Pope to throw open the 'Flaminian Gate' to Anglicans

According to a comment on Titusonenine, the Pope will this shortly receive on his desk a document that proposes something akin to an Opus Dei-style personal prelature for disgruntled Anglicans of a Catholic bent. A separate source tells me: "There are secret conversations going on to enable a Uniat solution." This would allow disaffected to be received into the Catholic Church but retain their Anglican identity, with presumably their (or should I say our?) own priests going with them too. The one thing the Pope is understood to be insisting on, in the name of ecumenism, is that the Anglicans leave before negotiations for entry into the Catholic church can begin. But of course they won't leave with nowhere to go to. My own source says that discussions are well advanced at the highest levels, but nothing is likely to be formalised until after the women bishops debate is concluded.

William Tighe first aire publicly this possibility, which is also being debated on ShipofFools. I thought putting it up here, right now, might liven things up a little in Leeds tonight and tomorrow. It might also give Jonathan Petre and me something to gossip about when we set off for Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury next week. More news from Rome today is a meeting on the vexed question of priestly celibacy, sparked by the rebel Milingo. The Pope is calling advisers together in the Vatican to decide how to respond after the "married" (in a Unification church ceremony) African "Archbishop" (now excommunicated) ordained some married priests the other day, effectively forming a schismatic Catholic Church. The Pope hates losing any of his flock, as his efforts to bring back the Lefebvrists indicate.

Not that I imagine he gives two figs about my feelings for him, but I am starting really to love this Pope. In the most chaste possible way of course. He has a fine sense of humour I think. How hilarious would it be if in a few strokes of his no-doubt designer fountain pen, along with the soon-expected indult on theTridentine rite he were to sign documents that would allow more freedom for married priests and also open the door to Anglicans fed up with TEC and the rest but not prepared to go through the whole Catholic adult initiation process or indeed forsake their existing parishes. Renewing the ecumenical process from the grass roots, through greater use of shared parishes and worship, is what is expected from the new Arcic III, if indeed it is launched as planned during or soon after Dr Williams' visit to Rome. But there might be subtle, or not so subtle differences in how this ecumenical process is envisaged by both sides. Don't forget, Griswold was co-chairman of Arcic II until he resigned after the Robinson consecration. So the Catholics know exactly what they are dealing with here.

Under his previous incarnation, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a surprise message of support and greeting to traditionalist Anglicans in the US when debating the consecration of Gene Robinson. That was some indication of how he is thinking.

All the evidence from the US, and indeed England, is that churches that embrace wholeheartedly the liberal agenda fall into inexorable decline. Sometimes even pretty rapid decline.

That isn't meant to be a judgemental statement on liberalism. From a secular perspective, and just for the record, I myself endorse gay rights, women's rights and the rest.

But the facts speak for themselves. Liberalism in the Anglican Communion is proving to be a recipe for decline. If that's what the liberals want, then fine.

But what a wonderful opportunity for an imaginative Pope, to set up a personal prelature for traditionalist Anglicans to find a home in.

The comment on Titus was posted by the well-informed US church history professor William Tighe. So it cannot be discounted. But the truth actually might be a little more complex. One possible option, for example, is that the document Tighe refers to and the indult are one and the same. That the indult will contain a more general permission for the Anglican Use rather than it being confined to the US. This was not adopted as the solution to the Anglican women priest's crisis in the first place because it was opposed by the late Cardinal Hume, as William Oddie reported in his book The Roman Option.

This speculation is not, according to a well-informed Anglican source, a step too far. Fr Aidan Nicholls wrote a wonderful essay on the Anglican Use recently. And Paddy Power has him as 5-1 to be the next Archbishop of Westminster. He was also the theologian offered by the Archbishop of Westminster to Forward in Faith, when they asked him for a Catholic to contribute to the discussions for their recent paper, Consecrated Women.

Comments

[Chris Webb]

Hi Ruth,

What a fantastic and magnanimous ecumenical gesture that would be! Why, I'm so inspired, I'm going to make a reciprocal offer right here, right now. The Pope, and any of the cardinals who want to join him, can have their own 'personal prelature': a special place on my little Welsh church's electoral roll. If he can find us. Of course, he'd have to accept my overall authority, come into line with my church's discipline, accept our theological positions, contribute financially - in fact, essentially become an Anglican in all but name. But, other than that, no changes. All he has to do is email!

(My wife suggests that, if he were willing to accept all that, he'd be an Anglican already. Nonsense! My way is loads better, as he can pretend to be a Roman Catholic still!)

The famous line of that great Church Father, St John McEnroe, comes to mind: "You cannot be ..." er, what was it, now?

Chris

[Simon]

Us Catholics are a little strange as Christians though (the irony!). We believe 'bizarre' things - not just for Thomism and against the "Universal Salvation" of the late Origenists, but even that Jesus literally performed miracles and that God actually exists! Are such beliefs really compatible with Anglicanism ???

But more seriously, it could be an interesting move if its not just a rumour - a start of the rejoining of the arm that was chopped off because Henry VIII wanted a male heir (when ironically it was just that that lead to terrible times for Briatin and his heirs, including the destruction of so much of our heritage, and was only partially resolved in the end by a daughter!).

It would be interesting to know how many Anglicans would be in favour of restoring apostolic succession in place of the "divine right of kings". I wonder which of the royal family would take up the option ?

[Alan Marsh]

There is nothing new about this. There has been a Pastoral Provision for Anglicans in N America since 1980, with its own approved version of the Book of Common Prayer ("Divine Worship") on its altars.

http://www.pastoralprovision.org/

What a pity it is not approved for use in RC Churches here. It would greatly improve the standard of worship in many places. Perhaps it will come soon to England? Perhaps even Anglicans might start to use it?

[alistair mcbay]

"How hilarious would it be if... he were to sign documents that would allow more freedom for married priests and also open the door to Anglicans fed up with TEC and the rest but not prepared to go through the whole Catholic adult initiation process or indeed forsake their existing parishes."

If there is any hilarity, Ruth, it's in the way you make this sound too much like "Catholic-lite"! I imagine there will be a goodly number of Catholics who would go berserk at such a move, and I can think of several groups offhand who would see this as indicative of the very same liberalism you blame elsewhere in your post for decline in Anglican worship. On the other hand, most ordinary Joes that fill the pews might not give a monkeys either way - who knows?

The Catholic Church seems to have no choice in some of these things. Emptying pews require Catholics to be imported from Poland, and Cardinal O'Connor is on record in the Tablet as saying the more, the merrier. A lack of priests now seems to mean having to accept married ones and diluting a fiercely held doctrine, but there again they have done that with Limbo and even the alleged inerrancy of the bible, so that would be no surprise. It still reads like Catholic-lite.

[David Smith]

So Rome's centuries old political power games continue.

In his talk 'The Flaminian Gate Revisited' which you cross-reference, Ruth,'Father' Antony F. M. Conlon's theme is the restoration of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England and Wales by Pope Pius IX in 1850.

Here he refers to the main agent of this restoration, Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, and points out 'his unambiguous loyalty to the Holy See'. 'His ecclesiastical background,' he goes on, 'had been entirely Roman and he was among those who perceived most clearly the need to bind the Catholic Church in England more closely to Rome'.

Addressing a group of Jesuit footsoldiers towards the end of the nineteenth century, this same Wiseman spoke these chilling words of battle and conquest: 'Great is the prize for which you strive. Surely a soldier's eye and a soldier's heart would choose by intuition this field of England. None ampler or nobler could be found. It is an head of Protestantism and the stronghold of its power. Weakened in England, it is paralysed elswehere. Conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here, all else is but a war of detail. All the roads of the world meet in one point, and this point reached, all the world is open TO THE CHURCH'S WILL.'

There are those today who have clearly already been comprehensively deceived into sleeping with and actively assisting the enemy. But, for those whose minds are still open and their own, a Catholic Research Information Bureau document of 1987 has this advice: 'No right minded Protestant could place his trust in the promises of the Vatican. A Church for all seasons; 'Semper Eadem', but adaptable, compliant and blending into her surrounds, she adopts the cause which will win her ascendancy. These are her politics and her diplomacy, and this is her ecumenism.'

[Simon]

David Smith: "There are those today who have clearly already been comprehensively deceived into sleeping with and actively assisting the enemy. But, for those whose minds are still open and their own, a Catholic Research Information Bureau document of 1987 has this advice..."

The "Catholic Research Information Bureau" ? Surely the views of such an august body should be taken seriously! Has anyone ever heard of them ???

So what is this "enemy" you talk of ? Are you Christian ? Do you reckon these are not Jesus words ?;

{Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."}

Do you even believe in God ? Do you believe in Jesus ? Do you believe in the forgiveness of sins ? Why do you consider the Church your enemy ? I used to think it was the enemy of everything decent and true - now I see it as the enemy of the cynicism I had in my heart towards God. And my latter position is the correct one - no matter how pathetic I am at being an example of the ideal it represents.

[Alan Marsh FRSA]

The "Catholic Research Information Bureau" - would that be an agency of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, by any chance?

[William Tighe]

What a fascinating post; it's certainly better informed than the (often hysterical) nonsense being spouted at "Ship of Fools."

