Pathetic optimism

mark thomas

hear hear!

Fergus Pickering

It's what the great and good Dr Paisley was always saying. And what was that? Oh FTP if you catch my drift, and most particularly when he is a German. You know what those Germans are like when it comes to world domination.

hadrian

Oh, for heaven's sake, can these supposed 'protestants' not make up their minds? Either Popery is a sham or it is absolutely necessary for the Church. If these fools truly think in their misguided 'charity' that they are missing something in not being a Romanist then let them depart the Reformation forthwith and get back to the glories of the Popes, Celibate Priestcraft, Confession, Masses, 'Saints', Purgatory, Indulgences..and don't forget good old R.C. dicsipline such as self flagelation which we hear the late Pope Paul was wont to undergo to beat the sin out of him. And such a man, we are asked to believe is of such holiness and 'saintliness' he has overflowing virtue to cover the rest of us! My word, it is a long way from the Reformation Gospel of Grace. But if these superstitions appeal to 'intellectuals' like Williams he should just throw in his 'protestant towel' and get grovelling to Rome. Disgusting? It is repellant.

Matt

+++

Henry,

“Can we all allow ourselves to be challenged to address the outstanding issues with the same methodological assumptions and the same overall spiritual and sacramental vision that has brought us thus far?”

Love,
Catherine (of Aragon)

+++

Why not?

Ben

Dear Hadrian, you need to get a grip of your facts - which Pope? - and your spelling. Or you could just calm down a bit and listen to your inner Hadrian telling you that protestantism, however worthy, is...er...lacking something. Then you can come and join us. Like Theo wants to do.

hadrian

I fail to see why one should 'calm down' when there are effectually frauds in one's midst, affecting to be 'Protestant' leaders, taking the pay for it but not the flack and all the while doing the work of the enemy of and pronouncer of curses upon the glorious Gospel of Grace which I can assure you lacks nothing.
I understand from the reports that it was J.P. II who indulged in such futile, flagellatory antics but if they have got it wrong I assume the reference must then be to Pius XII, the man who stifled RC opposition to Hilter in, among other motives, his drive to centralise Vatican power?
On reviewing my source it definitely states J.P. II was the self-flagellator as reported by one Sister Sobodka and Bishop Emery Kabonga, the late pope's secretary.
Your presumption of Rome's superiority over other churches simply betrays the reason other churches get totally fed up with your prelates.
Incidentally, my spelling is something I usually try to be meticulous about ( having been an English teadcher!) but you must admit it is perilously easy to get the odd letter wrong or missed, using these keyboards! And I find 'spellchecks' a total cheat so never use them!

Ben

Thanks Hadrian, but you did say Pope Paul, who was not JP2. Anyway, Gospel of Grace sounds fine to me as an RC, as a phrase, but I think you mean it as a defining non-catholic ideology. Would you not concede that the description of us as the enemy is a little harsh?

hadrian

Ben-
Yes, I must confess ( in the non-theological sense!) that I did indeed write 'Pope Paul' which I entirely missed not just on first check read but subsequently: call it a 'senior moment' (or two, even!) Apologies for confusion! Whereas I could easily conceive Pius XII self-flagellating, I couldn't so readily associate such behaviour with Pope Paul or John XXIII- I may, however, be mistaken in that assumption as well.
With regard to the description of the R.C. Church and system as 'the enemy' I think it does nobody any good to fudge on this matter. Tridentine Rome saw the need and saw fit to pronounc solemn high curses on Protestantism's central keynote of forensic Justification through Grace alone, by Faith alone in Christ's righteousness alone without regard to any supposed innate self 'merit'for Salvation. Trent at least has the virtue of understanding and recognising the vast divergence between the two 'Gospels', only one of which can be correct. Reformed Christians know in Christ there is fulness of Grace and cannot and will not ever compromise that message. It is a deeply Spiritual matter to us. Thus, if Rome is defined by Trent then she is indeed a very sharp enemy and threat to our Faith. However, it is worth bearing in mind that Scriptural Christianity calls its followers to love one's enemies. If the Lord shows vast measures of undeserving forebearance and long-suffering to His enemies so must we as His disciples. That does not mean we give up free speech to criticise and expose what is false. Christ was the sharpest critic of the self-righteous of His day and issued stark warnings to them! Little wonder he incurred their self-righteous wrath.

Robert Slack

How can such mindless twaddle* generate so much interest?

* Both the specifics and the general nonsense, religion. You know, I often say really horrible things about religion. I'm still here, no thunderbolts have struck me down. Is it because I generally diss all religions, so the gods can't decide which one is to wallop me?

hadrian

Mr Slack,

You may regard Christian Theism as 'twaddle' but the greatest non-sense- in the proper meaning of that term- flows from the atheist whose discourse of righteous indignation rests on nothing more than the deepest form of incoherance- ontological and ethical.
To assert life is ultimately pointless and worthless yet get hot under the collar at perceived behaviours that threaten it or do indeed damage it, is in my book, comical.

