Rowan's bishop friend condemns Pope 'bad manners'

A friend and former chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the Pope's 'ecumenical bad manners' and accused him of fomenting division. In a debate on BBC Radio Wales to be broadcast tomorrow morning, on the All Things Considered programme, the Bishop of St Asaph Gregory Cameron challenges the Pope's move to welcome disaffected Anglican Catholics. It's 'not the way we do things,' he says, focusing in particular on the failure to consult with the leadership of the Anglican Communion. The transcript of some of Father Gregory's comments is below, along with the response of Mgr Andrew Faley of the Bishops' Conference.  Vatican Radio today has issued a clarification on some of the speculation around the delay of the written Apostolic Constitution with a statement that suggests a slight shift on the traditional Roman insistence celibate seminarians.

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams have warned me that the Archbishop does not like it much when journalists play the Gregory-Cameron-friendship card, but the fact remains that Father Gregory, a truly dear and saintly priest in the old Welsh tradition who was recently consecrated, is a close former colleague of the Archbishop's and was his chaplain for years in Wales.

Dr Williams has been commendably silent so far on his response to the Apostolic Constitution. Perhaps he is just afraid of what he might say if he starts talking about it. I think we can safely assume that his and Father Gregory's views transept.

Further, Father Gregory told me this afternoon,  'The trouble is that certain departments in the Curia seem to think that being the office of "the Vicar of Christ" allows them to behave without reference to anyone else, and that we're grateful for the crumbs that fall from the table. I long for good ecumenical relations with Rome, but the respect needs to be mutual. Most of the Roman Catholics I know are just embarrassed.'

EXTRACTS FROM THE BBC RADIO WALES PROGRAMME “ALL THINGS CONSIDERED” BROADCAST ON SUNDAY, 01 NOVEMBER 2009 at 08.30 hrs.

Presenter - Roy Jenkins:

Bishop Gregory, your reaction to this whole controversy?

Bishop Gregory Cameron: 'I think I have two concerns really. It seems to me that what we’ve got here is basically a case of ecumenical bad manners. The decision by the Pope, I think, has taken a lot of people by surprise. There was no consultation whatsoever with the leadership of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury was given 24 hours notice of the announcement and I would have hoped that that was not the way we do things.

'More significantly, I think there is a sort of unwritten convention between the Christian world communions – the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Catholics, the Orthodox – that they should try and keep unity as far as possible in each others Christian world communions.

'And what we’ve seen, I think, in the case of the Pope in this last couple of weeks is a move which flies in the face of that, which says actually I’m happy to see division and I’m happy to invite Anglicans to join us. So quite worrying.'

Roy Jenkins: 'Mgr Andrew Faley, you have particular responsibility for ecumenism in the Catholic Church, this is 'ecumenical bad manners' – unanswerable really, I suppose?'

Mgr Andrew Faley: 'Well, I think there is an answer to it and I can understand why Bishop Gregory should say what he has said. However, I can’t really believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury, over the past several years, has not been aware of the disaffection and the unease of several groups of Anglicans within the Anglican Communion concerning particular issues within that Church which have caused them to be increasingly nervous about what it means to be in unity with that church.

'Now, the Pope is not an ill-mannered man, as far as I’m aware, it’s not so much about ecumenical bad manners as the Pope’s concern for the unity of the church.

'As Bishop Christopher Hill said in the joint press conference announcing this particular initiative between – or sorry, not initiative, response – between himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury and also Archbishop Nichols of Westminster, and Archbishop McDonald of Southwark, were present, the four of them - he said, look the last thing we want is more churches.

'This move of the Pope is directly concerned with the unity of the church. That it’s not so much about wanting just to stand back, therefore, and see the Anglican Communion disintegrate into more and more churches. That’s exactly what Gregory doesn’t want. That’s exactly what I don’t want.'

Later in the programme Roy Jenkins read a quote from one Anglican Catholic in Wales who is on record questioning the loyalty of the Anglican Communion to some of its members.

Bishop Gregory Cameron responded: 'Well, I can understand reactions like that. The Anglican Communion is in a great time of change, a great time of tension. What the Church in Wales has said to people like Mark, (a Church in Wales priest and a guest on the programme) and of his convictions is that there will always be a continuing place for them in the Church in Wales, and even this last couple of weeks the Bishops have been trying to reaffirm that in what they’re saying and doing – not extending to the appointment of a special bishop – but in every other way seeking to be fair.

'But I suppose there comes a point when if a person feels they can’t give their loyalty any longer to their own tradition then it’s probably better that they’re able to find a home elsewhere. And, in spite of what I was saying earlier, I think perhaps a good thing is that at least the Pope is probably giving them a home to be able to go to.'

Incidentally, it is Hallowe'en. I am not superstitious by nature, but do feel blessed, even perhaps a little lucky, that our cat has chosen today to give birth to seven beautiful kittens. Follow her progress on Twitter.

Comments

[cp36]

To Lewis Winders ,

>>Done that, but it will not make me or anyone else "find out whether...[either]...is true". And as Popper would contend, the "Scientific Method" cannot prove anything.

Right, the Scientific Method doesn't prove anything. The acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis is based on the probability of test.

As for religious books, if you find that you can understand it, the chances are it is the product of only the human mind. Jesus spoke in parables so that the Jews won't understand him. His messages to the Seven Churches is, "Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." It is not the written words of the Bible but what the Spirit says that makes it the word of God. The fact is, Christians have argued among themselves so much, for the last 2000 years and don't agree on many things shows the Bible is very difficult. You have about 30,000 denominations now. We can debate about the Christian faith till the moon drops from the sky. Go and try it with people of other religions. What are they actually saying?

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

CP36: "So if you want to find out whether the Qu'ran or the Bible is true go and read both of them, gather your data, formulate your hypothesis and find the support in terms of probability to accept or reject your hypothesis. All this is part of the Scientific Method."

Done that, but it will not make me or anyone else "find out whether...[either]...is true". And as Popper would contend, the "Scientific Method" cannot prove anything.

"As for myself, I have rejected all religions long before I became a Christian. All the religions contradict each other and logical reasoning will tell you that none of them is right."

Can't argue too much with that. My path to atheism did not involve so much a rejection of religions (or a rejection of a Christian-style god) as a lack of the need to consider them in the first place. Interesting how our two similar attitudes brought about two such disparate conclusions, eh?

[cp36]

To Leiws Winders,

>>...and on a slightly more serious note, CP36, even if there is an afterlife, that in no way proves or even indicates that either the Bible or the Qur'an is right.

Contrary to what the majority think your life is governed by the Laws of Probability whether you like it or not. You have no way of knowing what lies beyond the grave with 100% certainty until you die. If you are willing to take the chance and wait to find out, it is your choice.

The so-called "proving" from most of the contributors here doesn't go beyond secondary school Science. In school you are taught to do experiments in the lab and prove something. But real life is a lot more complicated than what can be designed in a lab. You don't prove a Hypothesis. You only accept or reject a Hypothesis based on the probability of a Statistic. A Statistic is a function f(x), of Random Variables (X). The Statistic itself has a distribution and so you can never be 100% certain. This applies to all problems for which you cannot get all the information. There is no way for you to get all the information about God.

So if you want to find out whether the Qu'ran or the Bible is true go and read both of them, gather your data, formulate your hypothesis and find the support in terms of probability to accept or reject your hypothesis. All this is part of the Scientific Method.

As for myself, I have rejected all religions long before I became a Christian. All the religions contradict each other and logical reasoning will tell you that none of them is right.

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

...and on a slightly more serious note, CP36, even if there is an afterlife, that in no way proves or even indicates that either the Bible or the Qur'an is right.

[Lewis Winders]

CP36: "Do let me know if you know of a method to be 100% sure this life is all there is. I am interested."

No problem, CP36: I'll let you know a couple of minutes after I die.

Or not, as the case may be.

[u moustafa]

Lewis Winders said...
St Ruth, how much crawling do I have to do to secure a nice, peaceful photograph like Ummu's as my 'icon'?

(rg writes: i am not sure, have been meditating on that v question myself.I think possibly u have to register as a user with typepad

Yes, I registered with Typepad and uploaded my own picture....I was expecting to see everyone else with similar pictures, but I was the only one.
However, they've all disappeared now, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[cp36]

>>And maybe, just maybe, neither is...

Smart people always ask, "What if ..." and they think in terms of Probability based on available Evidence. Your position is okay if you can find a method to be absolutely sure there is nothing after death. Do let me know if you know of a method to be 100% sure this life is all there is. I am interested.

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

CP36: "The Bible and the Quran completely contradict each other on many things. Both cannot be right."

And maybe, just maybe, neither is...

[cp36]

We sent a Messenger to every nation ordering them that they should worship Allah Alone, obey Him and make their worship purely for Him, an that they should avoid everything worshipped except Allah.” [Al Quran Chapter an-Nahl (16): 36]

Ah, but the Bible says, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Heb 1:1-3, ESV.

Jesus Christ is not just a prophet but the eternal Son of God. There is no further revelation after Jesus Christ from the God of the Hebrews. The Bible and the Quran completely contradict each other on many things. Both cannot be right.

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

St Ruth, how much crawling do I have to do to secure a nice, peaceful photograph like Ummu's as my 'icon'?

(rg writes: i am not sure, have been meditating on that v question myself.I think possibly u have to register as a user with typepad.)

[Lewis Winders]

Many thanks to those who have taken the trouble to respond to my questions about the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. My difficulty with both is just as much with the *need* for that aspect as with the nature of it.

Despite your best efforts I regret than I remain unconvinced, if not confused, especially in the case of the Trinity. So rather than prevail upon your good offices any further, I'll close with an anecdote which I believe is attributable to Horace Lamb, although other scientists have made similar statements. Lamb said something along the lines of "When I die I wish to meet God so that I may ask him about Quantum Mechanics and Turbulence. I have some hope that He will be able to assist me with Quantum Mechanics."

My regards and, again, my thanks.

[u moustafa]

'Millions of humans have lived and raised their children for tens of thousands of years before Jesus and Mohammed.Did they all go to hell ,being sinners or,as they were not aware of "the true faith" go up to heaven.The modern religious mindset is indeed simple circular thinking.; Iain Rae

The word ISLAM means....to submit one's will, to God, and a MUSLIM is simply someone who does this.

Thus all the prophets sent by God, right through from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus...peace be upon them...were in fact Muslims, and the one God to whom Muslims pray is the same one God worshipped by Jesus, Moses, David, Abraham, Noah, Adam and all the Prophets...peace be upon them all.....all of whom delivered the same message to their people...that there is only one God and it is He alone who should be worshipped.