I really must correct one misapprehension, however, especially as my own elliptical writing gave rise to it. I have no idea when "the proposal(s)" will be promulgated, but my mention of the "end of January" (January 31st to be precise) referred to another, if related, matter. That is the date on which a certain two ECUSA bishops will officially retire; after which one, and possibly both, of them, will convert (or, rather, "revert") to the RC Church in which one of them was bred up (and possibly both of them). Since one of these bishops, despite himself being an ordainer of women, has been involved in obscure meetings in connection with these matters, it lends a certain credence to reports about his reversion; and it seems that there rumors have travelled far, as only yesterday I heard that Bishop Nazir-Ali of Rochester had been discussing reports of this forthcoming "reversion" and had even added that he expects the whole matter to be a major subject of conversation during Abp. Williams' visit to Rome.

I find it impossible to believe, or even to conceive, however, that "One possible option, for example, is that the document Tighe refers to and the indult are one and the same." The indult seems to have attracted an opposition lobby, and its progress may well be slow; but "the proposal" is on the fast track.

[Malcolm Bowden]

I suspect that whatever the doctrinal and theological considerations there may be, an ever closer alignment of Anglicans and Roman Catholics is almost inevitable. At grass roots level, it is already happening I believe. For instance the current liturgies used by the two Churches (certainly for the Eucharist) are very similar - in some respects almost identical. The use of vestments, incense and sanctus bells is now much more mainstream than say 50 years ago in Anglican places (especially cathedrals). I suppose it all started when the Roman Church adopted the venacular and the new form of Mass under John XXIII and more or less at the same time the Church of England adopted the "experimental" Series 1,2, 3 from which the ASB and Common Worship with international texts evolved.

Probably the tide is not going to be turned. Anglicans and Romans will become closer; evangelical Anglicans may possibly break away or alternatively may stay and try to force the Catholic minded out. It could be bloody (metaphorically) although I hope it won't.

It makes me ask myself as, on the one hand, very traditionalist in a rather old fashioned manner and, on the other, theologically rather liberal Protestantish in a wishy-washy Anglican style, where do I stand? I think the answer is that provided that the Church, to paraphrase Karl Barth, continues to preach the Gospel and nothing but the Gospel, and sets aside foolishnesses such as going "green", then I'll probably go along with the liturgy, smells and bells and all if need be. After all, I do like a little bit of Mozart with my Mass (provided it's balanced by a nice blast of Bach to bring us back to our Lutheran senses)!!

[Andrew Eburne]

First of all, heartfelt thanks to you, Ruth for posting on a subject that doesn't provoke the whirlwind of secularist fury usually dominating the comments page!

Re Chris's comments on this 'ecumenical gesture' (his words): the Catholic Church surely has an obligation to make some provision for the consequences of the chaotic situation presently experienced by its Anglican sister. With regards to what Anglicans might have to 'accept': well, they'd have to accept something. Today, as I noted in a previous comment, you can be an Anglican and not accept the Nicene or Apostles Creed, or indeed very much else for that matter. I don't mean to knock Anglican's generally, only to observe that it's difficult (as I've found) being an Anglican today if you actually believe something; and difficult to see how the Anglican Church can continue believing everything and nothing.

I write as an Anglican who converted to Catholicism some years ago: to become part of a Church that did, actually, firmly believe in the words of the Creed in reciting them, and to experience the ministry of priests (pace Simon's comments) who used words like 'God' and 'Jesus' often and without embarrassment.

What I can't help being aware of, however, is how ignorant Anglicans are of contemporary Catholicism, and by the same token how ignorant Catholics are of contemporary Anglicanism. With regards to Chris's other bete noire, [papal] authority, I think he would be surprised at how seldom the issue arises for Catholics. Of course Catholics speak of their Pope with great reverence (R Williams should be so lucky). But the issue of authority doesn't continually raise its head because, crucially, we know what we believe: we've all signed up to that 'something', and in consequence we don't have to battle for unity on an annual basis, nor continually request or resent adjudication from a higher Church authority.

With regard to Malcolm's emphasis on the Gospel, surely there is a great deal of ecumenical common ground here? For my part I can't see scripture and chuch in opposition: scripture is a gift of the Holy Spirit of course, but the physical creation of the early Church of the late first century, confirmed by the Church's council's of the 4th century. There is no scripture without the Church. Yes, I know that's an over-simplification, but as a Catholic theologian once observed, we have a duty to emphasise what can and does unite us.

[David Smith]

Simon, you ask who the Catholic Research Information Bureau are. The answer is that they are a simply one group of concerned Christians. As such they echo the findings of many others - from a variety of faith backgrounds and none down the ages - about the true nature of the Roman Catholic hierarchy - headed up by the Vatican.

For example, the Roman Catholic writer Louis Veuillot, said to a group of Protestants: ‘When you are in a majority we ask for religious liberty in the name of your principles. When we are in a majority we refuse it to you in the name of ours.’

Again, British historian James Anthony Froude wrote: ‘Where it has been in power, the Church of Rome has shown its real colours… In Protestant countries where it is in opposition, it wears the similitude of an angel. It is energetic and devoted; it avoids scandal; it appeals for toleration, and, therefore, pretends to be tolerant. Elsewhere it has killed the very spirit of religion, and those who break from it believe nothing.’

And again, the official Jesuit organ the Civilta Cattolica in April 1948 said: ‘The Roman Catholic Church… must demand the right of freedom for herself alone.’

I am a Christian, but by the Bible’s definition and not that of the Roman Catholic (or Anglican) Church, which is quite different. The God of the Bible seeks to set men free under His benign Lordship. The Roman Catholic Church seeks simply its own malign power and control over lives, and to put itself in a position to exercise this it has produced its own vastly doctored version of the Gospel, by which it presents itself as His sole agent on earth and by which many millions have both been deceived and actually kept from entering into the present and future blessings that Jesus died to give us.

In these matters, you are right to argue from the scriptures, which are truly God’s word and the final test. I have consistently done this in my posts under the thread ‘Rite of Return’, as well as giving practical examples of the fruit of Rome’s ‘unbiblical’ and death-bringing gospel.

Just before the passage from Matthew that you quote, Jesus has asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” And Peter has replied, ”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is on his having realized this truth that Jesus is congratulating Peter. In the verses you quote, He is not saying that the church will be built on Peter, but on the truth that Peter has just spoken out. The true church will, He says, be built on Himself, Jesus, as the Son of God. The Roman Catholic Church is wrong to say that He intended His church to be built on a line of fallible human sinners beginning with Peter, convenient though this has been to the power it has sought to give to itself.

When Jesus said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” his choice of words was significant. Though Peter’s name in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, means ‘rock’ (petros), Jesus did not say, “You are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church.” What he said was, “You are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.”

The word Jesus chose for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that means a mass of rock. Jesus uses this same word in Matt 7:24,25 to describe the bedrock on which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with reference to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of a solid mass of rock (Matt 27:60). Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender, and means a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

Anyone reading the Gospel of Matthew in the original Greek language would have noticed the difference.

The historical and cultural context of the passage also supports interpreting ‘this rock’ as pointing to Jesus in His identity as the Son of God.

The Jewish reader would understand ‘upon this rock’ in line with Old Testament imagery. In the Old Testament the word rock is never used figuratively or symbolically of man, but always of God.

For example:

There is no one holy like the Lord;
Indeed, there is no one besides Thee,
Nor is there any rock like our God. 1 Samuel 2:2

For who is God, but the Lord?
And who is a rock, except our God? Psalm 18:31

Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none. Isaiah 44:8

The New Testament confirms that Jesus, not Peter, is the rock. For example, Peter himself wrote of Jesus as ‘the choice stone… and rock (petra)… ‘ In 1 Peter 2:6-8. And Paul said: ‘…and the rock (petra) was Christ,’ in 1 Cor.10:4. He further specifically emphasised: ‘No man can lay a foundation OTHER THAN that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ (1 Cor. 3:11)

On the issue of ‘the keys of the kingdom’ and ‘binding and loosing’, Jesus gave this authority to all the disciples (Matt 18:18) and indeed to all those who have subsequently became born-again believers. Every time I lead a person to faith in Christ, or bring them healing or freedom from evil spirits, I exercise this power and authority.

A long post, but these are important issues.

[Andrew Eburne]

A couple of notes on David's last. Important issues, as you say.

First, the words petros and petra are differentiated in Attic greek, but not in the later Koine, which is what we are concerned with here.

More importantly, Jesus did not use the words petros and petra at all (let alone 'choose' them as you claim). He was of course speaking in aramaic, not in greek, and he used the words 'kepha' and 'kepha' - 'rock' and 'rock'. Peter's name, Cephas, is a transliteration of the hellenised 'Kephas'. So I'm afraid I can't see the validity of your subsequent comments.

Finally, on the principal that in debate we ought to take our opponents at their best, not their worst, your portrayal of Catholicism is neither relevant nor fair. The Catholic Church underwent enormous changes via a Council we know as Vatican II, in the 1960s, changes which are still being lived out. Yet for your accusations against today's Catholic Church you turn to Vuillot who died in 1883 and was of extreme views even in the 19th century; Froude who died in 1894 and was well known for his anti-Catholic bias whilst alive; a single de-contextualised quotation from 1948 (again, distinctly pre VII); and a mysterious 'Bureau' which has no independent standing of which I'm aware, and whose identity you have failed to clarify in spite of others' posts.

For your future information, the VII documents are freely available online, as is the present day Catholic Catechism .

[Simon]

David

These are indeed important issues. I'm sure you are aware that there were a great many sects surrounding the early Catholic Church. However it was the Church which debated these issues and came to a consensus on these things, in the light of prayer and the holy spirit, and with the authority of apostolic succession. Thus we have the bible, rather than what some sects wanted (e.g. that the Hebrew scriptures should be excluded, that Pauls letters should be excluded, that Revelation should be excluded, that various loose amalgamations of goddess cults from people not directly associated with the apostles should be included etc etc) By accepting the Bible as authoritative divine scripture, you have already accepted that the Church was fulfilling the claim of Jesus that his good news would be preached to the whole world, and therefore fulfilling the promise made to Abraham and Isaac and spoken of so eloquently in Isaiah.

The fact is the Church (with a captial 'C') is built on Jesus, and whilst I understand (and even to some extent agree with) your representation of the direct meaning of that passage, it is also clear from the passage that Jesus is deliberately associating his words with Peter in a specific way. The very fact he renames him from Simon to Peter couldn't be clearer in any honest reading of the passage.

I used to absolutely loath the Catholic Church. There are no doubt plenty of dark moments in its past, but most of my loathing was due to a poor understanding of historical context. Any body composed of human beings will have dark moments eventually, and all the more so when it has 'political' power. After all, power corrupts, that reliable idiom of history. This all applies to bodies that have been around a few decades. The Church has been around very nearly 2000 years. And in all that time it has been directly opposed to Satan, standing for Jesus his word. Sure Satan has his odd victory here and there, the odd dodgy pope and paedophile priests etc. And I'm unusual as a Catholic in that I do believe that its possible for a non-Catholic believer in Jesus to be part of the 'bride of Christ', and for supposed Catholics not to be. But equally, the Church is a symbol of Jesus last and most fervent request to his disciples - that we love one another and be a sign of unity in him - so that others shall accept us as reliable witnesses to what we have found in him. And because of this the Church is full of the Holy Spirit in a quiet and subtle way that only those who truly believe and spend time in Catholic masses see. There are so many branches of protestantism, and so many of them flounder away from the central message of Jesus in one way or another. Its like the parable of the sower, and the Anglican Church by the very fact so many of its priests deny miracles and all kinds of aspects of being able to see the new hidden in the old and the old revealed in the new, clearly is like the grain that find shallow roots. I'm not for a second denying that there are Anglicans who are far closer to God than me and more significantly the majority of the members of the Catholic Church. But if you truly trust in Jesus, then being part of the 'Universal' Christian Church that speaks as a single witness for the Word through whom the universe was creates, is the best way to be true to his wishes. I myself find it difficult to accept some of the Churches teaching, and I willingly admit as much. I find the way the Church has acted in some places appalling. But I have no doubt that God is so very present in it, and that by giving His Church the benefit of the doubt, I'm being both wise and in accord with Gods will. As Jesus said to Peter shortly before he ascended, "Feed my sheep". And that's what its all about.

[Deacon Augustine]

David, your attempted apologetic against the words of Christ in Matthew 16 is both amateur and long out-dated. In Greek "petra" is a feminine noun, so all that Matthew did was to masculinise it when applying the name "Petros" to Peter.

However, the word used in Greek is really quite irrelevant, because the common language Jesus and Peter spoke was Aramaic (Western Syriac). In Aramaic the word for rock is "kepha" and the word for Peter is also "Kepha", which is why in John's Gospel, Peter is idetified by the helleized form of Kepha which is Cephas.

Consequently, in the original words spoken by Christ (as found in the Aramaic Gospels used by the Maronites and Melkite Greek Catholics to this day) the words for rock and Peter are identical. Your argument is nothing but a house built on sand.

Only three times in the Bible does God change a man's name, and each time it is to appoint that man to lead His covenant people. Christ's changing of Simon's name to Peter is every bit as significant as what He did for Abram and Jacob.

[arden]

To David Smith
You are correct on the Petros Petras stuff but Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, he was speaking Aramaic and in that language there is only one word for rock.
In Greek when using the word for a rock, stone, pebble you would use the word petras which is feminine but when you referred to a male you would use petros.
but as I noted Jesus wasn't speaking Greek.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Fr Conlon's talk on Cardinal Wiseman's Encyclical, "From without the Flaminian Gate" can be found here
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/flaminian.htm

The Archbishop of Canterbury of the time was determindly unsubtle when he said that the Catholic priesthood was "subtle, skilful and insinuating." At least we can count on his successor to adopt a more measured approach.

Reports that the generosity of the universal indult would allow any Catholic priest anywhere, at anytime to celebrate previous uses of the Latin Rite (not just the 1962 Missal) would make it entirely consistent that Anglican use should not be confined to America in future.

[Benjamin Waterhouse]

Of course the first Church St. Peter founded was the Antiochan Orthodox Church...

[David Smith]

First of all, thank you Simon, Andrew, Deacon Augustine, and Arden for meeting my arguments with proper, substantial, Biblical and historical arguments of your own, and not simply with antagonism and personal insult, as some have done. I appreciate that.

I do believe that official Roman Catholicism as a belief system and the Vatican as a model of the body of Christ are counterfeits of true Christianity, whose fruits historically amply prove this. But I do not hate or write off any Roman Catholic or Anglican. On the contrary, I believe that, if I am right, they are the most cruelly deceived of all people precisely because they genuinely seek what I consider to be the true God, but have been betrayed in this search.

Between you, you have put forward many points and arguments in your posts. Some I agree with, some I don't. Forgive me if I cannot acknowledge or respond to them all fully here.

Andrew, you write: "Jesus used the words 'kepha' and 'kepha', 'rock' and 'rock'."

The inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. What Jesus might have said in Aramaic is entire CONJECTURE. Furthermore, if, as some contend, the Aramaic is clear but the Greek inadequate or confusing, why did not the Holy Spirit simply import the Aramaic words? There are many such examples in the New Testament. There are even nine places where the Scriptures refer to Peter as Cephas, the Aramaic form of his name. Or why did not the Holy Spirit just repeat the word petros, as Catholic defenders speculate He did in the Aramaic? Then Matthew 16:18 would read, “You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build My church.”

But rather than speculate, why not let the passage speak for itself? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek text of the New Testament, He made a distinction between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The reason for the difference is clear from the context – Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ.

I have my own copy of the Vatican II documents and of The Cathecism of the Catholic Church. If you read these you see that NOT ONE THING OF SUBSTANCE, in terms of religious beliefs or practices, was changed by that body. There was not one word of rowing back, for example, from the intolerant and damning pronouncements of the sixteenth century Council of Trent towards non-Catholics. The Vatican hierarchy merely decided, for political purposes, to present the ‘Church’ in a more inclusive and friendly way. The Vatican's motto is 'semper eadem' (always the same), and its Popes and clergy are pronounced as infallible. So actually by its own teachings it cannot change what it has once taught!

Simon, you write: "Sure Satan has his odd victory here and there, the odd dodgy pope and paedophile priests etc..." I am sorry but you simply cannot gloss over the progressive teaching of a more and more completely different Gospel to the one set out in the Bible, and either carrying out or supporting the systemmatic mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people for centuries right up to the middle of the last, in the way that you try to with these words. Yes, power corrupts, but not the genuine, Acts 1:8, Holy Spirit power 'from above'.

On the Vatican’s record on mass murder, you may care to look at my posts under ‘Rite of Return’. On its teaching of a different Gospel, here is one prime example:

The Bible teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was a once and for all sacrifice that never needs to be repeated and covers all sins for all time, for those who choose to accept its benefits. (Hebrews 10:12) Jesus told us to remember and proclaim this wonderful fact by eating bread and drinking wine from time to time and seeing them as REPRESENTING his crucified body and shed blood. The Catholic hierarchy, on the other hand, say that we need endless repeats of this sacrifice, which, surprise surprise, only its professional staff are able to perform, because only they have the magic power to change bread and wine into Jesus Himself, so that He can be re-sacrificed.

Listen to these almost unbelievably idolatrous, blasphemous, conceited, and deluded statements – just three of many coming from approved Roman Catholic sources down the centuries:

The Pocket Catholic Dictionary, echoed in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (1411), states: ‘the priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.’

Roman Catholic theologian Alphonsus Ligouri, who was ‘made a saint’ by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, and declared a doctor of the universal Roman Church by Pope Pius IX, wrote this:

‘With regard to the power of priests over the real body of Christ,… when they pronounce the words of consecration… we find that in obedience to the words of His priests… God Himself descends on the altar, that He comes whenever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands… and remains entirely at their disposal and they move Him as they please from one place to another…’ etc. etc.

In one Roman Catholic book, carrying the imprimatur of an Archbishop of Ottawa, it says of the Roman Catholic priest: ‘See by one word from his lips he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater fact than the creation of a world.’

Speaking of conceit and delusion, in canon law the Pope is called God (Decretum Gregorii XIII Distinct 96, Can.7) and ‘Lord and God’ (Decretales Gregorii IX. Tit. 7). Here it says also ‘The Roman Pontiff, not as a mere man, but as true God, reigns in the earth.’(Daubuz, 581.) etc. etc. [Any retraction of or apology for such teaching is impossible since 1870 and the Vatican’s pronouncement of Papal Infallibility, which Roman Catholic teaching effectively extends to its entire priesthood.]

How different this all is to the humility in leadership urged in 1 Peter 5 by the very man whose successors the Popes claim to be.

Lastly, unity and peace are important, but not unity around falsehood. As Spurgeon said: ' ..to forsake truth for the sake of unity is to betray Jesus Christ.' Jesus Himself showed the same order of priorities in Luke 12:51.

[Simon]

David:

I am sorry but you simply cannot gloss over the progressive teaching of a more and more completely different Gospel to the one set out in the Bible,

Everything the Church teaches is based on the gospels. Is there something in Catholic doctrine that contradicts the gospel, or is not at its root based on the gospel ? Is it the theology of Thomas Aquinas you have an issue with ?

David:

and either carrying out or supporting the systemmatic mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people for centuries right up to the middle of the last, in the way that you try to with these words.

Hey ? I'm sorry but this kind of wild nonsense is always due people with no historical knowledge reading too many crap novels like Dan Brown and falling for it! Are you talking about what the Spanish government did in South America - despite the fact the Catholic Church had clearly gone against the prevailing idea at the time that the native 'indians' had no soul and could be treated as such ?

The only other two things I can imagine that go anywhere near what you describe is the typical stuff that comes from people with very background in the study of history. To deal with both of these, The Spanish Inquisition was a tool of the Monarchy for crushing dissent and
controlled by Spanish prelates appointed by the Kings. The Albigensian crusade
was fuelled as much by French nobles desire for Cathar land and money as
indignation over their heresy. And it was an extreme form of heresy that would have had even Luther going apoplectic! They were essentially followers of Egyptian Gnostic ideas that any Christian would consider dangerous. Sure our society is now (thankfully in many ways) secular, and people are free to even worship Satan if they wish. But in those days harming peoples eternal soul was seen as more serious than harming their bodies. This is no excuse - but the Church was hardly acting in a way that the normal, decent people of the time would somehow consider wrong.

If you can't judge, then don't judge. Wise advice.

[Thomas]

David,

You claim that in Matthew 16 Our Lord gives the power to loose and bind to all men, then why did the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to use the second person, singular (deseis and luseis in Greek), the same person and number he used to change Peter's name?

Also, Papal infallibility is not universal and must be specifically invoked, so not everything a Pope says is infallible. Furthermore, it applies ONLY to the Pope (in very specific situations) and NOT to the entire Catholic clergy.

Your have muddied the facts.

[David Smith]

Simon - if you want evidence of the violent work of the Roman Catholic Inquisition (Roman Catholic not Spanish) I suggest you read some of my posts on the 'Rite of Return' thread. The Inquisition's murderous work over all of Europe was Vatican backed, instigated, or carried out throughout. This is entirely in line with for example a previous version of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which states: 'Heretics may be not only excommunicated, but also justly put to death.' Hence priests were routinely involved in torturing, interrogating, and putting 'unbelievers' to death. And when tens of thousands of Huguenot Protestants were massacred in France on St Bartholomew's Day, the then Pope ordered Te Deums sung, bells rung in Rome, and a commemorative medal with his image on it struck.

I get my evidence of the record of the Inquisition from serious history books. You have no idea up to now what those sources have been. I have never read the Da Vinci Code. Rather than descending so quickly to the very same baseless judging that you so decry, I suggest that if you are really open-minded, as well as secure in your position, you read some books like, for example, Baigent and Leigh's 'The Inquisition'.

When Pope John Paul II apologised for the past sins of the Church, he said: "WE are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, FOR THE USE OF VIOLENCE THAT SOME HAVE COMMITTED IN THE SERVICE OF TRUTH and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions." He did not seem to be in denial about the Church's responsibility in the Inquisition in the way that you are.

You ask: 'Is there something in Catholic doctrine that contradicts the gospel, or is not at its root based on the gospel?' Yes, many things. Again I have detailed several key examples these on the 'Rite of Return' thread. I also spent the whole of the second half of my last post outlining one glaring example of this. Perhaps you would like to re-read that and then respond.

[alistair mcbay]

Simon, I'm aware of some of the revisionist stuff about the Spanish Inquisition, and someone will probably bring up the BBC's Ancient Mysteries prgramme from a few years back which most Catholic apologists attempted to exploit to the full, although it was by no means a full exoneration.

As far as I can recall, though, it would be difficult to suggest the SI wasn't religiously inspired. I am pretty sure Pope Sixtus IV (I think it was him, has a crusade to his name as well?) declared it was the first duty of kings to nurture and defend the faith of their people when granting the Inquisition to Ferdinand and Isabella, even although he later railed against its worst excesses. Wasn't he in charge too over some pretty nasty stuff with the Waldensians, or was it his successor?

Can you point to any reputable sources on this? I've always meant to have a good look at it.

[Alexander Schmitt]

There are some conditions before such a "union" can be reached:

1. Acceptance of all Catholic dogma (incl. papal infallibility!).
2. Acceptance of "conditional" (given the later changes and involvement of Old Catholic bishops) Ordination to episcopacy and priesthood by the Anglican "priests" and "bishops" right now.
3. Changing of the Cranmerian Rite in a Catholic way. I suggest use of the Sarum Rite, a native English rite, in English, with some Book of Common Prayer elements retained which are not anti-Catholic or anti-Roman.

Then the way would be clear. I pray that will happen, like the union happened in 1632 with Chaldean Christians who since 431 had adhered to the Nestorian errors.

[Alexander Schmitt]

It is typical how a Mr David Smith repeats the silly English puritan myths on the Inquisition (which laid the basis for our present legal system with defense, lawyers, non-mortal punishment), "Jesuit invasions", the Calvinist version of the Night of St. Bartholomew (which the Popes thought a protestant revolution had been brought down, the Popes later on condemned the killing of protestants by the French royal family, as religion cannot be forced upon others!).

[Simon]

David

I wasn't claiming that the Church has no guilt in the matter of the Inquisition - far from it. I was trying to get a bit of historical perspective, in fact to get some kind of perspective whatsoever. I may have misjudged the sources of your historical opinions but its hardly surprising when you use words like "the systemmatic mass murder of hundreds of thousands". The fact you mention Baigent and Leigh as an authoritative source shows that you take pseudohistory far more seriously than any academic would. I'm far from an historian myself, but you must accept that you would be laughed at by scholars if you quoted them seriously.

Its obviously difficult to get accurate numbers, but the "hundreds of thousands" you quote are not taken seriously by modern historians. The highest numbers of deaths from the Inquisition was is Spain where it ran into the tens of thousands, and whilst not excusing that, it likely saved far more deaths by the fact Spain was arguably thus saved from the religious wars that plagued places like France and Germany. These of course included the civil war with the Huguenots you mentioned, and without going into how it started with them violently attacking and tearing down church buildings, it was a civil war in which the rest of the people of France felt everything they believed in was being attacked.

But that is quite beside the point in historical terms. Apart from a couple of notable exceptions - such as the Ancient Egyptians - putting people to death for things we consider trivial and unworthy has been the rule rather the exception. Its well accepted that 'heretics' were dealt with far more harshly, and executed in far higher numbers, by the secular courts in Europe than by the Inquisition. The idea of priests getting sadistic pleasure whilst people are tortured is straight out of fantasy land. To the people of the time, what was happening was the faith given by God was being protected from being distorted. It may be difficult for us to accept that mindset with our modern society - but its simply not right to judge it with the modern eyes. As you say JPII apologised on behalf of the Church for what is clearly something the Church would have preferred not to have been involved in with the benefit of hindsight. Readers of pseudohistory and fundamentalist christians who think that the Church is the 'whore of babylon' no doubt consider that apology pathetic, and will go on thinking the Church was on some jolly willy-nilly massacring people all over the place for sadistic pleasure. The reality of course is that whilst the Church is far from blameless, people thought about things in the past differently to how we now look on things - and can only be fairly judged in terms of what was considered normal to their society as a whole (and in their case scripture).

With regards to your points about Catholc beliefs supposedly contradicting the bible - they simply don't. The reason you see them as unfounded is because you don't accept the principle of apostolic succession laid down by Jesus in Mathew 16 as we have already discussed. The Pope is not considered to be God, nor is he considered to be infallible in what he does and says and thinks. There are rare occasions when the Pope proclaims things under the authority he has from Jesus as sitting in the chair of Peter, and because of that biblical authority he is protected from the Holy Spirit from making errors on those occasions. This is not unbliblical at all. In fact its exactly the same as the way all of us Christians accept that the writers of the Bible were not perfect (or God), and yet because they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were protected by the Holy Spirit from making errors. In accepting the Bible as Gods word, you are accepting the same principle by which the Pope is authorised to make infallible statements in very particular circumstances. Far from being unbliblical - it is 100% based on the bible. You may wish to remove Mathew 16 from the Bible to suit your beliefs, but then you may as well pick and chose the bits you like and add some things you think should be there for good measure. But of course you would have to also take out a great deal that talks about the nature of scripture.

[Simon]

Alistair

I'm not in any way claiming that the Inquisition was not sanctioned by the Church. Just that it wasn't the Church acting in any way different from how the secular powers of the time considered right and proper.

As for reputable sources, you could try starting with -> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

It starts;

...In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed. As one headline read "Vatican Downsizes Inquisition."

The amazed gasps and cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?...

Also, I know you will laugh at me for suggesting it - but I think the Catholic Encyclopaedia article is pretty fair -> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm :)

It may have a slight apologetic tone to it in parts - but that's hardly surprising considering the rubbish that has been spread by fiction and certain anti-Catholic groups.

[Simon]

Me: "There are rare occasions when the Pope proclaims things under the authority he has from Jesus as sitting in the chair of Peter, and because of that biblical authority he is protected from the Holy Spirit from making errors on those occasions."

Clearly the Holy Spirit does not provide me with the same kind of protection! :)

[alistair mcbay]

Thanks, Simon, that's helpful. I'll check these out, but not with any intention of starting an argument - just interest, and perhaps what you might call a search for truth!

[Simon]

And whilst I'm correcting myself, I should point out that the "tens of thousands" of total deaths under the Inquisition in Spain I stated is still far higher than what most modern historians claim. Edward Peters, whose book is mentioned above and is credited as an authority on the subject, puts the number at around 3000 (which still makes it higher than all the previous inquisitions). Put that next to 65 million slaughtered under the USSR, 49 million under the Peoples Republic of China, 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers Party, 4 million under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia etc etc

But of course people have an agenda when it comes to the Inquisition, and the myths about it are a result of that agenda.

[Simon]

No problem Alistair. You know sometimes a good honest argument can help both sides in their search for truth. Not often but sometimes :)

[David Smith]

Alistair - I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Ruth's and others' articles and the leader today in the Times on the intolerance being shown to Christian Unions in our Universities.

I hope that you are big and fair-minded enough to agree that secularists can sometimes be as forceful at trying to impose their views and close others down as the religious.

[David Smith]

Simon:
‘Its obviously difficult to get accurate numbers, but the "hundreds of thousands" you quote are not taken seriously by modern historians.’

Why are modern historians to be taken more seriously than older ones? Why should historical works be laughed at just because they make history more accessible and are not written by Double Firsts at Oxford? If, as he did as a matter of record, Pope Gregory IX (the same one who decreed that Popes should be called 'Lord and God') issued the written instructions that launched the organised Inquisition, does it take a genius to record and inform us of this? What proportion of all historical accounts ever written or records kept of its activities do you think that you have read? What makes you think that you can pass overall judgment on all of these, and come to the right conclusion?

As I have shown, official Vatican teaching was that heretics could rightly be put to death. Pope John Paul II felt badly enough about this to publicly apologise for it's practical consequences, though we are still waiting for this teaching to be declared wrong and deleted from the Vatican statute books. It still excommunicates people for opinions it does not agree with, and since, according to it, there is no salvation outside the Church and its clerically performed rituals, this is an eternal death sentence, and the modern-day equivalent of the physical deaths formerly inflicted. Isn’t that enough said when it comes to exposing the Roman Catholic Church as continuingly intolerant unbiblical and unchristian in this area?

At the end of the 17th Century, as a nation, we passed a law barring Roman Catholics from ruling us. That law stated that this was because history had shown that having Roman Catholics (with the Vatican, and its teaching on its overall supremacy, over and behind them) in such a position of power was not consistent with our keeeping our freedom and security as a people. Can you now just dismiss this decision as simply misguided?

Simon:
‘The reality of course is that whilst the Church is far from blameless, people thought about things in the past differently to how we now look on things - and can only be fairly judged in terms of what was considered normal to their society as a whole.’

Hasn’t scripture always taught that the true Church should be different to the world? If the Roman Catholic Church was not for long periods in this area, isn’t that further evidence that it is not Christian in Biblical terms? There have been many groups of true Christians in Europe throughout the last 800 years who have not persecuted and killed people who have not agreed with them, and have just wanted to be left alone under God to practice what they believe in peace. Many of these have been attacked by the Roman Catholic Church.

Simon:
‘With regards to your points about Catholc beliefs supposedly contradicting the bible - they simply don't. The reason you see them as unfounded is because you don't accept the principle of apostolic succession laid down by Jesus in Mathew 16 as we have already discussed. The Pope is not considered to be God, nor is he considered to be infallible in what he does and says and thinks. There are rare occasions when the Pope proclaims things under the authority he has from Jesus as sitting in the chair of Peter, and because of that biblical authority he is protected from the Holy Spirit from making errors on those occasions. This is not unbliblical at all. In fact its exactly the same as the way all of us Christians accept that the writers of the Bible were not perfect (or God), and yet because they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were protected by the Holy Spirit from making errors. In accepting the Bible as Gods word, you are accepting the same principle by which the Pope is authorised to make infallible statements in very particular circumstances. Far from being unbliblical - it is 100% based on the bible. You may wish to remove Mathew 16 from the Bible to suit your beliefs,…’

I'm sorry Simon, but if your reading and absorption of all the historical records on the Inquisition is as patchy and selective as your reading and absorption of just a couple of my brief posts on this thread, then I’m not very impressed.

I have not said that the reason I don’t accept the Roman Catholic Church as a true Christian Church is because I don’t accept papal succession and the Vatican’s interpretation of Matthew 16. I do this because in countless ways its teachings contradict or add to scripture. I have referred to other major ways on this thread, and referred you to still more that I have pointed out on another thread.

Again, please tell me where I tried to remove Matthew 16 from the Bible. I have faced this scripture and I have actually just tried to show that the plain words of the text do not give anything like a clear backing to something as momentous and dangerous as the idea that Jesus decided to build his church on and give all power to a line of sinful yet, according to themselves, spiritually infallible men.

Please don't make, and then argue with, arguments I have not made

On this, there is no historical or Biblical evidence at all that Peter was ever in Rome, let alone that he sat in the Pope’s chair there for a number of years as the RCC teaches. He himself never acted as if he had been thus appointed, and it was after Matthhew 16 that he both betrayed Jesus and had to be corrected by St Paul for doctrinal error.

Many Popes got to be on the throne because of who they knew, or who their mothers (within and outside wedlock) slept with or knew. Some got there by brute force. And on occasion there were rival Popes at the same time. Do you really think that this was God at work appointing his right man for the job?

Why too was it only in 1870 that the Vatican first told the world that Popes are infallible? I don’t suppose it could be anything to do with this simply being made up, could it? The Vatican certainly behaved as if it had limitless power, proclaiming itself to be the highest world authority, for hundreds of years before this. But perhaps it was not til 1870 that it dared to take this a notch further. And by the way the vote that got this on the statute books was very close.

You say that the Holy Spirit protects Popes when they make pronouncements from their special chair, and that anyway they rarely do this. Taking the 800 plus pages of the current Cathecism alone, all of which emanated from the Vatican and is authoritatively set in stone and much of which is not found in the Bible, rare is hardly the right word. I also have readily available a list of 45 major biblically unsupported changes to Catholic teaching and practice between 300 and 1965, including those that make Mary another God, if you would like to see it.

In this context, I wonder what you make of this statement from Vatican II: "This loyal submission of the will and intellect MUST be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he DOES NOT SPEAK EX CATHEDRA in such wise... "

Vatican II applied this to all Bishops, and I will refer you to this in the Cathecism or even quote it in full if you want me to.

You say that the Pope is not God, but I have already shown you more than one Pope who disagrees with you. In addition, Pope Leo XII (infallibly!) taught in an encyclical of 1885 that the Pope holds ‘upon this earth the place of God Almighty’. Jesus told his followers in Matt 23:9 not to call anyone in the church on earth father. So what does Pope mean? It means papa/father. And what are Roman Catholic religious officials supposed to be called? Father.

DON'T YOU SEE HERE EVEN THE TINIEST SIGN OF A PATTERN OF ACCRUING POWER NOT GIVEN BY THE BIBLE?

Scripture tells us that it is divinely inspired, but please show me the scripture that says the Popes cannot make a mistake when they teach what they think is new official doctrine? The Bible teaches (e.g. Romans – ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God) that we are all prone to imperfection. But where does it give anyone this split spiritual personality that means that in some aspects of their thinking they can never be wrong? Where does it say that they can be as immoral, dishonest, and corrupt as they like privately, and yet can be relied on 100% when in the office? My New Testament (e.g. 1 Tim 3:2) says that a man's home life is crucial to his suitability as a church leader. And who has kept a record of what RC teaching was actually from the special chair and so can be relied on 100%, and what was not? What is the status of the mass of teaching that was given before 1870 and was the result of collegiate decision-making?

And lastly, to repeat a previous question, what actually do you think the Gospel is according to the Roman Catholic Church? How does IT say that a person is saved and can be assured of going to heaven?

[Andrew Eburne]

I'm sure Simon doesn't need me to defend him against David Smith, and I don't propose to debate the particular points of doctrine he raises, important and debatable as they are. But I will observe that Christians of all denominations will agree that Christ goes to the heart of the matter when he says 'love God... love your neighbour' He even goes on, as I'm sure David will know, to bid us 'love your enemy'. If I could spot one iota of that love in the aggressive, furious paragraphs that David has been submitting, I would have so much more confidence in his argument. Surely we can debate without shouting in extended capital letters and sneering at each other, however strongly we feel?

[David Smith]

Andrew - I do agree totally that we should love everyone. Simon is not my enemy, or anyone else who is not carrying deliberate malice against me, but RC teaching and practises that I believe have ruined rather than saved millions are. If there is any anger in my posts it is against this. If you take another look at this thread, you will see that I have made a special plea (and expressed gratitude) for argument in the right sense rather than personal slights.

Please think the best of me, and do not read emotions into my posts that are not there. Capital letters are just there for emphasis and variety in a long post given the limited script etc available in these boxes.

Actually, I only do this and take the flack that I have because I care about people knowing truth that will genuinely bless them in the long term. Of course I can be wrong, but if I may quote an earlier post of mine... 'I believe that, if I am right, they (RCs and Anglicans) are the most cruelly deceived of all people precisely because they genuinely seek what I consider to be the true God, but have been betrayed in this search'.

If someone slights me (no big issue, but for example by suggesting with no evidence that I get my facts from 'crap novels') or misrepresents my arguments, or draws unwarranted conlusions by not reading or seeming to have taken in whole chunks of my posts, I notice. Am I wrong to ask them not to do this, or to feel frustrated, and stand on my hind legs a little if it happens repeatedly?

Thank you for caring for people's feelings and the quality of the debate. I hope every one else will, and I will try to keep doing so too.

[Andrew Eburne]

I appreciate your comments (and intentions), David, though in answer to your question ('If someone slights me... am I wrong... to feel frustrated, and stand on my hind legs'), I am sure you know as I do that the only answer finally is 'yes'; because we are asked to turn the other cheek, and to forgive 70 times 7. Not least when discussing (or disagreeing about) theology..!

Please don't think I am in any way trying to take the high moral ground, either in a personal or general sense... I'm just reminded by the tenor of the comments on these pages (and not just yours!), firstly that as Christians we of all people should be able to debate peacably; and secondly that our own preaching is as much by example as by word, and that even if the truth are on our side no-one will be led to it if that truth appears alongside anger and resentment.

Again, this is not meant to take the moral high ground, and of course I look forward to seeing more of your comments in due course!

[vladimir998]

As someone with a PhD in Medieval History I find the continued reliance of anti-Catholics like David Smith on Protestant fables concerning the Spanish Inquisition to be rather surprising. Why rely on fables when real history books, researched and written by real historians, and not polemicists, actually exist?

If anyone wants to know about the inquisition -- what it was and what it wasn't -- I suggest you read the following:

About the inquisition in general see Edward Peters' book, Inquisition. Do not confuse this Edward Peters with the modern canon law expert of the same name. This Edward Peters is a world renowned expert in medieval law and legal procedures. He recently retired from the University of Pennsylvania where he was not only a professor, but also the director of the Henry Charles Lea library, and editor of the Life in the Middle Ages publication series. Peters’ book contains valuable information about the erection, and organization of inquisitions, but also the mythology, and Black Legends, which have so distorted their history (i.e. the claptrap that David Smith apparently takes for truth).

William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition. Walsh provides colorful biographies of eight inquisitors and related person including Moses (!), Pope Gregory IX, Bernard Gui, Nicholas Eymeric, Torquemada, Cardinal Ximenses, some sixteenth century victims, and Llorente. Walsh was a devout Catholic, and I am sure some would say that that fact colors his work, but his book is filled with valuable documents and excerpts, some fascinating insights into the events and personalities of the inquisition, and footnotes detailing the numerous mistakes of Henry Charles Lea who heavily influenced English language research into the inquisition for more than five decades.

Another worthwhile resource on the inquisition in general is Joseph Blötzer’s article “Inquisition” which appeared in the old Catholic Encyclopedia which is now online at www.newadvent.org.

For books specifically about the Spanish Inquisition see Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: a Historical Revision. This book, published in 1998, is the culmination of more than thirty-five years of research on the Spanish Inquisition. Kamen, who admits that he originally believed many of the myths of the Spanish Inquisition when he published his first book on the subject in the mid 1960’s, admits and explains how the image and actual work of the Spanish Inquisition was seriously distorted by the Black Legends spread by enemies of Spain in Holland, England, and France. Kamen is an objective historian who in no way defends the Spanish Inquisition. He merely explains what happened, and shows how the Spanish Inquisition was not nearly as bad as is ALWAYS assumed today.

Another excellent book is E. William Monter, Frontier of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily. Monter provides twenty-one tables of statistics to more fully understand the Spanish Inquisition and executions. He is certainly no apologist for the Spanish Inquisition, but his rather objective handling of the whole affair clearly shows how distorted our modern views of the inquisition really are.

For more information about medieval heretics and their beliefs see Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages. This work is a classic 800 page collection of sources -- in translation – from and about medieval heretics.

Another fascinating book about medieval heretics, specifically the Albigensians and their inquisition trials, is Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Utilizing the inquisitorial records from Jacque Fournier, Bishop of Pamiers (1318 – 1325), and later pope. The Pamier archive comprised evidence from 578 interrogations. Ladurie examines the beliefs and techniques of the Albigensians of one region and how they threatened the local social fabric. Ladurie includes a detailed index to the families of Montaillou and their often bizarre interconnections. This book was a best seller in France when originally published. Once translated into English in 1978 it has never gone out of print. When you realize that the most pernicious heretic involved in Montaillou, Pierre Clergue, was also the village priest you know why the inquisition was necessary. Ladurie is no defender of the inquisition, but a faithful Christian can read the book and see how dangerous and warped the heretics were.

For an almost complete record of a particular inquisitorial trial of an Albigensian heretic (translated into English) see Patrick Geary, Readings in Medieval History. Reading no. 35, pages 500 – 519. The trial record is drawn from the trial register of the Bishop of Pamiers (just like the sources about Montaillou above). The trial is particularly interesting because the defendant, Beatrice, was member of the lower nobility, and the mistress of the Catholic priest (Pierre Clergue) who was in fact one of the local leaders of the Albigensian heretics! And people wonder why there was an inquisition? Some of the related trial records are now posted online in translation.

Anyone interested in Joan of Arc must read Regine Pernoud’s Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses.

About Galileo see Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church, 3rd edition, 1992. Riva Feldhay, Galileo and the Church, 1993. Pietro Redondi, Galileo, Heretic, 1987. Wade Rowland, Galileo’s Mistake: A New Look at the Epic Confrontation between Galileo and the Church, July, 2003.

Also, a few used copies of Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran's Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition. It's only a 32 page booklet but it has all the most essential information.

Also, I suggest that other posters here start looking at the info posted by David Smith. You will notice that he is posting things that may be edited in a certain light to say the least. Veuillot's quote may not be what Smith is claiming it is, for instance:

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/louis_veuillot/

[Simon]

David: "Why are modern historians to be taken more seriously than older ones? Why should historical works be laughed at just because they make history more accessible and are not written by Double Firsts at Oxford?"

Modern historians have access to the works of older historians and evaluate their claims in the light of further information now available, more sophisticated methods of critical evaluation etc etc. Are you really suggesting that we should take the claims of conspiracy writers like Leigh and Baigent who (amongst other real clangers) fell hook line and sinker for Plantards hoax about the Priory of Sion, rather than the consensus of professional historians who spend their whole working lives critically examining the evidence ? I've not claimed to be an historian, and certainly don't claim to be an expert in this area of history, but I do know enough to be confident that your claims have more to do with anti-Catholics myths than historical analysis and evaluation.

As for all the ways you claim Church teaching conflicts with the Bible I think you have made your mind up and so I'm not sure what we can achieve by debating it. You have an opinion on it which is based partly on your belief that the Church does not have divine authority in some areas, and partly on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Church. For example to quote you;

"You say that the Holy Spirit protects Popes when they make pronouncements from their special chair, and that anyway they rarely do this. Taking the 800 plus pages of the current Cathecism alone, all of which emanated from the Vatican and is authoritatively set in stone and much of which is not found in the Bible, rare is hardly the right word. I also have readily available a list of 45 major biblically unsupported changes to Catholic teaching and practice between 300 and 1965, including those that make Mary another God, if you would like to see it."

Firstly I was right to say that infallible papal pronouncements 'from the chair' are rare - there are probably about 7 of them over 2000 years! And the Catechism is not considered to be infallible! As Catholics we accept it as a description of the core Christian beliefs we hold in common. Its the culmination of centuries of theological contemplation of the scriptures and their application in the world. It provides a distillation of sophisticated enquiry and guidance from the Holy Spirit, by far holier and more intelligent people than me for a start! As such its a source of unity in the Church, and those of us who have been drawn to the Church have no trouble in seeing it as as a clear description of fundamental Christian beliefs. But its certainly not considered infallible and that's typical of your misunderstanding of this. Have you ever read it ? ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm )

The Church considers Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture to be a singular source. You consider scripture to be a separate source from the Church's tradition. However the very reason you have what you claim as the authoritative scripture is a result of the Sacred Tradition handed down by Jesus through the apostles - and most directly through Peter. As you probably know - the primacy of Peter is straight from the bible. In fact the primacy of Peters successors was described by people like Clement before the end of the 1st century and therefore well before there was anything like what we now call the Bible!

What you are doing is allowing Jesus to initiate his mission in one way, then claiming that somehow changed in the 16th century and God decided he wanted to remove His authority and divine guidance in favour of some other kind of solution. There is no biblical basis for this and so it is in fact the protestant view that is 'unbiblical'.

You claim you accept Mathew 16, but then seem to ignore it in the context of the rest of the Gospels. For example a little later on there is this;

Mathew 28

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Its very clear Jesus is conferring a very deliberate kind of authority here. You can take it to mean he is talking to all Christians, and in a way he surely is as we all have the authority to baptise. But surely you can't imagine that Jesus is saying that anyone who clams to accept Jesus, even just on the basis of having once met a nice guy in a pub who claimed to be a Christian, also has authority to teach what Jesus commanded ? Obviously Jesus spoke a lot more words than those that were written down as the Gospels, and those contributed to what was the early tradition in the Church. The Church considers that Sacred Tradition to be an inseparable part of the divine guidance given to us from God, along with Sacred Scripture. You may wish to believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Church up to the point that the Bible was formalised, and then abandoned the Church sometime in the next few centuries, but there is no reason from scripture to believe that. You end up on shaky grounds where you appoint yourself the arbitrator of Gods authority.

If the Church really is as bad as you seem to think, then it will be those in charge that are held responsible by God - not those who commune with him through the mass. But since becoming a Catholic I have been to masses all over the world. I recognise every part of the service no matter what language it is said in, and know when I am attending that there are around a billion people across the world hearing the same readings from the bible in their own language, asking God for forgiveness, praising him, and joining in communion with him. Its like being a little part of an awesome body of people all praising God together, in a sincere, subtle and understated, rather than brash and judgemental, way. And its held together as a single body to do that via the authority of apostolic succession that comes directly from Jesus. I find it difficult to see how you can see that as such a bad thing.

[David Smith]

Thank you, Andrew, for your magnanimity and humility.

I hope these can continue to embrace me when I say that I still think that there is a distinction to be drawn between not returning hateful and hurtful words or actions and countering in argument (sometimes with passion and feeling) what you see as unfairness or untruth against God, yourself, or anyone else. Jesus did not return evil for evil, but I am sure that He gave vent to righteous anger when He referred to the religious teachers of His day as vipers, whited sepulchers, and even liars, or when he made a whip and overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple.

The Bible does not say do not be angry, but rather 'in your anger do not sin' and 'do not let the sun go down on your anger'. As bad as hating and hurting can be suppressing God-given feelings. This can lead to ill-health, and anger 'bottled' can fester and change quality into resentment and hatred itself.

I want to tread on the right side of the line between being passionate (and sometimes emotionally so) and copying what I see as Jesus' healthy expression of feelings in upholding truth and opposing error on the one hand and actually hating and lashing out at anyone on the other... to love the sinner but hate the sin, so as to speak.

Thank you for making me think about this, and especially about saying things in a way that will win over rather than alienate. (Maybe I should take a leaf out of Simon's book and insert the odd :-)'s into my posts!)

I do not want to draw out this by-product of the main debate on this thread, nor, like you, to notch up points, so perhaps we will have to just agree to disagree as friends on this.

For the record, since Vladimir has raised this, I would like to emphasise that I am not 'anti-Catholic', but I AM anti-Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, because of the present and eternal harm that I believe they do to people.

[David Smith]

Simon - thank you for your latest long post. There is a lot in it to think about.

For the moment, I wonder what the 7 infallible papal pronouncements from the chair that you mention are... or some of them anyway?... apart from the one about papal infallibility!!!

[Mike]

The Pope didn't pronounce infallibility, Christ did and the Vatican I Councils recognized this. How this infallibility is implemented is always up for debate, as is the function of the collegiality of Bishops.

As for the supposed "eternal harm" caused by the Catholics (and Anglicans), to which denomination do you belong - anyone you name, I can find fault with. If you find a perfect Church (with a human component)...don't join it as you may muck it up.

[Simon]

Hi David

The seven I mentioned are the seven identified by the theologian Klaus Schatz as being 'ex cathedra';

* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

* Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception;
and

* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

(Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Infallibility )

The VAST majority of the Popes teachings are considered to be part of the Ordinary Magisterium - and therefore they are not considered infallible. The concept of Papal Infallibility itself goes right back to the early Church, and it was not a pope who pronounced it part of the Sacred Magesterium, but rather an ecumenical council where all the Churches bishops are present (Vatican I).

[David Smith]

Simon and Mike – thank you for sharpening up my understanding of the technical niceties of the Roman Catholic legislative process and what qualifies as from the chair amd infallible and what does not.

Vatican II said of the Pope and Roman Catholics:
"This loyal submission of the will and intellect MUST be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he DOES NOT SPEAK EX CATHEDRA in such wise... "

Also, it said of Bishops and Roman Catholics:
" ...the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind."

It seems that either way Roman Catholics have to believe and do whatever the senior RC hierarchy tell them.

Can I take it, therefore, that you think - primarily on the basis of a scripture (Matt 16:13-18) of which the RC Church has adopted the lease likely grammatical and contextual interpretation - that Christians should unquestioningly accept Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors of 1864, which says inter alia:

15. No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason.
17. The eternal salvation of any out of the true church of Christ is not even to be hoped for.
18. Protestantism is not another and diversified form of the one true Christian religion in which it is possible to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
21. The Church has power to define dogmatically the religion of the Catholic Church to be the only true religion.
24. The Church has the power of employing force and (of exercising) direct and indirect temporal power.
37. No national Church can be instituted in a state of division and separation from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
48. Catholics cannot approve of a system of education for youth apart from the Catholic faith, and disjoined from the authority of the Church
54. Kings and Princes are not only not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are subordinate to the Church in litigated questions of jurisdiction.
57. Philosophical principles, moral science, and civil laws may and must be made to bend to Divine and Ecclessiatical authority.
77. It is necessary even in the present day that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
78. Whence it has been unwisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the free exercise of their religion.
80. The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself to, or agree with, Progress, Liberalism, and Modern Civilization.

This all seems like totalitarian human, clerical, world dictatorship and thought control in action, and I do not find any trace of this being taught in the New Testament as the way God Himself approaches man.

The levels of compulsion and ambition here are on a par with those found in that other main pagan religion - Islam.

I am not surprised that our forbears decided that Roman Catholic rule was hostile to individual freedom, and banned it by legislation.

I am also not surprised if individual thinkers the likes of Alistair feel that, if this is Christianity, they want nothing to do with it.

[David Smith]

Mike - I do not belong to any denomination. The whole human race are my brothers and sisters, and all those who are Christians are my spiritual brothers and sisters.

I became 'born-again from above' and thus came to know God as a reality at 25 - as Jesus says we all must in John3:3 - according to the Bible's way, rather than the RC/Anglican way. The former says that we must make a conscious decision to repent, accept God as Lord, and receive His Holy Spirit. The latter says that if we undergo a series of rituals and teaching from the cradle to the grave, administered by their officials, then that makes us a Christian. The fact that, for example, as babies we haven't the slightest idea what is happening when we are 'christened' is apparently irrelevent... as is the fact that there is not one example of a baby being baptised in the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament. Here all conversions are as a result of adults hearing and understanding the Gospel and acting on it in the way that I had to.

Roman Catholics are taught to accept any additions to the Bible that the RC hierarchy make up and call 'Sacred Tradition'. This is what Jesus had to say about this to the professional religious rulers of his day:
"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." (Mark7:7-8)

[David Smith]

Simon:
“If the Church really is as bad as you seem to think, then it will be those in charge that are held responsible by God - not those who commune with him through the mass. ..since becoming a Catholic I have been to masses all over the world… Its like being a little part of an awesome body of people all praising God together,.. and its held together as a single body to do that via the authority of apostolic succession that comes directly from Jesus. I find it difficult to see how you can see that as such a bad thing.”

I completely understand and am very much in favour of any warm-hearted person enjoying the sense of fellowship and belonging that you describe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I also in no way doubt or sneer at your sincerity and pure intentions.

The question, however, is: Is the Mass a Christian ritual from God’s perspective, and therefore something presently and eternally of benefit? I don’t think so. And if it is not, but rather is something pagan, then certainly I agree that those who have misled millions into thinking it of God (especially if they have done this carelessly or knowingly) should be especially heavily judged by Him. But the fact remains that, apart from what we lose out on on this earth, the defence of ‘I was only taking orders’ will not get any of us off the hook. We have the Bible and God’s spirit (and people like me :-)!!) to tell us the truth.

If you care enough about yourself to check out the pagan (and in fact anti-Christian) origins of the mass, the idea that the Popes are Peter’s successors, and of many other Roman Catholic teachings and practices, and in fact of the entire RC belief system, then go to: www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/ There you will find the entire text of Rev Alexander Hislop’s classic and minutely researched The Two Babylons – not a polemic but a very serious work of scholarship that was published last century and has had several editions and countless reprints up to the present day.

I say in love, that you fail at least to read a work like this, once alerted about it, at your etrenal peril.

[Christopher]

"I say in love, that you fail at least to read a work like this, once alerted about it, at your etrenal peril."

It is funny (I mean hilarious) how much religious bamboozling, chicanery and downright mental bullying is done lovingly! It reminds me of the fiery Wee Free preacherman who was harranging his congregation during his weekly three-hourly sermon. He said "And ye'll all go to hell and ye'll all burn in hell. And ye'll look up to the Lord and ye'll say to the Lord. 'Lord, Lord, we didna ken'. And the Lord in his infinite mercy will look down and say 'Well, ye ken tha nu!'."

[David Smith]

Christopher - very funny, but a slight on God Himself, who of course at that stage will be 'looking down' with infinite sorrow.

There IS plenty of mental bullying from the Roman Catholic Church, but where the true God is concerned it is always truly love. His sending and sacrificing Jesus is evidence of that.

I hope you are sure of what God will be saying to you when you die?

[Christopher]

"...very funny, but a slight on God Himself".

David, is your God totally humourless?
I am sorry for you if you live your life in such terror - or are you one of those who knows he's in the right?

I had a friend who was observing a fast day and at a quarter to midnight (when the fast day would be over) I offered him something to eat. He refused because the fast was not yet over with 15 minutes to go. I said to him "But don't you think God is lenient?" He said "I don't think God is lenient at all".

Sound familiar?

[alistair mcbay]

Christopher

You quote the tale of the the "fiery Wee Free preacherman" but perhaps it's the Wee Wee Frees whom you should now quote, since they are on record as referring to the Pope as the very Satan himself and the RC Mass as idolatrous!

It reminds me also of the joke up here: why are Wee Frees scared of sex? Because they're frightened it will lead to dancing.

And before Christians throw their toys out the pram, the first time I heard this was at a wedding, and it was told by the Church of Scotland minister who had just married the loving couple.

Light bantermaybe, but clearly this interfaith dialogue stuff needs some work here and there!

[Simon]

Dear David Smith

Its kind of difficult to reply to your comments without being rude - and I'd prefer not to be. You say that the Catholic mass is "anti-christian". Have you ever been to a Catholic mass ? I suspect not. In it you will find a ritual that is very similar to the one that has gone on for nearly 2000 years - and Jesus is the centre of every part of it. Its simply nonsense to claim its anti-christian. And you claim that the Catholic mass is "pagan"! I assume you know that the word pagan was used by the early romans to be something like 'country bumpkin' ? It was the Catholic Church that took the word and changed it to mean those who followed beliefs contrary to Christianity. For you to then say that the Catholic mass has pagan roots is simply ignorant. As for Hisplops nonsense, only people desperately grasping at straws would refer to that seeing as its been completely demolished - even by protestants! You just need to look him up on wikipedia to find this;

The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer." Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on hosts in Catholic Holy Communion are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus's name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ).

Despite this, and the fact that his book, if proven true, would discredit Christian traditions as a whole, since the concepts that it attacks in Roman Catholicism are shared by some Protestants, this book was, and still remains in some circles, a staple of anti-Catholic polemic.

Us Catholics are not saps that fall about following the words of popes above God's words. Catholic Nuns hand out condoms in Africa! But we accept that Jesus has placed authority in the Church, and even though that authority does not superceed our conscience or scripture, its right that we accept that authority as a source of unity in the Church. You reject the Church laid down by Jesus, and your reasons for doing so are all either winging, or based on absolute pseudo-historical nonsense.

And then you have the audacity to say;

I say in love, that you fail at least to read a work like this, once alerted about it, at your etrenal peril.

All I've been alerted to is that you accept any old nonsense that supports your agenda, have so little regard for truth that you don't do even the slightest bit of objective analysis of your sources, and still somehow thing you are talking on behalf of the way, the truth and the life. You are a flim flam man Mr Smith.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Quite long, but the text of the original letter maybe of interest.

NICHOLAS, by the Divine mercy, of the Holy Roman Church by the title of St. Pudentiana Cardinal Priest, Archbishop of Westminster, and Administrator Apostolic of the Diocese of Southwark :

To our dearly beloved in Christ, the Clergy secular and regular, and the Faithful of the said Archdiocese and Diocese :

Health and benediction in the Lord!
If this day we greet you under a new title, it is not, dearly beloved, with an altered affection. If in words we seem to divide those who till now have formed, under our rule, a single flock, our heart is as undivided as ever in your regard. For now truly do we feel closely bound to you by new and stronger ties of charity; now do we embrace you in our Lord Jesus Christ with more tender emotions of paternal love; now doth our soul yearn, and our mouth is open to you, though words must fail to express what we feel on being once again permitted to address you. For if our parting was in sorrow, and we durst not hope that we should again face to face behold you, our beloved flock, so much the greater is now our consolation and our joy, when we find ourselves not so much permitted as commissioned to return to you by the supreme ruler of the Church of Christ.

But how can we for one moment indulge in selfish feelings, when, through that loving Father's generous and wise counsels, the greatest of blessings has just been bestowed upon our country, by the restoration of its true Catholic hierarchical government, in communion with the see of Peter ?

For on the twenty-ninth day of last month, on the Feast of the Archangel Saint Michael, prince of the heavenly host, his Holiness Pope Pius IX was graciously pleased to issue his Letters Apostolic, under the Fisherman's Ring, conceived in terms of great weight and dignity, wherein he substituted for the eight Apostolic Vicariates heretofore existing, one archiepiscopal or metropolitan and twelve episcopal sees; repealing at the same time, and annulling, all dispositions and enactments made for England by the Holy See with reference to its late form of ecclesiastical government.

And by a brief dated the same day his Holiness was further pleased to appoint us, though most unworthy, to the archiepiscopal see of Westminster, established by the above mentioned Letters Apostolic, giving us at the same time the administration of the episcopal see of Southwark. So that at present, and till such time as the Holy See shall think fit otherwise to provide, we govern, and shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford, and Essex as ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Berkshire, and Hampshire, with the islands annexed, as administrator with ordinary jurisdiction.

Further, we have to announce to you, dearly beloved in Christ, that, as if still further to add solemnity and honour before the Church to this noble act of Apostolic authority, and to give an additional mark of paternal benevolence towards the Catholics of England, his Holiness was pleased to raise us, in the private consistory of Monday, the 30th of September, to the rank of Cardinal Priest of the Holy Roman Church. And on the Thursday next ensuing, being the third day of this month of October, in public consistory, he delivered to us the insignia of this dignity, the cardinalitial hat; assigning us afterwards for our title in the private consistory which we attended, the Church of St. Pudentiana, in which St. Peter is groundedly believed to have enjoyed the hospitality of the noble and partly British family of the Senator Pudens.

In that same consistory we were enabled ourselves to ask for the archiepiscopal Pallium for our new see of Westminster; and this day we have been invested, by the hands of the Supreme Pastor and Pontiff himself, with this badge of metropolitan jurisdiction.

The great work, then, is complete; what you have long desired and prayed for is granted. Your beloved country has received a place among the fair Churches, which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of Catholic Communion; Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigour. How wonderfully all this has been brought about, how clearly the hand of God has been shown in every step, we have not now leisure to relate, but we may hope soon to recount to you by word of mouth. In the meantime we will content ourselves with assuring you, that, if' the concordant voice of those venerable and most eminent counsellors to whom the Holy See commits the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in missionary countries, of the overruling of every variety of interests and designs, to the rendering of this measure almost necessary; if the earnest prayers of our holy Pontiff and his most sacred obligation of the divine sacrifice, added to his own deep and earnest reflection, can form to the Catholic heart an earnest of heavenly direction, an assurance that the Spirit of truth, who guides the Church, has here inspired its Supreme Head, we cannot desire stronger or more consoling evidence that this most important measure is from God, has His sanction and blessing, and will consequently prosper.

Then truly is this day to us a day of joy and exaltation of spirit, the crowning day of long hopes, and the opening day of bright prospects. How must the Saints of our country, whether Roman or British, Saxon or Norman, look down from their seats of bliss, with beaming glance, upon this new evidence of the faith and Church which led them to glory, sympathising with those who have faithfully adhered to them through centuries of ill-repute for the truth's sake, and now reap the fruit of their patience and long-suffering. And all those blessed martyrs of these latter ages, who have fought the battles of the faith under such discouragement, who mourned, more than over their own fetters or their own pain, over the desolate ways of their own Sion, and the departure of England's religious glory; oh! how must they bless God, who hath again visited his people,—how take part in our joys, as they see the lamp of the temple again rekindled and rebrightening, as they behold the silver links of that chain, which has connected their country with the see of Peter in its vicarial government, changed into burnished gold; not stronger nor more closely knit, but more beautifully wrought and more brightly arrayed.

And in nothing will it be fairer or brighter than in this, that the glow of more fervent love will be upon it. Whatever our sincere attachment and unflinching devotion to the Holy See till now, there is a new ingredient cast into these feelings; a warmer gratitude, a tenderer affection, a profounder admiration, a boundless and endless sense of obligation, for so new, so great, so sublime a gift, will be added to past sentiments of loyalty and fidelity to the supreme see of Peter. Our venerable Pontiff has shown himself a true shepherd, a true father; and we cannot but express our gratitude to him in our most fervent language, in the language of prayer. For when we raise our voices, as is meet, in loud and fervent thanksgiving to the Almighty, for the precious gifts bestowed upon our portion of Christ's vineyard, we will also implore every choice blessing on him who has been so signally the divine instrument in procuring it. We will pray that his rule over the Church may be prolonged to many years, for its welfare; that health and strength may be preserved to him for the discharge of his arduous duties; that light and grace may be granted to him proportioned to the sublimity of his office; and that consolations, temporal and spiritual, may be poured out upon him abundantly, in compensation for past sorrows and past ingratitude. And of these consolations may one of the most sweet to his paternal heart be the propagation of holy religion in our country, the advancement of his spiritual children there in true piety and devotion, and our ever-increasing affection and attachment to the see of St. Peter.

In order, therefore, that our thanksgiving be made with all becoming solemnity, we hereby enjoin as follows:—
1. This our Pastoral Letter shall be publicly read in all the
churches and chapels of the archdiocese of Westminster and the
diocese of Southwark on the Sunday after its being received.
2. On the following Sunday there shall be in every such Church
or chapel a solemn Benediction of the blessed Sacrament, at which
shall be sung the Te Deum, with the usual versicles and prayers,
with the prayer also Deus omnium Fidelium Pastor et Rector for the
Pope.
3. The collect, Pro Gratiarum Actione, or thanksgiving, and that
for the Pope, shall be recited in the Mass of that day, and for two
days following.
4 Where Benediction is never given, the Te Deum, with its prayers, shall be recited or sung after Mass, and the collects above-named shall be added as enjoined.

And at the same time, earnestly entreating for ourselves also a place in your fervent prayers, we lovingly implore for you, and bestow on you, the blessing of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

Given out of the Flaminian Gate of Rome,, this seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord MDCCCL.
NICHOLAS,
Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. By command of his Eminence, FRANCIS SEARLE, Secretary.

[Martin]

"Emptying pews require Catholics to be imported from Poland"

I can assure you that every Catholic church I have ever been to has been full, even in areas where there are no pews. Catholicism has been the largest denomination in the UK for years, certainly long before the Polish influx began. The pews are far from emptying, and welcome as the Poles are, they are not the only people filling them.

[Martin]

"even in areas where there are no pews"

Duh, you can tell I posted that late at night, can't you? Should've been even in areas where there are no POLES!