Ronnie

This all assumes that the Church of England is actually protestant. I don't think it is. It has always been in a kind of limbo, denied the motivational certainties of Calvinism and it's apparent lack of direction must be seen in that light.

hadrian

Whilst the Church of England may have been more imperfectly, less rigorously reformed than her sister Protestant churches I think you will find the R.C. authorities did not burn her leaders and many of her members at the stake just for fun. They realised the church based on honest adherance to and espousal of the the religion of the 39 Articles ( slightly more of them during Edward's reign- 42 or there abouts) was decidedly Protestant and had to be quashed therefore. The Lambeth Articles from the end of the Elizabethan era are of a distinctly calvinist nature. Augustus Toplady argues cogently and pasionately that the Church of which he was a Parson was incontrovertably Calvinist in doctrine.
That her Liturgy was hampere from fuller reform and was mildly contaminated during the Restoration does not undo the essentially Reformed stance of the Church of England. She is Protestant and should glory in such a heritage.

egh

Well posted as always, Hadrian.

I think the present age echoes the Jacobean and Restoration in many ways - including the turn to RCism. Sadly, we're taking it even further. We have no Milton; nor do we have anyone to shut down the marxist-euro media. To say nothing of our dire need of a leader who can provide a salve for our eyes: so that we can see a clear way forwards.

Bunnykins

Was the Church of England doomed the moment it replaced the King James prayerbook with the dumbed-down happy clappy lowest common denominator scribblings (and prayer services) or was that just the final nail in its rudderless coffin?

kate b

The problems stems from the misunderstanding of Matthew 16:19. Peter is seen as the rock by Catholics, when in fact it's Peter's statement that is the rock: that Jesus is Messiah Son of the living God.

Rock in Hebrew is Eben, made from 2 words Ab and Ben/Father Son Psalm 118:22 bursts with meaning now, I think that's why Jesus uses the term "on THIS rock" ie Jesus is the rock ref Isaiah 9:6, (48:15-17 for Father/Son/Spirit).

This misunderstanding then throws the next bit which is about Halacha - the early movement needed a Beth Din to interpret the SAME unchanging laws without a heavy yoke/burden, but always within constraints of Deut 4:20 (don't add/diminish from the law) since Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever Hebrews 13:8, and Jesus always directs one to the Law...."It is written: "man does not live on bread alone BUT on Every Word that comes from the mouth of God" Deut 8:3.

Q. Considering the formula for assessing truth is Isaiah 8:20 "To the law (Torah) and to the testimony (Prophets) if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them", we can work out that a new Hebraic Beth Din in line with Jesus' interpretation of His own law (as Immanuel) was desperately needed then and now.

Yes, grace is enough for salvation from sin and death, but to know God is to not add nor diminish from His own word - which will not pass away (Matthew 5:17-19)

hadrian

That the CofE is badly lacking an inspiring Protestant leadership which actually holds to the Articles of Religion and the Prayer Book, even a fool can see.
The Prayer Book's widespread disregard has contributed in no small measure to the decline in the power of CofE Services- that, and a loss of the sense of the power and centrality of expository preaching.
However there are pockets of hope in Angicanism, even yet. The Free Church of England retains a Prayer Book ethos and a Book with minimal alteration to iron out any of the more equivocal, crypto-Romanising sections. Worship in the FCoE Evangelical Connexion tends to be dignified and reverent. Then there is the Protestant Truth Society with its headquarters in Fleet Street. It was originally largely Angilcan in ethos and still very active. Within the CofE there is Church Society and the Protestant Reformation Society. There is also publishing houses like Harrison Trust. Thse all indicate Anglicanism has not altogether been abandoned by genuinely Protestant clergy and membership but one suspects those marked as so aligned are blocked from prominent leadership roles and office outwith their congregations and personal influence.

Kiran

Umm... I don't much like Rowan (and I am no longer an Anglican), but the description of him as taking money for being a Protestant leader is unfair. It has been part of the Church of England's contention for 400 years, that it is quite Catholic, thank you very much. Now that argument might not hold water (I don't believe it does for instance), but to say that Rowan takes money for being a protestant leader is simply not true. The problem with the statement "our period is a lot like the Jacobean" is that, at any given point in the history of the Anglican communion, it would be true.

So, come on over...

Geoff Miller

As a Catholic it would be easy to gloat at the dire state of the CofE - after all, 7 years at a CofE school and the almost daily discrimination and snide remarks by teachers would allow me that right.

But, the sadness is that with the loss of the CofE - and it has to all intents gone now - affects ALL Christians and our Christian heritage.

Oh how the Muslims must laugh when they see the death throws of the Established Church of England.

Soon the CofE Mass will only be held in the gay bars of Soho or at Labour Party Conventions.

It has become a parody of a Church.

hadrian

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, but Rowan Williams and every other Protestant minister/parson does indeed take money/get paid to preach/teach/promote that Protestant Faith. That is the honourable thing; the dishonourable is to be paid to do one thing but actually do quite the reverse, as Williams in his maladroit way only too clearly does.
The CofE does not have 'mass' which it officially rejects but Communion or the Lord's Supper. The mass is a particularly revolting symptom of Romanism's false soteriology from which all true Protestants recoil in horror.