It says in the Qur'an

“We sent a Messenger to every nation ordering them that they should worship Allah Alone, obey Him and make their worship purely for Him, an that they should avoid everything worshipped except Allah.” [Al Quran Chapter an-Nahl (16): 36]

Some of these messangers have been mentioned in the Qur'an, but not all

And to anyone who didn't receive the message, Allah says, justly,

'And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [al-Israa’ 17:15].

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"Thank you, Mr Aluise, for falling into the trap! Virtually every other Christian poster on this blog, with the exception of the Catholic ones, of course, vehemently contradicts such a notion that Pope Benedict is a lineal successor of St Peter."

I didn't know it was a trap, but it's not a very good one. Even secular historians acknowledge the apostolic lineage of St. Peter to Rome, and the same acknowledge his martyrdom in Rome within a short period of time of the martyrdom of St. Paul in the same city. No reputable historians of either religious or secular background dispute these facts.

By the way, Geoffrey, the same could be said of the apostolic lineage of the bishop in Syria!

Always interesting and fun, Geoffrey. Thanks!

Richard

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (17/11/09 - 11:43 a.m.). It seems that Ruth has introduced a new "system" for comments !. Hope this works...Thanks for the "info" on Prof. Maddens's lectures, and I will see how I can manage to obtain these from the site you mentioned. I do agree with you about the "difficulties" in reading paper-backs with small print (just as common in English as it is in French and Spanish), but they have the advantage in terms of price, ease of handling and transporting on air flights, and "fitting in" to already overladen bookshelves. Following constant use, the more important ones can be bound before they finally degenerate into "tatters". However tiring it may be to the eyes, small print (including that used for even smaller "foot notes") should always be read completely, as that means one can get the fullest message possible from the text itself. Otherwise, some "important information" could me missed.

Happy reading to you, as much of the texts and in the print of your own personal preference !!!.

My kindest regards, as always.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Lewis Winders]

Delilah, I have used a fair chunk of your "Sorry to butt in.." post on the "Only the gospel is true..." thread. You might want to make sure that I have interpreted you correctly.

[cp36]

To PererB,

>>It looks like they'll be reforming back then.

No, it looks more like they are loosing their rich historical heritage and loosing their identity as well. On the other hand the RCC seems to be moving slowly towards the truths of God. It is like two huge elephants trying to move. Will probably take a long time but the trend seems to be there.

Smart people like me will definitely keep away from elephants. I don't want to be trampled to death.

Cheers

[cp36]

>>"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)

One God in the mathematical sense of one cannot be a God of Love. The Bible says God is Love. Love can only exist and be shared when there is more than one Person and so God must be the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as the Bible has revealed to us. A god who is alone can be cruel and make unreasonable demands form his followers. Such a god cannot be trusted. He will be a dictator. The kind of revelation which is in the Bible cannot be formulated by the mind of man. If God can be explained by the human mind then he won't be God. The Hebrew word Elohim for God right from the beginning is in the plural. To know Jesus Christ is to know the only true God because Christ himself said so. In fact to know Christ is a good as knowing God the Father. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews. Anyone who is interested can read St John's Gospel to find out more.

As for working out righteousness, I don't believe there is a single person on earth who can meet God's demand of his Laws. We all have a high capacity to deceive ourselves.

Cheers

[delilah]

Sorry to butt in, but:

“God (or God the Father, if you prefer) wants everybody to act in a certain way, distilled by Jesus into "Love God and love your fellow humans as yourselves". So if we act according to God's dictates, as explained by Christ, what does it matter whether or not Christ was divine, as long as he was right?” Lewis

I just wanted to point out that according to the Gospels Jesus actually distilled it into "Love one another as I have loved you" and that even the pagans followed the Golden Rule, Jesus required more. The gospels portray Jesus' love as divine, quite different to natural human love; and involving unlimited forgiveness and an almost total denial of one's ego and instinct of self-preservation. The disciples were understandably dubious about being able to meet this standard, and Jesus' response to that was, basically, of course you can't, that's why I'm here. Without Christ, no-one can meet that standard. With Christ, that- and all other things - are possible. The rest is in the Acts of the Apostles.

[iain rae]

Millions of humans have lived and raised their children for tens of thousands of years before Jesus and Mohammed.Did they all go to hell ,being sinners or,as they were not aware of "the true faith" go up to heaven.The modern religious mindset is indeed simple circular thinking.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Perhaps I should add, Andrew, that Professor Madden's lectures on the papacy are available as a download from www.audible.co.uk, from where I have transferred them to my MP3 player for easy listening. The quality of the recording is excellent. I am also listening to his lectures on the reformations of the 16th and 17th centuries, another most interesting series.
The price of one series, 8-9 hours long, is about £7.50, a bargain in my view.
I have a bias against Penguin publications, having a dislike for the small print they are obliged to use to cram all the information into an economically-sized book.
But then I never have liked to read the small print of anything!

Best wishes,

Geoffrey

[u moustafa]

"AndIf mankind cannot explain The Trinity, how did we become aware of its existence? And, more to the point, how do we know our understanding of it is the correct one?' Lewis Winders

Here are some explanations of that from the Qur'an.

' they say: the Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a Son. Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall to ruins, that ye ascribe to the Beneficent a son, when it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should chose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave. ' (Qur’an 19:88-93)

'And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming what was before him, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light, confirming that which was before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition to those who are careful.”(5:46) “...Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel! See! I am the messenger of God to you, confirming what was before me in the Torah, and bringing good news of a messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One).” (61:6)

'And when God says: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God? he says: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You know it. You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your mind. You, only You, are the Knower of Things Hidden. I spoke to them only what You commanded me, (saying): Worship God, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I lived among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (they are Your slaves). You, only You are the Mighty, the Wise.' (5:116-118)

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)

[cp36]

>>f mankind cannot explain The Trinity, how did we become aware of its existence?

The idea of the Trinity developed after the Apostles as people realise there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament writings. The problem is how do you fit One God into the three Persons or three Persons into One God. Actually you don't have to because the original Apostles didn't try to do that. For them it was One God, One Lord and One Spirit. The problem is people take the the "one" as a mathematical "one". I don't think it is.

Neither the Apostle's Creed nor the Nicene Creed tries to fit One God into the Three Persons. It just says there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and we believe in them.

Cheers

[PererB]

CP36
"Ha ha! Anglicans are actually reformed Catholics."
.

It looks like they'll be reforming back then.
.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (16/11/09 - 12:13:34). It is good that we should have cleared up our recent "worries". You are fortunate indeed in being able to follow Prof. Madden's lectures on "The History of the Papacy". Regrettably, the only "Lectures" we get out here on the radio and TV, on a day in and day out basis, are not of a very high "intellectual calibre", and certainly bear little relationship to "things theological". I think we can also probably both dismiss some of the recent "claims" which you mentioned for what they really are !.

I find "The Pelican History of the Church" series to be a very useful "standard source" on the subject. The 6 volumes which I possess, ranging from "The Early Church" to "A history of Christian Missions", have each been written by a recognised specialist in the subject area, and all are equally informative and well-balanced (i.e. "non-partisan") in their coverage and presentation, with a good bibliography to obtain "further details". I can recommend that series you for "serious consideration".

My kindest personal regards, as always.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"As to the use of the Tower of London as a "House of Correction" (I think that is a piece of American PC parlance) during the times of the Tudors and the Stuarts, please don't forget that its hospitality and other services were extended to Lady Jane Grey and others during Mary I's (Tudor) brief reign, and the "threat" was made known during Jimmie II's (Stuart) reign. Both of these monarchs were of "your own persuasion", so you mustn't blame Good Queen Bess for everything....."

- Andrew, Venezuela, 15 Nov 2009, 19:48

I think my argument still stands, Andrew. There were no 'anti-ABCs' throughout this period, such an aspiration being firmly suppressed by the monarchs concerned, using the means available to them.
On the subject of anti-popes, it's interesting to note how many there were, apparently at least one every few months or so. Shows you how attractive the office of the papacy was in those days, and still is, judging by the self-appointed pontiffs there are in the US. You've heard about Pope Pius XIII, I take it?
Not to worry, my friend, there always was a genuine Pope and everyone knew who that was.
I've been listening to a series of lectures on "The History of the Papacy" by Thomas F Madden, Professor of History at St Louis University. His discussion of the anti-popes, particularly during the 14th century, is very informative and one which, I am sure, will cause many people to revise their strange ideas about the succession of the popes from St Peter.

Best wishes,

Geoffrey

[T C]

“God (or God the Father, if you prefer) wants everybody to act in a certain way, distilled by Jesus into "Love God and love your fellow humans as yourselves". So if we act according to God's dictates, as explained by Christ, what does it matter whether or not Christ was divine, as long as he was right?” Lewis

Your question is as simple as it appears, and it is very complex.

“God (or God the Father, if you prefer) wants everybody to act in a certain way,”

To act in a certain way is not the Christian value, and what someone wants is not the issue!

Do we see what works for life, our life and that of others; this is the issue, and the teaching!

First, he was not right if he was not divine, as that is his claim, again read the New Testament, and I have no wish to argue beyond that, if people do not see it then so…

“to act in a certain way”

This sounds like a rebellion to personal instruction from others, love is not about enforcement.

Lewis, I would like to give you my attempt at an answer.

First off, this is a mystery on its foundational structure level.

Something went wrong after the creation of humankind, for death was not part of the plan, and we were intended to live without end, don’t ask me about time and space for endless lives, things would be different.

Now I think that the creator knew that something could go wrong, yet it was not intentional on Gods part.

See Old Testament, Genesis.

Read up to the point where God used the word enmity, and then read several paragraphs beyond.

Light and darkness do not mix here for they remain separate; Satan is in the form of the serpent leading the hearts of people astray. God as redeemer in human form, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, is a direct visit to those that would be eternally left astray if only influenced by darkness.

The serpent was face to face with Adam and Eve, and so to must God be as an answer to our help.

In the Old Testament the promise of help is immediate, the arrival of Christ comes later and that is the course of events, why the delay and what does it mean?
I don’t know, and time is tricky, no clear answers with time from our standpoint, even scientifically

This is not some message from afar, for this is God becoming human, which is more encouraging than some distant voice, for this is someone touching and healing in the trenches.

Those that need surgery need a surgeon to show up at dome point, and at that point of the fall in the garden the serpent was already there and has continued with such wounds caused by he, having somehow been promoted by the people’s actions, the miss- actions of spirit that God had warned against (free will) is involved here.

So God did not just send a message, God sent himself in human form to bring light and encouragement to oppose the darkness, this meant even God would have to die as a human, and did so at the hands of the darkness that can still be seen and chosen today.

As far as the time element of before and after, well I don’t know how to explain time one day to the next, I think it must be experiential on an individual state, and it’s not a God problem.

Perhaps time heals all wounds in this case; certainly, life remains a mystery for us in many ways.

Yet so can the light be chosen, we can follow the words and the example given by Christ, or we may slip into so many forms of darkness.

Why he had to die at the hands of others?

Probably part of the direct point taken to show how light could overcome the darkness, by his resurrection and return to heaven and where we may also follow, God taught with his voice and fought for light with his own loving actions.

Beyond that, the mystery of the spiritual realities is beyond my comprehension, yet we can see much of this struggle between the darkness and the light in our world, and I think we will be better to pay attention.

To answer your question more directly and in summary, if one lives by love and justice then what else do they need to know.

Christ said he came to save sinners, those that love do not need saving for they are already loving!

Peace!

[Richard Aluise]

Lewis

"If mankind cannot explain The Trinity, how did we become aware of its existence? And, more to the point, how do we know our understanding of it is the correct one?"

I hope I am not intruding on your discussion. As usual, Lewis, you strike right to the heart of the matter with your insightful questions.

To answer your question, I can only say that, for a Christian, it would boil down to a simple question of faith in the bearer of the message. One cannot know the inner workings of God by reason. It is impossible. The only way a Christian knows of the Trinity is by its revelation to us by the words of Christ himself. The question for a Christian then becomes, why would we believe his words over those of anyone else? Our answer is that we believe he rose from the dead to prove his teachings, and that we all await that same resurrection.

So, ultimately Lewis, it is purely a matter of faith, without intellect or reason being able to arrive at the notion of a "Trinity."

If there is no resurrection, then we as Christians really are "believing in fairy tales", as one of those posting here has noted in the past.

So, we believe in the Trinity because we have faith without proof, but not without reasons.

Once again, I have probably muddied the water and invited the attacks of some!

Always good to read your posts, Lewis.

Richard

[cp36]

To Lewis Winders,

>>What does it mean? Does it mean there was no redemption before Christ?

No, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the Old Testaments saints are in heaven. There is a list of some of them in Hebrews chapter 11. Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness and so it was for everyone else who who believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They had a real lamb for a sin offering then. Now it is Christ, who is the Lamb of God, offered once and for all for your sins.

>>We still have sin (apparently from the moment of conception, if certain denominations can be believed), and we still have to repent, and we we still have to receive God's forgiveness before entering the kingdom of Heaven, so what was the point of Christ's self-sacrifice?

Okay, I agree with you that there is a terrible confusion on how to be saved among the modern Protestants. What they are saying is Christ died for our sins but you still have to do this and that to maintain your salvation after you have believed in Christ. I think they are wrong. The best way to solve this problem is to read slowly and carefully St Paul's writings to the Romans from beginning to the end. It is not easy to understand Paul but definitely worth persevering.

Personally, I think the modern Protestants have made Christian living as a condition for salvation. I think salvation is unconditional and is a free gift of God. Christians living is a result of salvation and not a condition for it. Christ died for our sins means I will not be judged for my sins. According to Paul I am dead with Christ. The Law has no jurisdiction over a dead person. Without the Law there is no sin. The sting of sin is the Law. So if I am dead and buried with Christ at baptism the Law has no power to condemn me anymore. There is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ, Romans 8:1.

As Christ rose form the dead we are to walk in the newness of life, which is life in the Spirit. It is not true that we no longer sin after believing in Christ. A Christian is in a "two-state" and we are suppose to walk in the Spirit now. If we do sin, we have an Advocate with God the Father, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and all you have to do is to confess your sins and God will forgive you of all your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. Everything you do with God must be by faith for without faith it is impossible to please God.

Embedded into these basic truths the modern Protestants have added a kind of conditional salvation, which I find is a bondage. It robs you of the joy of being a Christian.

Cheers

[cp36]

To Perprb,

>>You should be a Catholic.

Ha ha! Anglicans are actually reformed Catholics.

Cheers

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective), even the current pope acknowledges that the Syrian successors are indeed from the lineage of St. Peter. Proving it is as easy as proving the lineage of the Bishop of Rome ."

- Richard Aluise, 15 Nov 2009, 17:46

Thank you, Mr Aluise, for falling into the trap! Virtually every other Christian poster on this blog, with the exception of the Catholic ones, of course, vehemently contradicts such a notion that Pope Benedict is a lineal successor of St Peter.
I hope you are well prepared to meet the barrage of objections that will now come your way!

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (15/11/09 - 11:27:17). You could not have been more correct when you said "accept" or "reject" with reference to the theory of evolution. These are terms which I always use myself when referring to evolution (e.g. in posts to Ruth's Articles of Faith which deal with the topic). I took your own original words from your post of 14/11/09 - 11:43:41 on this thread.

As to the use of the Tower of London as a "House of Correction" (I think that is a piece of American PC parlance) during the times of the Tudors and the Stuarts, please don't forget that its hospitality and other services were extended to Lady Jane Grey and others during Mary I's (Tudor) brief reign, and the "threat" was made known during Jimmie II's (Stuart) reign. Both of these monarchs were of "your own persuasion", so you mustn't blame Good Queen Bess for everything.....

It's good to have these friendly exvhanges, and I hope we shall continue "in good form".

All the very best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"Whatever pretensions he may make to being any sort of successor to St Peter, the keys of the Kingdom do not reside with him. He may claim to hold them, at least as far as Syria is concerned, but how many people recognise his claim? How many Americans would recognise your claim to be the President? Claiming it is one thing; proving it is something else."

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective), even the current pope acknowledges that the Syrian successors are indeed from the lineage of St. Peter. Proving it is as easy as proving the lineage of the Bishop of Rome.

The numbers are easy to find in various polls, Geoffrey. People in the pews, probably even sitting on both sides of you, do not accept or follow one or another of your church's teachings, and not on light matters, in many instances. I don't speak from ignorance, but rather experience, having been RC and witnessed the wide variety of belief and practice among the faithful.

Church attendance numbers are directly from those printed by the Vatican itself. In some European countries, mass attendance is less than 20% of baptized Roman Catholics. I don't bring this up as a "contest" between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It's not a game, where the one with the highest numbers wins. I simply point this out to make clear that each denomination has its "nominal" members and its "practicing" members. Even among the "practicing" members, belief and practice vary widely. My point was to make clear that the RCC is no better than Anglicanism or Orthodoxy in that regard.

I am well aware of what your church teaches about the Orthodox Church. Your link is to a story by a convert to the RCC who offers his opinion as to why the RCC is "better", and more "Catholic" than Orthodoxy. Frankly, it is filled with the same poor RC misunderstandings fostered by the RCC not only with regard to Orthodoxy, but the Anglican and Lutheran Churches as well. His opinion is nothing more than that - his opinion. In studying the ancient belief and practice of the church, I became Orthodox. My opinion is different, and my opinion is no worse or better than his. Each of us has reasons to support our belief.

As always, I enjoy the exchange!

Richard

[Lewis Winders]

CP36, if the explanation of concepts such as The Trinity can only be provided by God, we would appear to be in a supernatural revolving door.

If mankind cannot explain The Trinity, how did we become aware of its existence? And, more to the point, how do we know our understanding of it is the correct one?

[Geoffrey Smith]

Geoffrey,

1. Neither you nor anybody else is required to "believe in" or "disbelieve in" evolution. (1)

2. The "Tower of London" was in existence, in one form or another, long before the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts." (2)

- Andrew, Venezuela, 14 Nov 2009, 23:14

(1) Perhaps "accept or reject" would be a better way of putting it?

(2) Nevertheless, the existence of the Tower explains how Bessie and her successors made sure that there would be no unauthorised aspirants for the office of ABC.

[Lewis Winders]

CP36 (and anyone else), apologies if this is a duplication, but I'm having modem problems at the moment and my previous response to yours seems to have joined the choir invisible.

Leaving aside the putative miracles for a moment (but not forever), I still don't get the "Christ died for our sins" concept, even though I've been hearing it and questioning it for over fifty years.

What does it mean? Does it mean there was no redemption before Christ? If so, tough luck on the pious millions who lived, repented and died prior to his arrival.

If not that, then what? We still have sin (apparently from the moment of conception, if certain denominations can be believed), and we still have to repent, and we we still have to receive God's forgiveness before entering the kingdom of Heaven, so what was the point of Christ's self-sacrifice?

[u moustafa]

CP36 writes'Ha ha! The sun stopping for one day cannot be literal. It comes from a Hebrew Song Book. '

It also comes from the Old Testament-Joshua 10 12
And isn't the point of a miracle that the laws of physics are suspended
If you cannot take that literally then why do you take the miracles of the New Testament literally

'Do you know that the Hebrew word for God is in the plural? God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to explain this you will have to be God.'

You may be interested to know that the word ALLAH has no singular or plural and no gender. We refer to Allah as 'He' for convienience only.

Also, there were some linguists researching a universal language and they were feeding a computer Arabic words for the computer to split up into syllables.
The computer persistently refused to split up the word 'Allah'

[PererB]

CP36
"if Jesus was just a prophet we are all still in our sins. You cannot be free from sin by following the teachings of Moses or any other prophet of the Old Testament. Hence the Jews have to sacrifice a real lamb for their sins before Christ. Christ is the perfect Lamb of God who was offered once and for all upon the cross for the sins of the world. A prophet or a mere human being cannot offer himself as a sacrifice for sin. Only Jesus Christ can because he is the Son of God"
.

You should be a Catholic.
.

[cp36]

>>how the sun stopped for the Prophet Joshua

Ha ha! The sun stopping for one day cannot be literal. It comes from a Hebrew Song Book. Firstly the sun doesn't move and secondly if the sun appeared to have stopped it means the earth has stopped rotating on its axis and everything on earth will come crashing down. It will upset the whole solar system. Try jamming on the breaks of a very fast moving car. The parting of the Red Sea is a picture of baptism and deliverance. Everything in the Hebrew Bible is a picture of what was to come. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

>>Could it not have been the same with Jesus.

No, if Jesus was just a prophet we are all still in our sins. You cannot be free from sin by following the teachings of Moses or any other prophet of the Old Testament. Hence the Jews have to sacrifice a real lamb for their sins before Christ. Christ is the perfect Lamb of God who was offered once and for all upon the cross for the sins of the world. A prophet or a mere human being cannot offer himself as a sacrifice for sin. Only Jesus Christ can because he is the Son of God.

Do you know that the Hebrew word for God is in the plural? God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to explain this you will have to be God.

Cheers

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Aluise,

Replying to your post of 14 NOV 2009, 18:06,

Paragraph 1.

The Patriarch of Antioch (or should that be Damascus, seeing that the patriarchate of Antioch is now virtually non-existent, thanks to the Muslims), is not a Catholic, but a schismatic.
Whatever pretensions he may make to being any sort of successor to St Peter, the keys of the Kingdom do not reside with him. He may claim to hold them, at least as far as Syria is concerned, but how many people recognise his claim? How many Americans would recognise your claim to be the President? Claiming it is one thing; proving it is something else.

Paragraph 2.

I take it that you have been round the United States asking most of the 65,000,000 Catholics in your country whether they practised contraception? And after you finished your mammoth task, you calculated their affirmative answers (the polite ones) as being 70-80%? Who's a clever boy, then!?

Paragraph 3.

Careful now, Mr Aluise! We can all play the numbers game! Speculation is not calculation, as you well know. In fact, I think I detect a hint of envy in your post, a feeling of inferiority that the Orthodox are nowhere near as numerous as the Catholics, and you think they ought to be, considering how magnificent those Orthodox Churches are!

Paragraph 4.

IMHO, there will never be another ecumenical council, 'truly' or otherwise. There will never be a 'Vatican III'. The Internet has seen to that.

You may not believe in papal infallibility, but Catholics certainly do, and we can be relied on to insist that any converts to our Church accept it, believe it and propagate it in their dealings with non-Catholic Christians. Any hope you may entertain that one day 'Rome' will drop this doctrine, or water down the faith in some way to accommodate heretics like yourself, can be ditched. Take my word for it, Mr Aluise, it aint gonna happen, and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

If you would like to know what the current attitude is in the Catholic Church towards the Orthodox, you could not do better than study the following essay:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey: A pair of very quick comments to "clear the air" re a couple of suggestions you have made on this thread.

1. Neither you nor anybody else is required to "believe in" or "disbelieve in" evolution. It is no more a religious issue than is acceptance of gravity, all on a basis of the palpable evidence available.

2. The "Tower of London" was in existence, in one form or another, long before the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts. As much prior to as following on from those reigns, it had/has been used as a "5-star hotel" or less for a number on non-fee paying "invited guests", and not only for reasons of "religious differences of opinion", but for others as well.

Hope these non partisan comments serve their intended purpose of jogging your memory.

All the very best to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"(1) The authority lay with the person of St Peter, not with the see that he governed. This authority was transmitted to his successors, not to the see of Rome per se . Hence, the interlude at Avignon (14th century) did not detract from, or interrupt, papal authority or succession."

Thanks again for your explanations. However, I think again you have missed the point. I wasn't referring to the "See" as having the authority, but rather the "Successor". The Patriarch of Syria traces his apostolic lineage back to St. Peter, as does Rome. The premise of "infallibility" is based upon the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the "Successor of St. Peter." The Patriarch of Syria is also the "Successor of St. Peter" who should have had the "supreme" authority given to him, that is if mocdern RC understanding of "the rock" is a correct interpretation - which, by the way, it isn't. The historical fact that the Bishops of Rome were not St. Peter's only "successors" leaves the interpretation of the RCC suspect, if not completely laughable.

Concerning my comment regarding uniformity of belief within the RCC, Geoffrey, I was referring even to the pope's pronouncements on "faith and morals." There are those in your church who do not agree with or follow the teachings of your pope in those arenas - not just topics such as evolution. In many countries, 70 to 80 percent of Roman Catholics do not accept the Church's "teaching" on contraceptives, for example, or the requirement for a celibate priesthood.

What you have, Geoffrey, is a church with 1.2 billion world wide "nominal" members. Attendance figures demonstrate that of those 1.2 billion, fewer than 40% are even in church on Sunday, or less than 480,000,000, and that number is probably very generous. The realistic number is probably even less than 30% as a worldwide average, or 360,000,000. Of that, as high as 70 to 80% don't accept basic church teachings. So, there are maybe 70,000,000 to maybe 110,000,000 in church worldwide each Sunday who even believe what your church mandates. It doesn't sound much different that other communions to me, Geoffrey, does it? The notion that there are 1.2 billion Roman Catholics following all the church's teachings is a complete fallacy. Roman Catholicism is no better than the rest of us, my friend.

Papal infallibility is also a fallacy. The church is guided by Scripture, Tradition and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church - and any other truly ecumenical councils that might take place in the future involving the entire church, not just Latin Rite bishops.

Thanks again for your response!

Richard

[u moustafa]

'How could a mere human being suspend the laws of gravity and walk on water? How do you still a storm if you are just a human being? How do you restore a withered hand? How do you call a dead man who was in the grave for four days to come out and he walks out with his grave clothes if you are just a human being? ' CP36

In the Qur'an and Hadith there are stories of how Moses...peace be upon him...parted the Red Sea and how the sun stopped for the Prophet Joshua..peace be upon him...but we don't believe these Prophets to have been anything other than human.
Rather God was working through them to perform these miracles.

Could it not have been the same with Jesus...peace be upon him.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (14/11/09 - 11:43:41). Part of your recent response to Richard has only served to increase my own "worries" as to the possible meaning, extension and validity of papal authority as that may have been exercised by the various Popes/Anti-Popes throughout history (I'm not concerned about any of the "pop up Popes" who have appeared on the scene more recently).

You wrote, textually, that: "The authority lay with the person of St. Peter, not with the See that he governed. This authority was transmitted to his successors not to the See of Rome per se. Hence, the interlude (*) at Avignon (14th. Century) did not detract from, or interrupt, papal authority or succession". (*): what a lovely way of putting it !).

Geoffrey, I have just counted up a total of 302 individuals who were Popes/Anti-Popes from the earliest times to the present day. Of that total, 259 were declared "proper Popes", and 43 of them "Anti-Popes" (the first of these latter appeared in the year 217 !). That gives us just more than 14% of the whole as "Anti-Popes".

Notwithstanding the location from which the individual may have supposedly exercised his authority, I am concerned as to the validity of that authority should it have been made by any Popes/Anti-Popes who had been excommunicated by their respective rival claimants. I really don't know how things may have been sorted out, but the problem itself is a serious impediment to those of us who have doubts as to any "papal authority" as claimed by the Successors of Peter in Rome. Indeed, if that same authority was exercised and transmitted by the legitimate successors of St. Peter, then the Patriarch of Antioch cannot be legitimately excluded from sharing in it, as Richard has already explained.

To be perfectly honest with you, Geoff, I think this "storm in a tea cup" came about originally when a few of the earlier Bishops of Rome started to practise a bit of "personal and aggressive egoism", over and beyond their rightful title of "First among Equals", or "Primacy of Honour", as bestowed upon them by the early Ecumenical Councils.

Perhaps this may help you to understand why the rest of us are so worried and perplexed by these persistent claims to exercise "Supreme Authority" etc. by the succession of Popes/Anti-Popes who have been, at one time or another, Bishops of Rome ?. I'm sorry to have to say that, in the absence of much more reliable and tangible evidence, "that bucket has got a gaping hole in it" !!.

Please try to understand our confusion Geoff, it's certainly not easy to comprehend these things from the periphery.

As always, my kindest regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[iain rae]

So Geoffrey , you neither believe or disbelieve in evolution,(although the holy father does).Why not put some effort into reading and discovering the mountain of evidence. It is not a question of ,like fairies or gods,believing in something with no evidence.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (13/11/09 - 20:54:11). Many thanks for the post which you so kindly addressed to Geoffrey and me. I can fully agree with your frequent mention of "minor conflicts" within the various Christian denominations. "Open discussion" on matters where there may be some disagreement can usually help to clarify, and even to understand, some of the respective arguments and points of view for or against a particular topic under consideration. We owe a clearer understanding of the "Orthodox approach" to these matters from your own posts on these threads.

Your comments on St. Peter and his respecti8ve successors in Antioch and in Rome, respectively, were excellent and much appreciated. I have often found myself wondering what would have happened if St. Luke or St. Matthew had been called upon to exercise the "Petrine role". Traditionally, St. Luke was a physician and St. Matthew was a tax collector (professionally speaking), so instead of having to unsnare ourselves from the knots of St. Peter's (traditional) fishing net, we mind find ourselves having to present either regular 'medical records' or regular 'tax returns' in order to justify ourselves before the corresponding CEO....think of all the paperwork involved, and the need for sufficient space to store the neatly compiled records under suitable conditions until Doomsday !!!.

Nothing can be better than a bit of harmless 'banter' to reduce tensions when important topics are under discussion here.

My very kindest regards to you and yours.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (13/11/09 - 18:24:43), Thank you for your very reasoned post.

It must not be forgotten that the appointment of the Pre-Reformation Abps. of Canterbury was usually made after consultation between the King of England and the Pope, so as to avoid - insofar as possible - any "square pegs in round holes" type of situation. It would be known nowadays as the King having given his "placet" and, indeed, the appointment itself was often made on a basis of the name of a candidate suggested by the King. The 71st. Abp. of Canterbury, John Whitgift, was consecrated in 1583, following on from the death of Reginald Pole. In that and subsequent cases thereafter, Papal approval was no longer necessary, required or sought.

To "lighten things up a bit", you might enjoy the following. Some years ago, a professional colleague of mine wrote an article on bubonic plague, also known as the "Black Death", which had reached England in about the summer of 1348. Data compiled by Pope Clement VI in 1350 indicated that there had been a death toll of approximately 31% among the population of Europe at that time. One of the contemporary illustrations in that article was a photo of a late 15th. Century window from St. Andrew's Church, in Norwich. It portrays a Bishop, duly vested with mitre, chasuble, maniple and crosier, who had just lost a game of checkers with the Devil. It was intended to indicate that nobody was immune from the "Black Death" in those times. On checking the list of Bishops of Norwich between 1344 - 1406, none of the 3 incumbents were reported as having died from the "Black Death". The Diocesan affiliation and the name of the Bishop portrayed in the window is therefore unknown. I thought this could interest you as a "snippet" of a non controversial nature !.

As I have held permanent residency status in both Colombia and Venezuela, I shall not be "participating" in any way or in any type of conflict between the two countries.

My very kindest regards to you, as always.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Most Roman Catholics are completely unaware that Rome was not St. Peter's first See." (1)

"The Pope speaks, and everyone accepts and follows it perfectly, from each and every bishop to the lowliest lay person!" (2)

- Richard Aluise, 13 Nov 2009, 20:54

(1) The authority lay with the person of St Peter, not with the see that he governed. This authority was transmitted to his successors, not to the see of Rome per se . Hence, the interlude at Avignon (14th century) did not detract from, or interrupt, papal authority or succession.
It may happen that, at some point in the future, the Holy See will be transferred to another city somewhere in the world, but the authority of the Pope will go with him, it will not remain at Rome.

(2) Dreaming again, Mr Aluise!
I believe the Pope, or some people in the Curia, recently expressed a belief in evolution, commenting that it did not contradict Christian doctrine. For my part, I neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution, and the Pope's affirmation of the theory has no effect on me personally. His opinion is not mine, because, since it has nothing to do with the faith or morals of the faithful, we are quite at liberty to accept or reject the Holy Father's position on this matter.
On matters of faith, however, the authority of St Peter is vested in him, together with the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and hence his infallibility in declaring the Christian faith as the supreme head of the Church and acting ex cathedra .

[cp36]

>>So if we act according to God's dictates, as explained by Christ, what does it matter whether or not Christ was divine, as long as he was right?

I think not. If "God's dictates" as explained by Christ are all there is to it, Moses will be good enough. Christ need not come and die on the cross for the sins of the world. Don't forget that Christ could have easily called God his Father to send a legion of angels and save him from the cross if he had wanted to. But he didn't. It was necessary that he died for the sins of the world. Moses couldn't do it because he was just a human being. No human being can die for the sins of the world.

Can you really love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as your self? I don't believe you can. If Christ is not divine then he cannot save people form their sins. His death on the cross will be no more than a common criminal's death. All we will have is just another religion if Jesus Christ is not the divine Son of God. Hence his divinity is of supreme importance.

Something for you to think about if you believe the Gospel narratives. How do use five loaves and two fishes to feed five thousand people and have twelve baskets of left-overs after that? How could a mere human being suspend the laws of gravity and walk on water? How do you still a storm if you are just a human being? How do you restore a withered hand? How do you call a dead man who was in the grave for four days to come out and he walks out with his grave clothes if you are just a human being?

Cheers

[Lewis Winders]

CP36: "..[Christ's putative divinity] is an extremely difficult subject but it is of supreme importance because what people believe about Jesus Christ will determine the eternal destiny. You have to use your brains and think. Christianity is a very complex faith."

Well said. But does the possibility of our having misconstrued Christ's divinity really represent such a problem for our "eternal destiny"? To my simplistic brain, the situation is as follows.

God (or God the Father, if you prefer) wants everybody to act in a certain way, distilled by Jesus into "Love God and love your fellow humans as yourselves". So if we act according to God's dictates, as explained by Christ, what does it matter whether or not Christ was divine, as long as he was right?

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey and Andrew

Thank you for your posts. Your discussion of anti-popes and rival claimants is certainly appropriate to the discussion Andrew, and I appreciate it.

I think, Geoffrey, you have missed my point. I am merely pointing out that St. Peter did indeed found two of the five major Patriarchates, throwing a bit of a "wrench" into the notion of the Bishop of Rome being the only Successor of St. Peter, and therefore infallible. Most Roman Catholics are completely unaware that Rome was not St. Peter's first See. Was this perhaps by God's providence in order better to point out to future generations the, as Andrew says, "fantastic and spurious claims" of the See of Rome?

Also, if you will review my posts, I don't believe I've ever stated that Orthodoxy had no problems. In fact, I've noted quite the opposite numerous times. Each communion has its issues. I'm sure I can speak for Andrew when I say that we both marvel at the uniformity of belief within Roman Catholicism! The Pope speaks, and everyone accepts and follows it perfectly, from each and every bishop to the lowliest lay person!

I look forward to posts from both of you in the near future.

Richard

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Throughout its own history, the "Ecclesia Anglicana" has had a total of 104 Abps. of Canterbury following on in succession from St. Augustine of same in about 597."

- Andrew, Venezuela, 12 Nov 2009, 22:29

All Archbishops of Canterbury, beginning with St Augustine, were appointed by the Pope, until the death of Cardinal Pole in 1558, when the succession stopped by order of Queen Elizabeth I, reinstating the diktat of her father. There have been a number of pseudo-Cantabs since then, but, as you say, no 'anti-Cantabs'. The Tudors and Stuarts had something called 'The Tower of London' that discouraged that sort of entrepreneurship.

I am glad to read, Andrew, that there is little likelihood of your being called up to serve in the invasion of Colombia. I would have sorely missed our pleasant exchanges, and can now look forward to a continuation of our dialogue.

With all my good wishes,

Geoffrey

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (12/11/09 - 15:27:11). In one sense you are quite correct in assuming I have a "thing" about Anti-Popes and Popes, because I do !. It worries me that the all too frequent rival claims made in history by two, or even three, rival "candidates" to exercise the "Supreme Authority" as asserted by the Bishopric of Rome may have been diluted somewhat, particularly since the rival claimants mutually excommunicated each other. Perhaps the best "consistency" is that shown by all of the historical Churches other than that of Rome in dismissing such fantastic and spurious claims.

Throughout its own history, the "Ecclesia Anglicana" has had a total of 104 Abps. of Catnerbury folowing on in succession from St. Augustine of same in about 597. There have been no "Anti-Abps. of Canterbury" or simultaneous "rival claimants" for that post. The nearest thing to an "irregularity" followed on from the unnatural death of Abp. Cranmer. Do you remember that rascally Reginald Pole, who was made a Cardinal in 1536 (? presumably in deacon's orders), appointed Papel Legate to England in 1553, and presided over the formal absolution of Parliament from "heresy" and then over a synod of both Convocations ?. Well, that man of blessed memory was only ordained a priest in 1556, exactly TWO DAYS prior to his consecration as the 70th. Abp. of Canterbury, possibly following the "Old Order" for consecrations and ordinations. He died of a natural death in 1558, little more than 12 hours after that of Mary I Tudor, which is perhaps a good thing for posterity. "The wily ways of ultramontane geopolitics" stretched their tentacles far from their Rome home base, and that might be a polite nway in which to express a reaction.

I hope you are able to consider these points, Geoff, which are made in my usual friendly manner of speaking and are not intended to be particularly controversial. They do explore historical facts, however !.

I had better not attempt to make any response to the final part of your post, as there are the modern secular equivalents of the infamous "Tertiaries of the Holy Office" all over the place, and I don't want to get into any "black books". The recent "stupid pronouncement" which you mentioned does serve to show that as much people wearing red berets as those wearing red hats can be "inconsistent" in expressing their strange ideas, and let you reach your own conclusions !!!.

All my very best wishes and ¡ un cordial abrazo de amigo !.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey (10/11/09 - 19:59:29): The Anglicans may have some experience of "inconsistency" within their own fold, but it will be interesting to see how they react - when they learn more about these things - to the onetime Avignon vs Rome situation, as well as that of a multitude of Popes and Antipopes mutually excommunicating each over over history.

- Andrew, Venezuela, 11 Nov 2009, 19:44

My use of the word 'inconsistency', Andrew, refers to the disparity of faith and doctrine in the Anglican Communion, as much as to its practice. 'Consistency', as applied to the Catholic Church, refers to our doctrine and teaching, a quality essentially different from the Anglican. 'Diversity', or perhaps one should say 'opinionated bedlam', was never a feature of Our Lord's instruction to His Apostles.
You seem to have a 'thing' about anti-popes, and in particular their supposed interruption of the succession from St Peter to Benedict XVI. Your concern is quite groundless, Andrew, and I trust you will allow me to put your mind at rest:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp

My very good wishes to you, and I trust you are getting ready to join Sr. Chavez's army to fight in Colombia. Aux armes, citoyens!

[cp36]

>>In short, Christ was both God and man, and any hot water should be used to wash CP36 and cleanse him from the impurities of heresy.

Ha ha ha! GS, I had a good laugh after reading your posting. According to Sir John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics can explain how Jesus Christ can be both God and Man at the same time. But for lesser mortals, I think all attempts to describe Jesus Christ is a failure. Charles Wesley has the best description of Jesus Christ, in my opinion - "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, Hail the Incarnate Deity".

The Nicene Creed was a response to Arianism. Arius believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, a kind of Intermediary between God and man. I have spent some effort investigating all this because I know Sir Isaac Newton quite well. The problem is the Catholic Church has destroyed Arius writings, so I don't know what exactly he said. But Arianism was quite a force at that time in the Roman Empire which got Constantine the Great worried.

So the smart thing to do is investigate what exactly the original Apostles and St Paul believed about Jesus Christ. Here is what St Paul said, "... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all thing and through whom we exist", 1 Cor 8:6, ESV.

Go and search the New Testament. For the Apostles it is always One God, the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. Their greetings in the epistles usually begins with "... from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ". The doctrine of the Trinity was a later formulation after the Apostles and it was unknown to them. The Nicene Creed is not wrong but it doesn't explain what we call the Trinity. I say it every Sunday morning in Church. It is a statement or what we believe but it doesn't explain the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I told you that I know Sir Isaac Newton quite well. Contrary to what all those Newton scholars and biographers have written, Newton was neither and Arian nor an Athanasian. He critised both Arius and Athanasius for mixing Metaphysics with the plain teachings of the Gospels. I have his original writings on this matter. Newton had his own Twelve Articls and in Article 12 he says:-

"To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we of him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him. That is we are to worship the Father alone as God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the Great King the Lamb of God who was slain and hath redeemed us with his blood and made us kings and Priests". Keynes ms 8; King's College, Cambridge. So what Newton believed was similar to St Paul. His biographers are wrong. I am always amused when people with ordinary minds try to understand the mind of a genius.

For the last 2000 years people have oscillated between the divinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ with varying degrees of belief about who exactly Jesus Christ is. This is an extremely difficult subject but it is of supreme importance because what people believe about Jesus Christ will determine the eternal destiny. You have to use your brains and think. Christianity is a very complex faith.

Cheers

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey,
Just got a return call from Syria. The other Successor of St. Peter agrees with the one in Rome that Anglican baptism is valid. Two infallible Successors of St. Peter can't possibly be wrong.
Sorry to bear such bad tidings."

- Richard Aluise, 10 Nov 2009, 20:38

Mr Aluise, I am impressed! I had no idea that the old Patriarch held you in such high esteem! He answered your call within 24 hours! You'd be lucky to get a response from the Vatican in 24 weeks. In fact, you'd be bloody lucky to get a response from the Vatican!
Frankly, I'm astonished that the P of S even knew there was something called the Anglican Church. I mean, I know he's even more infallible than Pope Benedict, but it sure would be a big mistake to regard it as an equal to any Orthodox Church, right?
After all, Mr Aluise, you said it yourself, there is nothing so magnificent as Orthodoxy, is there?
I really don't know how we poor Catholics manage to survive in the same world when we have you orientals to contend with.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (10/11/09 - 19:59:29). I'm sorry to appear rude by butting in to your exchange with Richard, but (oops !) I was taken by your mention of Bishops Peter Akinola vs. Gene Robinson as being "poles apart" within the Anglican Communion. Your comment is not untrue, but does reflect some of the "diversity" which exists within the Anglican Communion. Your definition of the (Roman) Catholic Church...as "a rock of consistency that many Anglicans find irresistably attractive" is a further interesting point. The Anglicans may have some experience of "inconsistency" within their own fold, but it will be interesting to see how they react - when they learn more about these things - to the onetime Avignon vs Rome situation, as well as that of a multitude of Popes and Antipopes mutually excommunicating each over over history. The only consistency which I can see there is that which indicates how many hands seem to have "rocked the boat", if I may put it so bluntly.

Sorry for the interruption, but I did want to bring this to your attention yet again.

My very best wishes.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (11/11/09 - 11:07:05). Very well said, Geoff. Thank you for having so nicely clarified your earlier statement as per the definition given in the Nicene Creed. You are now formally declared innocent of any suspicion re Arianism (and/or Docetism !). Let any hot water cool down, so as to take a refreshing bath when you wish...

My very kindest regards.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey (09/11/09 - 13:26:48 and 10/11/09 - 11:55:45). Please clarify your statement in greater detail. Without so doing, readers might suspect that you are being attracted towards an Arian interpretation of things, and that could get you into some very 'hot water' from your own people."

- Andrew, Venezuela, 10 Nov 2009, 20:46

What's the problem, Andrew?
CP36 denied the humanity of Our Lord. I contradicted him by saying that He was indeed a human being, and had a full human nature. I am sure that you are aware that Catholics believe in the Hypostatic Union, the co-existence of two natures in the one Person, i.e., that Our Lord had the nature of Man and also the 'nature' of God, if one can say that God has a nature in the sense implied by the English word.
In short, Christ was both God and man, and any hot water should be used to wash CP36 and cleanse him from the impurities of heresy.

[cp36]

>>Let me see if I've got this one right, CP. You do not believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was a human being .
Right?

Ha ha! GS, Okay, your own Nicene Creed says of Jesus Christ that he, "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man,...", which is a fact. If Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and was made man it means he did not have a natural father and therefore cannot be like any other man after Adam. Adam didn't have a natural father either. As Adam was the First Adam, Christ is the Second Adam. Unlike the First Adam, Christ was tempted on every point but was without sin in the days of his flesh. He could suspend the Laws of Nature at will and do things which no other man before him or after him could do. How do you explain all this if he was just a mere man?

I know that they have been debating this for the last 2000 years. Current trends seems to treat Jesus Christ as a good man and a great religious teacher of high moral values and Christianity has become just another religion even among some Protestants. I strongly disagree.

The best description or Jesus Christ I have come across is not from the theologians or preachers in our churches but from Charles Wesley's great hymn, "Hark the herald angels sing". He wrote:-

"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see! Hail, the incarnate Deity! Pleased as Man with man to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel."

These lines form Charles Wesley is a perfect description of Jesus Christ of the Gospels. It is Advent now and the right time to start thinking about these things and clear our minds from all the religious rubbish and get the facts right.

Cheers

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (09/11/09 - 13:26:48 and 10/11/09 - 11:55:45). Please clarify your statement in greater detail. Without so doing, readers might suspect that you are being attracted towards an Arian interpretation of things, and that could get you into some very 'hot water' from your own people.

All the best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

Just got a return call from Syria. The other Successor of St. Peter agrees with the one in Rome that Anglican baptism is valid. Two infallible Successors of St. Peter can't possibly be wrong.

Sorry to bear such bad tidings.

Richard

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Anglicans constitute an amorphous mass of believers, some of whom believe one thing and others another." Could not the same be said of the Roman Catholic Church?" As previously discussed, neither Hans Kung nor the SSPX are excommunicated."

- Richard Aluise, 10 Nov 2009, 15:26

No, the situation is quite different in the case of Kung and the SSPX.
For one thing, the SSPX were excommunicated and they remain excommunicated, not withstanding the extraordinary decision to allow Bishop Williamson and three others to return to communion with us.
I have no complaints about Williamson's so-called 'holocaust denial', but every complaint about his genuine repentance for causing, or exacerbating, a schism from the Church.
I must admit that the case of Kung is indeed scandalous. I can only attribute it to the complete lack of any administrative acumen on the part of Pope John Paul II, who allowed Kung's heresy to flourish unchecked. I've heard it said that Pope John Paul would have found it difficult to manage a hot-dog stand, never mind the diocese of Rome, and as for the Catholic Church...!! I can think of no other reason for the Pope's lack of any urgency in dealing with the infamous Kung, and I can only hope that eventually Benedict will get round to giving HK an ultimatum: knock it off or we will knock you off. I am sure that HK, at 80 years of age, realises that his days are numbered, and, like Oscar Wilde, regards the Catholic Church as the only religion worth dying in, so there is hope for him yet.
Nevertheless, Mr Aluise, my argument still stands: the Anglican sect is an amorphous mass of idiosyncratic beliefs and practices (Peter Akinola v. Gene Robinson), whereas the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), a rock of consistency that many Anglicans find irresistably attractive.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I think I night have to ask the other "Successor of St. Peter", the Patriarch of Syria, for his "infallible" declaration on the matter, so as to end all confusion!"

- Richard Aluise, 10 Nov 2009, 15:26

Why don't you?

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"...in circumstances such as this not even the Pope is infallible...papal infallibility concerns only the articles of the Catholic faith...You would be most unwise to dismiss it simply because it does not happen to agree with your pre-conceived ideas of what the Church's thinking ought to be on any particular matter."

My goodness, Geoffrey, where does one start? Before moving on to the items above, I would like to address your comment "It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Anglicans constitute an amorphous mass of believers, some of whom believe one thing and others another." Could not the same be said of the Roman Catholic Church? As previously discussed, neither Hans Kung nor the SSPX are excommunicated. Do they have the same understandings of ecclesiology, sacraments and belief? Not even close. Yet, they are all members of your church. It appears there are "factions" or "wings" within the RCC that freely follow their own different understandings with little, if any, censure. Every denomination has this situation to one degree or another. In fact, Geoffrey, the RCC, in the latter 60s under Pope Paul VI, even lifted the "excommunication" of the Orthodox Church. Your church regards our churches and its sacraments as both "licit and valid." In reference to Eastern "Separated" Churches, your Roman Vatican Council II, in its decree on ecumenism, said the following:

"To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls...It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting" (Unitatis Redintegratio.) Keep in mind that this was in reference to the Orthodox, not "uniates." So, Geoffrey, even the church I belong to is not "excommunicated" from your church, technically speaking of course. In fact, in the same document, your church discusses how our sacraments are, to use Roman legalistic terms, "licit and valid" and that even a Roman Catholic such as yourself could receive our sacraments in an "emergency", whatever that means. So, Geoffrey, our sacraments our only good enough when you Romans deem it in your best interest to avail yourselves of them. Why aren't they "good enough" any other time? Just curious as to the logic, or lack thereof.

As for your previously quoted points, it is hard for me to believe you would not regard as having tremendous weight the documents approved by the pope regarding such matters as Anglican baptism, regardless of whether or not he excercised his "infallibility."

I think I night have to ask the other "Successor of St. Peter", the Patriarch of Syria, for his "infallible" declaration on the matter, so as to end all confusion!

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I simply am astonished that you disagree with documents prepared, signed and distributed by Roman Catholic bishops, including the pope, that dispute your contention. It is entirely possible that New Advent and you have a misunderstanding of your church's position with regard to Angilcan baptism. (1)

As I've asked you earlier, Geoffrey, do you belong to a segment of the RCC that is perhaps on the "right fringe" of your church? Many of the things you say seem to flow from the SSPX line of thinking. (2)

I'm simply trying to understand the background of your Roman Catholic education, especially how you arrive at conclusions with which the Congregation for Christian Unity and the previous pope, by documents such as the PNG Joint statement of Evangelical Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics, obviously disagree. (3)

I know quite well that an article on a website such as New Advent does not trump the authority of congregations and popes. (4)

- Richard Aluise, 9 Nov 2009, 21:18

(1) You have to understand, Mr Aluise, that in circumstances such as this not even the Pope is infallible. I have already pointed out that it is not a required article of the Catholic faith to accept that the baptismal rituals of the sects, not even the Anglican one, are unquestionably valid. Since papal infallibility concerns only the articles of the Catholic faith, anything the Pope has to say on this matter, with or without the agreement of others, is open to dissent and disagreement. Indeed, while pointing out that the Anglicans recognise only two of your seven sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, it is difficult to understand why, in view of the heretical nature of their eucharist, their baptismal rite should not also be regarded as questionable.
I sometimes think that the Holy See has been deliberately misinformed about this matter, and this has led the Pope to commit himself to an erroneous statement on the subject. Hence, the absurd position taken up by Cardinal Walter Kasper, who seriously imagines that a corporate unity between the Catholic Church and the Church of England is at least theoretically possible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

(2) I am a Catholic. I recognise no 'fringes', no 'wings', no 'schools of thought'.
The SSPX are not Catholics because they refuse to recognise the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Exactly like you, Mr Aluise. Both you and they are Christians through baptism (hopefully a valid one!), but you not members of the Catholic Church.

(3) As for (1)

(4) The encyclopedia contained in the New Advent website is one of long-standing authority and is greatly respected by the Church for the accuracy of its information. Agreed, it is not infallible, but that in no way detracts from its scholarship and erudition. You would be most unwise to dismiss it simply because it does not happen to agree with your pre-conceived ideas of what the Church's thinking ought to be on any particular matter.

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Anglicans constitute an amorphous mass of believers, some of whom believe one thing and others another. It has been said that no two Anglicans are identical in every aspect of the Christian faith and its practice. Indeed, there have been, and are, Anglicans who refuse to accept the faith handed down to us from the Fathers. Such people are wholly unreliable as witnesses to Christ, and this goes for their practice of the faith also. Hence, the suspicion that inevitably surrounds the Anglican baptismal rite.

[Geoffrey Smith]

">>Yes, it does. Our Lord was a human being. (G Smith)

I disagree. If that is true then I would be in the same class as people like Coel, Pearce, etc. Sometimes I wonder what you Roman Catholics really believe or do you believe anything at all other than in your Pope?"

Let me see if I've got this one right, CP.
You do not believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was a human being .
Right?

- CP36, 10 Nov 2009, 00:45

[D. Bunker]

So I'm back to my "offensive mode", am I, Geoffrey?

Well, yes, in a sense. I'm certainly on the offensive against religious absurdities.

I'm provacative - but I try not to be downright insulting.

And I love the reactions I get.

[D. Bunker]

So I'm back to my "offensive mode", am I, Geoffrey?

Well, yes, in a sense. I'm certainly on the offensive against religious absurdities.

I'm provacative - but I try not to be downright insulting.

And I love the reactions I get.

[cp36]

>>Yes, it does. Our Lord was a human being.

I disagree. If that is true then I would be in the same class as people like Coel, Pearce, etc. Sometimes I wonder what you Roman Catholics really believe or do you believe anything at all other than in your Pope? Your faith must be personal.

Cheers

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"I take it, Mr Aluise, that your sarcasm is an admission of defeat?"

You are correct, Geoffrey, in noticing that I was somewhat sarcastic. Please accept my apologies. I simply am astonished that you disagree with documents prepared, signed and distributed by Roman Catholic bishops, including the pope, that dispute your contention. It is entirely possible that New Advent and you have a misunderstanding of your church's position with regard to Angilcan baptism. Not one time during my days as a Roman Catholic and a seminarian did we ever conditionally baptize an Anglican. Am I right to assume, therefore, that you regard the baptisms of "converts" in PNG as potentially invalid?

As I've asked you earlier, Geoffrey, do you belong to a segment of the RCC that is perhaps on the "right fringe" of your church? Many of the things you say seem to flow from the SSPX line of thinking. In fact, some of your understandings of the RCC make some SSPX members seem rather modern in their thinking.

I'm simply trying to understand the background of your Roman Catholic education, especially how you arrive at conclusions with which the Congregation for Christian Unity and the previous pope, by documents such as the PNG Joint statement of Evangelical Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics, obviously disagree.

As a former Roman Catholic, I know quite well that an article on a website such as New Advent does not trump the authority of congregations and popes.

As always, even though I know you have a hard time believing me, I do enjoy our exchanges!

Richard

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Since the earliest times people like to elevate human beings and "worship" them. The gods of the religions are actually human beings. Does this sound familiar to you?"

- CP36, 9 Nov 2009, 01:09

Yes, it does. Our Lord was a human being.

[cp36]

>>St Peter died c65. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. I don't think he went anywhere after 65, not even to Jerusalem, before or after its destruction.

Ah, that is your personal opinion and is not based on facts. Where Peter went and what he did has nothing to do with my faith in Christ at all. It is childish to put one's faith in people. St Paul said, "What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas, or I follow Christ', Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:12-13.

Since the earliest times people like to elevate human beings and "worship" them. The gods of the religions are actually human beings. Does this sound familiar to you?

Cheers

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Let me guess instead: Er, space for five hundred thousand of the little brats perhaps?"

- D. Bunker, 7 Nov 2009, 15:43

Back to your normal offensive mode, I see, Mr B. Much more in character for an atheist.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I will send a letter to the Pope and the Cardinal who is the head of the Congregation that deals with Christian Unity (they both reviewed the PNG document before approval) to let them know that, next time, they should consult you on this blog first before issuing any such statement.
Now that I know the truth about Anglican baptism, I have lost all confidence in the pope and the Congregations in Rome to do their jobs. Nevermind. I just realized that I lost that confidnece a long time ago, etc, etc, etc, etc."

- Richard Aluise, 7 Nov 2009, 17:41

I take it, Mr Aluise, that your sarcasm is an admission of defeat?

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"The Catholic Answer Book 2 , is just that - an opinion. It is not - repeat, NOT - a required article of the Catholic faith to believe that the baptismal rituals of the sects are unquestionably valid. The same goes for the other 'authorities' you mention, who are equally opinionated on this matter - and equally fallible."

So the Joint Statement from the bishops of your church in Papua New Guinea, approved with a Vatican rubber stamp before being published, stating that "That the rite of baptism performed by our churches is valid and therefore not to be repeated even conditionally" is no good, Geoffrey?

I will send a letter to the Pope and the Cardinal who is the head of the Congregation that deals with Christian Unity (they both reviewed the PNG document before approval) to let them know that, next time, they should consult you on this blog first before issuing any such statement.

Now that I know the truth about Anglican baptism, I have lost all confidence in the pope and the Congregations in Rome to do their jobs. Nevermind. I just realized that I lost that confidnece a long time ago.

I hope Rome soon realizes that "Geoffrey locuta, cause finita" is now the standard, and that "Ubi Geoffrey, ibi ecclesia" should be their guiding principle before issuing such documents in the future.

Thanks for providing all of us with the correct information (including the hierarchy of your own church.)

Richard

[Richard Aluise]

Pereb

"In the same period, candidates to the priesthood rose 21.32 percent in Africa, mainly in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 20.35 percent in Asia, principally in India and the Phillipines."

The statistics you provide are not much different than the statistics I provided. They are easy to obtain. The problem is, they are based on percentages, not sheer numbers. Nigeria and the Congo, as noted earlier, have a combined total of approximately 20 million Roman Catholics. Even in these high percentage RC countries, do you know the ratio of Roman Catholics per priest in Africa? One per 4,694. How about other "high percentage" priestly growth areas? South America, one per 7,138, Central America one per 6,944, in Eastern Asia (presumably including India) one per 2,473 (these areas have very low RC populations, however, so the ratio is deceiving.) In Europe, the ratio is one per 1,374 and in the US one per 1,375. All of these statistics are from the "Statistical Yearbook of the Church", 1985, 2002, published by the Vatican.

By looking at ratios, Pererb, one can begin to see that a 20 or even a 30% growth of priests in a country that contributes such a small percentage of the world's overall RC population can be very deceiving. Even in those "exploding vocation" countries, the ratio of Roman Catholics per priest is worse than in Europe and the US by a factor of 4 to 6, depending on the region. It will be a long time before any of those countries can provide many priests to the rest of the world. Their own ratios need to improve dramatically simply to achieve the same ratios as in Europe and the US. Even with the best worldwide ratios, Euorpe and the US are extremely short of priests.

In the US, according to the same book, there were 500 churches without a priest in 1965. In 2002, over 3100. This is in a country with one of the highest parishoner to priest ratios in the world. Not a good sign.

The best sign for your church, as we have both noted, is the married diaconate, up 25 to 30% at least! One would think that this would cause the possessor of infallibility in the Vatican to think about returning to the original practice of permitting a married priesthood, but it appears they will only continue to offer that to members of other communions as bait.

I don't think African and Asian priests are going to solve the problem any time soon, Pererb, but we can certainly respectfully agree to disagree.

Thanks for your post!

Richard

[D. Bunker]

Pity about the pinhead angels, Geoffrey. I had thought it might be something you could all agree upon in your convoluted theological squabble.

Let me guess instead: Er, space for five hundred thousand of the little brats perhaps?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I don't know where Peter went after the destruction of Jerusalem."

- CP36, 7 Nov 2009, 02:18

St Peter died c65. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. I don't think he went anywhere after 65, not even to Jerusalem, before or after its destruction.
At this point, CP36, I think you should retire from this thread. Even if it means that we miss out on a good laugh.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Geoffrey,

I think you should perhaps forward your post to Father Peter M. J. Stravinskas, who, as pointed out earlier, states in his book "The Catholic Answer Book 2" that "baptism as an Anglican is certainly valid" (page 157).

- Richard Aluise, 6 Nov 2009, 23:52

While reminding you that Fr Stravinskas has not yet been elected Pope, I have to point out that even he is entitled to express an opinion about such matters as Anglican baptism. However, in view of what is recorded in the Catholic encyclopedia, his opinion, even if printed in such an 'authoritative' tome as The Catholic Answer Book 2 , is just that - an opinion. It is not - repeat, NOT - a required article of the Catholic faith to believe that the baptismal rituals of the sects are unquestionably valid. The same goes for the other 'authorities' you mention, who are equally opinionated on this matter - and equally fallible.

I can only repeat what the encyclopedia has to say about the supposed validity of Anglican baptism: the rite may or may not be valid, depending on the actual individual circumstances prevailing in each parish. A blanket approval of the ritual as such cannot be given, and each case must be considered in isolation from the others. However, such is the difficulty of ensuring that a particular baptism was valid, a conditional form is always advised for obvious reasons.

[PererB]

R.Aluise

Between 2000-2007 priestly ordinations rose 27.58 percent in Africa and 21.2 percent in Asia.

In the same period, candidates to the priesthood rose 21.32 percent in Africa, mainly in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 20.35 percent in Asia, principally in India and the Phillipines.

In the West, written off by doom-mongers, the picture regarding ordained permanent deacons is equally encouraging. In America they increased by 26.8% and in Europe by a staggering 34.4%.

(Source: Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 2007, L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 10 June 2009, page 10)
.

[cp36]

>>He died in Rome, crucified by the Emperor Nero, who scapegoated the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Fact.
St Peter was succeeded as Bishop of Rome by St Linus. Fact.

Okay, let's assume that Peter was crucified in Rome is true but there is no evidence that he was a Bishop of Rome and he passed his apostolic powers to St Linus, whoever he was. Never heard of him. If Peter was crucified around 64 A.D. Jerusalem was not destroyed yet and it would still be the Headquarters for Christianity for the original eleven apostles, not Rome.

Peter was not a Hellenistic Jew. Hellenistic Jews are those Jews who have adopted Greek and Roman culture, language, etc. I don't believe Peter was equipped to handled the Romans and Greeks. You need a very intelligent man to deal with the Romans and the Greeks. I don't know where Peter went after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now, listen to what the risen Christ said to St Paul, "... for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles - to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Acts 26:16-18. ESV.

Sorry, but it was Paul who was sent to the Gentiles of the then Mediterranean World and he was sent directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. Fact. No "apostolic succession" at that time. It was a later invention by the RCC and is Fiction.

Cheers

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

Thank you for your post.

I think you should perhaps forward your post to Father Peter M. J. Stravinskas, who, as pointed out earlier, states in his book "The Catholic Answer Book 2" that "baptism as an Anglican is certainly valid" (page 157). Also, the most recent statement issued was the joint Anglican, Evangelical Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches in Papua, New Guinea. The applicable declaration from that statement is "That the rite of baptism performed by our churches is valid and therefore not to be repeated even conditionally." This decision invloved your own hierarchical authorities. As also pointed out, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, in the US, has clearly stated in their instruction for receiving converts that Anglican baptism is valid.

In reviewing the background on New Advent, I see it was founded by a Kevin Knight, from my birthplace, Denver, Colorado! Since what he published is different than joint statements, pastoral guidelines and the writings of such notable RC authors as Father Stravinskas, it made me wonder if the See of Rome, with its charism of infallibility, had transferred from Rome to Denver.
I know I have been out of the RCC for awhile, but I didn't think I had missed such a momentous announcement.

Do you have Mr. Knight's contact information? Since I am only two hours and forty five minutes from Denver, maybe he and I could meet for dinner and discuss his new found authority in your church. I will gladly put in a good word for you. Who knows, his next encyclical might include a footnote or two from you.

Richard

P.S. to all other bloggers: reading this blog has made me remember so clearly and fondly why I became Orthodox.

[Lewis Winders]

Seven kittens, St Ruth! Was this a planned parenthood, or is it time you had a little chat to your cat?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If you care to check out the Greek text of 1 Tim. 15.3 you will see that the final clause refers to God as the pillar and ground of truth - just as he is the source of the Church."

- Alan Marsh, 4 Nov 2009, 20:31

I think you mean 1 Tim. 3:15.
I checked out the Greek in my copy of the NT in that language, and I find it in full agreement with the Catholic interpretation.
Frankly, Alan, it is just arrant nonsense to describe God as the pillar and the bulwark when it is a physical object - the Church - that is the whole focus of the passage, and, in particular, the Church at Ephesus, of which St Timothy was the Bishop.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Geoffrey (06/11/09 - 12:02:28). King Tut, Geoff, I used the present tense STARTS to formulate doctrines, by which I meant those doctrines which had not been generally available, well-known, or even acceptable, prior to Rome's unilateral suggestions.

I do see that you are otherwise engaged elsewhere on these threads, so I can be "fully indulgent" to you as you raise Hell.......

All the best.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I have no idea where he [St Peter] died. You have to distinguish legend and fairy tales from facts."

- CP36, 6 Nov 2009, 00:33

He died in Rome, crucified by the Emperor Nero, who scapegoated the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Fact.
St Peter was succeeded as Bishop of Rome by St Linus. Fact.

You need to learn something about Italian history and archaeology.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Richard (05/11/09 - 19:40:59). Thank you very much for your post (and for other recent ones on this thread), which I much appreciated. I was unaware of the meeting between the two "Successors of St. Peter" which you mentioned, and was delighted to see that the Orthodox Patriarch showed such a good (and honest !) sense of humour on making the response which he did.....

The various papal claims to exercise "Supreme Authority" have been dismissed over history, as we have discussed elsewhere. When it comes to "infallibility" as per Vatican I (1870), a suitable response from native speakers of English might be: "Pull the other leg - it's got bells on it !", and leave things along the lines of "there are none so blind as those who don't want to See"...Perhaps we should also pray that certain people receive some very necessary "enlightenment" ?.

Your contributions to the discussion of articles appearing on Ruth's blog are as much welcome and opportune as they are informati9ve and refreshing to the many of us who are, regrettably, not as learned as you are on the "thinking" of the Orthodox on so many matters. Please, Richard, do continue to keep us informed in such a way.

My very kindest best wishes and regards to you.

Andrew, Venezuela

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I wonder sometimes, Geoffrey, that, as in the case of the validity of Anglican baptism, could it be a robust "invention" of RC principles?"

- Richard Aluise, 6 Nov 2009, 14:55

I quote:

Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the "Old Catholics" generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration . To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

(www.NewAdvent.org)

Bearing in mind the heretical nature of much of Anglican doctrine and ritual, it follows from the above extract that a baptism performed in any branch of the Anglican Communion must be regarded with suspicion concerning its validity. Accordingly, a convert to the Church from the Anglicans must be conditionally baptised as a condition for reception.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I wonder if Geoffrey Smith, Alan Marsh, CP36 and PererB could agree on how many angels can dance on a pinhead."

- D. Bunker, 6 Nov 2009, 08:22

Why would any angels want to dance on your pinhead, Mr Bunker?

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"...there's nothing like a robust defence of Catholic principles for raising Hell on this blog."

I wonder sometimes, Geoffrey, that, as in the case of the validity of Anglican baptism, could it be a robust "invention" of RC principles?

Just wondering.

Richard

[Et Expecto]

Did the Church of England consult with the Vatican before it stole all the church property, plundered the monasteries, burnt the statues etc etc?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If, as we are so frequently told, scripture and tradition have equal weight when Rome starts to formulate doctrines ,..."

- Andrew, Venezuela, 5 Nov 2009, 15:06

A very strange expression for you to use, Andrew. Rome has never "started" to "formulate" any doctrine. The teaching of the Church is now what it has always been, the command given to us by Our Lord, as laid down in Matt. 28:20.
Please forgive the brevity of this response. I am sure you have noticed from other threads that I have quite a lot of work to do in replying to other comments, particularly on the Dominican nun thread. As I mentioned to Edward I, there's nothing like a robust defence of Catholic principles for raising Hell on this blog.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Am I right Geoff., that I perceive a direct criticism of Ruth's absolute right to publish or not what she considers appropriate on her own blog?
If so, perhaps I would suggest that after initially deciding to publish, Ruth first runs the postings through you to see if you care to overrule her preliminary decisions."

- Edward I, 5 Nov 2009, 17:46

Only if the Times offers me a lucrative employment on its editorial board.

[PererB]

John
"And if religion is booming there, it worryingly shows the level of ignorance that still exists"
.

What gives you the right to arrogantly assume a greater level of intellect, knowledge and wisdom than the rest of the human race?
.

[D. Bunker]

I wonder if Geoffrey Smith, Alan Marsh, CP36 and PererB could agree on how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

Or would they care to enlighten us as to their varying estimates?

[cp36]

>>If St Peter was never in Rome, that would mean that he did not die in Rome. Right? OK, smart ass, tell us where he did die, then.

I have no idea where he died. You have to distinguish legend and fairy tales from facts. There is nothing in the New Testament on where he died. It is not relevant for the faith of Christ. Peter didn't die for the sins of the world. It was the Son of God who died for the sins of the world. Let's not mix fairy tales with the truth of the Gospel.

Cheers

[Richard Aluise]

Andrew

Thank you for your post. As always, it is a pleasure to discuss issues with you, my friend.

As you noted, and as no reputable (I feel it wise to use this word for the benefit of others who might read it) historians to my knowledge dispute, St. Peter did indeed found the church in Antioch, roughly modern day Damascus. His successors to this day refer to themselves as "successors of St. Peter.

I believe I recounted this story previously, but, at the risk of being repetetive, I will mention it again. In 2001, when Pope John Paul II met with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, the newspaper headline read "Two Successors of St. Peter Meet". When a reporter jokingly asked that since they are both Successors of St. Peter, which one was infallible, the Orthodox Patriarch immediately and emphatically stated "I know it's not me." As I wrote previously, it isn't the one from Rome either.

One would think, Andrew, that Antioch should at least have had the "first right of refusal" on infallibility, since St. Peter set them up and established bishops there first. Seems only fair to me.

It couldn't possibly be that neither St. Peter nor any of the other Apostles had such notions as "papal infallibility" or "vicar of Christ" as part of their belief, could it?

If I were the Patriarch of Syria, I would immediately file a lawsuit against the Bishop of Rome for copyright infringement on the title of "Successor of St. Peter", and demand an injunction against his further use of "infallibility". It must immediately be returned to its rightful owners, and I'm sure any court of law would agree.

Always good to hear from you!

Richard

[Richard Aluise]

Geoffrey

"Orthodoxy does NOT practise the Christian faith of the Early Fathers - it permits abortion and contraception."

Once again, Geoffrey, you have shown at the very least a poor understanding of Orthodoxy - much like your understanding of the questionable validity of Anglican baptism?

Orthodoxy neither supports nor condones abortion or contraception, just as it neither supports rape, murder, genocide or a whole host of other sins, or "αμαρτιόν" in Greek. What is "αμαρτιόν"? Literally, it means "to miss the mark" or "short of the mark." We recognise in Orthodoxy that all of these types of sins are "short of the mark". We also recognise that we all fall "short of the mark" in some manner in our lives. What we don't do is to set these things up as the "be all and end all" of our beliefs. Sins of any type are why we have a "baptism for the remission of sins" and, in our commuion as in yours, confession.

As for your understanding of the unity of Orthodoxy, once again it appears you have relied too much on RC writers from the 15th century to shape your understandings. As I noted in another post, the differences you mentioned between the Russian and Estonian Church have to do with the establishment of Estonia as an "autocephalous" church. It has nothing whatsoever to do with differences of belief or practice. The differences between the Moscow Patriarchate and that of Constantinople have to do with Moscow objecting to Constantinople trying to usurp authority in other areas - much like your Roman Church did about 1000 years ago. The only difference is that the Patriarch in Constantinople/Istanbul was humble enough to recongnise that Moscow was right and back off.

By the way, how close are you on that information on Anglican baptism?

Richard

[Richard Aluise]

Pererb

"...in global terms the Church is booming. For example, in Africa the churches are bursting at the seams and in Asia the seminaries are overflowing."

I'm not certain what area of Asia you mean. This is somewhat reminiscent of my history classes in the seminary. When we weren't certain of the location of a specific historical occurence, we would answer that it happened in "Asia Minor", since that could be as small or as large an area as one would like it to be. Could you please provide a little more detail as to your definition of "Asia"?

Africa is another situation entirely. Angola is 56% Roman Catholic, but it only has poplulation of about 17 million. This hardly contributes a huge number to the worldwide RC population. In Burundi, 62% of the population is RC, but the total population is about 6.3 million. Congo is 42.65% RC, but, again, the total population is only about 3 million. Nigeria, 18 million Roman Catholics, 129 million total population. Tanzania, 9.5 million and 37 million respectively. There are cities in the US and Europe that have greater populations than some of the African countries mentioned.

Worldwide, between 2000 and 2007, the number of priests has at best held static while the total number of Roman Catholics has increased by 140 million during that time.

The only area of ordained ministry that has shown dramatic increase in your communion is the married diaconate. It is up almost 30% during the same time frame - one more indication that the RCC needs desperately to change its rules regarding priestly celibacy if it intends to have enough priests to meet it needs.

Now let's consider the beliefs of those in the pews, Pererb. Of the world's nearly 1.15 billion Roman Catholics, polls show that better than half (in some countries between 80 and 90 %, depending on the country) believe that the use of contraceptives is acceptable. Some polls have shown better than 70 % support for allowing married clergy and 50% support for the ordination of women.

What does all of this tell us (or, at least, some of us)? That the Roman Catholics Church has "in nomine" 1.14 billion members worldwide, and that: a) mass attendance on any given Sunday is well less than half that amount, and b) of even those who do regularly attend, 50 % to 70 % disagree strongly with basic tenets of the RC faith.

So my question would be, Pererb, where are you going to get enough vocations to serve the people who don't even follow your church's teachings? From the families of those who obviously disagree with church teaching? Not likely. They are not going to raise children who will be excited about defending the "fullness of truth", when their own parents don't follow or agree with it. From Africa's small RC populations and/or an ill-defined "Asia"? If they should happen to enter the seminary, will they leave with the understandings of the "left-leaners" in your church or the "right-leaners"?

Just some food for thought. I do appreciate the exchange!

Richard

[Edward I]

"Incidentally, if AoF is a blog about "religion in its entirety", then that excludes atheism and atheistic opinion, since, as we all know, atheism is not a religion."
Geoffrey Smith

Am I right Geoff., that I perceive a direct criticism of Ruth's absolute right to publish or not what she considers appropriate on her own blog?
If so, perhaps I would suggest that after initially deciding to publish, Ruth first runs the postings through you to see if you care to overrule her preliminary decisions.
That way all heathen, atheist and anti religious comments could be affectively expunged.
Just a thought.