters inspired until then? Really?

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 7:44 PM  

Frank, Arguments from credulity are fallacious, as are straw man arguments. You managed both in your short item above. I never said the books didn't exist, I said there was no declared and closed Canon of Scripture. Sure they read from those books at Mass, they also read from the Gospel of Mary, the Sheppard of Hermas and the Didache. Regarding inspiration, what any individual thinks is inspired in not germane, what the Church has declared, is.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 03, 2015 4:35 AM  

Joe, I think you miss the point. The people who sat on that council did not cause the books of the New Testament to become inspired Scripture by declaring them so. No, they made a declaration about what was already true. And they didn't pick the names out of a hat. There were reasons for accepting some books and not others -reasons that were valid whether or not some "council" had ever met to declare anything.

The idea you're implying - that the early Christians hadn't a clue what to believe until some council met in the 4th century - is just daft!

People in the early church were quoting the Apostle Paul by the middle of the 1st century.

Anonymous mick June 03, 2015 11:11 AM  

I suspect that "joe" is that "rome or die" person. If not, then you might try harder to avoid repeating the same clichés.

33,000 different Bible Only Church's prove it. If the Truth of the Bible was so self-evidently True, why are the so many different Bible Only Church's. Are they all right?

I detect question begging here. The Biblical definition of "church" is a local body of Christ. God's Word says nothing about hierarchies or denominations or churches run like McDonalds franchises. If anything, the number of "Bible-believing" churches should be much larger, as each individual church should be a local body of Christ. In the Scripture, an ecclesia was one assembly. Two of them were two assemblies. When you say to your son/grandson, "go to school" you obviously mean a specific school, East Elementary on Main Street, for example. "School" is the name of a kind of institution, but "a school" is a specific localized place where children gather (physically) to study. See here for more: http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/the-church-dissonant/

Blogger Joe Keenan June 03, 2015 5:18 PM  

Frank, I nowhere said (or implied) the early Christians didn't have a clue, again, you falsely attribute statements to me, that's not very Christian. The fact is, in the early Church (and much of human history for that matter) education was done via the spoken word, not the written. At Pentecost the Holy Ghost gave the Gift of Tongues, the spoken word, to the Apostles, not the gift of finely wrought prose; there's a good reason for this, most people couldn't read. They were illiterate.

Sola scriptura is a middle class conceit. When education became common enough, everybody developed an opinion on the meaning of scripture. That this opinion is based on little more than a warm feeling in their gut is overlooked. Most people don't even understand the problem of translation. Go to amazon and look at all the translations of Homer. Why are there all these different translations? Why not a definitive literal translation? Because, there can't be one.

Is the Bible needed for salvation? If so, every illiterate is damned. This is absurd. The Bible is not needed for salvation, The Church is. People were saved long before the Bible existed.

Blogger Joe Keenan June 03, 2015 5:21 PM  

Mck, Christ established a Church, One Church. He made Peter its head and gave him the power to bind and loosen. Whatever Peter, bound on Earth was bound in Heaven. Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom. Peter had the authority. Jesus left one guy in charge, not as many people in charge as there are opinions.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 04, 2015 6:11 AM  

Joe, you are tub-thumping. We're all already heard that sort of Papist rhetoric.

The very fact that you have to attack the authority of the Bible is evidence that you cannot square your beliefs with it.
So..... why'd that council canonise it then, huh?

Blogger Joe Keenan June 04, 2015 6:43 AM  

Frank, Three sentences, three fallacious arguments. The council canonized the works for several reasons, one, people went to their death for refusing to turn over "sacred scripture" to state authorities, this of course raised the question, "What is sacred scripture?" Secondly, gnostics/heretics were spreading false gospels and muddying the waters (much like today).

Anonymous FrankNorman June 04, 2015 2:01 PM  

People went to their death for the sake of writings that people like you proclaim to be un-needed, because you have The Church?

Anyway - I think you concede my point. The council did not cause any book to become Scripture - only stated what was.

Blogger Joe Keenan June 04, 2015 4:43 PM  

You are massively uninformed Frank, I concede none of your points. There was no declared and closed Canon of Scripture till the Catholic Church gave it to the world. One institution was ordained by God to continue His mission until His return, the Catholic Church. Only one institution has the God given authority to interpret scripture, the Catholic Church. The Bible is not needed for Salvation, people were being saved before it existed, and people were saved who never read it. Fact.

Anonymous Tim Bayly June 16, 2015 12:30 PM  

>>And the UK's atheists probably won't be too pleased with the Church of England's demise.

The question is how the UK's Evangelicals view this demise? Men like McGrath.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts