Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Trinity And The Meaning Of Colossians 2:9

Posted by Job on May 26, 2008

Home > Commentaries > Robertson’s Word Pictures > Colossians >
Chapter 2 > Verse 9

Original link: Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (oti en autwi katoikei pan to plhrwma thß qeothtoß swmatikwß). In this sentence, given as the reason (oti, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from qeoß, deitaß) and not to be confused with qeioteß in Romans 1:20 (from qeioß, the quality of God, divinitas), here only in N.T. as qeiothß only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. Teiothß occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that “all the plhrwma of the Godhead,” not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (swmatikwß, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Philippians 2:9-11), “the body of his glory” (twi swmati thß doxhß). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John 1:1,18; Philippians 2:6), during the Incarnation (John 1:14,18; 1 John 1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.


259 Responses to “Trinity And The Meaning Of Colossians 2:9”

  1. Nate said

    Job: The Trinity Post appears to be partly comprised of Greek or some similar language on my computer.

  2. Karl said

    For in him (in Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (of the divinity) corporally.[3] That is, in the person of Christ, the Son of God, really and substantially united to our human nature. Not inhabiting, as in a temple as the Nestorian heretics pretended, nor as by his grace in men’s souls, but so as to be personally or hypostatically united to the soul and body of Christ. (Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition)

    [3] Ver. 9. In ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, Greek: katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos. See St. Chrysostom, Greek: log. st. p. 118.

  3. Job said


    The soul is part of the body. Jesus Christ had a human body. His spirit was Logos just as it had always been. John 1:1, Luke 1:35, etc. make this explicitly clear and not at all complex. I do allow for the fact that the lack of a canonical Bible and the circulation and initial acceptance of the false books containing heresies probably complicated things, but the primary reason for all this controversy was the fact that the church JUST HAD to have their Christianity served with a lot of Greco – Roman Neo – Platonian (not to mention Babylon mystery religion) philosophies and heresies. My thought is that it was the result of the early Gentile believers totally rejecting the contents of Paul’s letter to the Romans and kicked the Jewish Christians out of the church. The Gentile Christians didn’t want to let go of their pagan abominations, and the Jewish Christians didn’t want to put up with that demonic mess, so they had to part ways, and the apostolic church was no more; replaced by a Gentile church that loved Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Zeno, Epicurus, Apollonius, etc. as much as they did the Bible.

  4. Job said


    Yep. Are the Greek characters displaying correctly on your browser?

  5. Karl said


    it is unfair to say that am complicating things because what I have presented is not my own private interpretation. It is the Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

    Father Haydock’s chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609.

    The Haydock Bible is a larger-print format Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible with a comprehensive Catholic commentary and an illustrated Catholic Bible Dictionary and History of the Books of Holy Scripture reproduced from the 1859 edition of Fr. Haydock, whose superb explanations and commentary take up about one-half to two-thirds of each page.

    The commentary is drawn largely from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church – ABSOLUTELY INVALUABLE. The copious commentary (which is NOT large print) and accompanying dictionary make it the best Bible available if you want to understand Holy Scripture. If you want a Bible that is not just the Word of God but will help you to understand the Word of God, then look no further!

  6. Ev Duane Williams said

    “The soul is part of the body.”

    The Bible makes a clear distinction between body and soul in numerous passages which I posted before but were ignored as usual:

    Isaiah 10:18
    And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standard-bearer fainteth.

    Matthew 10:28
    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    1 Thessalonians 5:23
    And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “Jesus Christ had a human body. His spirit was Logos just as it had always been.”

    Job sorry to break the news to you, but you are officially a heretic. Your position(Apollinarianism) that Jesus didn’t have a human spirit but that the Word was His only Spirit was condemned as heresy by the Council of Constantinople.

    Apollinaris, “the Younger” (died 390), was a bishop of Laodicea in Syria. He collaborated with his father Apollinaris the Elder in reproducing the Old Testament in the form of Homeric and Pindaric poetry, and the New Testament after the fashion of Platonic dialogues, when the emperor Julian had forbidden Christians to teach the classics.

    He is best known, however, as a warm opponent of Arianism, whose eagerness to emphasize the deity of Jesus and the unity of his person led him so far as to deny the existence of a rational human soul (νους) in Christ’s human nature, this being replaced in him by the logos, so that his body was a glorified and spiritualized form of humanity. Over against this the orthodox or Catholic position maintained that Christ assumed human nature in its entirety including the [νους], for only so could He be example and redeemer. It was alleged that the system of Apollinaris was really Docetism (see Docetae), that if the Godhood without constraint swayed the manhood there was no possibility of real human probation or of real advance in Christ’s manhood. The position was accordingly condemned by several synods and in particular by that of Constantinople (AD 381).

    You, my friend, have been declared a heretic since 381 AD. Welcome to the club!!!

  7. Ev Duane Williams said

    Ever notice how “Oneness heretics” like myself take Scriptures like Colossians 2:9 at face value and trinitarians have to do a bunch of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Tagalog/Pig Latin somersaults to show us ignorant, unlearned rednecks what the scripture really says?

  8. irishanglican said

    Yes, without the Oecumenical Councils of God (eastern), and Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition in the true Church of God, we whould not have the Trinity of God, nor the Incarnation of God in Christ! (Acts 2:42)

  9. irishanglican said

    My point was the great dogmatic work of the Eastern and the Orthodox Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper – the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Godhead in reation with manhood in the incarnation.

  10. irishanglican said

    Amen Karl, go boy! I am an Anglican, but with the doctrine of the Orthodox as to both Nicaea I (325) and Chalcedon (451). In fact personally I follow and hold (as the Orthodox) to the first seven Ecumential Councils.

  11. Karl said

    Lol….this is precisely what happens when the individual interprets Scripture for himself, relying on his own private judgment.

    When this happens people can never agree about the sense of biblical verses; they often give the most contrary and contradictory interpretations to the same texts; and often alter their opinion about the sense they put upon them: what they believe to be the true sense today, they reject as false tomorrow.

    Scripture is very clear that there are things hard to understand, which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Self-styled bible-evangelists, preachers, bible-study enthusiasts, and everyone in between, cannot feign ignorance or pretend not to understand the following prophetic verses:

    …in which are some things hard to understand, especially by unlearned, ignorant people, unstable, inconstant, not well grounded in faith, and which they wrest,as they do also the other scriptures, by their private interpretations, to their own perdition. – 2 Pet. iii. 16

    Being forewarned, therefore, and knowing these things before, take heed not to be led away by the errors of such false and unwise teachers, whatever knowledge they boast of, as did the Gnostics. But make it your serious endeavor to increase in grace by God’s assistance, in the true knowledge of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, to whom, as being one God with his eternal Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory now, and for all eternity.2 Pet. iii. 17

    These verses are prophetic because they clearly foretold what we see unfolding before our very eyes today ; they clearly foretold of the false doctrines started by the false and unwise teachers Luther and Calvin in the 16th Century. No one can deny this Truth.

    Question is why is it that protestant sects refuse to understand something that is as crystal-clear, and instead choose to follow their founders to eternal perdition?

    The answer is pride ; protestants can interpret scripture on their own and have no need for a divinely instituted authority. Just as Lucifer reject any authority above him, so do they reject the Divinely instituted authority set up to determine what must be believed.

    This pride has darkened their understanding and made them blind to the truth. It is a just chastisement from God.

    ” Non Serviam, “ screeched Lucifer. ” I refuse to serve the Pope, “, growled Luther.

    Strange how the protestant rebellion mirrors the rebellion of the fallen angels.

  12. irishanglican said

    Karl…Hey mate, I am not sure I can put the whole Protestant camp into the place of 2 Peter 3:16-17? I also read and value something of Karl Barth (Barth and the Orthodox Fr. Georges Florovsky were respected friends, etc.) And Luther’s Christology was mostly Catholic still. But I know what you are saying. The people here that won’t submit to the Ecumenical Councils, both on the Trinity and the proper incarnate teaching of the person of Christ are the worst. They indeed deserve the texts of 2 Peter 3:16-17! When one presents the blessed truth and purity of the Triune God and the beauty of the Incarnate Christ, and then they throw it down to the ground (like). They prove their judgment! To be heterodox on the Triune God and the Eternal Son of God, is most serious error to say the least!

    To God be the glory!
    Fr. Robert (Anglican)

  13. Polycarp said

    Duane, great comment. Irishanglican? Really? Without the Councils we wouldn’t have the Incarnation? Really?

  14. Here is a verse that clinches Holy trinity issue for me.. John 14:23 Note the terms we, our used ” and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him”.

    (John 14:21 KJV) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    (John 14:22 KJV) Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

    (John 14:23 KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    (John 14:24 KJV) He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

    (John 14:26 KJV) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


  15. irishanglican said

    Polycarp – We have been over and over this, you must at least know that we would have no proper understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation without both Scripture and Ecumenical Council, and that also means the Apostolic Church! Indeed look at you, your rejecting both!

  16. Job said


    Of course you now see that you and I are far closer to each other than either of us are to Ev. Duane Williams, Polycarp, or Karl. Being Anglican you would recognize my Confession of Faith:

    And my catechism:

  17. irishanglican said

    Job – I am what is called a High Church Anglican. And I follow the Orthodox very closely also, on the Ecumenical Councils. Actually Karl and I would be very close, I assume he is R. Catholic? We would break on the filioque, and some other western and Roman Catholic doctrine and issues.

    If Ev. Duane is right, and you reject that Christ had a human spirit? That would be Apollinarian. Is that your teaching?

    Did you know the Belgic (Reformed) Confession follows the Council of Ephesus and declared the divine maternity (Theotokos) of Mary…the Mother of God? True! (Of course this is toward the incarnational truth) As Calvin, and many Reformed in the 16th, 17th century Reformed Church. And also by the way, Ephesus condemned theologically the Pelagians.

    And yes, this oneness doctrine is basically Monarchianism. Most hetetrodox!

    Fr. Robert

  18. Job said


    So if you follow the eastern orthodox, I would presume that you practice iconography, praying to angels and saints, and the veneration of Mary, who scripture clearly proclaims not to be a virgin? I did not see a reference to Theotokos in the Westminster Confession but will re – check. I will gladly adopt the doctrine that Jesus Christ had a human spirit when you show me a Bible verse that depicts it. Apollinarianism teaches that Jesus Christ did not have a human mind. I disagree. Look, there is this notion that man consists of a body, a soul, and a spirit, three parts. This does not come from Judaism. This comes from Hellenism. If the body is natural, and the spirit is spiritual, what is the soul? Half and half? So … we know that when we die the body goes to the dust. We know that the spirit will ultimately be with Jesus Christ or be condemned to the lake of fire. So then … what of the soul?

    The soul is your mind, your will, and your emotions. It is what was referred to as “the heart” or “the flesh” in various places in the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is nothing spiritual, kind of spiritual, sort of spiritual, mystical, esoteric, etc. about the mind, will, and emotions. It is 100% natural. It is part of your body. It is housed in your brain. It is affected by things such as fatigue, hunger, chemicals, etc. Jesus Christ was a human. He had a human mind. Period.

    They used GREEK PHILOSOPHY to SPECULATE that in order to be fully human, Jesus Christ had to have a human spirit. Fine. Show me where the Bible says that. After you do that, explain to me the fate of Jesus Christ’s human spirit. Will it go to heaven with Jesus Christ? Will it go to the lake of fire? Did it simply cease to exist after serving its purpose?

    They used GREEK PHILOSOPHY to SPECULATE that in order to be fully God, Jesus Christ had to have a divine mind, will, and emotions. If so, why? What purpose did they serve? You can come up with various explanations but the truth is that you do not know. Why? Because the Bible does not say so. Doesn’t say it. Doesn’t imply it. Doesn’t construct it. Doesn’t hint it. My goodness, if Jesus Christ had a human mind and a divine mind … doesn’t that make Him guilty of being “double – minded and unstable in all His ways” after the manner of James if you take it in a hyper – literal sense? So, to get around that fact, they came up with the notion that “Jesus Christ’s mind and body perfectly agreed.”

    Look, this article on the hypostatic union does not even give a single scripture describing it.
    Why? Because it isn’t there. There is no scripture saying that Jesus Christ had two minds. There is certainly no scripture stating that Jesus Christ had two spirits. It was something that Gentile Christians came up with in order to reconcile the Bible with pagan Greek philosophy. Again, even that link that they used said that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bones. He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). I agree 100%. I also agree 100% that the mind is part of the flesh, the natural human being. This is something proven by medical science! But Luke 24:39 did not say that “I have a human spirit plus Logos”, nor did it say “I have a human mind, will, and emotions to go with my Divine one.”

    My guess is perhaps that the Greco – Roman Gentiles thought that “Logos” referred to mind, will, and emotions rather than the pre – existing Word of God because according to their own understanding that had prior from their pagan philosophies and religions, that is precisely what “logos” meant. Sorry, but John merely co – opted “logos” to try to express a Hebrew idea with a Greek term.

    There is a reason why the Gentile church does not deal much with Jewish thought … it would harm too many of the doctrines and practices. Even the Protestants would be forced to admit how much of this stuff came from the Roman imperial church and from paganism and has nothing to do with the Bible. That was why for centuries it was just easier to sit around and be a rabid frothing at the mouth anti – Semite, and in modern times it is easier to be a dual covenant rapture ready theologist. Folks decide that they love these “historic doctrines” more than they love what the Bible actually says. Well, wherever a person’s heart lies, that is where his treasure is. With me, my treasure is with the Word of God.

    Now IrishAnglican, you have a huge opportunity to expose me as a ranting ignorant fool by giving me some scriptures that prove the hypostatic union. If you do, then I will be glad to apologize, recant, and adopt the Biblical position, and apologize to the ecumenical councils for criticizing their excellent job of using Greek philosophy to systematize and describe a Bible concept as they did with Trinity. Otherwise, I will say that they should have just stopped at “Trinity exists because God the Father was in heaven, God the Son was on earth, and God the Holy Spirit descended upon God the Son at His baptism” and left well enough alone.

  19. irishanglican said

    Job – Well that is a pretty fundamentalist presupposition, (this is why Karl and I would be closer, he being RC). But how about St. Luke 2:12;16-17;21;27;28-34;40;42-43; 52. / Lk.3:22-23 / Lk.4:1 / Lk. 23:46. And St. John 11:35.

  20. irishanglican said

    If these verses do not “depict” a human spirit, then I don’t know what does!

  21. irishanglican said

    Job – Note I said, that it was the Reformed Belgic Confession on “theotokos” Article 9? (Going on me memory here?)

  22. Job said


    Re – read my post, I added some things.

    Now I went through your entire scripture selections and did not see a thing regarding Jesus Christ having two spirits (or two spirit – men) or two minds (or two minds, wills, and emotions). All I saw was a fact that is not in dispute: Jesus Christ = fully God and fully man. Now why am I not surprised?

    Listen. Hypostatic union was an attempt to describe fully God and fully man according to man’s knowledge. The Greco – Roman Christians had a pre – existing notion of what defined man and what defined deity that came from Greek pagan thought. So, they came up with a human doctrine to fit their preconceived notion. I find it amazing that they were able to come up with Tri – Unity DESPITE it OPPOSING their preconceived notion of unity because they were forced to follow the Bible, but had absolutely no problem defining humanity in a manner that the Bible does not. Quite simply, they had blanks created by their inability to reconcile Hellenistic philosophy with the Bible, so they came up with something that filled it. They should have studied how the BIBLE defines humanity and stuck with it. It really is not that hard.

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    “And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground” … that means that God created man’s BODY

    “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” … that means God gave man a spirit. It is even more explicit if you go to the Hebrew. “the breath” = nĕshamah, Strong’s Word H05397 which means SPIRIT. It is used in some contexts as SPIRIT OF MAN, but it other contexts it means SPIRIT.

    Now do we have another verse in the Bible that tells us how to make a man? Nope. That is all we have to go on. Man = BODY PLUS SPIRIT. NO SOUL! NO MIND, WILL, AND EMOTIONS! So we have Jesus Christ. The verses that you just gave me proves that He had A HUMAN BODY. That fulfills the first half of Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:7a. What fulfilled Genesis 2:7b? LOGOS, the pre – existing Spirit of the Word of God, which came into Jesus Christ’s BODY when the HOLY SPIRT OVERSHADOWED MARY as described in Luke 1:35. So Jesus Christ fulfilled the qualifications of being fully man according to the only standard that we have, Genesis 1:27. And obviously He fulfilled the standard of being fully God. And we should believe Jesus Christ on this matter, SINCE BEING GOD AND THE WORD OF GOD HE WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE THE VERY STANDARD THAT HE FULFILLED WHEN HE WAS INCARNATED AS A HUMAN. JESUS CHRIST MADE THE VERY SHOE THAT HE LATER FIT!

    So who are you going to believe Irishanglican? The ecumenical councils or the Bible? Now the Roman Catholics do not have this problem, because they can claim that the ecumenical councils were inspired, and these doctrines are part of their extrabiblical tradition. But Protestants have to stick to the Bible.

  23. Job said


    They depict a human. But hey, the ball is in your court. If Jesus Christ had a human spirit in addition to Logos, what of it? Where is it now? What will happen to it on judgment day?

  24. irishanglican said

    Job – Indeed Mary the Mother of God, is very special to me, as both an Anglican and someone close to Orthodoxy. Not to mention I was raised Irish RC! But, I really don’t follow Rome on her, as I do the Orthodox. And I am not so much a one to pray to Angels either, it is fine with me, just not my personal thing, etc. But, yes I love Icons! They are like a little window into heaven! This is spiritual, mystical and even incarnational!

  25. irishanglican said

    Job – I need a bit of time to digest your Greek thought and thinking. I do have two doctorates (D.Phil.,T.D.), but I am well into my 50’s..and need a bit of time to process also. You full time bloggers have lots of energy! lol And I do have souls to write, etc.

    We are closer than the non-Trinitarians, but I fear you are border Apollinarian? And yes, the Orthodox see the Ecumenical Councils as fully apostolic and doctrinal in both scripture and tradition. I am very, very close to this position also. As High Church Anglican.

    Till later mate..

    Fr. Robert

  26. irishanglican said

    Th.D. (tired, and a poor

  27. irishanglican said

    PS Job – Christ is still Incarnate at and upon the Throne of God! (The Letter to the Hebrews) The glorified God-Man (Christ Jesus), still fully human. I will say more later as to the “two natures” and Chalcedon. Got to write others.

    Fr. Robert

  28. Ev. Duane Williams said


    He still has His human spirit. It will be forever a Part of Him throughout Eternity. How many times have I showed you where Scripture clearly distinguishes between body and soul again and again, and you continue to ignore? How about where Paul mentions body, soul, and spirit together in one verse? The soul is what connects the spirit to the body just like the Son is what connects God to man. We are created in God’s image, no? God is a threefold being, no? Why would man be only twofold?

    Look, there is this notion that manGod consists of a body, a soul, and a spiritFather, Son, and Holy Spirit, three parts. This does not come from Judaism. This comes from Hellenism.” Yeah, try explaining trinitarianism to a Jew without any Hellenistic terminology. LOL!! 😉

  29. Ev Duane Williams said


    It appears you and I agree on two things: 1. Jesus had(has) a human spirit and 2. The works of Karl Barth are a good read. Now if I can only get you to see the Truth of the Mighty God in Christ……

  30. Karl said

    …and the veneration of Mary, who scripture clearly proclaims not to be a virgin…

    Arrogant statements such as this one showcase Job’s deep and profound ignorance. Heretics often question the perpetual virginity, Divine motherhood, and/or the personal sanctity of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God (The Immaculate Conception). And they do this out of pure hatred and/or culpable ignorance, and delighting in blaspheming Her.

    Scripture clearly teaches that Mary remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of Jesus. Mary’s question (Luke 1:34), the angel’s answer (Luke 1:35, 37), Joseph’s doubt (Matthew 1:19-25), Christ’s words addressed to the Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her virginity during the conception of her Divine Son.

    Well done, Job! You just exposed your foolishness for all to see. Shame, shame at one’s own foolishness, is one of the consequences of the principle of private interpretation of Scripture. And here is ignominious and eternal shame reserved for those who persist in error.

    When protestants study the writings of the “Reformers” (or founders of their particular sect) on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the “Reformers” accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

    Throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians – and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

    “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.” (Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.)

    John Calvin was a second generation reformer and his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine. Though not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther, Calvin did not deny Her perpetual virginity and referred to Mary as The “Holy Virgin”.

    “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” (Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.) Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

    “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.” (John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.)

    “To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honor to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.” (10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.)

    “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” (Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639)

    “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.) Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

    “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.” (E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.)

    “Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Ibid.)

    “The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.” (Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.)

    Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been “covered up” by their most zealous followers. This “cover-up” can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that “Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers’ almost universal acceptance of Mary’s continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner”. He then asks if it is “a favorable providence” that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being “transmitted to the Protestant churches”! (David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.)

  31. irishanglican said

    Job – I am amazed that you would not see the great Hellenization of both first century Judaism and also St. Paul’s whole Hellenistic education and history! This was no doubt the timing and great providence of God (Gal.4:4) See also St.Paul’s (Saul then) and his rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) St. Paul was born among the Hellennistic Jews of the Diaspora, but had been brought up in Jerusalem. And as a student of Gamaliel (Gamaliel led the liberal faction of the Pharsees), Paul had extensive training in the OT law, and rabbinic traditions. Indeed later, the very legal Judaizers took note of both Pauls, no doubt Gamalielan education, and his move toward the Gentiles, as a Christian Apostle.

    Ev Duane – Yes, very strange eh? I knew I liked you, as I said. lol But, it is you that I hope and pray will see both the Trinitarian nature of God, and the beauty and truth of His infallible Church? I know this has been a journey for myself, and I am older than you. But I want to finish the race well, as St. Paul says. Any one for “theosis”? And if you keep reading Barth, I know he will lead you in better places.

    Karl – Good post mate! Indeed, any Reformed Christian, “theolog” worth his/her salt will say amen to Mary as the Mother of God! There is a Reformed seminary professor’s blog (R. Scott Clark) on here who will say amen to this also.. Westminister, USA (S. Cal.)
    Our friend Job should read Augustine on our Blessed Virgin.

    And Karl you must love St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s Homilies in Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary? And I love Bernards book: On Loving God also.

    Always seeking God’s metanoia (repentance) – “a transformation of the mind”!
    Fr. Robert

  32. irishanglican said

    Job – Again as to the reality of our Lord having a human spirit. I think logic would infer this from the good texts I gave in St. Luke’s Gospel! “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, Into Your Hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last. Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he begain praising God, saying, “Certainly this MAN (human person) was innocent.” (Lk. 23:46-47) The logic is simple!

    See also 1 Cor.2:10-12, here St. Paul states clearly the spirit-spiritual nature of man, and on into the Holy Spirit, and His redemptive nature for man: “those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” (Verse 13) And finally, “But we have the mind of Christ.” (Verse 16, human like His, but ours renewed and regenerate).

    Before I get into Chalcedon, I wanted to stress the biblical! Can you stay in the Text here?

    Fr. Robert

  33. alias said

    Why is it so necessary to believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life? James was the brother of Jesus. That is clear from scripture. In Matthew 1:25, we see that Joseph ‘had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.’ This tells us that once she gave birth to a son, Joseph did have union with Mary.

  34. irishanglican said

    Alias – Perhaps our RC friend Karl can give us the RC statement? But the Hebrew word represented by “till” does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place (Gen.8:7,Ps.109:2,Dan.6:24) So this phrase does not really impugn the perpetual virginity of Mary the Mother of our Lord. The text would then read: “And Joseph awoke from sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord had told him, taking his wife to himself, and he had not known her when she bore a son..etc.” (Matt.1:25) And also for the East, there is the authority and tradition of the Church. As I said, Rome also has their authority.

    Also in Matt.1:23, “Behold, The Virgin” (is from the Septuagint (Gk.) and is unambiguous for “virgin”.

    In the Orthodox tradition, Joseph was a much older man when he took Mary for his wife, and to be the Theotokos…the Mother of God. See, The Council of Ephesus. And the term “cousin” of course does not mean immediate blood relation in Hebrew. (See,Gen.14:14;16 KJV) And the same Greek word is also used for Christian botherhood in the NT.

  35. irishanglican said

    And there is this verse from Ezekiel 44:2. The spiritual and theological priciple is obvious!

  36. irishanglican said

    *principle..sorry me type is so poor

  37. irishanglican said

    Alias – That Mary the Mother of the Lord is the first person to receive and believe in Christ is seen in St.Luke 1:45-46, and she also personifies the people of God, Israel (Lk.1:54). So she IS the Church also! (Rev.12:1-6) Also, she is the Mother of the Church & the Redeemed (St.John 19:25-27). These are some of the biblical and scipture texts, given simply.

    That Mary the Mother of our Lord was entrusted with a mystery, and her mission was to sound its depths, but the Church, in its turn has the duty of plumbing the depths of this most Christian mystery! These are very basic but profound truths! But as the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, Mary was declared the Theotokos – the Mother God, from here all her and our blessings flow…the Incarnate Christ!

  38. Mary was the mother of Christ born into flesh, but Him having been eternally with the Father, He existed before her. She is not the “mother of God” so to speak, because God existed before her. The Lord Jesus existed before Mary, she was simply a vehicle for Christ to be born in human flesh. All persons of God, Jesus included, existed before Mary.

    Hebrews 1:2 (New American Standard Bible)

    2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

    And the Lord Jesus was believed on way before Mary was ever born.

    Psalm 110:1 (New American Standard Bible)

    1 The LORD says to my Lord:
    ” Sit at My right hand
    Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

    Mary was not at all a “perpetual virgin”. Scripture is clear, that Joseph only kept her a virgin till Jesus was born.

    Matthew 1:24-25 (New American Standard Bible)

    24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

    25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

    No Joseph did not die never having slept with Mary, he slept with her, they had sexual intercourse, after Jesus left her womb. Everyone who saw Jesus in flesh knew there were other men born from the womb of Mary after Him.

    Matthew 12:47 (New American Standard Bible)

    47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

    Mary was BORN DEGENERATE IN SIN JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. By her faith she was found righteous, as are all who are saved by grace through faith on the Lord Jesus.

    The Lord Jesus forbids veneration of the woman He saved named Mary.

    Luke 11:27-28 (New American Standard Bible)

    27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”

    28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

    Mary was not born of a virgin herself, never was such prophesied to occur and never does real scripture note such occurring.

    And even the claim “mother of Jesus” is much broader than Mary.

    Matthew 12:48-50 (New American Standard Bible)

    48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

    49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!

    50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

    Ecumenical Council’s don’t save, only the Lord Jesus can and He’s made the record clear for us.

  39. Karl said

    Those outside the Catholic Church misinterpret and manipulate the already mutilated King James Bible, or whatever bible they use, to their own misunderstanding and eternal perdition. Cursed be Luther, Calvin, King Henry VIII, and cursed be King James I the man behind the KJV.

    Mary was a Virgin from the time She gave birth to Jesus, and remained a pure Virgin until She was assumed into Heaven (Rev 12:1).

    MARK 6:3 “Is not this carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph and Jude, and Simon? Are not also His sisters here with us?”

    The above verse states that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was the Mother of them. In the days of Jesus Christ, all relatives and cousins, even close friends were regarded as brothers and sisters. There was no specific word used describing cousins, nephews, uncles, auntie’s, brother , etc, at that time. It fell basically under the title for example: the House of David, (all regarding themselves as brothers and sisters). In the Old Testament, Abraham referred to his nephew Lot as brother.

    When Jesus was on the Cross, He gave Mary into the care of His disciple John to be his Mother, who from that moment took Her as his own. Now this would have been unnatural if Jesus did have other brothers and sisters, that were able to take care of Her.

    The Holy Spirit shall reveal to us who those brethren were and end once and for all, the debate about Our Lady keeping Her Perpetual Virginity.

    MATT 27:56 “Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedees James the Greater and John.”

    James the Greater and John are the sons of Zebedee.

    MARK 15:40-41 “And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome (Zebedee’s wife).”

    Here we have Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph. Nowhere does it imply they are the children of Mary: the Mother of Jesus.

    LUKE 6:15 “…James the son of Alphaeus.”

    This person James, is not the apostle James, son of Zebedee and Salome, but James the son of Alphaeus and not the son of Mary.

    JUDE 1:1 “Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.”

    Notice the Inspired Word of GOD states that Jude is the servant and not the brother of Jesus Christ as also with his brother James, who were mentioned (Mark 6:3) as the brothers of Jesus.

    ACTS 1:13 “…James of Alphaeus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.”

    Simon Zelotes was a follower of Jesus Christ and not the brother of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3.

    The above mentioned names (Mark 6:3) show clearly that they are not the blood brothers of Jesus, the children of Mary. The Tradition in the Catholic Church on Mary being ‘Ever-Virgin’ could hardly have arisen if She had children who occupied important positions in that Church. To base one’s whole Doctrine on one verse (Mark 6:3) would not be logical, but unfortunately, all of today’s religions and sects have done so.

    Many religions and sects outside the Catholic Faith base their interpretation that ‘Brethren’ means immediate brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). Brethren in the Bible at that time was to describe a group of relatives, or the Apostles gathering together were regarded as brethrens, for we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

  40. And if anyone wants to question the words of Matthew 1:24-25, you’re going to have to address GREEK not Hebrew. The term “until/till” used is the GREEK term heōs, which was properly translated. And addressing one point is insufficient. All points prove Mary was NOT a virgin till her physical death. (Matthew 1:24-25 and Matthew 12:47) That Mary had intercourse with Joseph AND there were other children later born from her womb which scripture NEVER says were conceived of the Holy Spirit like Jesus.

    Mary is NOT the “mother” of the church.

    John 19:25-27 (New American Standard Bible)

    25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

    26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

    27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

    John took in Mary, it does not mention that Jesus made her mother of all His disciples.

    Notice Jesus addressed Mary as WOMAN, not “mother” and made it clear John was to be the one to care for her as a son would his own mother.

    There is no “mystery” to explore here, it’s clear. Some are falsely granting deity to Mary.

    Mary did not ascend to Heaven like Jesus in full body, Mary was not born from a virgin herself, Mary was not a perpetual virgin, Mary does not grant any gifts of salvation, Mary did not suffer for our sins, Mary was a degenerate woman saved by grace through faith on Jesus Christ.

  41. Anyone that goes to read Revelation 12:1 themselves will know somebody is lying and not to trust any other words they say.

    Roman Catholicism Versus The Bible. As Always, Bible Wins! (*Updated*)

  42. irishanglican said

    Karl – Nice post, I simply threw up a feeble outline of simple statement and scripture on our dear Theotokos. I don’t always have the time to give a better effort, and I am not sure this forum of the impersonal blog really works much? And the anti-Catholic and also the hate for the High Church positions are very real. It is amazing sometimes to see the great ignorance that many so-called devout people, have toward Liturgy,etc. and most certainly the almost nill understanding of many toward the east and Orthodoxy. Not to mention, their serious lack of the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds. And then as you mention, when they do seek to look, many “twist” both scripture and historical creed.

  43. irishanglican said

    Karl, I should say I agree with the portion of your post as to the Blessed Virgin as Theotokos, etc. But not the “cursed be” on Luther and Calvin! They were both good men (but not perfect or infallible), and dealing with a needed aspect at the time in the Church of Rome. Yes the Reformation went too far politically, but and was needed spiritually. The history of the Roman Church at the time is evident to this. Even Roman Catholic scholars admit this. Even the true Church is a pilgrim church, as the eastern and Orthodox Church has shown under great trial, pressure and suffering.

    And the beauty of the KJV is very real, in the English use and value, etc. Some of the Russian Orthodox feel that the KJV is very close to the Russian Orthodox Bible.

    Peace of Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  44. Reading scripture straight forward with no twists proves Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

    It requires much twisting to claim she was always a virgin and act like since various different people had the same name none of them were her biological children.

    God does not have a mother. My God existed before Mary, made the planet Mary walked on and used her to bring forth the Son of God in flesh, the One through whom it was all made and she served Him as a humble servant, because He saved her degenerate soul from her sins. Just as He saved me from my own and saves all who call on Him in truth.

    “Is the perpetual virginity of Mary Biblical?”

  45. Fran said

    Rev.12:1 symbolism/Nation of Israel. It is not speaking of Mary. If this is what you believe, you’re no where close to understanding the chapter at all.

  46. irishanglican said

    If Mary the Mother of our Lord is personified with Israel – St. Luke 1:54..then why not Rev.12:1-6?

  47. Job said


    Way to go! I have to acknowledge that allegorically Revelation 12 verses 2-6 could refer to Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus Christ and their having to flee to Egypt. But that leaves the problem with verse 1, because if you were to make that part of the allegory, then the allegory would clearly depict Mary in an exalted state … veneration, worship, queen of heaven, etc. And that makes the rest of the chapter VERY PROBLEMATIC. So … Satan and his demons were not cast out of heaven until the Incarnation? Please. The only way that it makes sense is to tie that passage to Genesis 3:15
    “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

  48. Job said


    Luke 1:54 “He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of [his] mercy;”

    Classic example of taking a scripture out of context and claiming that it means whatever you want it to. Look, how many other references to Israel in the Bible personify Mary? Were the many times the Psalms call Israel “my servant” prophetic foretellings of Mary?

    Further, it isn’t helpful in the least that the MANY other times Mary refers to herself in her prayer, she makes it explicit: “me”, “my”, and “handmaiden.” And after Luke 1:48, she never again refers to herself in the prayer! As a matter of fact, right after the mention of Israel in verse 54, this is what she says in verse 55:

    “As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.”

    IrishAnglican, whatever hermeneutic that is used to contrive Luke 1:54 as Mary referring to herself as Israel would make any and all Bible interpretations and doctrines completely worthless, because context would play no role in the meaning of the scripture whatsoever. Look, I spent most of my life in a charismatic Pentecostal movement that allowed not only Bible verses but phrases, fragments, at times even two or three words, etc. to take a life of their own. Now I see where these folks learned their Bible interpretation skills from.

    And by the way, IrishAnglican? The servant songs of Isaiah make it perfectly clear that JESUS CHRIST personified God’s servant Israel. Now looking back to the servant songs in Isaiah, it is possible to make the case that Luke 1:54 refers to how God the Father helped Jesus Christ and remembered Christ in His Mercy. “Sit thou at my right hand until thine enemies are made thy footstool.” “Thy will not suffer thine holy one remain in the grave or to see corruption.” “The Name of Jesus Christ glorified above all other Names by God the Father.” Etc. It would be a stretch – and a thoroughly unnecessary one at that – but it is totally justifiable and verifiable with scripture. But my goodness, if you are going to read Luke 1:54 to claim that Mary personified Jesus Christ, I would shudder to imagine what you come up with when you read the New York Times.

  49. irishanglican said

    Job – Look back up to verse 49…verse 54 flows down from there, and really the whole context of Mary’s Magnificat 46 thru 55 (but see also verse 45, she is the first to believe). Your Protestant scholasticism is really the problematic hermeneutic! Funny how you can use so many words, and really say so little?

  50. Fran said


    In Rev12:5, it goes foward from the time of Jesus birth to the rule of His kingdom 2,000 years or more, then the verse backs up to His ascension.

    Rev.12:6 leaps back to mid-point of the tribulation. These events in these verses are not in chronological order. I think that you may be missing that part.

    Read verse12:13-16. Then read Exodus19:4. Do you see when Israel was escaping how Pharaoh sent his armies & chariots to destroy Israel? God stopped him at the Red Sea. The anti-christ is going to do the same thing. Sending out an army to try and destroy the remmant.

  51. Fran said


    After you look at Exodus 19:4, then re-read Rev. 12:14

  52. Fran said


    Mary nor Herod has anything to do with Rev.12. It is speaking on Israel and the anti-christ.

  53. Well if it’s talking about Mary specifically in Luke 1:54 and Rev.12:1, than she was not a virgin when she birthed Christ, but a rather dirty little slut. Because we would have to apply the following to her as well using the loony logic, that references to a woman as a nation regarding Israel equate to Mary specifically.

    Jeremiah 3:1 (New American Standard Bible)

    1 God says, “If a husband divorces his wife
    And she goes from him
    And belongs to another man,
    Will he still return to her?
    Will not that land be completely polluted?
    But you are a harlot with many lovers;
    Yet you turn to Me,” declares the LORD.

    In Rev.12:1, the woman had a crown of 12 stars. It’s Israel as a whole, not just Mary.

    The Mary defiers help to blow their own argument out of the water.

  54. irishanglican said

    And who has the “loony logic” here? Which “Israel”? It can only be the NT sense of Israel, which is spiritual (Gal.6:15-16) and Mary’s “personification” is within the Christology of Christ. She is the “Mother of God” (Council of Ephesus, 431).This is incarnationally centered.

  55. She is the mother of Jesus and that is all she is. She bares no other importanance except to those who worship her. But we choose to worship God alone. May God bless you all.

  56. More like, who’s worshiping a false god with a mother named Mary here? Not me!

    If it’s about Israel (which it is), than it’s NOT Mary in Luke 1:54 and Rev.12:1, it’s Israel and both times it’s about the nation. But now you’ve been reduced to attempts to leverage replacement theology. It’s not the “spiritual” Israel mentioned in those verses. And Christ made it clear His earthly ministry in flesh was to the literal physical nation if Israel.

    Matthew 10:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)

    5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

    6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

    A ministry to spiritual Israel beyond the house of Israel, beyond targeting Hebrews, came after the resurrection of Christ. Jesus met some who were not Hebrew, but they were not the group targeted as is noted above. Non-Hebrews were not a group wholly targeted till after Christ resurrected, John 10:16 and John 12:32. The entire notion of spiritual Israel did not come till the ministry of Paul who revealed that in passages such as Galatians 6:15-16. However, this is not at all a blanket means to claim every mention of “Israel” is to spiritual Israel. Mary was speaking of the nation of Hebrews of which she was a part and no other concept of “Israel” was mentioned at that time. Jesus sent disciples to Israel while He walked earth in flesh and the one with 12 stars is likewise the physical nation of Israel. Just as the 144,000 sons of Israel in Revelation 7 are clearly Hebrews, while others who are of what is termed “spiritual Israel” are not mentioned till later in that chapter, verses 9 and beyond.

    Irishanglican, did the Son of God exists before Mary? I’ve already shown you the truth, but let’s hear your answer to the question. Did the Son of God exists before Mary, yes or no?

    Because if God in all His persons existed before Mary, He is her God, but she carries no special motherly weight with God. Unless considering Matthew 12:48-50, which I’ve already pointed out. Meaning Mary is no more significant than any other follower of Jesus Christ. God is God and Mary is a servant as is anyone else that follows Him. Mary, a degenerate soul that was in need of a savior and God used her for His purpose. This does not mean we go venerating the tool used. Again, Jesus Himself forbid such, Luke 11:27-28.

    The insanity of Mary as “mother of God” is exactly how Joseph Smith, Junior was able to lie and claim the Father had literal intercourse with Mary. The Son of God existed before Mary, so Mary is His servant, not His mother. Unless you rightly divide scripture and include Matthew 12:48-50, to affirm all who are disciples of Jesus are His mother and brothers, as Jesus said Himself.

    Your citations of councils of men means noting. Because your lies that attempt to make Mary “mother of God” have NO FOUNDATION in scripture. Never was Mary claimed to be “mother of God” by any of the apostles. They saw her as Jesus’ biological mother, knowing He was greater than her and she was not at all “mother of God”. She was simply a servant used, but not God’s mother. She did not remain a virgin and had other children, yet you lie and claim she did not. You’ve got a false Mary as you do a false god with your false Mary as his mother.

    Do you also believe that Mary ascended into Heaven full body like Jesus?

  57. Fran said

    Rev. 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.(All through the OT, including the twelves stars of Joseph’s dream, the symbolism is Israel.

    Rev. 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.(Isaiah says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”) The woman is Israel, the delivery is the Christ child born in Bethlehem.

    Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon(in scripture a symbolic picture of Satan) having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns(depiction of power) upon his heads.

    Rev. 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven(when Satan rebelled at the authority of God and took a third of the angelic host with him in his rebellion. Read Ezk. 28:13-15 & Isa. 14: 12-14) and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. (Satan tried to kill the Christ childwhen He was born in Bethlehem. That was the decree that went out to kill all boy babies under the age ot two.

    Rev.12: 5And she brought forth a man child, (Christ, and Israel was the vehicle from which the Messiah came)((the scriptures leap forward in time)) who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron (we know that He would rule the world as His Kingdom, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords): and her child was caught up to God, and to his throne.(This is a reference to His ascension back in Acts chapter 1, when He left from the Mount of Olives. He went back to God the Father and sat down at His right hand.)

    Rev. 12:6 leaps in time to the mid way point of the tribulation

    Rev. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness (maybe the Mountaines of Moab, maybe some other mountainess area) where she hath a place prepared of God, that they (Godhead) should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days(3 1/2 yrs.).

    Now remember what God did in the exodus from Egypt and brought Israel to Himself. They were fed, their clothes didn’t wear out, they didn’t need anything because He provided for them. Well He is going to do the same thing for this remnant. The tribulation will be going on all around them, but they are going to be safe in this place that God has prepared for them.

    Job, I am going to stop here but I can go further into the chapter if you like. I have to work in the morning and I have a long day ahead of me. We were discussing the Rev 12:1, and you spoke on verses 5&6. Just wanted to get back with you.

    God the Father having a mother is “looney logic”.lol

  58. irishanglican said

    Minister Patrick Williams; Independent Conservative – That Mary is the Mother of God is simply sound Christology. She is the mother of the Incarnate Christ! And though Christ is risen he is risen and ascended in the same but new and glorified body and flesh. Thus He lives a glorified life for His people on the throne of God. This is the truth of the Book of Hebrews! But the incarnation never ends but lives above (and in His Church below, both – in the person and risen body of Christ Jesus! And Mary is not just some surrogate vessel, a go-between, to somehow produce a mere body (this would be gnostic) for a Savior, no she is her self, as the Creed and Counicl of Ephesis has declared the “Theotokos” the God-bear into time and eternity!

    Fr. Robert (Anglican priest)

  59. Karl said

    I should say I agree with the portion of your post as to the Blessed Virgin as Theotokos, etc. But not the “cursed be” on Luther and Calvin! They were both good men (but not perfect or infallible), and dealing with a needed aspect at the time in the Church of Rome….

    Irishanglican, how could God appoint a foul-mouthed person famed for terrible ans unspeakable blasphemies against God, His Son Jesus Christ, the Blessed Sacrament, the Virgin Mary and the Papacy itself ?

    I quote from one of the best known French historians of the 20th century, Funck-Brentano, a member of the French Institute, and outside suspicion since he was a Protestant. Here are some chosen excerpts of Funck-Brentano’s book: Luther (Paris: Grasset, 1943)

    ” Christ committed adultery for the first time with the woman at the fountain, of whom John speaks. Didn’t people murmur: ‘What did He do with her?’ Then, with Magdalene, and next, with the adulterous woman whom He so flippantly absolved. Therefore Christ, so pious, also had to fornicate before he died “ (Propos de table [Table Talk], n. 1472, Weimar edition, 2.107, apud ibid., p. 235).

    ” Certainly God is grand and powerful, good and merciful … but he is also stupid – God is most stupid [Deus est stultissimus] (Ibid., n. 963, Weimar edition, I. 487). God is a tyrant. Moses acted, moved by His will, as His delegate, an executioner [of God] whom no one has surpassed or even equaled in frightening, terrifying and martyrizing the poor world “ (ibid., p. 230).

    Following the same line as these abominable statements is a pamphlet by Luther titled Against the Roman Pontificate Founded by the Devil of March 1545. In it, instead of calling the Pope Most Holy [Santissimo], as customary, he called him “Most Infernal” (Infernalissimo), and added that the Papacy was always bloodthirsty (ibid., pp. 337-338).

    Luther maintained this hatred to the end of his life. Indeed, Brentano affirms:

    ” His last public sermon in Wittenberg was on January 17, 1546. It was his final cry of malediction against the Papacy, the sacrifice of the Mass and the cult of the Virgin “ (ibid, p. 340).

    In February 18, 1546, Luther was invited by the princes of Mansfeld to mediate a quarrel. Everyone flocked to his sermons. Feast followed feast. During one drinking session, he rose and wrote on the wall an invective against the pope, amidst laughter and joking; suddenly, the old anguish overwhelmed him. The guests saw him return to his place, sinister, not opening his mouth. Not even drunkenness restored his usual loquacity.

    His valets revealed later that on this night, February 18, 1546, they had carried the master dead drunk to his bed. Having returned the next morning to dress him, they found him hanged to the posts of his bed, strangled. The devil, with whom he boasted of having slept more often than with his wife, had communicated to him, with his hatred, his despair, just like Judas.

    How then could Luther be God’s chosen vehicle for reform in the Catholic Church ?

    As a further example of Luther’s perverse doctrine take the following specimens:

    Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church.” “No;” say Luther and all Protestants, “do not hear the Church, protest against her with all your might!”

    Jesus Christ says: “If any one will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican.” “No,” says Protestantism, “if any one does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, as an ambassador of God.”

    Jesus Christ says: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church.” “No,” says Protestantism, “’Tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.”

    Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter–the Pope–to be his Vicar on earth. “No,” says Protestantism, “the Pope is Anti-Christ.”

    Jesus Christ says: “My yoke is sweet, and my burden light.” (Matt. xi. 30.) “No,” said Luther and Calvin “it is impossible to keep the commandments.”

    Jesus Christ says: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt. xix. 17.) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting.”

    Jesus Christ says: ” Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” (Luke, iii. 3.) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “fasting, and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”

    Jesus Christ says: “This is my body.” “No,” said Calvin, “this is only the figure of Christ’s Body, it will be­come his body as soon as you receive it.”

    Jesus Christ says: “I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matt. xix. 9.) “No,” say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another.”

    Luther is the father of the Protestant rebellion and spiritual father of the Modern Apostasy from God. The best judge of Luther’s true character is Luther himself. And so from Luther’s own words we see him for what he really was, a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and has led millions into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations.

    The spirit of Protestantism, or the spirit of revolt against God and his Church, sprung up from the “Reformers” spirit of incontinency, obstinacy, and covetousness. Luther, in despite of the vow he had solemnly made to God of keeping continence, married a nun, equally bound as himself to that sacred religious promise; but, as St. Jerome says, ” it is rare to find a heretic that loves chastity.”

    Seeing that divorce is the rule rather than the exception in all protestant nations, St Jerome’s statement should hardly surprise anyone. In England, the home of the protestant branch of Anglicanism, we see that even the children of the head of the church of england are divorced. In USA, a protestant nation founded by protestants, people openly flaunt and boast about their adulterous escapades and divorces. The same can be said of the predominantly Calvinist nations of Netherlands, Denmark, and the Scandinavian countries.

    Then, for his darling principle of justification by faith, in his eleventh article against Pope Leo, he says: ” Believe strongly that you are absolved, and absolved you will be, whether you have contrition or no.”

  60. She was just a vessel as we all are. Deserving no glory for her part in his birth. When we do things for God do we deserve a pat of the back, or are we simply being obedient? Mary knew her place, but some have made her into an item of worship. Even Mary understood all glory, honor and praise belong to God and not her. Bottom line; honoring her is idol worship. An idol set up in the heart that is robbing God of the praise He deserves. It is man made doctrine.

  61. Irishanglican – Claiming Mary is the “mother of God” is simply false teaching, that you’ve inherited from the cult of Mary, Roman Catholicism. So you follow their same false figures and give them similar status, which scripture does not affirm.

    She was the mother of Jesus as James and others were His brothers in a biological sense of His humanity, nothing more. Not and never “mother of God”. Joseph was not the step-father of God either.

    No where in the book of Hebrews is Mary attributed the title “mother of God”. Nowhere in the entire Bible of 66 books, the real scriptures.

    God is Spirit.

    John 4:24 (New American Standard Bible)

    24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    This renders your claims of Mary being the mother of God an impossibility.

    Mary was a slave to Christ as are all who follow Him, Ephesians 6:6.

    Again your creeds mean nothing, you’ve got no scripture to affirm your “mother of God” nonsense.

    She was just a vessel as all are.

    Romans 9:21-24 (New American Standard Bible)

    21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

    22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

    23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

    24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

    Now I will repeat my questions that you did not answer.

    Irishanglican, did the Son of God exists before Mary?

    Did the Son of God exists before Mary, yes or no? (I asked twice before and I’m asking twice again.)

    Do you also believe that Mary ascended into Heaven full body like Jesus?

  62. irishanglican said

    Karl, I would not try and defend either Luther or Calvin, in the strict sense. My point would be that they did seek to adress some very real problematic issues with the Roman Church in their time. Indulgences were one of the worst of the problems, with the moral laxity in some real areas also. This is historic fact, and even some R. Catholic historians write about and admit. I am not going to go chapter and verse on this, as I don’t really care to, or in my mind need or want to. I do in fact see the Roman Church as an Apostolic Church myself. But I do not believe or accept the view of the papal doctrines. I know you do my friend, and that is fine I am not making, nor will I challenge that for or toward you. It is a matter of your faith, and I will leave it there.

    Both Luther and Calvin must be seen as men of their culture and time. The sources you quote about Luther, these have long been held to be questionable. Though that Luther perhaps was drunk often times, is not such a real problem, as we see the problem with alcoholism even in todays time with human beings, and this includes the cergy of all churches.

    As to Calvin, well their is no moral failure there save his treatment of Servetus. And that was the idea and spirit of the age against those known and proved to be heretics. (i.e. death) And I am not defending that at all. But it is simply historic fact.

    The great disagreement that is the Reformation and Reformational, is really one of theology. But with Vatican II, etc., and the dialog that Rome now has with the Protestant Churches, (also with Eastern Orthodoxy). I myself cannot look back into the past, but on into the future, and hopefully the better days that I believe we have seen in these areas, with hopeful and proper continued ecumenism.

    The doctrine of Justification is one of better understanding also with East and West, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. See The Justification Reader, by Thomas Oden. I would disagree with him only slighty.

    Finally, much of the stuff that we disagree about even here on the blogs must be seen in some hierarchy of both biblical and thelogical truth and value. We who believe in the Trinity of God, the virgin birth and Theotokos, the Incarnation, and Divinity of Christ. The Death and Atonement of Christ for sin and sinners. And also His Ascension and Resurrection. We have much more in common, than those who do not believe these Christian and solid doctrinal truths.

    To God be the glory!
    Fr. Robert

  63. irishanglican said

    Independent Conservative. You show your ignorance toward me by even asking those questions. As an Anglican priest and pastor, of course I believe that Christ existed before Mary, I am a Trinitarian in the sense of the Orthodox Church truth and perspective, which is simply THE biblical, theological and creedal truth parexcellence!

    And was Mary the Mother of God asssumed up into heaven at her dormation? Absolutely! …Rev.12:1 Mary is the New Eve, the heavenly Jersusalem, personified wisdom, and Herself the Church of God! And of course the Theotokos: God bearer, always!

    I am not a Roman priest, but an Anglican priest again. But close, very close to the Orthodox Church and doctrine. If you read about what they believe, then you will see some of what I believe, as a High Church Anglican.

    Fr. Robert

  64. irishanglican said

    Minister Patrick Williams. The bottom-line is those Christians and Churches that do not fully understand and honor Mary as the Theotokos, etc. Are the one’s in error and not giving glory fully to God for all His great gifts and glory! Even the 16th and 17th century Reformed Church pastors taught that Mary was the Theotokos! Check out the Belgic Reformed Creed article 9.

    As to idolatry, the worst form is in the NT…1 John 5:21! Here it is the the heart, and anything that would keep the Christian from fully being shold-out and given over to God in Christ! So it is much more than some visual aspect, or the proper place of Mary the Mother of God in the Church. I dare say many Christians have made many things idols today in modern Christendom! From their leaders to themselves!

    Fr. Robert (Anglican)

  65. irishanglican said


  66. Karl said

    ” And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3. And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns; and on his head seven diadems. 4. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth, and the dragon stood before the woman, who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5. And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod; and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. 6. And the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred and sixty days. 7. And there was a great battle in heaven; Michael and his angels fought with the dragon and the dragon fought and his angels. 8. And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9. And the dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10. And I heard a loud voice saying: Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night. 11. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not theirs lives unto death. 12. Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having a great wrath and knowing that he hath but a short time. 13. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man-child: 14. And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15. And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as if it were a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16. And the earth helped the woman and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17. And the dragon was angry against the woman and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. 18. And he stood upon the sands of the sea. “

    Such are the words of the Evangelist. He speaks in the past, because at that time was shown to him a vision of that which had already happened. He says: ” And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars. “ This sign appeared really in the heavens by divine disposition and was shown to the good and the bad angels, in order that seeing it, they might subject their will to the pleasure and the commands of God. They saw it therefore before the good ones chose the good and before the bad ones had turned to evil. It was as it were a mirror of the wonderful perfection of the handiwork of God in creating human nature. Although He had already revealed this perfection to the angels in making known to them the mystery of the hypostatic union, yet He wished to reveal it to them also in a different manner by showing it to them in a mere Creature, the most perfect and holy which, next to the humanity of our Lord, He was to create. It was also a sign for the assurance of the good angels and for confusion of the bad, since it manifested to them that in spite of the offense which was committed, God would not let the decree of creating man be unfulfilled, and that the incarnate Word and this Woman, his Mother, would please Him infinitely more than the disobedient angels could ever displease Him. This sign was also like the rainbow, which appeared after the flood in the clouds of heaven, as a guarantee that even if men should sin like the angels and become disobedient, they were not to be punished like the angels without remission, but would be furnished with salutary medicine and remedy by this wonderful sign. It was as if God said to the angels: I will not chastise in the same way the other creatures which I call into existence, because this Woman, in whom my Onlybegotten is to assume flesh, belongs to that race.

    In further testimony of this, after the punishment of the disobedient angels, God made use of the sign in order to show that his anger, which the pride of Lucifer had occasioned, was appeased and placated. And according to our way of understanding, He rejoiced in the presence of the Queen thus represented in that image. He gave the angels to understand that, through Christ and his Mother, He would now divert upon men the grace which the apostate angels had lost through their rebellion. There was also another effect of that great sign among the good angels; namely, that since they had been, as it were, made sorrowful and made unhappy (speaking according to our way of understanding) the Most High now wished to rejoice them with the sign of that image and to increase their essential beatitude by this accidental pleasure merited by their victory over Lucifer. Seeing this woman so full of clemency(Esther 4, 11), appear to them as a sign of peace, they understood at once that the decree of punishment was not issued against them, since they had obeyed the precepts of the Lord and his divine will. Much of the mysteries and sacraments of the Incarnation, and those of the Church militant and its members, were made manifest to them in this sign. They understood also, that they were to assist and help the human race, by watching over men, by defending them against their enemies, and by leading them to eternal felicity. They saw that they themselves would owe their felicity to the merits of the incarnate Word, and that the Creator had preserved them also in grace through Christ preordained in the divine Mind.

    Just as all this was a great joy and happiness for the good angels, so it was a great torment for the evil spirits. It was to the latter a part and the beginning of their punishment. For they saw at once, that having failed to profit by this sign, they were to be conquered and crushed by it (Gen. 3, 15). All these mysteries, and many others, which I cannot explain, the Evangelist wished to comprehend in this chapter, and include in that great sign; although for us it will remain obscure and enigmatic until the proper time arrives.

    The sun, which is mentioned as clothing the Woman, is the true Sun of Justice. The angels were to understand by it, that the Most High was to remain with this Woman by his grace in order to overshadow and defend her by the protection of his invincible right hand. The moon was beneath her feet; for as the two planets, the sun and the moon, divide night and day, therefore the moon, being the symbol of the darkness of sin, is beneath her feet, and the sun, being the symbol of the light of grace, clothes her for all eternity. Thus also the deficiencies of grace in all mortals must be beneath her feet, and never must rise either to her soul or to her body, which on the contrary were to be ever superior to all angels and men. She alone was to be free from the darkness and the waning of Lucifer and of Adam, treading them under foot without their being able to gain any advantage over her. And just as she rose above all the guilt and the effects of original and of actual sin, God now placed these in a symbolic manner under Her feet, in order that the good angels might know, and the bad ones, (though they did not attain full knowledge of the mysteries), might fear this woman even before She came into actual existence.

    The above excerpt is taken from the Mystical City of God – the Divine History of the Virgin Mother of God By Venerable Mary of Agreda, died 1665).

    Besides the Mystical City of God, Mary of Agreda is remembered for her letters to King Philip IV of Spain. For a period of 22 years she advised the king about important matters of Church and state.

    She is also remembered for her miracles of bilocation. For eleven years she appeared to the Indians of New Mexico and taught them the truths of the Catholic faith.

  67. Irishanglican, actually I’m just allowing you to display your own lack of knowledge. And I guess we get to see a display of your arrogance along with that.

    Christ pre-existed Mary. God made Mary, Mary is not the mother of God. She was a vessel, not mother of God.

    Mary was not raised to Heaven full body like Christ. Christ rose on the 3rd day, Mary’s body won’t rise till with the rest of the dead in Christ.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16 (New American Standard Bible)

    16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

    Mary’s body has not yet been changed.

    1 Corinthians 15:50-52 (New American Standard Bible)

    50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

    51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,

    52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

    It really does not matter how many creeds and so on are trotted out. They are NOT scripture and false claims of Mary always being a virgin, false claims of Mary being born of a virgin, false claims of Mary ascending to Heaven full body, false claims of Mary being mother of God, none of it is in SCRIPTURE. While some may have been unaware, unlearned or just ignorant in the past does not mean such ignorance should continue. It is you who are in idolatry. Having made Mary deity. You don’t embrace the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but a false quad, of father, mother, son and spirit.

    Irishanglican, my time with you is done.

    Minister Patrick Williams, you’ve offered them the truth. I’ve offered them the truth. Job offered them the truth. Fran offered them the truth. Alias offered them the truth.

    I think 5 witnesses is more than sufficient. Instead of two or three, we provided 2 + 3 witnesses and those in error still desire to walk in error.

    Given Titus 3:9-11 I will end with them now and leave them rejected. May the Lord help them as He wills.

  68. Karl said

    “And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns; and on his head were seven diadems, and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth.” Thereupon followed the punishment of Lucifer and his allies; for after uttering his blasphemies against the Woman, who had been symbolized in the heavenly sign, he found himself visibly and exteriorly transformed from a most beautiful angel into a fierce and most horrid dragon. He reared with fury his seven heads, that is, he led on the seven legions or squadrons of all those that followed and fell with him. To each principality or congregation of these followers he gave a head, commanding them to sin on their own account and undertake the leadership in the seven mortal sins, which are commonly called capital. For in these are contained the other sins, and they constitute as it were the regiments that rise up against God. They are the sins called pride, envy, avarice, anger, luxury, intemperance and sloth. They are the seven diadems with which Lucifer, after being changed into a dragon, was crowned. That is the punishment with which he was visited by the Most High and which he acquired as a return for his horrible wickedness for himself and for his confederate angels. To all of them were apportioned the punishment and the pains, which corresponded to their malice and to the share which they had in originating the seven capital sins. “

    The Holy Ghost says that the glory of a man is from the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son (Ecclus. iii. 13). “Therefore it was,” says an ancient writer, that Jesus preserved the body of Mary from corruption after death; for it would have redounded to his dishonor had that virginal flesh with which he had clothed himself become the food of worms.”

    For he adds, Corruption is a disgrace of human nature; and as Jesus was not subject to it, Mary was also exempted; for the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary (Putredo namque humanae est opprobrium conditionis a quo cum Jesus sit alienus, natura Mariae excipitur; caro enim Jesu, caro Mariae est). But since the corruption of her body would have been a disgrace for Jesus Christ, because he was born of her, how much greater would the disgrace have been, had he been born of a mother whose soul was once infected with the corruption of sin?

    St. Augustine says, “that we must certainly believe that Jesus Christ preserved the body of Mary from corruption after death, for if he had not done so, he would not have observed the law, which, at the same time that it commands us to honor our mother, forbids us to show her disrespect “ (Lib. de Ass. c. 5). But how little would Jesus have guarded his Mother’s honor, had he not preserved her from Adam’s sin!

    Therefore, arrogant and proud charlatans like Independent Conservative, who delight in attacking and blaspheming the Mother of God at every opportunity, shall suffer the same fate as Lucifer. At the hour of death, this unfortunate person will beg to differ, but it will be too late and of no avail.

  69. irishanglican said

    Independent Conservative – Whew, done with me..boy am I glad! Your “fudamentalist” mind-set can hopefully go back and learn something about the High Church positions, etc., and also some church history and the true value of the Ecumenical Councils! And some knowlege of theology would help also! Because your ignorance is very profound! And just a little humility too, we all need that as Christians.

    Fr. Robert

  70. irishanglican said

    Karl…The Augustine quote was nice! We both love the Theotokos!

  71. irishanglican said

    “A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.” – William James

  72. Thank you IC. I too will leave this last word. I amazes me how there are thousands who bow to the goddes of heaven. Mary was not a god, but a woman. A living human being, and God will not share His glory with any. This is the highest form of idol worship and its roots dates back to Nimrod and his mother. Which by the way was considered the mother of god. Sound familiar? It should. This is what the catholic religion is based on.
    I also find it amazing that the Anglicans proceeded from this ungodly any religion. The Anglican church in America has decided to seek union with the Roman Catholic Church for sometime now. If unification is successful, this would be the first post-Reformation church to reunite with Rome. The Church in America is part of the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion, which consists of churches that split from the mainstream Anglican Communion in 1979 in opposition to the ordination of women clergy and to changes made to the Book of Common Prayer, which includes the basic doctrines and prayers.
    They voted in favor of starting a formal discussion with Rome and eventually creating what is called a “single Eucharist community.” This would allow members of the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church to take communion at each other’s churches.
    Despite unification, from a basic theological and operational standpoint, nothing will be different within the church. Membership also seems to be growing as the Episcopal Church ordains homosexual clergy and debates blessing same-sex unions.
    As far as Mary, well, I like the way Jesus said it just before his ministry began. Woman, what have I to do with you? His words show he was about Gods work and that she was mirely a vessel fit for the masters use; which was to bare a child. Jesus words show she deserved nothing special.
    At another time the disciples came to him saying Lord thy mother and thy brothers seek you. Again he showed it is the father that matters most, saying who is my mother, and who is my brother. But they that do the will of my Father.
    And again when he was upon the cross he said, woman behold thy son, speaking of John. Notice the word woman. It is not a term of endearment. But one of separtion. Even at his death he reserved all honor for his Father and would shared it honor with his mother. He gave God glory and honor with his own mouth. Yet millions are not following his example, rather giving heed to doctrines of devils.

  73. irishanglican said

    Minister Patrick Williams. Sir, I can biblically, and theologically refute every statement of yours (also your most real mistakes with the Greek term “woman”), if this blog stays aloft? Are you game still?

    Fr. Robert

  74. I will continue to do and be as I believe. I’m looking forward to Jesus answering your questions if you should be allowed to see him. God bless.

  75. irishanglican said

    MPD, Yes mate, we will all stand before our Lord, in our eternal day. But not alone, Christ Jesus will stand with us, or really in us – “Christ in you the hope of glory or glorification.” As St. Paul says also: “that we (the apostolic truth and church) may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
    (Verse 28)

    And God Bless you also!
    Fr. Robert

  76. Karl said


    Orestes Brownson, one time presbyterian, universalist, unitarian, transcendentalist, the greatest American writer of the 19th century and one of the most famous converts to the catholic faith was absolutely right when he said that protestants obviously have no fear for hell.

    You maintain that the reformers had a legitimate reason to rebel. Well, here is what Brownson says about the reformers.

    The reformers were inadequate to the work ascribed to them. Authority, tradition, learning, culture, habit, manners, customs, all were against them. They were demolished in argument by their Catholic opponents; they had no clearly defined system of doctrine, no well-concerted plan of action; they were unable to agree among themselves, were torn by internal divisions, were compelled to blush at the licentiousness and impurity of their disciples, and rendered ridiculous by their continuous variations and self-contradictions. Their preaching and writings were fitted only to shock sincere and earnest Catholics, or to disgust and repel them. How then could they succeed?

    Yet succeed they did. How explain this fact? By the depravity of the reformers? But that depravity itself needs accounting for; and, moreover, on what principle explain its tremendous power? We know that evil naturally triumphs over good, but how can evil joined to weakness triumph over virtue joined to strength, and that even supernatural strength?

    Protestantism, if analyzed, may be reduced to four elements that embrace all of Protestantism, namely:

    1. The rejection of the papacy;
    2. The rejection of the Christian priesthood or sacerdotal order;
    3. The denial of all dogmatic theology;
    4. The adoption of religion as a mere sentiment of the heart, called by some love, others faith, experience, a feeling,…. etc.

    Luther did not formally reject all of dogmatic theology, but he did reject the papacy and the Christian priesthood; for his principal spite, venom, and demonic hatred were directed against the pope, and he maintained, as the great body of Protestants do now, that under the New Law every believer is a priest and a king. His doctrine of justification by faith alone is the virtual rejection of dogmatic theology; for it is with him the essential element of the Gospel, and faith in his sense is simply a sentiment of the heart. Some Protestants go further, much further, in the developments of Protestantism, than Luther and his brother reformers went, but none of them go further than the four elements specified, and these elements may therefore be said to embrace all Protestantism.

    Protestants cannot maintain for their doctrines an apostolic origin, but they can trace their succession from the apostolic age. Through the Bohemian Brethren, Lollards, Beghards, Cathares, Patarins, Albigenses, Bulgarians, Paulicians, Manicheans, and Gnostics, they can ascend to the very times of the apostles. These sects were all of the same family, and were all essentially Protestant.

    Modern Protestantism is the lineal descendant of the Albigensian heresy of the thirteenth century; as only a continuation, with various modifications, of ancient Gnosticism, which at different epochs showed itself openly, and at others concealed itself in the bosom of the church as an occult heresy, wearing the external garb of Catholicity, and speaking its language, though with a sense of its own, as in the Divine Comedy of Dante, the sonnets of Petrarch, the lays and roundelays of the troubadours of Provence, and the poems of the Ghibelline poets generally.

    Protestantism is no specific heresy, but error in general, indifferent to forms, and receptible of any form or of all forms, as suits the conven­ience or the exigency of its friends. It takes any and every shape judged to be proper to deceive the eyes or to elude the blows of the champions of truth. It is Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinistic, Arminian, Unitarian, Trinitarian, Baptist, Methodist, Pantheistic, Atheistic, Pyrrhonistic,….etc. The Protestant as such has, no principles to maintain, no character to support, no consistency to preserve.

    Convict a protestant from tradition, and he appeals to the Bible ; convict him from the Bible, and he appeals to reason ; convict him from rea­son, and he appeals to private sentiment; convict him from private sentiment, and he appeals to skepticism, or flies back to reason, to Scripture, or tradition, and alternately from one to the other, never scrupling to affirm, one moment, what he denied the moment before, nor blushing to be found maintaining, that, of contraries, both may be true. According to him, there is no right or wrong(very popular in USA nowadays). He is indifferent as to what he asserts or denies, if able for the moment to obtain an apparent covert from his pursuers.

    Protestants do not study for the truth, and are never to be presumed willing to accept it, unless it chances to be where and what they wish it. They occasionally read catholic books and listen to catholic arguments, but rarely to ascertain catholic doctrines, or to learn what catholics are able to say against them or for themselves. The thought, that Catholics may possibly be right, seldom occurs to them; and when it does, it is instantly suppressed as an evil thought, as a temptation from the Devil. They take it for granted, that, against catholics, they cannot be wrong. This is with them a “fixed fact,” admitting no question. They condescend to consult catholic writings, or to listen to our ar­guments, only to ascertain what doctrines they can profess, or what modifications they can introduce into those which they have professed, that will best enable them to elude attacks, or give them the appearance of escaping conviction by the authorities from tradition, Scripture, reason, and sentiment which we array against them. Candor or ingenuousness to­wards themselves even is a thing wholly foreign to their Prot­estant nature, and they are instinctively and habitually cavilers and sophisticators.

    Protestants disdain to argue a question on its merits, and always, if they argue at all, argue it on some unim­portant collateral. They have no sense of responsibleness, no loyalty to truth, no mental chastity, no intellectual sincerity. What for them is authori­ty which nobody must question ; what is against them is no authority at all. Their own word, if not in their favor, they refuse to accept; and the authority to which they professedly appeal they repudiate the moment it is seen not to sustain them. To reason with them as if they would stand by their own pro­fessions, or could or would acknowledge any authority but their own ever-varying opinions, is entirely to mistake them, and to betray our own simplicity.

    There is a marked difference between the Prot­estant sects of modern times and the early sects. The Jacobite holds today the same specific heresy which he held a thousand years ago; and the Nestorian of the nineteenth is substantially the Nestorian of the fourth century. But noth­ing analogous is true of any of the modern Protestant sects. Protestants boast their glorious Reformation, but they no longer hold the views of its authors. If Luther, were to ascend (yes, he is in hell which is in the center of the earth) to the scenes of his earthly labors, would be utterly unable to recognize his teachings in the doctrines of the modern Lutherans ; the Calvinist remains a Calvinist only in name ; the Baptist disclaims his Anabaptist original ; the Unitarian points out the errors he detects in his Socinian ancestors ; and the Transcendentalist looks down with pity on his Unitarian parents, while he considers it a cruel persecution to be excluded from the Unitarian family. No sect retains, unmodified, un­changed, the precise form of error with which it set out. All the forms Protestants have from time to time assumed have been developed, modified, altered, almost as soon as assumed, always as internal or external controversy made it necessary or expedient. Here is a fact nobody can deny, and it proves conclusively that the Protestant world does not subsist solely by virtue of its obstinate attachment to the views or opinions to which it has once committed itself, or in consequence of its aversion to change the doctrines it has once professed.

    Protestants have no real belief in, or attachment to, the particular doctrines they profess, they profess a false doctrine, and are insincere, and destitute, as a body, of real honesty in their professions. If they believed their doctrines, they could never tolerate the changes they undergo. New sects might, indeed, arise among them, but no sect would suffer its original doctrines to be in the least altered or modified. The members of every sect, if they believed its creed, would, so long as they adhered to it, be struck with horror at the bare idea of altering or modifying it; for it would seem to them to be altering or modifying the revealed Word of God.

  77. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    You never did reveal your background.
    Please do so.



  78. irishanglican said


    Very interesting diatribe. But one that I am afraid your own Roman Church does not even state. Something called Vatican II has come along, and this sort of abusive criticism and denunciation, is old hat to say the least.

    Concerning Luther, I would challenge you to read the book by the French R.Catholic priest and professor Fr. Daniel Olivier: Luther’s Faith – The Cause of the Gospel in the Church. There has in fact been a renewal of Roman Catholic scholarship and ecumenical perspective on Martin Luther for 30 years now. I could quote book after book!

    No my friend, your position is not only out-dated, but it is no longer Roman Catholic! But as Fr. Olivier wrote: “It will take time for Scripture to be accorded the place that belongs to it in the teaching of the magisterium in preference to the comforting repetition of the traditional texts perpetuating formulae born out of violent situations.” (page 164, Luther’s Faith, etc.)

    And as to John Calvin, he also has some Roman Catholic scholastic advocates. There has been several good bio’s written from again some French Catholics. Oh those French! lol The days of the Reformation debate between Calvin and Sadoleto, have thank God changed dramatically. But, like theirs before, it is still lucid and eloquent, if not as polemical.

    Do your homework on your own Church and Vatican II Karl. This is not the middle ages, or even post Vatican I.

    And another hard pill for you to swallow perhaps, the Roman Catholic Church has beatified John Henry Newman!

    Fr. Robert

  79. Thank God for Protestants.

  80. irishanglican said

    Thank God for all the redeemed family in God’s covenant of grace! (Gal.6:15-16)

  81. Karl said


    Jesus Christ is Truth itself, and Truth is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Therefore, what has been declared by the Church Fathers, previous Popes, and Church Councils can NEVER be altered by later popes and/or councils.

    For example, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on Unity, pointed out that there can be no reunion with Anglicans except on the solid basis of dogmatic unity and submission to the divinely instituted authority of the Apostolic See. In September, 1896, after a full and exhaustive inquiry, he issued a Bull declaring Anglican Orders to be “utterly null and void”, and in a subsequent Brief addressed to the Archbishop of Paris, he required all Catholics to accept this judgment as “fixed, settled, and irrevocable” (firmum, ratum et irrevocabile).

    There you go, Irishanglican, your priesthood is null and void, and you are deluded if you think that what was declared in the past is out-dated and no longer valid today. It is a typical protestant reaction that will only serve to condemn you if you stubbornly persist in your errors. What you arrogantly dismiss as diatribe, as if you are greater then the Church Fathers and Councils, will one day come to haunt you.

    Regarding the heresiarch Luther, he was excommunicated by Pope Pope Leo X on January 3, 1521 in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem. He remains excommunicated by all popes and councils after 1521. And, as long as God is God, Luther will remain excommunicated, regardless of the pathetic efforts by some apostate theologians, priests, and even popes, in their eagerness to favor an ecumenical rapprochement with Protestantism, and indirectly with all religions, philosophical schools etc, to rehabilitate him. Yes, it is common knowledge that many priests, bishops, and cardinals high up in the catholic hierarchy, are apostates. They are the wolves in sheepskins talked about in the gospels and epistles. These Shepards, commissioned to feed and look after the sheep, mislead them and/or run off leaving them at the mercy of wolves. But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has warned that what awaits them in eternity, no eye hath seen nor ear hath heard. For it is a frightful thing to fall into the hands of a living God (Heb 10: 31).

    One element absolutely characteristic of the teaching of Luther is the doctrine of justification by faith alone, independent of works. More clearly put, for him the superabundant merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ alone and of themselves would assure man of eternal salvation. According to this, one could lead a life of sin on this earth without remorse of conscience, without fear of the justice of God.

    The voice of conscience was, for Luther, not that of grace, but the voice of the Devil. For this reason he wrote to a friend that a man tempted by the Devil should at times “drink more abundantly, gamble, divert himself, and even commit some sin out of hatred and defiance for the Devil, in order to not give him opportunity to disturb his conscience with trifles … The whole Decalogue should be wiped away from our eyes and souls because we are so persecuted and molested by the Devil” (Luther, Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, ed. De Wette, Berlin, 1825-1828, in L. Franca, op. cit., pp. 199-200).

    Along these lines, he also wrote: “God only obliges you to believe and to confess. In everything else, He leaves you free to do whatever you want, without any danger to your conscience. Further, it is certain that He does not care if you leave your wife, flee from your master, or are not faithful to any obligation. What is it to Him if you do or do not do such things?” (Werke, ed. de Weimar, 12, pp. 131ff., in ibid., p. 446).

    Perhaps even more categorical is this incitement to sin, written in a letter to Melanchton dated August 1, 1521: “Be a sinner, and sin boldly (esto peccator et pecca fortiter) but even more boldly believe and rejoice in Christ, the conqueror of sin, death and the world. During this life we must sin. It suffices that, by the mercy of God, we know the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. Sin will not separate us from Him, even if we were to commit a thousand murders and a thousand adulteries a day” (Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, 2, p. 37, in ibid., p. 439).

    This doctrine is so radical that Luther himself could hardly believe it: “There is no religion in the whole world that teaches this doctrine of justification. I myself, even though I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty in believing it privately” (Werke, 25, p. 330, in ibid., p. 158).

    As for his evangelical followers, Luther added that “they are seven times worse than they were before. After preaching our doctrine, men have given themselves over to stealing, lying, trickery, debauchery, drunkenness, and every kind of vice. We have expelled one devil (the papacy) and seven worse have entered.” (Werke, 28, p. 763, in ibid., p. 440).

    “After we understood that good works were not necessary for justification, we became much more remiss and colder in the practice of good … And if we could return today to the prior state of things and if the doctrine that affirms the necessity of doing good works could be revived, our eagerness and promptness in doing good works would be quite different” (Werke, 27, p. 443, in ibid., p. 441).

    All these insanities explain how Luther reached the frenzy of satanic pride, saying of himself: “Does this Luther seem to you an extravagant man? As for me, I think that he is God. Otherwise, how could his writings or his name have the power to transform beggars into lords, asses into doctors, swindlers into saints, and slime into pearls?”> (Ed. Wittemberg, 1551, vol. 4, p. 378, in ibid., p. 190).

    Now, Irishanglican, if you are a competent theologian, what similarity can be found, between the morals of Luther, who was insane enough to believe that he was Divine, and that of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church?

    Also, know that faithful catholics are aware that the Vatican II council, which you lovingly quote as though it supersedes previous Church Councils, was heavily influenced by progressivists controlled by Freemasonry. In addition six protestant theologians were invited by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, a progressivist, freemason, and principal designer of the Modern Mass, to oversee changes in the Liturgy and ensure that nothing in the New Mass would shock their heresy. It is therefore, no surprise that the modern Catholic Mass has the flavor of Protestantism; the taste of heresy.

    Today, when many Catholics are making compromises with Progressivism regarding Vatican II, the faithful remember the criteria to maintain the true Catholic Faith given by St. Vincent of Lerins.

    In the 5th century, when faced with the various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, St. Vincent of Lerins gave catholics good advice on how to discern with security the true Catholic Faith from bad doctrines. He taught that even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). In a nutshell, in times of diabolic confusion true catholics fall back to tradition. Tradition is repugnant to progressivist Catholics, high and low Anglicans and of course all protestants who maintain that it is old-fashioned and has no place in an evolving Church, as if Truth evolves.

    So, how can the Catholic know when there is an error? He can refer to a previous Magisterium and verify if there is a long succession of papal teachings affirming the same thing. If there is not, or there is some difference in teaching, the new teaching of that Pope is wrong. It is very simple. But this is not to say that each Catholic should take it upon himself to judge the Pope. If there is a clear and continuous teaching of the previous Popes saying the opposite of the teaching of the new Pope, the latter ipso facto (automatically) has been judged by that previous teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, was suspect of heresy by the Holy Office (even a Pope can be suspect of heresy).

    Someone could object: Why are the documents of the previous Popes more credible than the documents of the new Pope?

    Because a long series of papal documents consistently teaching the same doctrine enjoys the privilege of infallibility of the ordinary papal magisterium. An isolated document of a new Pope who does not invoke infallibility regarding its doctrine can be fallible.

    In order to be worthy of the name and be prepared for God’s judgment, good catholics understand, accept, and love all of Catholic doctrine. Liberal and Progressivist Catholics, on the other hand, select only the principles that suit them. They set aside and silence anything that opposes their respective philosophies.

    In the history of the Catholic Church there have been a few scandalous Popes like Popes Alexander VI, Paul V, and Honorius II who was excommunicated by Pope Leo II (682-683) during the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople). This Council condemned Pope Honorius for adhering to the heresy of Monothelism. Regarding Pope Honorius, St. Leo II wrote that “instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, he permitted the immaculate to be maculated by a profane treason.”.

    Excommunication is an extremely grave matter because it excludes one from the Church militant here on earth, Church suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant (Community of Saints) in Heaven.

    In our own modern times we have seen scandalous Popes like Popes JP II and Benedict XVI. The late JP II was a progressivist thinker before he became Pope, and afterward during his pontificate which can at best be described as perplexing. This may shock readers, but is based on fact, and not fiction. More information can be found in the book The Undermining of the Catholic Church by Mary Ball Martínez (3rd ed., 1998), one of the most important books revealing the pre-planned devastation of the Catholic Church.

    Fr. Wojtyla (before he became pope JP II) studied Thomistic theology under Archbishop Sopieha in Krakow, which seemed to be an exercise in futility because like many in the Rhine group (e.g. Rahner and Küng) he did not hesitate to denigrate St. Thomas’s Summa and Scholasticism.

    He then spent two years preparing a thesis on the man-centered philosophy of Max Scheler, a German-Jew philosopher who after being a Catholic for a few years, reverted to rigid Atheism. He found a new philosophical fascination in the Phenomenology of Rahner, Küng and Dulles and the Existentialism of Maritain and Von Balthasar – most of whom proclaimed heresy (e.g. by the denial of the Divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation).

    At Vatican II he and Fr. Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) worked on the Constitution Lumen Gentium. In it is stated that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and, therefore, that the Church of Christ is not just the Catholic Church! Wojtyla was also a member of the commission that drafted the Constitution of Vatican II Gaudium et spes (The Church in the modern world), an insidious document, to say the least.

    Later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would affirm that the principles of adaptation to the world in Gaudiun et Spes and of religious liberty formed a type of counter-Syllabus. What an about turn!

    Pope JP II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, are at the forefront of promoting a sinister man-centered supermarket of religions, philosophies and systems of every sort wherein truth and error is presented broken into pieces, mixed up and confused. The end result of which will be universal confusion with the world no longer having the whole Truth, which is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith, unstained and unwrinkled. So, for these two popes it could also be said that instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, they permitted the immaculate to be maculated by the profane treason of ecumenism.

    The beatification of Cardinal John Newman is no hard pill because he, at least, abjured his protestant errors. And given that it happened at the height of the oxford movement which he himself founded and headed, it is an amazing example of the wonders God’s grace can effect in a hardened heretic. This should be an example to you, otherwise, you will have only yourself to blame if you fail to see in him, a guiding light and the gentle voice of grace calling you back to the one and only true Church that you and your predecessors abandoned by following the perverse and lustful King, Henry VIII. But then again it could also be a just punishment from God for pride, a characteristic of all culpable heretics.

    Also be informed that JP II abolished 141 canons from the Code of Canon Law of 1917 that had regulated both the processes of beatifications and canonizations since the 16th century. The canonizations and beatifications proclaimed in the pontificate of JP II have been so proliferous that it was called the “saint-factory” by Cardinal Silvio Oddi. Benedict XVI has already beatified 563 people and canonized another 14 in less than three years. Actually, proportionally Ratzinger has speeded up the “saint factory” and, If he continues at this pace, in eight more years he would surpass what Wojtyla reached in his 27-year pontificate.

    Newman’s beatification therefore comes as no surprise. Even an Irish Anglican, stands a fair chance of beatification if he returns to the true Church. Lol!

    Irishanglican, truth is that you delude yourself by pretending to adhere to the teachings of the Church Fathers while rejecting the Church of Rome. The Church Fathers were ALL Catholic, and in full union with The Holy See in Rome. You can either return to the true Church or perish in your heresy, along with your forefathers, Luther and Calvin, and King Henry VIII.

  82. irishanglican said

    The very “independency” you malign others with comes right back to you. And so much more!

    Karl delusion can be in any heart, perhaps yours my friend? “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.” (Prov.4:23)

    Fr. Robert

  83. Karl said


    in matters concerning our eternal fate, it would be most uncharitable of me not to tell you the truth.

    About delusion, tell that to the Church Fathers and Councils that you claim to adhere to. I guess you would prefer Vatican II huh ?
    Because all the councils before Vatican II would say exactly what I posted.

    But then again heretics are averse to Truth. Not my words Sir!

  84. irishanglican said

    I am surprised that you cannot see the error of your own logic? If the papal doctrines of Rome are correct (which thank God they are not), but using your logic, you have contradicted yourself…and the supposed Roman infallibillity. You cannot have it both ways my friend! If Vatican II is full of error? Then what of the other councils? Obviously they too are subject to the same with your own logic. But, there is a middle way. This is the only real way, some of at least Vatican II is correct! But not all of it, as the whole idea of the Roman pontiff being infallible, as has been seen in the light of history, is simply false! No logical argument can be made for all the errors of the Roman Church, just in the modern time! And how can you attack your own Popes? John Paul II, and Benedict 16? Just doesn’t make sense! Even if neither spoke from the chair of Peter. Though both speak in the authority near the same. And you confess they are both, not just wrong, but way wrong! This just won’t do Karl, not in Catholic theology and logic even!

    By the way mate, but in my early 20’s I was a R. Benedictine monk (for a few years). I left after a classic Augustinian conversion. But that also was years ago, since I am well into my 50’s. It was real, but has been tempered by more grace and glory, in my own personal journey. And I was a Reformed Anglican theologian for many years also. So my Christian walk has been real and full, at least for me. But hardly perfect, I am just an old “Bohemian” sinner in myself!

    If there is a Church that can claim the Apostolic, it is the east. The Orthodox Church is an elegent tapestry of enduring theology, culture and tradition. And it is experiencing a worldwide renewal! I have part of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Serguis. It has been around since the 1930’s with the Anglican Church. Sorry Karl, I value Rome, and see her as part of the Apostolic church, but she has been in error often!

    Fr. Robert

    PS Do you give up any personal information ever?

  85. Jules said

    You what is puzzling about this debate. It doesn’t matter whether there is one God or three in one, mankind is still disobeying God.

  86. Karl said

    I am surprised that you cannot see the error of your own logic? If the papal doctrines of Rome are correct (which thank God they are not), but using your logic, you have contradicted yourself…and the supposed Roman infallibility…

    If not on your own authority, then on whose authority do you base such an arrogant and presumptuous statement that the papal doctrines of Rome are wrong ?

    If there is a Church that can claim the Apostolic, it is the east. The Orthodox Church is an elegant tapestry of enduring theology, culture and tradition… You do not appear to know much about the schismatic Orthodox Church do you. Please, do some more research on the doctrinal differences between them and the RC. By the way, they appeared in the 11th century, breaking away from Rome, just like the protestants would do five centuries later. Now, if you take a branch from a tree, how can you claim that it is the original tree ? And if you insist that it is, then where are its stem and roots ?

    Unlike previous Councils, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council; Pope Paul VI himself declined to engage infallibility by not pronouncing his infallibility on any matter of faith as other popes have done throughout history. Therefore, none of the decrees of Vatican II were issued with the weight of infallibility. In the measure where the pope would employ his infallibility as the successor of St. Peter in a solemn manner, the Holy Ghost would not allow the pope to be in error.

    The documents of Vatican II come within the category of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium which can contain error in the case of a novelty which contradicts previous teaching. Vatican II was full of doctrinal errors and novelties concerning: the Priesthood, Incarnation, Redemption and the Idea of Man, and the Kingdom of God. Hope you now understand why there was no papal infallibility behind the Vatican II decrees huh (The Holy Ghost cannot err).

    Now, when a papal document contains teachings that contradict previous traditional teachings, the faithful are obliged NOT to follow such erroneous teachings. Faith is more than obedience and one must understand the meaning of obedience, which must be distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience. So if one disobeys in order to practice the virtue of obedience rather than submit to unlawful commands contrary to Catholic moral teachings, all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realize we are not sinning against the virtue of obedience.

    For example, previous Popes/Church Councils infallibly teach that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Suddenly Vatican II, JP II, and Benedict XVI are promoting Ecumenism, a bazaar or a united nations, of churches. This is ERROR because it means that all faiths are equal and that one can be attain salvation regardless of the faith he/she professes. This would imply that either the previous Councils erred or Vatican II, JP II, and Benedict XVI have erred. Both cannot be right because they teach opposing doctrines. And if Ecumenism is fine and a heathen can be saved in his/her paganism, then Christ would never have commissioned His Apostles, and their successors, to preach to ALL the four corners of the earth. Therefore, one practices virtue when one refuses to join Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Shinto, Buddhists, Hindu, and African Voodoo/Animists, in joint prayers, in the so-called spirit of Ecumenism, which is but a sinful union of religions. For, all gods of heathens and gentiles are demons.

    Papal infallibility is, and has always been, a problem for protestants. And there you go with the centuries-old accusation that Rome has often been in error. Well, then you make a liar of our Lord Jesus Christ because Christ promised his Apostles, and their successors that ” the Spirit of truth will remain with them for ever,” (John xiv. 16. 17)

    All the Church Fathers had our idea of the necessity of the unity of faith in Christ’s Church; you as well as we, regard them as Saints; and certainly by their nearness to Christ’s and the Apostles’ times, they must have known their mind. I could cite volumes of texts from their works to prove this, as well as the other articles of our faith. But since Protestants have special affinity for St. Augustine, here are some of his references:

    ” By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH. “ (St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.)

    ” This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her. ” (St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.)

    However, what seems to give you the most pain in our doctrines is, the infallibility which we attribute to our Church.

    First, this infallibility is attributed to the whole Church, i.e. to the majority of Bishops joined to the Pope, and not to the Pope alone. But in order to put our doctrine of infallibility in a clear light, let us recur to that moment when Christ revealed ” all truth” to his Apostles, and established them, and the pastors their successors, as depositories of these truths. This body of pastors, thus established, have, in all ages, declared every rising novelty to be contrary to the sacred deposit committed to them by Christ. Thus when Arius denied the divinity of Christ, the Church condemned him, and declared that she had received the contrary: Thus when Pelagius denied original sin, the Church declared his doctrine contrary to her deposit, and brought baptism, which had always been practiced in her bosom, as a standing proof of our corrupt origin. Her infallibility consists then in the public and perpetual testimony that she always renders to truths of fact.

    Now, whether Christ has existed, taught such and such doctrines,wrought such miracles, whether the Bible be written by such and such authors, all these points are matters of fact that have fallen under the senses, and that can only be known by eye or ear witnesses. The teaching Church, i.e. the majority of Bishops united to the Pope, is this body of hereditary witnesses: and you cannot surely refuse her an infallibility, (i. e. capacity of exactly relating facts) which you readily grant not only to whatever considerable society, civil or religious, but even to individuals.

    When Muslims, who are composed of different nations, and interests, unanimously attest that at such a time they received such a doctrine from Muhammad, no one of common sense can dispute a public fact of this nature. Why then should you refuse the testimony of the Catholic Church, that is composed of various nations directly opposed in their interests, and often at war; when all her pastors, as unanimously at least as the Muslims, declare, that they have received such doctrines from Christ and the Apostles, and all agree in the exposition of all the articles that belong to the faith, and deny that there has ever been the least change in their Church ?

    Thus you see, my dear friend, that common sense forces us to receive the Church’s testimony, when she declares that she has received such and such truths from Christ and the Apostles, and that she has preserved them unaltered. Now when we admit her testimony concerning what Christ and the Apostles delivered her, from that moment, if consistent, we are Catholics; since all Christians hold that what Christ and the Apostles taught is certainly true. This moral infallibility which you are obliged to grant to the Church, as to all other great societies, becomes divine in virtue of the promise of Christ, who has expressly communicated to her his own immutability.

    This second sort of infallibility far superior to the first, because supernatural, appears in a striking manner in the words of Christ to his Apostles: ” Go and teach all nations, and behold I am with you until the end of the world. “ Now a Church, that has Christ present while it teaches, must certainly be infallible; and this presence is surely promised to the successors of the Apostles, to whom the words ” until the world’s end,” must be applied, since, with the exception of St. John, all the Apostles were dead before the end of the first century.

    Again Christ promised his Apostles, John xiv. 16. 17. ” the Spirit of truth to remain with them for ever,” . This text, for the same reason as the preceding, must also be applied to the Apostles’ successors, the pastors and teachers of the Church; which, having thus for guide ” the Spirit of truth, “ must necessarily avoid all errors in faith, i, e. must be infallible. I was then supported by reason and scripture, and not merely, as you say, ” on the legends of our Church,” when I said that the Pope, with the majority of our Bishops, are directed by the Spirit to decide what we are to believe; for it is as public and incontestable a fact that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and that the other Bishops are successors of the other Apostles, as King Edward VI is the successor of King Henry VIII.

    Again, reason persuades us that Christ’s Church ought to be infallible. Christ declares, ” that he that hears her, hears himself. “ He commands us to obey her, under pain of ” being regarded as heathens. ” God surely cannot order us to obey one that is capable of teaching us error; otherwise he would be himself the author of them. Besides why did God establish the Church? “In order that we may not be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine; ” (Ephes.iv.24) That we may never be in doubt concerning what we ought to believe.

    But you Protestants, can you ever be free from doubts ? This is impossible, since you have no infallible authority to settle them. However a visible and infallible authority distinct from scripture, (which is the law) is absolutely necessary to decide the contentions that arise among Christians. Where this authority is not admitted, there is no fixed rule, no invariable articles of faith; The proof of this is the increasing multitude of protestants sects among you (over 38,000 today and counting), which frequently end in Socinianism, Deism, and ultimately, in Atheism, which is total disbelief. See how insidious and diabolic Satan is.

    Now, The first consequence drawn from the Church’s infallibility is, that she has never erred, and that Luther, Calvin,and you, claim that The Catholic Church did err, have made Christ a liar, who has declared, Matt. xvi. 18. ” That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church.” Now if error has infected her, the gates of hell have prevailed, and Christ has not fulfilled his promise.

    The second consequence is, that all those, who knowingly and willfully follow those pretended Reformers are in evident danger of eternal ruin. Those persons can never give a satisfactory answer to the following argument:

    In Luther and Calvin’s time, either the Catholic Church was Christ’s true spouse, or some other society was so; or else, Christ’s true Church had ceased. If the Catholic society was at that time Christ’s Church, no one could separate from it without risking his salvation, since there is no salvation for those that are separated from Christ If any other society was then Christ’s true Church, they were obliged to join it under pain of damnation. If they say that Christ’s Church had ceased, they make Christ a liar, who has promised its perpetual duration in spite of the combined rage of earth and hell.

    What I have said on Infallibility will also give you an idea of what we mean by Tradition, which Protestants find repugnant. By this word is meant nothing else other than the general, unanimous and constant testimony of the Church of all ages about the truths revealed by Christ, and taught by the Apostles.

  87. irishanglican said

    If I remember, this blog started off on the Trinity of God and the text of Col. 2:9?

    The Church exists to unfold God’s saving grace and revelation. And certainly the Trinity and the Incarnation are center stage here. But the whole old school and scholastic are giving way to more of God’s grace and revelation: and this is still Trinitarian and Incarnational! (The Very Foundation!) But the pastorial council of Vatican II, which was certainly part of God’s providence, though I agree not infallible, is still perhaps Rome’s best statement in the last hunderd years! Vatican I has changed also, the pope has only spoken once from the chair of Peter since (1950). And as the Orthodox have realized, this kind of once time statement is not necessary, for the Church has always held (since she has understood) that the Mother of God would find her place (as all the redeemed finally) with Christ the Redeemer!

    I am not going to get into canon law issues, I am no longer R. Catholic. But one thing is certain. You cannot de-value the Ordinary Magisterium! This is simply how the Roman Church works to state their issues to their faithful. To call into question everything because it does not come from the chair of Peter is crazy to say the least.

    As to tradition, you are right there, very few but some High Church Anglicans (whether you see their ordination and apostolic or not) along with the Orthodox have a correct and good understanding here.

    It used to be that many people used to go over to Rome and Catholicism because of the authority issue. But now that the RCC is not looking good, nor really in a biblical and moral position on their sins in the priesthood. People are just not happy. And as I said, The Orthodox Church is experiencing a worldwide rebirth and renewal. And yes, Karl I know at least something about the whole of the Orthodoxy Church. Though with their depth one could spend more than one life learning and enjoying their trues. And by the way, they are simply right, the filioque was an addition and does not belong to the Creed, nor the right understanding of the Trinity of God. The Father is the regal of the Godhead, and from Him the Son is begotten eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. (St. John 15:26) And now many Roman Catholic theologians agree with this also. Again, this Triune nature of God is more than dogma, but our very place of truth, love and followship!

    “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” (2 John 3)

    Fr. Robert

  88. Jules Says:

    It doesn’t matter whether there is one God or three in one, mankind is still disobeying God.

    There is only ONE GOD. There are not 3 gods in one, that is polytheism. (As the Greek mythology taught of many gods that worked as a sort of collective, that is polytheism, you’ll find junk like that in Mormonism.) There is One God, who is by His own divine sovereignty is 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19.

    How can a man be obeying God if he does not affirm who God is? Either one follows the One True God or a false god.

    One can’t claim Jesus is the Father, Jesus said Himself He is not the Father, John 5:30. He is the Son and God, Colossians 2:9.

    One can’t claim Mary is “mother of God”, because God is Spirit and has no need for a mother in order to be God. As I’ve explained to some with hardened hearts several times, here, here, here and here.

    We are not to attempt to add or take away from God’s glory, because He shares it with no other being.

    We also don’t claim any man claiming “infallibility” is telling the truth. We test all things, Acts 17:10-12. Always testing against established scripture. If something fails to measure up, we know it is false.

  89. irishanglican said

    *forgive spell errors

  90. irishanglican said

    Independent Conservative
    At least 30 years before there was a NT Gospel or NT Letter written, there was a/the NT Church! Where and who is that Church? And the so-called “Bible” of the early NT Church was the Septuagint, along with and when came the Epistles and Gospels that came thru the Apostles and their delegates. So the NT Church existed well before the NT text and canon.

    Fr, Robert
    (hard-head and real Irish to

  91. irishanglican said

    Thus the Apostles Doctrine and the Church established both the doctrine of God (Monotheism and Christology) and the Triune nature of God. In the first century it was very simple, but profound!

  92. irishanglican said

    Jules / Independent Conservative
    Thus the doctrine of the Trinity of God did not drop out of heaven onto paper-papyrus, but it was the revelation of the Apostles doctrine and the Church! But the Transfiguration was always in the Peter’s heart & mind, as well as John and James. (Matt.17:1-8 / 2 Pet.1:16-18)

    Fr. Robert

  93. Also Jules, the doctrine of the Trinity is even in Hebrew scripture.

    Jewishness and the Trinity, by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. (Bible teacher and Messianic Jew, a Hebrew who knows Jesus is Lord.)

    You can get full audio of more of his teachings about the foundational elements of church instruction here. Included there is an extended lesson on the doctrine of the Trinity.

    I’ve found his teaching to be rather solid, with the exception of his promotion of the concept of a pre-tribulation rapture. That however is a non-essential. But scripture is rather clear the Lord will return at the end of all “tribulation” and so on, not before.
    Let’s Not Dwell on What You Were Told About a Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Let’s See What the Bible Says.

  94. Jules, when I say “also Jules” I mean in addition to what I’ve mentioned, not in any way affirming what is being said by my detractors. Detractors who fail to agree with scripture and attempt to have you look to their traditions of men.

    The Bereans mentioned in Acts 17:10-12 were Jews. The only “scripture” they respected was the then existing Hebrew scriptures. This is what they researched to affirm what Paul and Silas were telling them.

    As Paul said to the saints at Corinth.

    1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (New American Standard Bible)

    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

    4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

    5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

    6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

    7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

    8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

    9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

    All that Christ did on earth in flesh was in agreement with Hebrew scriptures. Which is why His apostles, even the least could be believed, because they affirmed the testimony that agreed with Hebrew scripture.

    What is now affirmed as scripture that includes the New Testament is something you can read about at:
    The Bible Delivered to us Today
    The Bible pt.2

    I don’t waste any more time on those in this thread who are false teaching. But you should beware of them and realize they don’t agree with the scriptures. Simply studying the scriptures as the Bereans is always your best option.

  95. irishanglican said

    Independent Conservative,

    We can see your “fundamentalism” and using the Scripture as if it were a “club” and monolithic, and without some aspect to culture, and both its Hellenism and Greco-Roman NT nature (St. Paul). As I said, the early Church read at least the Septuagint (a translation of the OT into Greek). It is true that often St. Paul quotes both the Hebrew text, or even a free use of it, but he also used Targums, usually wrtten in the vernacular (Aramaic) of Judea. But Paul used all sources in his time. And even spoke and quoted pagans, when he thought it useful (Titus 1:12, etc.). As I said, the Holy Scripture did not just drop out of heaven, but it has its own formation and cultural influence. We cannot ignore this as you and most fundamentalists do!

    And classic dispensationalism, has taken some rough treatment from many of the Reformed theolog’s. There are simply huge holes and problems in it!

    As I said before, one simply must have some historical and theological information to understand both the ancient Scripture and the ancient people of God, both Old and NT.

    And by the way, I taught philosophy and theology in Jerusalem for several years. So I have a deep and real love for the people of Israel! And I also believe in a gospel remnant of Jewish people, who will come still under the covenant of grace, and become Christians and members of the Church of God! (Rom.11:24-30)

    Fr. Robert

  96. Karl said

    …But now that the RCC is not looking good, nor really in a biblical and moral position on their sins in the priesthood…

    Scandals in the RC clergy generate media headlines and the detractors and haters of the Catholic Church are having a field day, temporarily. I say “temporarily” because of the record of survivability of the Catholic Church for over two millennia, and of the “Person” who is its head.

    These scandals, mostly sexual, are not a Catholic clergy monopoly because the guilty are in all non-Catholic Christian denominations as well. Thousands of protestant sects openly “ordain” homosexual ministers ; the Anglican Church is split over ordination of homosexuals and women to the priesthood.

    Judas, one of twelve chosen by Jesus Christ Himself, was the greatest scandalizer of all time. Do we condemn Christ because of Judas ?

    Those, therefore, who relish attacking the Catholic Church are guilty of all of the following: ” Let him who is without sin cast the first stone…” (John 8:7)

    Besides, there are scandals in the Catholic Church because Scripture says there will be scandals within the only Church founded by Christ.

    ” Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come, but woe to the man through whom scandal does come! “
    (Matthew 18:7). And He said to His disciples, ” It is impossible that scandals should not come; but woe to him through whom they come. “ (Luke 17:1)

    If, therefore, there were NO scandals, then Scripture would be in error. How, then, can one become upset when scandals arise within the Church ?
    Also, scandals are meant to test the faithful, so that those of little or no faith who fall away, only serve to purify the Church. And it is only those very few who persevere that will be rewarded with an unfading crown of glory.

    The world media never sensationalize scandals in Protestantism but delight in doing so when it is the Catholic Church. The the world hates the Catholic Church, and this can be clearly seen in the anti-catholic atmosphere in the USA and EU. The Pope and bishops are attacked at every opportunity yet nobody ever hears of a protestant pastor or any of the mariad of the pentecostal televangelists being attacked the way catholic priests are. Not surprisingly, the Catholic Church is, and has always been, the the target of detractors and calumniators since its founding over 2000 years ago.

    ” If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you…” (John 15:18-19). Like its Founder, the Catholic Church must go through the same motions.

    …And yes, Karl I know at least something about the whole of the Orthodoxy Church… No, I don’t think you know anything.

    It was not until 857 A.D. that the eastern Church began questioning the authority of the Bishop Rome, and there also arose controversy over iconoclasm. This resulted in a breach between Rome and Constantinople, laying basis for future schism of East and West. This is the first recorded attempt to challenge the authority of Rome. The schism was consummated in 1054 AD, when Pope Leo IX excommunicated Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and all his followers. The primary disagreement between the Eastern and Western churches was the incorporation of filioque into the Nicene Creed. Filioque means ” and from the son,”. This occurred after centuries of controversy over the nature of the Holy Trinity, the supremacy of the Father, and the nature of the Son as a being with divine and human nature.

    That the Holy Ghost proceeds from The Father and The Son, can be understood from the first kind of procession, that the Son is
    “begotten” by the Father. The Son exists from eternity, but is ” generated ” as the Word (John 1:1). And The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts, xvi, 7). These terms imply a relation of the Spirit to the Son, which can only be a relation of “origin”.

    Just as the Father externally sent the Son into time (the world) the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. This is confirmed by Christ who said He would send the Holy Ghost into the world (John 15:26). It may thus be said that The Holy Ghost internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity (Acts 2:33). No one explains this better than St. Thomas Aquinas:

    ” Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit ‘of the Son’; and that He is from the Father ‘through the Son.’ Some of them are said also to concede that ‘He is from the Son’; or that ‘He flows from the Son,’ but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. “

    St. Augustine, whom you supposedly esteem, writes:

    ” You hear the Lord himself declare: ‘It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you’. Likewise you hear the Apostle declare: ‘God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts’. Could there then be two spirits, one the spirit of the Father, the other the spirit of the Son? Certainly not. Just as there is only one Father, just as there is only one Lord or one Son, so there is only one Spirit, Who is, consequently, the Spirit of both…Why then should you refuse to believe that He proceeds also from the Son, since He is also the Spirit of the Son? If He did not proceed from Him, Jesus, when He appeared to His disciples after His Resurrection, would not have breathed on them, saying: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost’. What, indeed, does this breathing signify, but that the Spirit proceeds also from Him? “

    The Eastern churches rejected the supremacy of the pope, as they still do not recognize one person as the spiritual Head. Before that point, all Christianity unquestionably accepted the authority of the Pope.

    The most obvious example is The formula of Hormisdas (AD 519). It clearly stated the primacy and infallibility of the Rome, was subscribed to by the patriarch of Constantinople, swept the East, and in the end was signed by 2,500 eastern and Greek bishops. The patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas (A.D. 514 to 523), which contained the following words:

    We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.

    Dean Milman writes, ” Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world. “ (Radio Replies, 1942,p. 306-307 Vol. 2.). The following statements are direct quotes from this fantastic document:

    ” Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,…’, cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot…. In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion. “ (Formula of Hormisdas, AD 519)

    ” In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consistent with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the sacred mysteries. This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome. “ (Formula of Hormisdas, AD 519)

    The vast majority of Greek and eastern bishops (including the patriarch of Constantinople) signed this document confessing openly the authority of Rome. But we also have a number of other statements from Greek Saints, patriarch’s of Constantinople, Emperors of the eastern Roman Empire , Popes and Church Councils declaring Rome’s position as the head of the Church founded by Christ.

    Irishanglican, you are quickly running out of hiding places ; the teachings of the Church Fathers, which you claim to adhere to, condemn you. And it is pretty evident that, in true protestant fashion, you choose and pick what to believe.

  97. Karl said

    The Importance of Filioque

    The addition of the filioque was in response to the denial of the Holy Ghost as the third person of the Holy Trinity. The Church, infallible in such pronouncements of dogma, thus defined the double procession, which we are to believe with a divine and Catholic faith.

    The insertion of the “filioque” clause is very important as it expresses a Catholic dogma, which is denied by some-the procession of the Holy Ghost from BOTH the Father and the Son. The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, does not make the Holy Ghost “subservient”. The Creed is quite clear:

    “…qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur

    The doctrine of the Filioque was dogmatically declared in the Fourth Lateran Council, Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence. The latter Council states:

    ” We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration “

    If, in a Council held at Toledo, in 448, the words Filioque (and from the Son, viz., proceeding from the Son as well as from the Father) were added to the Formula of Nice, it was in order to put an end to the heresy of the Sabellians, who were denying that the Holy Ghost was personally distinct from the Father and the Son.

    Some of the Eastern uniates do not say the “filioque” clause in the Creed, and the Church does not oblige them to do so. Many, however, do include the filioque, as an expression of their union with the Church. Therefore, since the Eastern uniates, are not obliged to include the filioque clause in the Creed, it should have no effect on a union with the schismatic orthodox. The requirements for such a union would be for the orthodox to accept the -dogma- of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, as was set forth in the Council of Florence.

    Further keeping in mind that the Church never usually defines something unless it is being attacked, and so since this was being attacked the Church took to defining it . The Church only defined what was always believed, it can be liked to the Immaculate Conception which was defined in 1850, yet Catholics had always believed it yet since it was being attack the Church took to defining it. No one would say that it was an addition to the deposit of faith . To confirm this is the fact that all of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church were called in order to combat or clarify some heresy or error; with Vatican II being the only exception– a pastoral Council which did not define any dogma.

    The Council of Trent is a perfect example of how the Church defined those doctrines, which were under attack. Many non-Catholics are often under the impression that the Church “makes up” new doctrines, which power she does not have. The Church can define and clarify doctrines to give us a fuller understanding of them, but this never in a sense contrary to their original meanings. One may use the example of an apple seed growing into a tree. The apple seed will not become an orange tree.

    Further a review of the writings of the Church Fathers indicates that it was Church doctrine long before the Council of Toledo. Athanasius’ Creed, Quicunque Vult, (AD. 400) contains it, as well as the writings of St. Gregory the Wonder worker (AD. 260), St. Epiphanius of Salamis, and St. Augustine. Diverse Greek Fathers also included it in their writings, all AD 400 or before.

  98. irishanglican said

    Karl, I really don’t have time to get into this with you. But I have a friend who does want to go with you on the Filioque. His blog is Energetic Also there is a site, The Filioque: The SUM OF ALL HERESIES. Both these Orthodox sites will give you more than you can deal with, this I am sure!

    Fr. Robert

    PS When I do have time, we can blog more about Rome, etc.

  99. irishanglican said

    Karl, I just have a minute, but to respect the blog, we can chat later about the double procession and Augustine. I value Augustine and for years followed his Trinity doctrine, but after further study, both scripture (John 15:26) and the creeds, I changed my view. Simple as that!

    Job, this blog gett’in full? How about one on the filioque? Got to run for now..

    Fr. Robert

  100. Karl said

    ” But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me “ (John 15:26)

    ” Whom I will send “… This proves, against the modern Greek Orthodox, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, AND the Father: otherwise He could not be sent by the Son. Moreover, in John 16:7, Christ says:

    ” But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. ” (John 16:7)

    There you go, that pretty much seals it. For if The Paraclete proceeded from The Father only, it would not be necessary for the Son to go before the Paraclete can be sent. Indeed, Christ Himself assures His Apostles that “…if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you;…”

    Irishanglican, your understanding of Scripture is based on private interpretation, which is expressly forbidden by Holy Scripture itself. Many Bible verses tell us so.

    ” Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. “ (Luke 24:45). Should one, likewise, believe that Christ has opened the minds of each of the leaders of the thousands of protestant sects we see today ? If so, why is there so much disagreement among them ?

    ” This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. “ (2Pet 1:20)

    This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by private judgment, spirit, or fancy, because every part of the holy Scripture were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church ; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with His Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world.

    But what is it about protestants that makes them fail to see simple and easy to understand versed such as 2Pet 1:20 ?

    Setting up oneself as an authority is rank and unmitigated pride which blindeth. The individual declares SELF (self = ego) capable of interpreting Scripture without need for a Divinely instituted authority. The end result is that every Protestant can interpret Scripture as they deem fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. The logical conclusion of this babel is that there can be as many churches as there are protestants, which we are already witnessing in these our modern times. Protestants are terribly blind that they cannot even see a glaring Truth such as this one. DISUNITY, CHAOS, HATRED, are hallmarks of HELL, they are of the Devil. What started as a single protestant sect with a lone member, Martin Luther, has metamorphosed into 38,000+ warring sects, with mutual hatred for each other, only united in their hatred of the Catholic Church.

    ” As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. “ (2 Peter 3:16)

    Irishanglican, to your own destruction, private interpretation of scripture led you to abandon the True Church, outside of which there is salvation. The Ecumenical Councils are very clear on this point and forcefully preached it, both in season and out of season.

    Now, protestant sects CANNOT claim to be the ‘One True Church’ founded by Christ because none of them can trace their origin back 2000 years to Jesus Christ when He founded His Church in Matt 16:18. If Protestantism was united in the Holy Spirit, then how can you explain that Calvinists believe Baptism is a Sacrament, but Baptists do not? How do you explain that Lutherans say that Mary is the Mother of GOD, but Evangelicals say she is not? How do you explain that Episcopalians believe man has free will, yet Presbyterians deny it? You can go on and on through all 38,000 protestant sects and see differences of opinion.

  101. irishanglican said

    Simple is always good when we can, but not and never a reduction! And this is what you maintain with the Filioque (Lat.,’And the Son’).

    This dogmatic formula expressing the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit, was simply added by the Western Church to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed right after the words…”who proceeds from the Father.” Note the word “proceeds”. No one denies that Christ helps to send the Spirit at Pentecost. This is NOT the issue! The biblical and theological issue is the Spirit’s “procession” eternally! And this is part and deeply part, of the Trinitarian nature of God (St.John 15:26).

    The filioque was not part of the original Creed, and even knowing Roman Catholic theologians agree on this. It was first placed as an interpolation at the Third Council of Toledo (589). Even Pope Leo the III tried to suppress the addition. He caused the Creed in its original from (without the filioque) to be engraved on two silver tables deposited at the tomb of St. Peter. This is a matter of historical fact! Early the acceptance of the doctrine, though never the addition to the Creed, was imposed (by leaders Roman) on the Greeks as a condition of the short-lived union.

    The double procession was something that Augustine taught. Augustine’s conception of the generation of the Son as an act of thinking on the part of the Father was based uopn Tertullian.From here the explanation of the Holy Spirit as the mutual love of the Father and the Son was the fruit of his own refections and thought. Here came later the ‘filiation’ and ‘spiration’ to the analogical processes of human self-knowledge and self-love. This so-called ‘psychological theory of the Trinity’ was taken over from Augustine and developed by the medieval scholastics and Scholaticism.

    Karl your vitriolic and ad hominem is getting very old! And it seems you need some history and theology homework!

    Fr. Robert

  102. irishanglican said


    I am the one by the way, that is seeking to maintain the integrity The Ecumenical Councils, Nicaea I (325); and Constantinople I (381), with the condemnation of Macedonians (Arian), declared the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Really I follow the first seven Councils!

    Fr. Robert

  103. Karl said


    You, and the world in general, hate the Catholic Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, because just like Her founder, she preaches the hard way to heaven while the world preaches the broad way of pleasure and an easy-going life.

    She preaches penance, prayer, and sacrifice ; Her Faith and Dogmas do not change. What is true once is true forever because God is above time and circumstances. The truths about God do not change.

    This is what you probably found hard to accept and keep up with. Instead, you choose to falsely accuse Her with all sorts of lies and calumnies. I think that you would be more of an honest man if you candidly admitted that monastic life was probably to rigorous for you.

    In case am wrong, can one then assume that the sect you joined adheres to the faith and teachings as handed down to us by the councils/church fathers down the road ?

  104. stan said

    @ Karl:

    Question for you: What must a person do to be assured of a place in the resurrection of the righteous?

  105. irishanglican said


    First the Anglican Church can hold her own, with the history of Anglo-Catholicism, the Tractarians, etc. And she has had so many great men, the list is profound! And though I am not strictly evangelical, she has had many great men and women there also. I will mention one great woman Anglo-Catholic mystic: Evelyn Underhill!
    And the view of the essential unity and the doctinal authority of the Church, as rooted and grounded in the union with Christ which is enjoyed by her members in virtue of their sacramental life, cannot be reconciled with any idea of the Papacy as the guarantee of unity, or as the seat of doctrinal authority apart from the consent of the faithful. And this includes the Orthodox Church and her vaild sacramental life! As their life is so foreign to the authority of Rome and the papacy.

    As concerns my monastic vows and life, I indeed spent over a year in the Pontifical Institute in Rome. This was great, till I began to doubt the claims of the papacy. And I was a good troop Karl, in fact when I left my Father- Abbot wept. I shall never forget that day! I have overall good memories. And later Karl I was an officer in the Royal Marines (Gulf War I, etc.). I had no problem with the rigor of life, both Benedictine and then Royal Marines. But my call was, and still is after God and the beauty of His dogmatic theology! Though I am always a feeble servant here.

    Hate toward Rome? No Karl never. But sadly real disappointment!

    But you mate, still amaze me with your constant bigotry! Do yourself and favor, and look up the word. You might be surprised? But I doubt it.

    “In case am wrong?” Do ya really mean it Karl, could you really be wrong? Have you seriously considered that?

    Your blog adversary, but I hope Irish friend,

    Father Robert (Anglican)

    PS We need to hold to the blog, and the Trinity! We have more agreement there than disagreement. I think? lol

  106. irishanglican said


  107. irishanglican said

    The Conflict of The Word.

    “The struggles of the militant Church is engaged in are rarely clear-cut in their issues; they do not often appear as a battle between Christ and anti-Christ. Standing outside then or viewing them over the distance of the years, we can see what was at stake and can simplify them into one of the battles in the war of the Word of God.” ~ Quote from T.H.L. Parker in his book, Portrait Of Calvin.

    Fr. Robert

  108. Karl said


    you ask a very important question ; one that every member of the human race ought to be preoccupied with. For, it is upon this question that the eternal destiny of each and everyone of us rests. I present the teaching of the Catholic Church on this extremely important matter of salvation.

    Let me begin by quoting Mark xvi. 16, ” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

    From these words of our Divine Saviour, it has already been proved, that faith is necessary for salvation, and without faith there is no salvation; without faith there is eternal damnation. This point merits dwelling upon because it is the corner stone of everything else.

    Now, what kind of faith must a man have to be saved ? Will any faith do ? If any faith will do, then Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Voodooists, Scientologists, and even the devil himself, are saved. Does not the Bible say that even the devils believe and tremble. The protestant, too, will say, ” hey look here, am baptized and I believe “.

    It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes; he must profess the right and true faith, without which there is no salvation, for it stands to reason, that if God reveals, or teaches, a thing, He wants to be believed. Disbelieve is an insult to God. So is believing with doubt and/or hesitation, because it is doubting His Sacred Word. We must believe without doubting, or hesitating.

    So, if we wish to enter into eternal life, a necessary/prerequisite condition is that we profess true faith, Divine faith, as proposed by God, without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11: 6.). True faith requires obedience, humility, and childlike simplicity; it excludes pride, self-will, clinging to our own ideas, and that unwillingness to obey which hurled the apostate angels from heaven, and cast our first parents out of Paradise. Faith is a duty which God requires of us, and unless we fulfill this duty sincerely, we can never enter the kingdom of Heaven.

    The Catholic Church solemnly teaches, as She has always done, that outside of Her there is, and can be, no divine faith. This truth, taught by ALL the Church Fathers and Councils, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Protestants, no doubt, will be shocked at this (what of ecumenism ?), and that without faith there is only damnation. We have Divine faith when we believe a thing upon the authority of God, and believe it without doubt, and without hesitating. The protestant sects take private interpretation of the Bible for their guide; but private interpretation of the Bible can never impart divine faith.

    On what authority does the protestant believe? On his own opinion and judgment. And what is that ? A human opinion, human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say, “I am absolutely certain, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of such and such Bible verse.” He, therefore, has no other authority but his own opinion and judgment, and what his preacher tells him, be it John Hagee, T.D Jakes, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Juanita Bynum, Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, Jim Baker, or one of the myriad of evangelists prancing up and down TV screens. There are, indeed, many smart evangelical preachers, but that proves nothing; it is only human authority, and nothing else, and, therefore, only human faith. Human faith is believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God.

    The Catholic, on the other hand, has divine faith, and why ? Because the Catholic says: “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why ? “Because the Church teaches me so.” And why do you believe the Church ? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God has threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church. And we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophecy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.”

    Second, we must keep the commandments of God. For God Himself says in Deut. xxviii. 1, 2.,

    ” Now, if thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord Thy God to do and keep all His commandments, the Lord Thy God will make thee higher than all the nations that are on the earth, and all these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, yet so if thou hear His precepts.”

    And Jesus Christ, the restorer of grace, says : ” You are My friends if you do the things that I command you. “ (John xv. 14.) And again : ” Not everyone that saith to Me : Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of My Father, Who is in heaven, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. “ (Matt, vii., 21.)

    Moreover, Christ taught by example, Himself having been obedient even unto the death of the cross, thereby teaching all men that their salvation depends on their persevering obedience to the will of their heavenly Father, who sent the Redeemer, not only to ransom their souls, but also to show them the true road to heaven, by revealing to them the will of His Father. Christ, appointed the Apostles, and especially Peter, to succeed Him in His office of teaching God’s will. Where Peter and the other Apostles are found in their lawful successors, there only is this true and entire will of God taught, and those only who embrace and follow it faithfully, have well founded hopes of salvation.

    The will of God has not been taught by Luther, or Calvin, or Henry VIII., or John Wesley, or by another man who invented certain doctrines, and founded a sect according to his own private notions, but it has been taught by the Son of God, Who charged Peter and his lawful successors to do the same. Upon him He built His Church ; to Peter and his lawful successors did He say: ” He who heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he who despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.” One who does not do this will be condemned. ” There is a way (the Protestant religion) that seemeth to a man right, and the ends therefore lead to death.”

    They who follow any other rule to obtain salvation, deceive themselves. Instead of God’s will, do their own, or follow the suggestions of the devil or those of evil-minded, perverse teachers, who substitute their own will, their own meditations, thoughts, opinions, and judgment for the will of God. They imitate Adam and Eve, who believed the devil’s suggestions, rather than the infallible word of God.

    This great truth, that man must do God’s will in order to be saved, should ever be remembered by all those who wish to walk sincerely before God, and to save their souls.

    Third, one must listen and do what the Church commands one to do. For Jesus Christ Himself commands us to look upon ” him as the heathen and the publican, who will not hear the Church (Matt. 18:17). The definite article “the”, refers to one particular Church and not churches. Otherwise Christ would have said, look upon “…who will not hear a Church “

    Finally, prayer is the key to salvation ; it is the first and decisive step for the sinner who wishes to get out of the muck of sin into which we all find ourselves sunk up to our ears.

    ” let prayer never leave your hearts, and the grace and mercy of God will never leave your souls. Rest assured that the Lord will never withdraw from you, nor cease to enlighten, guide and protect you as long as you pray to Him. You complain of the difficulty of saving your souls in the midst of a corrupt world, in which you are exposed to so many dangers. Do you wish to escape them all and to fear none ? Arm yourselves with prayer. Prayer was the daily food and strength of the prophet ; it was his whole delight ; he understood but too well all its advantages. “ (Pope Celestine to the Bishops of France)

    (Taken from Fr The teachings of Fr Damen S.J, 1885, and Fr MICHAEL MULLER, C. SS. R. priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer)

  109. Karl said


    The Catholic Doctrine/Dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church has been affirmed many times over by the Churches Magesterium. It has been affirmed by The Council of Nicea (first ecumenical council, A.D. 325), The Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215 A.D.), The Council of Florence, The Council of Trent,…

    Further, I present a few quotations from some of the most illustrious early Christians, beginning with your favorite (Lol……).

    Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): ” He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ. “ [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].

    Saint Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1274): “There is no enterning into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church.” (Summa Theologiae)

    Pope St. Clement I, A.D. 88-97:“Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions.” (Epistle to the Corinthians)

    Ignatius of Antioch: “Do not deceive yourselves, he who adheres to the author of a schism will not possess the kingdom of God.” [Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3 (CH 158)].

    Cyprian Of Cathage: “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ (…) He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” [ De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n 6 (CH 555)].

    These are not my words but those of the very Councils and Personalities whose teachings you claim to adhere to. Therefore, if I am bigoted, so are they, and ultimately, so is the founder of The Church Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Understand that every time you hurl accusations, it is our Lord Himself that you attack. Now, you don’t wanna attack He Whom you gonna face at your judgment, do you. Be warned that Divine Just is rigorous, after all not only every action, but even every idle thought and word shall be accounted for (Matthew 12: 36; Ecclesiasticus 42:20 ).

    And to be quite frank and honest, atheists are much more honorable than heretics because they neither professes any faith nor do they pretend to believe anything.

  110. irishanglican said


    ‘Of the true Church, with which we ought to keep unity because she is the mother of all the godly.’ These words are not the title of a Papal Encyclical but of the first chapter of Book IV of Calvin’s Institutes!

    I think this blog, and our time has run their course! I have spoken my peace, and you yours. It is time to move on, you your way..and me mine!

    Fr. Robert

  111. Karl said


    “Luther and Calvin are in Hell and every soul that was lost through their fault adds to their torments.”
    (Mystery Of The Wizard Clip, an amazing, true story which took place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, on a farm near the present Middleway, Jefferson County, West Virginia — within the triangle formed by Charlestown, Martinsburg, and Winchester)

    After being explicitly closed out of the pale of salvation by the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, you are compelled to fall back to your true master, the heresiarch Calvin. Tell you what, Orestes Brownson was dead spot on about heretics, you are classical example, an interesting case study. It is also true that protestants apparently have no fear for the unquencheable fires of Hell.

    Indeed, only someone ignorant or indifferent about matters concerning salvation would proudly present the words of an accursed demagogue, like Calvin, who is under sentence of malediction.

    It sure is time to move on, but I hope that it has not been a waste of time. I leave you with the following final admonition:

    ” Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of Faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the chief head of all, has the succession of apostolic authority which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ’s command. “ (Allocution to the Cardinals held on December 17, 1847).

    Think about the shortness of this life and the eternity of hell ; And, while you are at it, see you at the crossroads.

  112. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well. I was watching your conversations with Karl. Sigh!



  113. stan said

    @ Karl again: Thank you for your answer.

    When you and the early fathers use the term “Catholic,” do you and they always mean, “Roman Catholic?”

  114. Hi John,

    This thread has gotten so long, you probably missed where Irishanglican showed that he and Karl have a bit too much in common, despite their differences of opinion on some things.

    (Use the link above to read from there down to about comment #72 and you can skip Karl’s babble as you go.)

    And Irishanglican is pushing very much for ecumenical relations with the Vatican. You might want to see some of the comments where he fawns over Vatican II. Irishanglican and Karl are not debating Protestant versus Catholic, they are debating open versus closed Roman Catholicism. The true essence of their debate is two sides of the same filthy coin! Because both have deified Mary outside of the commands of scripture and both hold to traditions of men. Read more of the comments and I’m sure you’ll see what I’m saying. Irishanglican wants to be more cozy with the Vatican and Karl is just upset the Vatican is trending towards that.

  115. (Job, you can delete my comment above with the messed up link and use this one instead.)

    This thread has gotten so long, you probably missed where Irishanglican showed that he and Karl have a bit too much in common, despite their differences of opinion on some things.

    (Use the link above to read from there down to about comment #72 and you can skip Karl’s babble as you go.)

    And Irishanglican is pushing very much for ecumenical relations with the Vatican. You might want to see some of the comments where he fawns over Vatican II. Irishanglican and Karl are not debating Protestant versus Catholic, they are debating open versus closed Roman Catholicism. The true essence of their debate is two sides of the same filthy coin! Because both have deified Mary outside of the commands of scripture and both hold to traditions of men. Read more of the comments and I’m sure you’ll see what I’m saying. Irishanglican wants to be more cozy with the Vatican and Karl is just upset the Vatican is trending towards that.

  116. The comment above is to John Kaniecki, I forgot to include my greeting to John in the updated comment.

  117. irishanglican said

    John Kaniecki

    Thanks for your concern, I have seen people like Karl..not just RC’s, but any who feel they and their Church have it wired. Since I am an Anglo-Catholic, I still regard Rome with favor, but just not in the degree of course that Karl does. I am not a liberal really, but I do try to be a real ecumenical Christian as far as possible. I only quoted Calvin, to show that he at least thought of the Church in Catholic like terms, etc.

    Again thanks John, God’s mercy, grace and love are always much bigger than we can even imagine. I wonder if Karl realizes even Rome’s doctrine of the Baptism of Desire?

    God Bless all,
    Fr. Robert

  118. Irishanglican

    I too have followed along. You did the right thing by ending it. It was pointless because only the Holy Spirit can change a persons heart and mind, not church doctrine.
    So remember: Cast not your perils before swine. Matt. 7:6

    Hope to see you around.

  119. irishanglican said

    Reverend Patrick Williams

    Indeed the blessed Holy Spirit alone can change any of us! I hope I can be pliable always as HE lives in me! Man’s hard heart and will has always been a mystery to me?
    Thanks for your words.

    Independent Conservative

    Sadly your hatred for Rome and Catholicsim is all too obvious. I too have some real issues with Rome and the papacy, but they do teach the hypostatic-union of the person of Christ, as both God and Man in one person, i.e Chalcedon, etc. And I am certain, least to my mind, that heaven is full of many RC people! Thank God the Christian life is much more than proper dogma, even as important as that may be. To manifest the spirit of Christ, in certain given love for others, can never be put aside! And since Christ has done so much to forgive us, we must learn to love and forgive others! “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    Fr. Robert

  120. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope it is well.

    My sigh was because the Irishanglican went into this venture thinking he had a stalwarth ally in Karl. But Karl is deceived in thinking that the Roman Catholic Church is divine.

    Of course I reject any teachings outside the Bible especially the deification of Mary. Karl of course turned on the Irishanglican unmercilessly.

    I always try to find common ground. This does not mean watering down the scriptures. The scriptures are very clear. Yet if you concentrate on where you agree than it is easier to correct one anothers errors.

    Many people blatantly choose to ignore sound Biblical unfortunately. We’ve seen that plenty on this blog.

    Yet in saying all this the Irishanglican did promote the idea that Rome is not infallable so there is hope for him. As for Karl I’ll be praying for a miracle. Hey Karl, you plan to be walking to Damascus soon?



  121. irishanglican said


    I appreciate your worthy Christ-like spirit. Something one does not see on the blogs, even with Christian’s, sadly. And as I have said, I am not really a hard blogger. That Christians, or people in Christendom are gonna disagree is obvious, but the manner of character and spirit, that is always important. And even to those we perhaps feel are outside the pale.

    I really could see with Karls other posts, he was not gonna run along side with me. Though we do have more agreement than he realizes. Not on Rome and the papacy, but on at least some doctinal things like Mary as the Mother of God, i.e. the Theotokos – God bearer. In fact, as history and Church Council shows (and here many with Cavlin and the Reformed, and Luther and the Lutherans) see Mary as declared the Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus, (431)(Not to mention the Orthodox, which I have not seen any that knowledgeable on this blog at least. Save my feeble effort.) This was and is the Third Ecumenical Council. And today you will find many if not most Reformed and Lutheran evangelicals foresquare here. And this does not mean that Mary is divine one bit. But that she was a chosen and prepared vessel of grace by and for the incarnation of God. This is where she is the Mother of God! If one whould take the time to read the history of the council and the issues therein, this is evident.

    But this blog is well over 120, so I think we all should put this to rest. And come out on another blog and Christian issues. We were supposed to be on the Trinity of God (this blog).

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Father Robert

    PS The only one’s I fully trust as men, are those Royal Marines I went to combat with! We laid all on the line for each other! (RIP)

  122. irishanglican said

    *doctrinal (poor typer I am

  123. Hey John,

    My sigh was because the Irishanglican went into this venture thinking he had a stalwarth ally in Karl.

    Karl of course turned on the Irishanglican unmercilessly.

    Honestly brother, from the moment Irishanglican started giving him pats on the back, I was just waiting for the turn to occur and I’m sure I was not the only one who knew what was coming in time.

    That is a benefit of knowing the “players” around these parts…

    I’m praying for them both and all. Because promotion of false gods is not accepted by God and He made it clear that nobody was to prop up Mary in Luke 11:27-28 and sadly some still try and do it. God does not share His glory.

  124. irishanglican said

    The text of St. Luke 11:27-28, when looked at closely does not diminish Mary at all, in fact Jesus corrects the woman from the crowd, not by denoucing his mother, but by emphasising her faith. People are blessed in God’s eyes if, like Mary, they hear the word of God and keep it. The Greek word menounge, here rendered more than that, is translated “Yes indeed” in Rom. 10:18. The word corrects by amplifying, not negating. And when we compare Scripture with Scripture, it was Mary the Mother of the Lord, who first believed – Luke 1:45!

    Fr. Robert

  125. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well. Yes I too knew it was just a matter of time. I wanted to comment earlier but I held my peace.

    It is sad if you think of it that the Roman Catholic religion has over a billion members. Karl is so quick to point out the hatred towards his church. While I don’t hate the members of the church I certainly hate that church and all it represents. True there are some in the Catholic sphere that I admire greatly and have great respect for. Especially those who are anti war. Yet as a whole it is a sad thing that enslaves minds and damns souls to hell.

    The whole ecumenical movement is treacherous. Why can’t these so called evangelical rulers stand up and say “No you are wrong because you don’t follow what the Bible teaches.” Instead these people suck up to the ‘institution’.

    They want a New World Order. That entails a one world government and a one world religion. Understand that the prime movers of this already control most of the world’s resources. What they want politically amounts to outright slavery. On the religious angle they want all religions to bow to the head of Rome.

    May God grant us the strength to resist this blasphemous evil.



  126. irishanglican said

    Job, I hope my last post gets thru?

    Fr. Robert

  127. Karl said


    to answer your question, I present some citations from non-Catholic sources which I believe will be helpful. As you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details while leaving out others. It would not go down well with Protestants if any encyclopedia emphatically stated that “The Catholic Church was founded in the 1st century by Jesus Christ”. But occasionally they’re forced to admit part of the truth such as the Church existing from the 1st century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that these sources become useful because even protestants concede that the RC is the true Church of God. Their founder, Martin Luther, knew this very well, for he himself admitted this fact.

    ROMAN CATHOLICISM: The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD…The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning “universal.” The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

    ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 ).

    The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a primacy of jurisdiction; that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his prerogatives of supremacy. Historians thus read the facts of the early history of the church and they trace to this acknowledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churches, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies – of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation – the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monotheism – not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. (Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903).

    The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

    The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued to flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built “upon a rock,” (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

    The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles. The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles.( World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)

    Stan, the term “Catholic” is, indeed, ALWAYS understood to mean, “Roman Catholic”

  128. Karl said


    to answer your question, I present some citations from non-Catholic sources which I believe will be helpful. As you read them you’ll notice that each one admits certain details while leaving out others. It would not go down well with Protestants if any encyclopedia emphatically stated that “The Catholic Church was founded in the 1st century by Jesus Christ”. But occasionally they’re forced to admit part of the truth such as the Church existing from the 1st century or its connection to the apostles of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that these sources become useful because even protestants concede that the RC is the true Church of God. Their founder, Martin Luther, knew this very well, for he himself admitted this fact.

    ROMAN CATHOLICISM: The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD…The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning “universal.” The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

    ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 ).

    The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a primacy of jurisdiction; that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his prerogatives of supremacy. Historians thus read the facts of the early history of the church and they trace to this acknowledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churches, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies – of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation – the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monotheism – not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. (Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903).

    The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

    The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued to flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built “upon a rock,” (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

    The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles. The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles.( World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)

    Stan, the term “Catholic” is, indeed, ALWAYS understood to mean, “Roman Catholic”

  129. irishanglican said

    Job, I guess ya are not gonna let my honest answer and post to Luke 11:27-28 thru eh? If not, I guess I will bow out of all of your posts! There must be honesty in blog posts, i.e. to give all the answers!

    Fr. Robert

  130. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Is post 124 the one you are mentioning.

    Let me explain some history since you are relatively new. Initially the posts went automatically on to the blog. Then because of some viscious, back biting conversations Job decided to moderate every comment.

    I do not like this as it takes away some of the quicker talks. Yet I feel Job was justified in doing this. In paticular on the blog What Must I Do To Be Saved the talk just got out of hand.

    So you will just have to be more patient. Job rarely if ever censors the blogs. That is one of the great things about the blog is that any opinion is welcome.

    Speaking for myself I certainly enjoy having you on the blog and consider it a great privelege I can learn from somebody with different beliefs.



  131. irishanglican said


    First as I have mentioned, I am not a hard blogger. I was a seminary professor for several years, and we did quite nicely without the blog. Of course we wrote man to man on the computer then! I will be 59 in Oct, so the blog world to me is not that personal! The seminary classroom, and the real face to face dialogue is the only real, lasting place for this kind of exchange. For example, we don’t know who or what Karl really is? For all we know he could be a woman? And this is not a knock on women, but who really knows what he is? He does not even give any personal information. My point to the blog is it is hardly honest at times. I am just not into blogdom! I have just recently used it. As one can see, I give up perhaps too much personal information, but then I have nothing to hide. And I am just a proud old, but always young at heart, Irishman, and very real!

    At this point, I am don’t think I shall continue on this blog. There are many others, oh yes. And even other blog site companies. So I guess I shall just have to explore a bit. But thanks John again, I know my beliefs and theology are not your cup of tea, but you have been man-upped and spoken, and thanks!

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  132. stan said

    Thanks again, Karl (re post 128).

    Would you say that Jesus will only save Catholics from their sins?

  133. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Yes I agree with you the blog world could be very deceitful. After all people may not be what they portray or the may have ulterior motives in saying what they say.

    I have very controversial stances and I realize that. I also have deep convictions. Therefore as a result of that I use my real name and I am not shy about giving out personal information. I know that God is going to judge us by every word that comes out of our mouths. I am a sinner. Some times I do better with sin sometimes I do worse but I always try my best.

    I think Robert that the blogs are a place where you can etch your unique point of view. Every blog is saved and recorded somewhere. I am certain the government has it stashed somewhere on some file. This is not paranoia, if paranoia exists it is on the part of the United States governemnt.

    So when I say things such as a Christian should not partake in physical war and only spiritual warfare or that the United States should return all the land it stole from the natives I mean it. I want my name to be recognized and inscribed with those two statements. One charecteristic of the group of people who are outside God’s city in Revelation are the cowardly.

    So Robert glean from this what you can. If you choose to leave so be it but return from time to time. I have learned many things from the blog. It is a good way to spend time. It has introduced me to many thoughts that I didn’t even know existed.

    May God bless you.



  134. Karl said


    From the time of birth till death, every human is constantly under temptation, and consequently falls into sin, regardless of whether one is catholic or not. Sin excludes from heaven, but, thanks to the infinite merits of Christ, we have been given means to help us fight sin. And if we persevere in the good fight, our efforts will be crowned with eternal glory.

    Question is, How are the merits of Christ to be applied to our souls, so that we may profit by them. Here is what the Catholic Church says

    It is true that the price Christ paid on the cross for our salvation is of infinite value, and that nothing can be added to that value. It is true, also, that, only through His merits, does the way of pardon lie open to us ; and that all the graces we have or can have, are due to that precious blood-shedding. But the mere fact of His death does not save all, otherwise all men would be saved, no matter who they are, or how they live, or how they die. We believe that the merits of Jesus Christ must be imparted to us, so that they may be a healing and health giving medicine to our souls. They must be applied to the soul, so as really to cleanse and transform her into a true copy of Christ crucified.

    To illustrate this point : In a city there is a large reservoir always filled with pure, fresh water, which is a great blessing to the inhabitants. The quantity of water is more than sufficient to supply the wants of every one. But for one who is in great need of water, what does it avail to know that an immense reservoir is there, if he cannot get at it? If a person wishes to get water, he must either go to the reservoir, or the water must be conveyed thence to him by some means. It is just so with the graces of redemption, which our blessed Saviour merited for us by his death. They form an infinite, an inexhaustible fountain open to all. But the pure water of this fountain must be applied to our souls, else we shall perish.

    Jesus Christ not only merited these graces for us, but established also certain conditions and channels whereby these graces are communicated to the souls of men. The conditions are, that we firmly believe his doctrine, and keep his commandments. The conditions are, that we firmly believe his doctrine, and keep his commandments. The channels are the sacraments and the holy sacrifice of the Mass. However, not all of mankind has accepted the means of salvation instituted by Christ because not all believe His doctrine, keep his commandments, and use the means of grace which He provides.

    ” Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

    ” Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. “ (Galatians 5:19 – 21)

    Now, it is a well-known fact that millions of catholics have renounced Christ’s doctrine, and despise the means of grace, the holy sacraments. Many openly profess infidelity and indifferentism, are members of secret societies, or are lukewarm towards God and his holy religion. It is also a well-known fact that millions of Catholics neglect their religious duties; openly defy Church commandments, rebel, blaspheme and commit sacrilegious acts They forget that Christ Himself says, ” He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. “ (Matt. 18:17). It is also a well known fact that millions of catholics live continually in mortal sin, the sins mentioned in Galatians 5:19 – 21. Worse still, they proudly and openly boast about their escapades, thereby commiting the sin of scandal.

    No wonder, therefore, that so many of us are lost, through our own fault. Indeed, it is easy to see why ” many are called but few are chosen “.

    (Taken from God The Teacher Of Mankind, A PLAIN AND COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRIINE, By Fr Michael Mueller C.SS.R Benziger Brothers, Printers to The Holy Apostolic See, 1880, Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1879, by MICHAEL MULLER, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.)

    So, to answer your question, Stan, unfortunately many Catholics will not make it. Some eminent Catholic theologians even hold that the majority of Catholics are damned on account of the sin of impurity (Purity is known as the Angelic virtue, the vice of impurity is the most difficult to avoid).

  135. stan said

    Thanks again, Karl.

    Here is my experience: I was born to Roman Catholic parents and raised in the religion and went to 12 years of catholic education. As a very young person, I had a childlike zeal for the things of God and church. As I grew into teenage life, still going to confession, attending Mass and taking communion, I found that sin was developing an unconquerable hold on me and that I went from bad to worse. It seemed that the only grace I ended up getting from all my religious observances and receiving catholic sacraments was shame and guilt. I even got the plenary indulgence of attending nine first Fridays in a row (more than once) with as much fervor and zeal as I could muster in my tender years.

    The many catholic kids I went to school with were more or less like me. I can only remember out of the hundreds of boys in high school only three or four who even seemed godly. Roman Catholic High school was an exercise in camouflage as you attempted to avoid being the next victim of the vicious upper classmen and cruel classmates. They weren’t all like that, it’s just that enough of them were to make those 4 years miserable. I used to wish that I could send my body to school and I would meet up with it after Senior year and continue my life from then.

    If any of us teens had been regenerated at our baptisms, you could never have proved it in court. We were as ungodly as the unchristian kids in the local towns. I can’t really speak for the girls too much. Some were bad and had terrible reputations, but some were very decent. In our faculty, we had priests. Most I never had in class, but seemed OK; yet, I remember one turned out to be gay and another was a practically a heretic who claimed that “God was like a little kid who needed to have things just so (referring to the rituals of Catholicism) or would have a tantrum if not pleased.” And, that, the Bible was largely made up of myths, like the origin of evil being Adam and Eve and their eating of the forbidden fruit. He even smoked in the cloak room of our classroom. Our parents were scandalized at his new theories we brought home for dinnertime conversations. Some of the nuns were nice, some were just plain mean. Friends of mine who were altar boys had tales of priests who imbibed the sacredotal wine and others who were suspected of questionable sexuality. I don’t rehearse this to disparage the religion so much as to indicate the lack of proof of that the vast majority of catholics ever practiced true godliness, whether myself, my peers, its adult practitioners or many of the clergy I have ever known. The one good thing for me was that I learned and believed that Jesus was divine and had died for our sins and had been raised from the dead. After high school, I stopped practicing Catholicism.

    As time went on, I joined the Service where I eventually became a hopeless alcoholic. I was a melancholic drunk and even sought to kill myself under the influence of alcohol more than once in my young adult years. I was also laden with other compulsive lusts, typical of my gender, as well as growing interest in the paranormal. As my obsession with the occult went on, I had ever increasing desires to commit suicide. The relationship between those two things I realize only now in hindsight.

    My life went on like this until 1975 when I was 23. At that age, I met a fellow who attended an independent home fellowship church who invited me to a meeting Friday that week. I normally went to the singles’ bar on Fridays, but I decided to attend the meeting instead.

    Three days later, due to their encouragement, I gave my life to the Lord Jesus. Because of them, I had finally obeyed God, Who had been after me for some years to give Him my life. The next day, I awoke with my soul flooded with an inexpressible joy. Yet, following that, I had no inclination to go back to the Roman Catholic church. Nor have I ever felt the slightest desire or conviction to do that. I considered myself to be neither catholic or protestant, but simply a Christian.

    What I did notice that convinced me that I had indeed received eternal life by simple faith in the Resurrected Lord was that my sins were departing. The drunkenness was gone. Even though I drank alcohol at times after that, it had changed from a need to drink to insensibility to a rather boring experience. Eventually, drinking and any craving for it, left altogether. Cigarette smoking stopped in a few months after conversion. My foul mouth was gone immediately after I committed to the Lord. I have never had the slightest desire to kill myself either in these many years, despite having a few periods of depression. Also, I experienced a few healings many years ago as a result of prayer that I have to this day.

    To have besetting sins not only forgiven, but also removed from your soul and to experience the freedom that that brings is simply wonderful. I believe that this is a “good and perfect gifts from above that came down from the Father of Lights” to me.

    Yet, I know I am not flawless. Even James admits that “in many ways we all offend.” What replaced all the internal chaos of my life and soul at age 23 was the peace of the Lord which is with me still. The bible became an open book to me too since then. That was certainly a difference for me. I remember before conversion that when I was drinking one night and reading Revelation in a Catholic bible I had bought a couple of years prior to then that I wondered if John was on drugs. I called a local Catholic priest in the city and asked him. He said, “Hmm. Maybe so.”

    I understood immediately the answers to the big questions of life. I had no more left. No more “Is there a God?” “Is there any purpose to life?” “What is life all about?” “Why is the world so messed up?” “What does the future hold?” “Why am I here?”

    So, I possess within my own soul proof that I have received the Spirit’s sanctifying grace for the last 33 years without receiving the sacraments under the mediation of a Roman Catholic priest. The marked difference to me is that no such thing happened to me as a practicing catholic.

    If Jesus Christ has not been removing my unconquerable sins and changing the desires and motivations of my soul toward godly behavior and living – and without me being submitted to Rome – I would like to know who has been doing all this in me for the last 33 years.

  136. By Grace through faith, glory be to God through Jesus Christ that God’s grace found you Stan!

  137. Karl said


    I too have experienced what you have narrated, and continue to do so. I have led a life of debauchery; through bad company, was I exposed to impure magazines and pornography at the tender age of 13; committed my first act of fornication at 14(shame of all shames). From then on, it was a headlong plunge into a life of depraved sensuality, fornication, and drunkenness. I took every opportunity to gratify myself in sensual pleasures of every kind, from which, to this day, I am still struggling to break free (it is only recently that I have woken up). I pretty much often feel like am fighting a losing battle. But is it not St. Augustine who said that, with regard to the vice of fornication/adultery, combat is common, and victory rare. For, the Holy Spirit says that, as we sow, so shall we reap; vices we imbibed in our childhood shall follow us into old age. Moreover, St Augustines adds that, though we grow old, the vice of impurity never grows old in us. And st Thomas says that, there is no sin in which the Devil delights so much as in the sin of fornication/adultery, because there is no other sin to which nature clings with so much tenacity. I totally agree and am sure that you, too, will agree, after noting the spirit of impurity which, like a deluge of filth, has flooded the streets, squares and public places in the world today, not even sparing children (the devil glories in feeding perfidiously on the heart of children, and the innocence of childhood has almost disappeared).

    Let me dwell, first, on the sin of impurity (i.e fornication,/adultery, drunkenness/gluttony, luxury, immodesty) because the greatest majority of mankind are enslaved by this vice, and, it is on account of this sin, says St Augustine, that Hell is filled with souls. Not only St Augustine, but also many other great and holy theological minds teach that, as pride has filled Hell with devils, so impurity fills it with men. The reason, says St Isidore, is because there is no vice which so much enslaves men to the Devil as impurity. I am sure that you agree, as I do.

    That the vice of impurity is no small evil at all, as modern men would have it, can be understood from the fact that it is abhorred even by the demons themselves, who have no good in them, and tempt us into committing this vice. St Thomas says, that Lucifer, who is supposed to have been the Devil that tempted Jesus Christ in the desert, tempted Him to commit other sins, but scorned to tempt Him to offend against chastity. Furthermore, this sin brings in its wake, sins of defamation, of theft, hatred, jealousies, murder, and of boasting of its filthy abominations. Besides, it ordinarily involves the malice of scandal. Other sins, such as blasphemy, perjury, and murder, excite horror in those who witness them; but this sin excites others, who are flesh, to commit it, or at least, to commit it with less horror.

    Impurity also brings with it blindness and obstinacy. Every vice produces darkness of understanding; but impurity produces it in a greater degree than all other sins. “Fornication, and wine, and drunkenness, take away the understanding”(Hosea 4:11). Wine deprives us of understanding and reason; so does impurity. Hence Saint Thomas says that the man who indulges in unchaste pleasures, does not live according to reason. Now if we the unchaste are deprived of light, and no longer see the evil which we do, how, then, shall we abhor it, and amend our lives? The Prophet Hosea says, that being blinded by their own mire, they do not even think of returning to God because their impurities take away from them all knowledge of God. ” They will not set their thoughts to return to their God: for the spirit of fornication is in the midst of them, and they have not known the Lord “(Hosea 5:4). Hence Saint Lawrence Justinian writes, that this sin makes men forget God, ” Delights of the flesh induce forgetfulness of God “. From this blindness it arises, that, though they go to the sacraments, their confessions are null for want of true contrition; for how is it possible for them to have true sorrow, when they neither know nor abhor their sins? Surely, this fellow was talking about us wasn’t he. By lust the Devil triumphs over the entire man, over his body and over his soul; over his memory, filling it with the remembrance of unchaste delights, in order to make him take complacency in them; over his intellect, to make him desire occasions of committing sin; over the will, by making it love its impurities as his last end, and as if there were no God.

    Now with what disgust and indignation must God, Who is purity itself, behold the filthy impurities by which His law is violated ? He loves purity with an infinite love; and consequently He has has an infinite hatred for the sensuality which the lewd, voluptuous man calls a small evil. Even the devils who held a high rank (Cherubim, Seraphim, Thrones) in Heaven before their fall, disdain to tempt men to sins of the flesh. St Thomas says, that by every vice, but particularly by the vice of impurity, men are removed far from God. “Per luxuriam maxime recedit a Deo”.

    The vice of impurity also brings with it obstinacy. To conquer temptations, particularly against chastity, continual, unceasing, prayer is necessary. “Watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:38). But how will the unchaste, who are always seeking to be tempted, pray to God to deliver them from temptation? They sometimes, as Saint Augustine confessed of himself, even abstain from prayer, through fear of being heard and cured of the disease, which they wish to continue. St Jerome says, that the vice of impurity, when habitual, will cease when the unhappy man who indulges in it, is cast into the fire of Hell. “O infernal fire, lust, whose fuel is gluttony, whose sparks are brief conversations, whose end is Hell”.

    All that I have said on this subject, has not been said, in order to drive into despair, anyone present, who has been addicted to the vice of impurity, but that such persons may be cured. So, what are we to do when we find ourselves mired in the depths of sin, especially impurity?

    There are two great remedies; prayer and the flight from dangerous occasions. Prayer, says Saint Gregory of Nyssa, is the safeguard of Chastity. “Oratio pudicitiae praesidium et tutamen est”. And before him, Solomon, speaking of himself, said the same. “And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it,…I went to the Lord, and besought Him”(Wisdom 8:21). Thus it is impossible for us to conquer this vice without God’s assistance. Prayer is the first and decisive step for he who is sank in sin. Hence, as soon as a temptation against chastity presents itself, the remedy is to turn instantly to God for help, and to repeat several times the most holy names of Jesus and Mary, which have a special virtue to banish bad thoughts of that kind. When a bad thought occurs in the mind, it is necessary to shake it off instantly, as you would a spark that flies from the fire, and instantly to invoke aid from Jesus and Mary (daily recitation of the Holy Rosary). Victory is only for he who perseveres.

    As to the flight of dangerous occasions, St Philip Neri says, they who fly from the occasions of sin, gain victory. Otherwise, says St Thomas, we can scarcely avoid this sin. Hence Job said: “I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin”(Job 31:1). He was afraid to look at a virgin; because from looks it is easy to pass to desires, and from desires to acts. St Francis de Sales used to say, that to look at a woman does not do so much evil, as to look at her a second time. If the Devil has not gained a victory the first, he will gain it the second time. And if it be necessary to abstain from looking at females, it is much more necessary to avoid conversation with them. “Tarry not among women”(Ecclesiasticus 42:12). “A wise man feareth, and declineth from evil: the fool leapeth over, and is confident”(Proverbs 14:16). A wise man is timid, and flies away; a fool is confident, and falls.

  138. Karl said


    You are not alone, i too, came dangerously close to switching faiths ; I almost threw in my lot with one of them countless born-again churches that daily seem to spring up everywhere. But there was something utterly detestable and repulsive about these sects that kept me away. Today, am glad that I stayed away because they are like a cancer. I also fail to understand how anyone can believe the so-called “speaking in tongues.” I once asked someone whether he really understood a thing when people “speak in tongues”. He answered in the negative but said that those filled with the Holy Spirit do. I then asked him, who these holy spirit-filled people are. He said that he did not know. Talk of the blind following the blind. Finally, I toyed with the insane idea of embracing Islam, and will never forget how anxious the Muslim dude I approached was, to have me join his mosque. Truly, I had taken leave of my senses.

    Can a Catholic be saved, who has left the true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church ? No, because the Church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom, shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven. Apostates from the Catholic Faith are not saved, because to fall away from the Faith is a great sin, which makes one lose the kingdom of heaven.

    Apostasy, or the failing away from the true Faith, is infidelity. As the virtue of true faith unites us with God, so the sin of apostasy separates us from Him. As the real loss of faith is a total separation from God and His Holy Church, it is called apostasy of perfidy. Whoever is guilty of this kind of apostasy, is deprived of grace and of all other means of salvation, for, “Faith is the life of the soul: the just man lives by faith” (Rom. 1: 17). “When the soul, the life of the body.” says Saint Thomas Aquinas, “has left the body, all its natural powers and physical organization begin to be dissolved. In like manner, when true faith, the life of the soul is totally destroyed, a mortal disorder, a spiritual contagion, pervades all the members and faculties of the body, which are the instruments of the soul.” Hence it is, that the apostate uses every faculty of his soul and body to pervert others, by inducing them to renounce the Faith which he himself has renounced to his own perdition. “It had been better for them (heretics and apostates) not to have known the way of justice than, after having known it, to turn away from it” (2 Peter 2: 21). “Woe to you ungodly men, woe to you who have forsaken the law of the Most High Lord! If you be born, you shall be born in malediction, and if you die, in malediction shall be your position. The ungodly shall pass from malediction to destruction; the name of the ungodly shall be blotted out” (Ecclus. 41: 11-14 ).

    But what did St Augustine and the other Bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, in A.D 412, say about the salvation of those who die outside the Roman Catholic Church? They said, “Whosoever, is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

    And what does St Cyprian of Carthage say about the salvation of those who die outside of the Roman Catholic Church? He says: “He who has not the Church for his mother cannot have God for his Father.” And with him the Fathers of the Church in general say that, “as all those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the waters of the deluge, so shall perish all who are out of the true Church.”

    These are very serious statements that can only be ignored at one’s own eternal peril. Also, consider the following prophecy:

    “At the end of the 19th century and for a large part of the 20th, various heresies will flourish on this earth which will have become a free republic. The precious light of the Faith will go out in souls because of the almost total moral corruption: in those times there will be great physical and moral calamities, in private and in public. The little number of souls keeping the Faith and practicing the virtues will undergo cruel and unspeakable suffering; through their long drawn out martyrdom many of them will go to their death because of the violence of their sufferings, and those will count as martyrs who gave their lives for Church or for country. To escape from being enslaved by these heresies will call for great strength of will, constancy, courage and great trust in God…

    “By having gained control of all the social classes, the sects will tend to penetrate with great skill into the hearts of families to destroy even the children. The devil will take glory in feeding perfidiously on the heart of children. The innocence of childhood will almost disappear. Thus priestly vocations will be lost, it will be a real disaster. Priests will abandon their sacred duties and will
    depart from the path marked out for them by God.”
    (Quito, Ecuador, 2nd February 1634).

    Our souls are in great danger of being swallowed by this formidable tide of apostasy and corruption, which is devastating the Church and the world. Sr Lucy, one of the seers of Fatima, told Father A Fuentes that, “Each person must not only save his own soul but also the souls that God has placed in our path…The devil does all in his power to distract us and to take away from us the love for prayer; we shall be saved together or we shall be damned together”

    So, understand that apostasy does not help matters at all; It is a delusion to think so. On the contrary, it places you in a very precarious condition indeed. Lucifer is a liar, right from the beginning, and his job is to mislead men by presenting error as truth.

    The salvation of sinners was the main design of Christ’s coming into the world. The repentant thief, arguably the first and luckiest mortal to step into eternal glory, was a robber, rapist, and murderer, all his life. Now, God often makes the base and vile sinners objects of his choicest mercy because great sinners are most easily convinced of the notorious wickedness of their lives; and reflecting upon themselves because of their horrid crimes against the light of nature, are more inclined to endeavor an escape from the devil’s slavery, and are frighted and shaken by their consciences into a compliance with the doctrine of redemption. Whereas those that do by nature the things contained in the law, are so much a law to themselves, that it is difficult to persuade them of the necessity of conforming to another law, and to part with this self-law in regard to justification. Many saints were vile sinners before seeing the light of truth. Did they desert the Church ? Most certainly No, instead they implored God through prayer, and He granted them the grace to take cognizance of their sins, truly repent, and amend their lives. Prayer and penance are the key to salvation; he who prayers shall be saved, and he who does not shall perish. Prayer moves God, and it is for this reason that He has attached salvation to prayer. It is the simplest thing one can do to attain salvation.

    This is the truth, which you must know. Concealing it from you would be contrary to charity.

  139. stan said

    Karl, I’d still like you to tell me who has been removing my sins from me all these years?

  140. (Col 2:9 KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    (Col 2:10 KJV) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    You are complete only in Him too.

    All of our souls are in great danger of being swallowed by this formidable tide of apostasy and corruption, which is devastating the Church, churches and never mind the world because many people have submitted to the lusts of their carnal flesh, as well to the call of the devil and the world undeniably.

    Two of my continual shocks in life the last 5 decades amongst many others now too now are as to how many evangelical pastors now basically are still ungodly and how come they wrongfully do not repent of this?

    Secondly in the last 5 decades 50 percent of once loudly professing evangelical Christians undeniably depart by their own choice from the faith even admittedly

    I am of the opinion that many people look at past Christian History to overcome the God shaped vacuum they presently do have in their life too.. and there are many reasons now even for this – them specifically not being led today by the Holy Spirit.. even that they are rather doing their own thing, or they are in deliberate willful sins, or they are pride, or they are abusing others or their spouse even by cheating, lying to and stealing from them, amongst many other reasons. I like what I had read years ago.. God has not moved! Did you?

    I admit I was in shock, in anger about 3 decades ago when for the first time some one said God can talk directly to you personally, I found that initially unbelievable, even as to why I had not heard him before.. too busy talking and not quietly listening to him firstly too.

    Ever notice how so many professing Christians do a lot of talking, but rarely quote any bible verses in reality, seems they too still want to still hear themselves do all the talking and not God rather.

    (Rom 6:6 KJV) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

    (1 Cor 1:23 KJV) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

    (1 Cor 2:2 KJV) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

    (1 Cor 2:8 KJV) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

    (2 Cor 13:4 KJV) For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

    (Gal 2:20 KJV) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

    (Gal 5:24 KJV) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

    (Gal 6:14 KJV) But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

  141. John Kaniecki said


    Was Karl’s comments deleted?



  142. John,

    Was Karl’s comments deleted?

    I guess Job had enough of seeing the lies posted and promotion of a cult. As if imperfect men that Karl calls “priests” can absolve sin, NOT. That heretic better look at the name at the top of this blog and get a clue.

    1 John 2:1-2 (New American Standard Bible)

    1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

    2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

    Even the Apostles that Jesus spoke to in John 20:23 telling them any sins they forgive will be forgiven declared that JESUS IS THE ONLY ADVOCATE TO THE FATHER. They did not promote themselves and they certainly didn’t claim anybody else could absolve anyone’s sins.

    Avoid the Idolatry of Mary Worship

  143. Karl said

    The Catholic Church is accused of intolerance yet we see comments get deleted just because the owner of this blog cant bear the truth. Should one, then, suppose that the rest are telling the truth seeing that their comments are not deleted ?

    That Christ Himself possessed the power to forgive sins is, of course, undisputed by any Christian. The Catholic Priest forgives sinners of their sins in the name of Jesus Christ, by the Authority given to priest by Christ. The sacrament of Penance is the sacrament by which sins committed after Baptism are remitted for those who confess them with true sorrow. The Minister of the sacrament is one in Holy Orders, Priest or Bishop. The Priest remits sin, that is, gives absolution, by pronouncing the words, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Christ makes his position clear on this issue when he breathed on his apostles saying to them “He who’s sins you forgive they are forgiven, he who’s sins you retain, are retained, (John 20:22-23). The Priest does NOT forgive sins by his own authority or in his own name but in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Let no one say to me, says St. Augustine, “I will do penance in my heart, I confess all my sins to God and to God alone, who was present when I committed sin. It is He who must forgive me. Then in vain was it said to the apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained!”

    Just as no one is foolish enough to say “I will go to God alone for the remission of original sin, I will send my Children to God alone instead of sending them to the baptismal font, like wise let no one be foolish enough to say I will go to God alone for the forgiveness of actual sin”; for as the former is forgiven only by means of the sacrament of baptism, so is the latter forgiven only by means of the sacrament of penance.

    It is only in this world that we can find a created being who has power to forgive the sinner, who can free him from the chains of sin and hell; and that extraordinary being is the priest, the Catholic priest. “Who can forgive sins except God? Was the question, which the Pharisees harshly asked. “Who can forgive sins?” is the question that the Pharisees of the present day also ask: and the answer is, There is a man on earth that can forgive sins, and that man is the Catholic priest. This because the priest is the ambassador of God (1 Cor 3:9).

  144. >>The Catholic Church is accused of intolerance yet we see comments get deleted just because the owner of this blog cant bear the truth. Should one, then, suppose that the rest are telling the truth seeing that their comments are not deleted ?

    The Catholic Church is accused of intolerance and yes you can add to that lying, twisting the Bible, truths too.. but so does the non catholic hurches now too..

    There is still a difference between censorship and rightfully regulating inappropriate comments.

    Since the net first came out now I too have had my comments deleted on many sites, Christian – evangelical, non evangelical, catholic ones and non Christian ones – Jewish’s, Muslims, and even the general, political ones as well.. for some people are ostriches who do not want to face the negative truths, and/ or have a hidden agenda and they do not like anything that distrust their agendas. So to solve it I just same make the posts on my own sites, and someone still tried to censor some of them, including the bad cops..

    No even the Catholic or the evangelical church these days is far from perfect. The real truth is that the even evangelicals do now have many major faults of their own they need to deal still to do as well, and not just solely pick on the Abortionists, Catholics, Cults, gays, etc., Even the evangelicals fight amongst themselves and we see this in the common ungodly war between Pentecostals and non Pentecostals too.

    Sadly Bashing others, uplifting one group or self over others is very popular on the net, in churches too and is known as bullying, done even by the Pastors, priests, Christian and non Christian persons but it is still unacceptable. I expect to the people do it in false pride to make themselves feel better, but very shortly they next again become depressed still because after all it is still an immoral act that needs to be repented off.

    (2 Tim 2:25 KJV) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
    26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
    3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
    9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
    10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
    11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
    12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
    13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
    14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
    15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    As for “It is only in this world that we can find a created being who has power to forgive the sinner, who can free him from the chains of sin and hell; and that extraordinary being is the priest, the Catholic priest. “Who can forgive sins except God? Was the question, which the Pharisees harshly asked. “Who can forgive sins?” is the question that the Pharisees of the present day also ask: and the answer is, There is a man on earth that can forgive sins, and that man is the Catholic priest. This because the priest is the ambassador of God (1 Cor 3:9).”

    there is no way I can believe that at all too.. or that Virgin Mary is a deity, part of the trinity, speaks to people today.. Believe it or not I too have met many Mary worshippers in the Catholic church myself lately who were sexually immoral, even a lesbian cult too. Their forgiveness for me rightfully does not mean much when they basically cannot even change themselves.

    Me I am not a catholic, or a protestant, but a true Believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian.

  145. >>You are not alone, I too, came dangerously close to switching faiths ; I almost threw in my lot with one of them countless born-again churches that daily seem to spring up everywhere. But there was something utterly detestable and repulsive about these sects that kept me away. Today, am glad that I stayed away because they are like a cancer. I also fail to understand how anyone can believe the so-called “speaking in tongues.” I once asked someone whether he really understood a thing when people “speak in tongues”. He answered in the negative but said that those filled with the Holy Spirit do. I then asked him, who these holy spirit-filled people are. He said that he did not know.

    There was a day when I was a child and I too could not understand it

    Me I speak in tongues when led by the Holy Spirit and I need too and I am one of these holy spirit filled persons.

    After I pray or speak in tongues I pray for the English discernment as well so I can understand it as the Bible commands we should and I do get it as well. It is often revealing, surprising as to what I have prayed, said too. I was in a church when the pastor had finished his sermon, and I had next given a tongue prophecy.. ” My servant has preached my message and has rightfully called you to repentance, nut you have refused to come, shall I here announce your sins to all” next dozens of people rush to the church alter for repentance..

    (Eph 5:19 KJV) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

    (Eph 5:20 KJV) Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

    (Eph 5:21 KJV) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

  146. Well John, the lunatic train continues to roll down the track as we see in the Roman Catholic nonsensical babble.

    John, where in your Bible do you see any Apostle of the Lord Jesus ACTUALLY saying something such as “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Did a true apostle of the Lord Jesus ever say they absolved anyone of their sins? No. Did they ever claim they had such ability themselves? No.

    Jesus told them whatever they forgave would be forgiven, because their charge was to have people repent to the Lord Jesus, not them. They only forgave and retained sins in the sense that they preached the terms upon which one can be saved. To call on the Name of the Lord Jesus. They in no way ever said they absolved anyone’s sins.

    Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) didn’t say go to him for absolution, he said:

    Acts 16:30-31 (New American Standard Bible)

    30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
    31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    When THE REAL Peter spoke to Gentiles at Cornelius’ house and the Holy Spirit was imparted to Gentiles as Peter was instructed by Jesus to give them the message of eternal life, Peter was preaching the message and as they listened and believed the Holy Spirit fell upon them, Acts 10:34-44.

    Whenever Gentiles asked how to be saved the response was:
    Romans 10:13 (New American Standard Bible)


    Not go to request absolution from a fallible man. No man can forgive sins, the Pharisee knew ONLY GOD could forgive sins. What they did not know is that Jesus is God given He truly is the Son of God, One with the Father. That He is God, is what they could not embrace and what they sent Him to the cross for affirming. They called him a blasphemer, but He is the Son of God.

    And once saved, all sins are forgiven, even future.

    Mark 3:28-30 (New American Standard Bible)

    28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

    29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”–

    30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

    All who believe on the True Lord Jesus are forgiven of ALL SINS. All who do not call on the name of the Lord are already condemned, John 3:18.

    Absolution does not come through a man and those who see absolution in men have not sought truth. The gift of salvation is not something Mary plays a role in. She simply rests in Christ like all other departed saints. Saints being all who believed on the Lord Jesus, not some group a Roman Catholic says are saints. The Roman Catholics KILLED many saints calling them heretics.

    Nobody is charging Roman Catholicism with simple “intolerance” the Roman Catholic cult has blood all over its hands! THE BLOOD OF SAINTS!

    Avoid the Idolatry of Mary Worship

  147. John Kaniecki said


    Hope you are well.

    Not only does the church Karl promotes makes a mockery of the Bible it’s history proves itself to be evil.

    There are many people out there who do not understand that the Bible is the Word of God. Or if they do they haven’t taken the time to read it. When I was raised in the Catholic church not one single time did we ever read from the Bible! That was eighteen years!

    So Karl argues that the Bible isn’t contradicted by the Catholic churches teachings. I’d urge somebody to read the Bible and look at the words themselves. One casual reading will reveal a dozen doctrinal errors and that is without even looking hard.

    Yet there is another way to come to the conclusion that the institution Karl promotes is false and that is history. The Catholic Church is one of the biggest oppressors of all time. From the inquisition, to the crusades, to the slaughter of the inhabitants of the ‘new world’ the Catholic churches hands are full of blood. Why we only have to turn back time a little bit and see how the pope didn’t even reject Hitler!

    Alas Karl you are caught in a lie. You are deluded to the point you can no longer reason with the senses God gave you. The only people the Catholic church can control are those who are left in darkness. That is why they claim you need an interpreter to read the Bible. Jesus said “Know ye the truth and the truth shall set ye free.” The Catholic Church says ‘I will tell you what to think ignore Jesus and all the first hand eye witnesses.’

    And finally Karl the arrogance you approach the conversations with are appalling. Christ was a humble man willing to take time to teach all. But you Karl with your long winded statements, quoting people who have no more authority than I and degrading others have proven the nature of what you are, all form and no substance!

    Alas Karl unless you repent you will be one sorry individual. For not only are you lost but you prosteltyze for a religion which has betrayed God Himself.

    You can have your Catholic church and I will take the Jesus of the Bible.



  148. irishanglican said

    I am old enough to remember the Latin Mass of the RC Church. Being raised RC and living near Dublin Ireland, till I was a teen, and then moving to England. (Where the RCC was really not that different, but the English Catholics were). The point is the Roman Catholic Church that Karl seems to manifest, is for the most part history. The older scholastic Catholic theology, though still around in pieces, is not really the mainstream R. Catholic Church now. That point simply must be made! Since Vatican II, and the 60’s and 70’s (and to the present), the RCC has changed. This is just simple fact. And one could bring many R. Catholics voices to bear here. However, having said that, the Western Church without Rome, would certainly not be the historic Christendom that we have today. Right, wrong or indifferent, the RCC has shaped the West!

    I would be the first to say that the papacy has brought serious doctrinal error in some areas. But, she has held fast to certain doctrinal truths also. The Virgin Birth, the the deity of Christ. And though I think the filioque in the west is wrong, both biblically and in creed. Rome had stood fast as a Trinitarian witness! Also, in the past she has stood for the power and authority of Scripture. Though her grip here has loosened sadly some.

    I would never make a defense for our friend Karl, but listening to his beliefs and his rhetorical method, he has been taught the old school pre-Vatican II, again scholasticism. Whether he has been self-taught, or taught by someone else? It is evident to my mind at least. And I am sure we could get an amen from other older and perhaps former R. Catholics out there? (But they just don’t see this blog per-say)

    I would like to ask and even challenge our better theologically minded brethern here, to read the book by the Anglican (now with the Lord) J.N.D. Kelly: Early Christian Doctrines. This classic book (First Ed. 1960. And now in its Fifth Ed., 1976) is simply the best work of its kind, to show and produce the early doctrinal history, but Catholic history (not just Roman here) of the catholic nature and historical truth of our ‘Early Christian Doctrines’.

    Fr. Robert

  149. Roman Catholicism From Hell

  150. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    The narrow way which is the walk with God is a difficult path. One cannot run down the narrow way he must take his time and walk. As such one must mantain humility. I know in my own life God has instructed me through people I didn’t want to be around let alone talk to. Though these individuals are not wellsprings of knowledge or blessing, they too have their points to be made.

    It is a dangerous thing when you feel you have everything figured out and every t crossed and every i dotted. I am of course not talking about the basics. But even with a simple and clear thing to me as Jesus being God I am challenged by Jehova Witnesses. Why they cannot perceive and read scripture correctly I can only attribute this to the blinding influence of the devil.

    I myself have recently changed my view on speaking in tongues. In the Church of Christ I was taught the Bible was complete and thus there was no more revelation. I still believe this except for Revelation 11 which I call the foot note of the Bible. Thus the conclusion was that tongues have ceased. It was the discussions on this blog that has led me to the conclusion that tongues may still be spoken. Of course I do not mean mindless babbling. I mean speaking in a language that exists and in the presence of one that can interpret. This occurence may be very rare but I now believe it could happen with the full blessing of God.

    Yet in the case of Karl he is like a rain cloud ominous and dark but refusing to share one drop of moisture. He fails to consider the other side and neither can he look inward. Without honest appraisals one will get nowhere.

    I will not deny that the Roman Catholic church is in accord with the Bible in many views. And yes in a sense I am indebted to the Roman Catholic church because when I started to look for God I picked up a Bible as I had been introduced to the name of Jesus. Yet I know many who have been adversely affected by the church. I will quote the words of a friend, “I was raised in the Catholic Church and I know that’s not right.” Sadly he has not bothered to carry on the search for God.

    The pomp of the pope and the claim to be the ‘holy father’ are blasphemous. That a man could speak for God and furthermore that these men who speak for God have contradicted one another in the process just shows the lack of divine influence. I could go on for hours and I have on another part of this blog with Karl.

    I sincerely, tried to understand his point of view but instead of presenting scripture he would quote so called ‘church fathers’. The worst part of the whole conversation was when I told Karl I disliked Luther because of his persecution of others. In the same conversation I pointed out that the idea that only some are priests is incorrect and that all believers were to be a holy priesthood. Karl then said that though I rejected Luther I advocated Luther’s point that all believers should be priests. I then pointed out to Karl that I was not following Luther I was quoting the Bible. Furthermore the writer of that statement was Peter, the one Karl claims to be his first pope. I thought I really had Karl there but he weasled his way around it. Then and there I came to the conclusion that further talk was useless.

    As I said before you approached Karl in a very friend manner of solidarity. Instead of finding the common ground and civily discussing your differences he turned bitterly on you. Sigh! I knew it was just a matter of time.



  151. stan said

    @ Karl,

    To be specific: I’ve been set free from those sins of my life in that I no longer practice them nor experience that unending, miserable cycle of desire, temptation, falling, death, shame, guilt, confession and restoration. Some of my sins went from me quickly, others went from me over longer periods of time.

    Only Jesus Christ Himself could have done that for me, since I had been powerless to free myself from my soul-destroying sins, even as a practicing roman catholic. This work in my life is in perfect keeping with His promise concerning men’s sins, “Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”

    So, Karl, if it wasn’t Jesus Christ who has done this, what is your explanation for why I am free from both the craving and practicing of my old sins?

  152. irishanglican said


    I really appreciate your irenic nature, certainly Christlike! I know you disagree deeply with me perhaps on certain Christian doctrinal issues, but you do so in the spirit/Spirit of Christ. Thank you.

    Yes, indeed the Christian life and walk can be not so much narrow (as I see that as a biblical hypoperbole in Matt. 7:13-14) But it is a hypoperbole to indicate how hard is the human and spiritual way that leads to life in the end. I would not lessen it, but would not want to make it appear that somehow God is narrow, or narrowminded. This has been Karl’s way, etc.

    And sadly, are there not many protestant and even Bible type Christians, that are far from “the search for God” also? It is possible to my mind, to have even proper doctrine and knowledge about God, and yet not have the reality of such itself! (See, Matt.7:21-22). Of a great truth, our “deeds” rather than save us, prove that we have saving grace and some real knowledge therein. (Eph.2:10) And yet these deeds are just that, “deeds”, and not just verbal assent to again proper doctrine or even creeds. (St. James 1:21-25) I speak to my own house also!

    I am not going to comment more about Rome. We already have an over balance and statement the other way (ID) as to that.

    Again, thanks John.

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  153. Coram Deo said

    Does anyone here know how the JW cultists get around the Greek here in order to maintain their blasphemous belief that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the archangel Michael?

    In Him,

  154. Karl said

    Looks like i cannot post anything here anymore. The owner of this blog prefers only people who share his views.

  155. >Does anyone here know how the JW cultists get around the Greek here in order to maintain their blasphemous belief that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the archangel Michael?

    They lie, they add to the word of God, and to the GREEK, and they claim they have used a translator’s privilege to actually reinterpret the Bible passages to get the point of view they want..

    and it seems ACTUALLY many other people do that too anyway, they also even do pick and chose the Bible passages to suit their own point of view in many cults, sects, Christian denominations…

    so they lie to themselves basically firstly and if you do that you are headed in a really bad direction cause you often start to believe your own lies next too.

  156. […]   >Does anyone here know how the JW cultists get around the Greek here in order to maintain their blasphemous belief that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the archangel Michael?   They lie, they add to the word of God, and to the  GREEK, and they claim they have used a translator’s privilege to actually reinterpret the Bible passages to get the point of view they want..   and it seems ACTUALLY many other people do that too anyway, they also even do pick and chose the Bible passages to suit their own point of view in many cults, sects, Christian denominations…   so they lie to themselves basically firstly and if you do that you are headed in a really bad direction cause you often start to believe your own lies next too.     2: I found these comments really appropriate on a site that discussed our need to daily read the Bible.     “Responses to “Continue The Conversation (SYNC-Part 3)” This is something that I struggle with…being a Pastor and growing up in a Pastor’s home, at times I have found myself coasting on the knowledge I have gained throughout the years. I have made a more then conscious effort as of late to make reading the Word “the” priority of my day. It is unreal what God is revealing to me….   It has to be for me to stay on track. I know it sounds like an over-simplification but Dwight L. Moody said it best. “The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible.”     I love “and I ‘rested’ in the Lord rather then ‘doing’ quiet time. I’m trying to get my quiet time out of the homework category. I don’t want to view it as something I just need to check off my list. I’m hoping to get some time this week to just absorb the Scriptures instead of just reading them!    I read in a book one time that we should pray that God would make His Word a delight to us. I prayed that for a long time. It is a delight to me now.  God’s words are truly life to me right now. I have always been one to journal (and I still love it) but things are different now. because of my life circumstances I need god more than ever before. and because of that it is an ongoing “meeting” we have throughout the day instead of a set “quiet time”. I really want my health and marriage restored but without these circumstances I wouldn’t know god the way I do. I NEED to know what HE is saying to me through his word and I love it.    If I were honest with you, I would tell you that I cannot remember the last time I had a quiet time. Honestly. And if I continued to be honest with you, I would tell you that I also have not been to church in like the past month. Are the two related. Probably.   I don’t have profound revelation usually when I read the Bible. But I still do it daily. Some days I don’t want to take a shower or get out of bed, but I do it because I need to. Same with the Bible. If I don’t do it I might miss out. I hate to be out of the loop. Even when I don’t get chills or cry or feel all good inside I know that the Lord is dropping wisdom right into my heart. That is why I read the Bible daily. My prayer life is much stronger in my quiet time than my Bible references. But I can tell you the stuff I read gets stuck inside and when I need it it’s there. I usually cannot tell you what book, chapter, or verse. How much does that matter? It’s the wisdom and knowledge that God imparts upon my being that matters. Even if it feels like a chore, my advice is to do it anyway. You don’t have to read a whole chapter. Just pick a psalm or a proverb. Start small and work your way up. You’ll be blessed for your efforts. Heidi Reed    This is a GREAT topic of conversation!  I have only been a Christian for about 7 years and over these past 7 years, I have found that my walk with Christ has been filled with peaks and valleys. If I wasn’t at a peak, I was at a valley. It was never constant. Then I realized something…when I was reading His Word daily, I was peaking and when I wasn’t….down to the valley I would go. Now, I’m at a constant. I am in His Word every day! I have to be. Now, don’t get me wrong. There are still peaks and valleys, but they are not extreme. I am no longer on the roller coaster ride. I have fallen deeper in love with Christ and yearn, daily, to know more of God’s character. I am surprised and amazed every day by what He is showing me. Little nooks and cranny’s that I have never seen before. It’s truly incredible. It’s like the first time you realize you’re in love with someone, but better.    If a plant does not get water, or enough of it, it first wilts, dries up and then dies. This is so true of us! We NEED the water of His word to THRIVE and GROW.:–)   It is. If I’m not in the Word and dedicated time for spending time with the Lord in the morning, my day is awful. Well, I should say I am awful. I’m out of sorts, quick to find fault, easily annoyed, the list goes on. It is amazing to me how totally different I am when I am walking in the Spirit instead of racing along in my flesh. And I am so thankful that those “awful” days are far and few between. Praise Him!   It amazes me how comforting God’s word can be in facing life’s problems. I am facing a financial problem that will, without doubt, affect my life for many years to come. While “trying to figure it all out” yet again this morning, I started reading the Psalms and ran across a scripture that said ” My times are in God’s hands.” The worry melted away immediately! This is not a coincidence for me. God’s word has given me comfort when I needed comfort, strength when I felt weak, courage when I felt defeated, hope when all appeared lost, and joy when hurt turned into tears. God’s word reveals promises that I can count on, and wisdom when all seems confusing. The truth is that I can’t think of a reason not to spend time in God’s word! It is nourishment for my soul!”    Too many even professing Christian persons are still parrots, they have not really read the Bible for themselves, they really do not know the Bible or God for that matter still too.. they are repeating what others have told them, and too often often it is distorted truths, lies..   (James 1:19 KJV) Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. (James 1:21 KJV) Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:22 KJV) But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.    5 percent of Christians only read their Bible daily, 25 percent of church Christians at the most are really born again too, 70 percent of evangelical pastors are unchristian.. 50 percent of all once loudly professing Christians next give up or sell their faith too… reality, (had they stayed in God’s word they would have been great saints, but it was the devil who discouraged them away.. […]

  157. Hi there Coram Deo,

    I’ve found that the JWs basically will utilize whatever method of reading a verse that best suits their agenda. Their methods are not consistent and can’t be, given their wayward doctrine.

    I’ve presented Colossians 2:9 to a JW with a full explanation of the verse. The JW who had over 20 years of their cult training responded to me that Jesus having the fullness of deity did not make Him God as in One with the Father as we know, but a being who is a “god” but not “God”. Lord but not fully God. Someone that is a representative of God, but not fully God. Jesus having the fullness of deity does not make him “God” in their view. (This is a group that had to devise their own false translation of scripture. You can’t go thinking they’d view scripture honestly in any language.) Given this twisted logic of how they reduce Jesus to being less than what Lord really means, less than fullness of deity, they can mold the result into whatever they like, including Michael. They’ll pull up any verse that speaks of Jesus being begotten and claim it means Jesus was a god made after God. Given they have totally done away with John 1, they’ll never respect Jesus as He, God. Show them where Jesus said He is I AM and they claim it means something other than God. They’ve got their people totally brainwashed with a pack of lies.

    I don’t endorse everything on this particular site, but this site’s page on how Jehovah’s Jehovah-less Witnesses have devised a hacked view of who God really is, is a good read: The polytheistic “Henotheism” of Jehovah’s Witnesses is apostate doctrine: Henotheists

  158. irishanglican said

    “The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies.” ~ St. John Chrysostom

  159. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Let’s talk about Mary being the Mother of God.
    You’ve touched on this before.

    I can definitely agee that Mary was a choosen vessle. That is she was a special wonderful person with deep faith. I’m sure God wouldn’t let His son be born into the hands of a drunk or an abuser.

    Also I can see where you get the idea she was the first believer.

    My mother once told me that Mary was special in that it was her son being crucified and for her it was more significant.

    Yet when they claim that one could pray to Mary and ask for her intercession that is totally against the Word of God.

    What say ye?

    Coram Deo,

    Are you aware that the JW’s have their own ‘translation’ of the Greek. It was ‘translated’ by somebody who couldn’t read Greek at all. Now in discussion with JW’s I was told the translation was done by a team of experts. It is a lie to cover up an illegitamacy.



  160. irishanglican said


    Since this blog began from the position of the Trinity of God. I will approach the Virgin Mary from this great truth, with the Christological truth also. First, St. Mary the Virgin as we Anglicans like to call her, was redeemed by her Son Jesus Christ. But her remdemption is expressed more from her being called to be the virgin mother of our Lord, the vessel of and for the Incarnation. Her so-called salvation history is seen in Mary’s Magnificat (St. Luke 1:46-55) See also (Gen.3:15;20). We also see the Virgin Mary in every phase of her Divine Son’s life and death, and also resurrection/ascension. From being pressed back into the recesses somewhat (Luke 2:19). Note in St. Luke 2:34, Simeon speaks to “Mary His Mother”…Yea, (Yes) a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (verse 35) This verse has not yet been seen or understood fully in most non-Catholic, or non-Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox Churches.

    Later, we see the Virgin Mary at her Son’s cross and death (St. John 19:25-27). That these verses are taken at only some natural level alone, is not within the texts themselves here (St.John 2:18-22), nor with the supposed idea that James the Lord’s supposed blood brother. Who if he were, would have been by Jewish law responsible for Jesus, rather than given over to John the apostle. But these verses must be seen in their spiritual content/context first, rather than some idea of Jewishness and law. So here, we see that Mary not only the first and model believer, but herself the personification of both a reconstituted Israel, and the Mother of the Church, and the Apostle John. (Note, Mary calls herself “servant” three times (of Israel) – Luke 1:38;48;54). And thus she is at Pentecost, the birth of the Church (Acts 2:14). And she is certainly seen in type and reality in (Rev.12).

    This would be just some of the biblical and thus theological verses. Not to mention the early both east and western Fathers of the Church.

    We must note also, that the Oecumenical/Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) that declared Mary the Theotokos, was on eastern ground, and not just Roman and western. Also, Calvin as I have stated with the majority of not just Lutheran, but Reformed pastors and churches (in both the 16th and 17th century) held that Mary was the Theotokos – the God bearer, and the incarnate Mother of God.

    As to prayers to St. Mary the Virgin, this is an open issue for Anglicans. But many that are Anglo-Catholic, and like myself that are Orthodox friendly, choose to invoke the Virgin Mother of God! But I am, like other Anglicans not under the Roman Catholic dictates.

    Father Robert

  161. irishanglican said

    *redemption, sorry for my often typos

  162. irishanglican said

    Since this blog is so full, I have written rather quickly, forgive me, and I have other issues, etc. But the point is that Mary the Mother of the Lord was created, redeemed and made a vessel for Christ. She simply must be seen within the Christology of Christ! She is never a goddess, or anything pagan. She is as both from scripture and holy tradition, the Mother of the Incarnate Christ, and the Mother also of the Redeemed! This last theological position would no doubt be a sticking point for you, and many on this blog.

    Fr. Robert

    PS If you would like, I will try to show a biblical argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity? (Eze. 44:1-2)

  163. irishanglican said


    To finish your first question, as to the Virgin Mary’s place in prayer. We surely must maintain that Christ alone is the one and only mediator between God and men,(note men in the text, and not man) – (1 Tim.2:5). This is the aspect and truth to our Lord’s soteriology and salvation. Only Christ saves! But, can we invoke others, and those in heaven to pray for and with us? For both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic this is traditionally okay. But it must be always seen as secondary, and within and under the one mediatorship of Christ! That Mary as the Mother of God incarnate, and Mary Mother of the Redeemed and Church of God, in and under Christ and His full Christology. Mary occupies a central place! She is in the position that every elect soul redeemed will occupy. The Orthodox would use the term “theosis”. That place which Christ’s redemption makes for every saved soul eternally…”Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” (Matt.5:8) And this is much more than forensic righteousness, but the very sanctified full reality! But fully all the work of grace and glory – God’s!

    So as I stated this is not a position or place so much of dogma for an Anglican, as it is a place and spiritual position of fellowship and of the Body of Christ in both heaven and earth.

    I hope this gives some clarity to what the Anglican Church believes and seeks to practice. Of course there are many Anglicans which would be closer to Rome on Mary, etc. But, this would be a personal thing, and yes more towards what is also called Anglo-Catholic. I am myself near this, but closer really to the Orthodox positions on Mary as the Theotokos, etc.

    Fr. Robert

  164. John Kaniecki said


    Thanks for the answers.



  165. Devon said

    Robert, just an aside, as I am a person of Irish descent here in Western Canada, are you Northern Irish or from the Republic?

    Also, were you originally Catholic or always Anglican? Just wonderin’…

    My Grandfather was from Northern Ireland before immigrating to Canada…he was from a small place called the Isle of McGee….

    Anyways…Take care…

  166. > nonconformer, I just have a quick question for you. What happened to the part of the Bible that says that the husband is to love the wife as Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for her? If you believe and practice that, it certainly does not come across in what you said above. Your statements are all about you and your rights and your authority.

    and they are all still applicable too… look at the context.. the overly sensitive subject is not marriage firstly.. or the role of the husband iun the marriage, and the need of a submissive wife..

    (1 Tim 5:20 KJV) Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

    (2 Tim 4:2 KJV) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

    (Titus 1:13 KJV) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

    (Titus 2:15 KJV) These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

    (Rev 3:19 KJV) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

    When I love some one I do talk to them, but when one hates someone one does not talk to them, and I guess that explains why so many bad pastors still do not want to talk to me too. The devil hates and ebcourages it.. God is love.

    do see my more detailed response

  167. irishanglican said


    Hey mate, I was born in Dublin left and went to Ramsgate, England in my teens. I was also in the Royal Marines (Gulf War 1, etc.) I still have Irish family back in those parts, some in or near Wicklow Ireland also. But I also have a Irish younger brother in USA (he was an American Marine). We were all raised RC. But most are not RC now. As you perhaps know, there are so many Irish in Liverpool. I lived there for a bit also.

    Isle of McGee sounds interesting? How do ya like Canada?

    Fr. Robert

  168. I am really having a hard time trying to understand what part Mary the mother of Jesus and others, whose husband was Joseph, has rightfully in a discussion of the Trinity.. the trinity trio of the god head, new testament clearly excludes her and always has. She Mary was not present at man and earth’s creation or present during the period of old testament now too and according to the Bible undeniably too! The catholic expounded definition of virgin Marry is clearly a false add on to the Bible, New testament. Many Catholic Women tend to support it cause it gives them some equality leadership rights in the church. Me I have no problem with a women priest or pastor as long as she has her husband’s permission to be one.

    Mary gave only one commandement..(John 2:5 KJV) His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he ( Jesus) saith unto you, do it.

    Many next have stopped obeying Mary and they do not listen to Jesus even today.

  169. Devon said

    Canada is nice to a point but far to socialistic for my liking…though I live in the West and we are less left then the East…I live in Alberta which is the oil rich province and is the largest provider of Oil to America….lots of wealth but sadly materialism is god here….we used to be known as the Bible Belt of Canada but with the influx of great wealth and the combination of Multiculturism, we are spiritually dead…very sad….

    I really wasn’t aware of all the Irish in Liverpool but I do rememeber reading an anecdote about the Beatles and that McCartney and Lennon both had strong Irish roots…..I didn’t know if that is true but it does go with what you are saying..

    I am told of Ireland’s great beauty but alas I have never been there….one of the visiting Preacher’s to my old Church is from Belfast (Holiness Preacher) and he was aware of Isle of McGee…that is where my Dad’s ancestor’s are from….interestingly, this visiting Preacher is well acquainted with Mr. Paisley whom I’m sure you are well aware of……

    Did you face any persecution from mainstream Catholic Irish society for joining the Anglican Church? It seems things are a lot more peaceful over there now and certainly that is good news….

    Take care

  170. (Gal 2:10 KJV) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

    >> Canada is nice to a point but far too socialistic for my liking…though I live in the West and we are less left then the East…

    Being very knowledgeable and actively involved in both Canadian, Albertan Politics for decade, a lying bad Conservative is not any better than a bad no good Liberal to start of with…

    as far as socialistic tendency the east has had more Christian influences for the last hundred years than the west, Alberta, where the RCMP police force was first established to control the cattle rustlers… and the cold indifference towards the needs of the citizens Canada wide too of many Conservative MLA’s MPs I had met in Calgary was pathetic, unacceptable..

    >>I live in Alberta which is the oil rich province and is the largest provider of Oil to America….lots of wealth but sadly materialism is god here….we used to be known as the Bible Belt of Canada but with the influx of great wealth and the combination of Multiculturism, we are spiritually dead…very sad….

    I have worked at Syncrude in Fort McMurray Alberta myself, and in Calgary too, and it is very noticeable how bad and also how they do wrongfully despise poor people in Calgary’s evangelical churches are, as I have often seen myself, and I could not find one decent church there.. … and truly Alberta now has become the devil’s belt.. where I had pastored for some years a home church for poor people in Calgary and that included weekly home vacations too .. and I am a patron member of the Calgary Multicultural centre too. And was written specially for the mostly bad pastors there now too.

  171. […] like to make posts in. […]

  172. irishanglican said


    Since I was able to go back and forth to Ireland during my teen years, when living in England. And the fact that I have/had (many of my great uncles WW2 Vets are gone now) an open-minded Irish family. It was not that big of a social nor religious deal. I have always been blessed here!

    Been to some Liverpool clubs in my BC days. I even had a ’64 Martin DL# 28, oh my its gone now (but not

    The Dublin and Wicklow mountains are a beauty! Go see than someday!

    God Bless again mate!


    My thoughts about Mary the Mother of the Lord, and the Trinity, were and are within the Christogical reality of the Incarnation. And Mary is not just some surrogate vessel, but the very place of our Lord’s human nature with the work and miracle power of the Holy Spirit. She does not get discared after God’s use and purpose, but is elevated by God’s grace and glory! (St.Luke 1:28-29; 34-35; 42, 49) Note, that when John the Baptist heard the voice of MARY, he “leapt in her (his mother Elizabeth’s) womb” (1:41). And Elizabeth also said, “And who am I, that the mother of the Lord should come to me?” (verse 43)

    “God, of the Substance of the Father begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born into the world.” (From the Creed of Saint Athanasius). And if (and is) the risen body of Christ is at the Right Hand of God, he still lives in His glofified “incarnate” body on the Throne..(Heb.7:24).

    Let me recommend the book by James A. Shuel: The Blessed Virgin Mary In Three Centuries of Anglicanism.

    God Filial, when he would himself debase,
    The frailties to assume of human race,
    Was pleased a virgin Mother to elect,
    Best predisposed his graces to reflect.
    (Thomas Ken)

    Fr. Robert

  173. irishanglican said


  174. irishanglican said

    *glorified…sorry so many typos, just a vessel of clay here.

  175. Devon said

    Hi Nonconformer….well, are conservatives up here in Alberta are about as left as our liberals…we call the Premier Red Ed…so when we can actually find a True Conservative to vote for, it would be a wonderful thing…

    Perhaps another Manning or Aberhart who were our Premiers long ago and Godly men…..I agree as Christians we should do everything to help the poor but that doesn’t give us the right to make people give as through dangerous wealth distribution schemes that the Left continually try to do…we as Christians are to give generously..and we can encourage society as a whole to do so…But we musn’t force them to do so…

    And as for the Poor in Alberta, their isn’t a whole lot of them compared to other Provinces as the Jobless rate here is practically nil….and when we define Poor…we musn’t include Lazy moochers who do not want to work….we must remember the TRUELY poor who through no fault of their own have fallen between the cracks of society…

    And yes…even in this incredibly rich province they do exist..

    My wife has volunteered in the Past at the Dream Center on McCleod Trail for Single Men that are on hard times…they try to give them a skill and get them back on their feet…it is a Christian organization started by the Assemblies of God….

    And are right..their are quite a few very rich Churches here that are very cold…..


    On an aside, can you confirm that Liverpool’s most famous products, Lennon and McCartney, are/were of Irish descent?? Just wondering….

  176. irishanglican said

    John, These quotes are for you.

    He Who wrote on the tablets of stone without iron, made Mary with child of the Holy Spirit; and He Who produced bread in the desert without ploughing, impregnated the Virgin without corruption; and He Who made the rod to bud without rain, made the daughter of David bring fforth without seed. – Augustine

    A Virgin Mother was chosen, who would conceive without concupiscence, and brought forth a Man without man. – Augustine

    Both Mary’s virginity and her giving birth to Jesus, were kept hidden from the prince of this world. – St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bp + 107

    Our God, Jesus, was carried in Mary’s bosom by divine dispensation, by the operation of the Holy Spitit – St. Ignatius…etc.

    Jesus is the son of Mary and the son of God. – St. Ignatius…etc.

    The belief in the Virgin birth has been handed over to the Church by the Apostles and by their disciples, the same as the other truths of the Faith. – St. Irenaeus, Bp +c. 202

    If anyone shall say that the holy, glorious and ever-Virgin Mary was only in a certain sense and not most ruly the Mother of God, or that she was so in some merely relative way as though it were simply a man that was born and not the Word of God that became incarnate and was born of her, or shall refer, as some do, the birth of the man to God the Word only in the sense that the Word was with man when he was born; or if they calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, which calls the virgin the Mother of God, by putting on those words the interpretation foisted on them by the destestable Theodore, calling her for example, the mother of the man or the “Christokos,” that is the “mother of Christ,” as though Christ were not God, and thus refuse to acknowledge her to be – as she is – really and truly the very Mother of God since He Who before the ages was God, the Word born of the Father, did in these last days take flesh of her and of her was born, as the Holy Synod of Chalcedon has devoutly acknowldeged, let such a man be anathema. – Second Council of Constantinople (5th Ecumenical)

    Fr. Robert

  177. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Both Mary’s virginity and her giving birth to Jesus, were kept hidden from the prince of this world. – St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bp + 107

    Can’t really by this one. Herod sought to destroy Jesus, remember the massacre of the young children and the family’s flight to Egypt. Ignatius’ statement gives too much power to satan. The devil can’t do anything that God forbids him to do.



  178. irishanglican said

    sorry again me typos..

  179. irishanglican said


    But no where do we really know what the great enemy knew then? Save that God was doing something special. I guess ya can ask Ignatius where he got his thought in heaven? (When ya get there) lol Remember, there was nothing written down for about 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ! And the Gospels came after any Epistles or Letters. St. Paul’s Galatians or 1 Thess. were the first…49 AD to 58 AD?

    Fr. Robert

  180. irishanglican said


    Both John and Paul were born in Liverpool. The common idea is that they had/have for Paul…Irish roots. But not really sure?

    Fr. Robert

  181. irishanglican said


    What do you believe about Mary the Mother of the Lord? Your turn…

    Fr. Robert

  182. “Minister Patrick Williams, you’ve offered them the truth. I’ve offered them the truth. Job offered them the truth. Fran offered them the truth. Alias offered them the truth.” what a perverted reply. Virgin Mary, no longer a virgin too is my sister in Christ and she is still just that only! The only Biblical view now too.

  183. I rightfully had to rewrite my definition of a true Conservative as being now a selfish, greedy, uncaring about others, self centered persons so I gave up my Conservative membership and for sure they are not Christians, are unchristlike.

    >>Hi Nonconformer….well, are conservatives up here in Alberta are about as left as our liberals…we call the >>Premier Red Ed…so when we can actually find a True Conservative to vote for, it would be a wonderful thing…

    >> Perhaps another Manning or Aberhart who were our Premiers long ago and Godly men…..

    who to me sold their pastorship birth rights for politics and their church members and church died there as a result as indicated on the gravestone plague in the Calgary centre

    >>I agree as Christians we should do everything to help the poor

    but hypocritical instead we steal from the poor still too.. And Undeniably 1/7 of the tithe was to go to the poor people, and how many evangelicals practice this portion of the tithe? almost none? Do you?

    >>And as for the Poor in Alberta, their isn’t a whole lot of them compared to other Provinces as the Jobless rate here is practically nil….

    because you even alcoholics do kick out the poor people, the “eastern Bumps” to other provinces.

    >>and when we define Poor… we musn’t include Lazy moochers who do not want to work….we must remember the TRULY poor who through no fault of their own have fallen between the cracks of society…

    what a clearly ungodly self righteous judgmental attitude and he who despises poor people next will walk in their footsteps too.

    I saw a proud, arrogant chief engineer, an oil and gas lawyer unexpectedly laid off in Calgary, it was a pathetic sight too.

  184. In regard to rich albertans..

    (Rev 3:17 KJV) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

    Ever notice also how many Conservatives in Alberta are admittedly alcoholics and not just the sad looking, grumpy people, or the often road rage too?

  185. (John 2:10 KJV) And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

    (Eph 5:18 KJV) And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

    (Luke 11:13 KJV) If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    (Eph 1:13 KJV) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    (Eph 4:30 KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

    (1 Th 4:7 KJV) For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

    (1 Th 4:8 KJV) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

    (1 Th 4:9 KJV) But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

    yes I still do prefer to talk about what the Bible says.. not mere men’s views..

  186. Karl said

    I fail to understand why protestants rely on the KJV, a bible commissioned in 1611 at the instigation of King James I of England/VI of Scotland.

    Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was “newly translated out of the original tongues,” the work was actually a revision of The Bishop’s Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous English translators, but invented some of their own. The Protestant Bishop Tunstal counted more than two thousand errors in the first English protestant bible. And a certain Dr Broughton stated that the English bible is so corrupt as to send thousands into eternal flames. Desiderius Erasmus was a “Christian humanist” who collected Greek (and Latin) New Testament manuscripts and compared and edited them, verse by verse, selecting what he considered to be the best variant passages, until he had compiled what came to be known as the “textus receptus.” Early English translations of the Bible, like those mentioned above, were based on his “textus receptus.” Erasmus was also a monk whom some historians believe engaged in homosexual activities. But without both King James and Erasmus, the KJV, the most widely touted Bible in Christian history, would never have been produced.

    Yet how many folks are aware that King James was reputed to be a homosexual ? (King James & the History of Homosexuality, by Michael B. Young). His father was Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany, generally known as Lord Darnley – husband of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a bisexual. James I was well-known at the time to have had homosexual lovers – the most important of whom was George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.

    Nay sayers deny that James was a homosexual, citing a lack of evidence (there is) and that the accusation is slander intended to discredit the definitive version of the Bible that bears his name… At the time, the following epigram was in circulation… Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus — “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen.” Many earlier historians treated the subject of King James’s homosexuality with shock, disdain, and denial. Only recently has the subject been treated more seriously and fairly by scholars such as Caroline Bingham, Jonathan Goldberg Roger Lockyer, and David Bergeron.

    At this point in his own personal life, King James had already been involved in a love affair with one man, the Duke of Lennox, which provoked a rebellion in Scotland; his current lover in England was a young man whose special relationship with the king would earn him the Earldom of Somerset. By 1615, however, Somerset’s fortunes declined and James succeeded in luring his most famous lover, George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham, into bed. What is one to make of these relationships between King James and his so-called “favorites?”

    Already at the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France. Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. “The king leans on his [Carr’s] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.” (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611). Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary…Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)

    King James’s sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.” Moreover, he was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his “divine right” of kings (Otto J. Scott, James the First).

    Such, then, was the man who commissioned the KJV bible, a book upon which millions of souls depend in vain hope of salvation. Carefully consider, whether the KJV, a mutilated and corrupted bible commissioned by a sexual pervert and murderer, could possibly lead to eternal life. Is it even reasonable to suppose so?

  187. (2 Tim 2:25 KJV) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


    >>I fail to understand why protestants rely on the KJV, a bible commissioned in 1611 at the instigation of King James I of England/VI of Scotland.

    Firstly this is not related basically to the subkect of the trinity..

    Secondly this is a clearly abusive, insulting, bullying post not worthy on a Christian site.. by ssuch an apporach it is also clear you are not wiiling to have a decent, honest disucssions on the topic, and your post on the KJV Bible should be in a more appopriate section.. the refuse bin even… for it is cleary a disgarce tO any CATHOLICS too. I rightfully may as a result of your posts have to rewrite my definition of a Catholic as being now absuive, unkind, unfair, unloving , uncaring about others, self centered persons so and for sure they often are not Christians, for they are unchristlike ?

    Everyone in he world is a sinner, the popes and virgin mary included and needed, needs to repent.. you included.

    (Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    This personal POST OF YOURS is also a poor example of any type of professing Christian for all to see on the net.

    (Mat 7:16 KJV) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    (Mat 7:17 KJV) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    (Mat 7:18 KJV) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    (1 Cor 8:1 KJV) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

    (1 Cor 13:1 KJV) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

    (1 Cor 13:2 KJV) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

    (1 Cor 13:3 KJV) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

    (1 Cor 13:4 KJV) Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

    (1 Cor 13:8 KJV) Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

    (1 Cor 13:13 KJV) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

    (Col 3:14 KJV) And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

    (1 Tim 4:12 KJV) but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

    (2 Tim 2:22 KJV) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

    (1 Pet 4:8 KJV) And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

    (1 Pet 5:14 KJV) Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

    (2 Pet 1:7 KJV) And to godliness ( add) brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

    (Rev 2:4 KJV) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

    (Rev 3:19 KJV) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

    (1 John 4:12 KJV) If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

    I too would rightfully see a sermon from even them all than hypocritically only hear it preached again from these critics.. it is time they firstly had applied the Bible for all to see.

  188. […] ANOTHER BULLY […]

  189. King James of England had commissioned the Bible so it could be easily read and understood as well by all common folks, you all should note that next the common English law issued was based on this Bible too, after all we all have now a common, accepted frame of reference, moral codes.. and that is the same common law that most of laws of Canada were, are now based on, in the Queen’s courts, with the exception of the province of Quebec which was allowed the use of the Napoleonic basic law code. This KJV Bible was translated under the penalty of death unlike the other translations of the Bibles, where even getting more money was clearly a factor rather.. As far as the newer translations of the English Bibles, they seem to have just as many translation errors as those were supposedly designed to overcome anyway, and the King James Bible remains one of the most common, popular, most used translation in the world, and many Christians do even turn back to the King James Bible from the other translations too.

  190. (1 Th 4:9 KJV) But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

    yes I still do prefer to talk about what the Bible says.. not mere men’s views..and that you live the Bible still too not merely preach to the others.

    Sow, show your love to others even here.. mandatory

  191. Thenonconformer,

    I’m trying to figure out what you mean by “what a perverted reply.” in this comment of yours.

    Are you saying that to affirm Mary did NOT die a virgin is “perverted”? It’s a fact. Nothing at all perverted about it.

    The perversion is to claim Mary is something scripture never says she was. Scripture never says she was a perpetual virgin. She bore several children after the birth of Jesus.

    John 7:3-10 (New American Standard Bible)

    3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.

    4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”

    5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.

    6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.

    7 “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

    8 “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”

    9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.

    10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

    From the original Greek forward, that was talking about biological brothers. They were not disciples, they were telling Jesus to go let his disciples see his works, these were his brothers from Mary’s womb talking to Him. We can’t say the term “brothers” meant they were believers, verse 5 is clear they were not at that time believing in Him. They were not other Jews, scripture is always clear about when Jews of various sects spoke to Jesus.

    This proves beyond any and all doubt, Mary did not remain a virgin and had many other children.

    Some have gone after traditions of men, to claim she remained a virgin and they pray to her, which is idolatry. To pray to anyone or anything other than God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ is idolatry and flat out heresy.

  192. Karl said


    That King James was a sodomite is not a personal allegation, for I have quoted the sources of information which anybody can consult. How then am I being “abusive, insulting, bullying, unkind, unfair, unloving , uncaring” ?

    I think that you rather not face the truth, seeing that you so deeply believe the KJV and can never imagine that it was commissioned by a pervert.

    Surely, everybody is a sinner, but in taking upon himself the task of translating Scripture, King James and his hand-picked stooges mutilated and falsified Scripture, thereby ignoring all Bible verses which admonish anyone not to add to or take away from the Holy Word of GOD. Why, then, entrust your soul to a book that has been questioned by even your own protestant divines?

    Instead of living in denial until it is too late, seriously begin asking questions because it is your eternal fate that is at stake and you have only ONE soul to save. As a reminder of the seriousness of the question of your eternal fate, it should suffice to remember Isaiah 33:14:

    “…Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”

    And to give you some helpful hints, look for the Church to which are daily added such as are to be saved (Acts 11:47). The true Church of Christ, as you know, was built by the apostles, and has continued for two thousand years. Protestantism, started by Luther and Calvin, about five hundred years ago, CANNOT be the Church of Christ because it made its first appearance fifteen hundred years after the time of Christ.

  193. It is a complete distortion to say that everyone here is telling the truth here. I have dealt with some of the posters here and they are not being truthful about their hidden agendas, promoting their personal pet theology, cultures under the discussion of trinity for example.. Mary simply is a christian sister to me and rightfully nothing else, and she is not even an Apostle too… she is not a deity, not an idol, not someone to pray to.

  194. That King James was a sodomite is not a personal allegation, is firstly still not the subject of discussion here, rather the trinity is.. so go elswhere to do bash the King and KJV.. such as on the gay pages..

    as to “How then am I being “abusive, insulting, bullying, unkind, unfair, unloving , uncaring” ? and add to the aggressive.. you do not read, care about what the other post you clearly just like to bash others..

    Now get a life, get real, get Jesus Christ

  195. Now coming back to the Trinity and the Bible.. it is acknowledged that the KJV Bible is the most poular amongst the translations becuase it doed not falsely water down the Trinitarian aspects of God as some of the other Bible translations wrongfuly do..

    Now supposedly The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan’s counterfeit: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . .” Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan’s ultimate counterfeit: “. . . I will BE LIKE the most High.”

    And among his greatest counterfeit’s is the New King James Bible (NKJV). The same Christians that would never touch a New International Version (NIV), New American Standard (NASV), Revised Standard (RSV), the New Revised Standard (NRSV) or other per-versions are being “seduced” by the subtil NKJV.

    And though the New King James does indeed bear a “likeness” to the 1611 King James Bible, as you’ll soon see, there’s something else coiled (see Genesis 3:1) “underneath the cover” of the NKJV.

    The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word “you” for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text – they could NOT use the one-word “you” throughout! If it begins with “t” (thou, thy, thine) it’s SINGULAR, but if it begins with “y” (ye) it’s PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it “the Accurate One”, and yet the 1611 King James, by using “thee”, “thou”, “ye”, is far more accurate!

    By the way, if the “thee’s” and “thou’s” are “. . .no longer part of our language” – why aren’t the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks “much clearer”? “How Great Thou Art” to “How Great You Are”, or “Come Thou Fount” to “Come You Fount” Doesn’t sound right, does it? Isn’t it amazing that they wouldn’t dare “correct” our hymns – and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they’ll “correct” the word of God!

    The NKJV claims to make the “old” KJV “much clearer” by “updating obsolete words” (New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

    How about that “obsolete word” – “hell”. The NKJV removes the word “hell” 23 times! And how do they make it “much clearer”? By replacing “hell” with “Hades” and “Sheol”! Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: “the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY”. By making it “much clearer” – they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called “Happy Fields”. In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! AND THAT DOESN’T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES!

    The NKJV removes the word “Lord” 66 times!

    The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

    The NKJV removes the word “heaven” 50 times!

    In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

    The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

    And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV! “

    The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word of God manifest in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is God’s Spirit. We can see the Trinity at work in the Creation in the first three verses of the Bible. In Genesis 1:1 we read “God created.” There’s God the Father. In verse two we read “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” There’s God the Holy Spirit. In verse three we read “And God said.” That’s the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God manifested in the flesh.

    Also the Bible often uses the word Elohim as the word for “God.” Elohim is plural. A plural usage for one God makes sence, because of the Trinity. This is also why the one God said “Let US make man in OUR image.” 1 John 5:8 tells us the three parts of man, and verse 7 told us the three parts of the one true God.

    It is clear that the Trinity aspect is indeed Biblical.

  196. 1 John 5:6-8 KJV 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    This supposedly is one of the most hated passages in the KJV Bible by apostates of almost every kind.. it too clearly upholds the Trinity.

  197. It is allegged that also have been only minors changes from 1611 KJV Bible.. and the FACT is that the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to the King James Bible of 1611… except for the typeface changes.

    Many other people would like you to believe that using a modern Bible translation is signifcant fo not tell you the truth that is is always still the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ himself who leads, guides, convicts, rebukes, the reader in all truth.. not the specificc Bible translation..or the human reasonings, study..

    Psalm 12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.

    (John 6:63 KJV) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

    (John 13:21 KJV) When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

  198. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Mary was a faithful woman of God who suffered much especially in her early life. Being pregnant before marriage would constitute that conclusion.

    She was a believer and as you point out perhaps the first believer. Yet I don’t believe she understood the gospel message at conception. It says in scripture that she kept these things.

    But to pray for Mary is as useful to praying to anyone else living or dead besides Jesus. The elevation of Mary is actually from the infusion of the Pagan religions into Christianity.



  199. Hi John,

    You know if Mary was the “first believer”, it would by definition make all who believed on the Lord before her unbelievers.

    We know Jesus is spoken of across Hebrew scripture (Psalm 110, Isaiah 44:6 and so on). So Mary was one of the long history of believers in Christ.

  200. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    That Mary understood the message of salvation at conception would be beyond what scriptures speak. Even the eleven remaining apostles did not understand Jesus’ ministry after the cruifixion.

    So exactly what Mary believed could be limited to what the angel told her in Luke 1. See also Luke 2:51 when Mary kept these things in her heart. Also note in John when Jesus turns the water into wine it is Mary who approaches Jeus.

    I think it is safe to say that Mary could have had thoughts we don’t know about.

    But the bottom line is Mary was a sinner, born the same way as us, who was in need of a saviour and cannot intercede on our behalf.



  201. Hi John, we certainly praise God through Jesus Christ for you landing a job and praise Him for all He wills us to have or not have. His will be done.

    I think Mary in reflection is best described in Hebrews 11. Best read in full, but I’ll just cite the most pertinent verses, 35-36.

    35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

    36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment.

    Mary is part of the lineage of all who believed and as the scripture shows she was simply one of many sinners saved by grace, who kept the faith for their own resurrection. And Mary’s full body resurrection won’t come before ours, because as the letter to the Hebrews continues, verses 39-40:

    39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

    40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

    Praise God through Jesus Christ, Mary is one of us, a sinner saved by Grace.

    Acts 15:11 (New American Standard Bible)

    11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

    I don’t think it can be said any better than that.

  202. irishanglican said


    Thanks to give a few of your personal thoughts about Mary the Mother of the Lord.

    “I think is is safe to say that Mary could have had thoughts we don’t know about.”

    Yes, this is a good place to end this I think. I have made some “theological” statements that I don’t think have been met, or even addressed. But that is fine, we are not gonna agree here. But, not only does the scripture give us some depth in the area of this mystery, but so does the history of the Church. One thing is certain, God will be glorified in Christ, and in every redeemed member of HIS Body! And we His redemptive people will both be humbled, but yet also glorified IN CHRIST! (1 John 3:2)

    To God triune be the glory!
    Fr. Robert

  203. Karl said

    Given the shortness of this life, the length of eternity, and torments of hell, one must be absolutely sure that the path one has chosen leads to salvation. We have ONE life to live and ONE soul to save, and there is only ONE path that leads to heaven. Moreover, God never promised heaven to everyone because He Himself says that many are called but few are chosen.

    So, who are these few, and what can one do in order to be certain of being counted among them? Consider the world population that currently stands at 6 billion, and add to this figure, past, and future generations until the consummation of the world. So, out of the billions of men/women that shall have trodden this earth, how can one be absolutely certain of being among the elect ?

    Now, for those who are given to reading and quoting bibles, and assuming that the “bible only” can save, are you absolutely certain that reading the KJV places you among the chosen few that Our Lord speaks about?

    Methinks not because Scripture, upon which billions hope for their eternal salvation, must needs be handed down to mankind pure and uncorrupted, from the Apostles whom Christ Himself commissioned, down to those who in turn were commissioned by the Apostles,…and so on. Question is, from whom did King James receive commission to embark on the important task of translating the word of God from the Hebrew/Greek/Latin to the KJV?

    The Divine word can only be handed down through holy men, and not sexual perverts like King James. Almighty God who sees the past, present, and future, could not have used a sodomite to transmit His Holy word. NEVER! Otherwise Sodom and Gomorrah would never have been destroyed. And if it were so, then, on judgment day, the incinerated citizens of these two cities shall raise their voices at such gross injustice.

    King James, the prime mover of the KJV, was a physical weakling, and as an adolescent James had shown himself to be a coward, who liked only to hunt, to read (which he did, prodigiously) and to talk. To protect himself he wore thick quilted doublets, so padded that they provided a kind of armor against any assassin who might attack him with a knife. When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his cousin Esmé Stewart and elevating him to a position of authority on the royal council, some of his nobles kidnapped James and held him captive, banishing Stewart and controlling James’s every move. After nearly a year James escaped, but continued to resent his jailers; after he began to rule on his own behalf, at seventeen, he made it a priority to bring the turbulent Scots nobles under control. As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant. The first of the king’s minions was Robert Carr, Groom of the Bedchamber, who the king elevated to earl of Somerset and appointed Lord Chamberlain. After six years of favors and royal gifts Carr was brought low, accused of murder and sent away from court.

    The second and greatest royal favorite, the extraordinarily handsome George Villiers, rose from cupbearer to Gentleman of the Bedchamber and ultimately to Earl of Buckingham. “I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else,” James announced to his councilors, “and more than you who are here assembled.” He compared his love for the earl to Jesus’s affection for the “beloved disciple” John. “Jesus Christ did the same,” the king said, “and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.” With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative offices.(Royal Panoply, Brief Lives Of The English Monarchs Carrolly Erickson, History Book Club)

  204. Job said


    And how many of your own popes were sexual perverts, homosexuals, murderers, blasphemers, and devil worshipers? I remember this one event in particular about how one of your popes got his position by locking his predecessor into the dungeon without food or water until he died. In that same era, another pope took power by strangling his predecessor to death. Very few, if any, Christian defends the man King James. Virtually no Christians claim that the King James Version or any particular version of the Bible is inspired. Those that do are misguided sorts who dishonestly ignore such inconvenient details that the original version of the King James translation included Bel and the dragon and other abominable lies from your apocrypha. The King James Version isn’t even the version that the Protestant Reformers used. Quite the contrary, when the people who produced the King James Version used the Geneva Bible, the main Bible of the Reformers, AS THEIR PRIMARY REFERENCE.

    Besides, far be it from any Catholic to cast aspersions on any Protestant translation – or any Protestant that worked on the translation or commissioned it – because Roman Catholics made it a capital crime for anyone but clergy and officials to own one, or to translate it into readable English. Why? Because your “church” knew that by withholding the Word of God from people, it gave the people who falsely claimed to represent the Word of God unlimited power by lying on its contents. Most of your early doctrines would never have developed and become entrenched the way that they are now had people been able to read the Bible and see where the church leadership was nothing but a bunch of evil corrupt liars. Now you people defend such nonsense as praying to angels – when the Bible says not to – and the perpetual virginity of Mary – when the Bible says that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage, further according to the Jewish law that Joseph and Mary lived under, had they not consummated their marriage it would have automatically been annulled … of course your vicious anti – Semitism made it easy for you to hide facts of Jewish law from your patrons … and because of the unBiblical sinful asceticism and celibacy that came from Greek paganism and not anywhere in the Bible, people naturally associated married people like Joseph and Mary being celibate as virtuous and holy as opposed to an abomination expressly forbidden by the Bible … aren’t a pair of your “saints” a married couple that decided to live in sin by rejecting God’s plan for marriage “to live together as brother and sister” meaning CELIBATE … wow Roman Catholics reward sexual immorality and perversity with SAINTHOOD! – had people been able to READ THEIR BIBLES they would have challenged this nonsense. But now, challenging this foolishness requires departing from 1500 years of tradition and whatever, so most are too fearful to do so.

    And yes, I have read about your mother church during the feudalism period. Feudalism was the best thing that ever happened to the Roman Catholic Church. An oppressive political and economic system designed to keep people perpetually dirt poor, uneducated, and fearful to the benefit of a tiny very wealthy and powerful landed aristocracy AND A CHURCH THAT HAD AS MUCH LAND AND WEALTH AS THE ROYAL FAMILIES DID! Such an arrangement was to the mutual benefit of the decadent aristocracy and the even more decadent church, and quit pretending otherwise. Every single order of monks was a reaction to the grotesque corruption of the church and of the larger church – feudal system. (To this day you Roman Catholics claim that instead of leaving the church, Luther should have just started a new monastic order like Benedict, Francis, or whoever.) It is small wonder that your religious right Roman Catholics – and your religious left Roman Catholics – are trying to destroy the wall between church and state and wreck our culture and economy by flooding it with illegal immigrants so you can get us back to our little feudal state. Well you go right ahead with your little anti – Christ scheme. When Jesus Christ return, He will smash your little empire to bits as prophesied in Daniel, and He will fall on you and grind you to powder. And when that happens, all the saints and angels in heaven will rejoice.

  205. irishanglican said


    Again my friend I think you need to sit yourself underneath your own authority in the Roman Catholic Church. You are a layman, and it appears you have a very mixed big yourself, as to Roman Catholic history and theology. Perhaps ya need to read about what the RCC says about hell today. It is much less medieval, and more about the loss of God than the idea that God must have his pound of flesh, etc.

    As to Holy Scripture, God spoke from both Balaam and his ass, so I think He can pick who He wants. And the KJV has its own beauty, measure and cadence all its own. And though it is far from the best translation, it has been used and blessed by God, for the English speaking world.

    And finally, as to the nature of God and fear? Let us hear the word of St. John the Apostle: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteh out fear: because fear hath toment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:18-19)


    This tread is over 200 now, but I would love to make defense both from Scripture, theology, and history for the perpetual viginity of St. Mary the Virgin! If you look at even Reformational, Reformed church and history. There you will find many, many sound men…pastors, teachers and scholars that held to this profound truth!

    Father Robert

  206. irishanglican said

    * bag

  207. stan said

    Karl, it does seem that you are able to post.

    Any answers for me to my now long-standing question to you of who has removed my sins from my life, so that I am free from both the craving and practice of them?

  208. irishanglican said


    I am not gonna get in the way here, but just say thank God for the revelation of 1 John 1:1&2,
    “My little children, these things I write unto you, that you may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate (Paraclete/Comforter/Helper…another Beloved Person) with (toward) the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
    And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the whole world.” (Revised Version 1880)

    I know you know this, but thank God for Christ’s “session” above, on the Father’s throne for His people! (See also Heb.9: 24)

    We have thus two great Parakletos (Gk.) one within us…the Holy Spirit (St.John 14:16, see also Rom.8:26). And one above with or toward the Father. Both are for us! And both are (hypostases) divine persons, who make with the Father ONE divine essence (ousia). Our Divine Trinity! Amen!

    Fr. Robert

    Fr. Robert

  209. irishanglican said

    *It seems I hav got the double thing go’in today…sorry

  210. Devon said

    Hi Irish…just wondering, do you think it matters whether Mary was a virgin throughout her life or if she had kids? I mean, does it matter from a Anglican pov?

    I know what the Latin and Greek Churches think….I’m not to sure about the Anglicans ???


  211. stan said

    Robert, re. #208: First, I don’t mind your typos. I get through the posts of yours that I’ve read OK. I don’t mind anyone chiming in.

    The great promise of the gospel of the Savior is as the angel said, “You shall call His name, Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”

    We are promised both forgiveness and removal of sins in the gospel; forgiveness followed by sanctification, whether some things are instantaneous or if there is time between the two. Believe me, I sought to be both forgiven and really free of sins I struggled with as a believer. How often I felt like the Publican of Luke 18, I can’t tell you. By both His mercy and grace, the Lord gave me freedom from them eventually. I have no other explanation for this fact in my life except the divine work of the resurrected Jesus. He did that without human, priestly mediation. Yet, oddly, that is being taken as a spiritual impossibility by some.

    However, I just remembered one thing that went from my life through prayer. It was with another fellow believer a number of years ago (I’d say, 5 or 6): It was an occasional craving from my old life, one that I had not acted on for a while, but it was like a stone in my shoe, plaguing me from time to time. Acting on James 5:16, I confessed it to him (a humbling moment) and asked him to pray for me according to the verse. We prayed and I noticed after that, that what had been bothering me was now gone – and has been gone since. Freedom.

    I still find sins and faults in my life; but to have powerful, recurring sins and/or the weights of their cravings gone is quite a gift.

    John 8:34-36 at work: That’s my humble explanation.


  212. irishanglican said


    Well there are now three classic forms in the Anglican Church and Communion:

    Low Church, evangelicalism…from Wesley, Whitefield, John Newton, to moderns here, John Stott, JI Packer, etc.

    High Church, Oxford Movement, Tractarianism… Early JH Newman, E.B. Pusey. J. Keble, etc.

    Broad Church, or your now classic liberals…FD Maurice, B. Jowett, etc.

    In reality all three positions sometimes run together in certain people now days. I would be more High Church, but with certain evangelical elements. I am very conservative politically (once a Marine always a Marine deal! lol)

    So on Mary ever Virgin, this would be a more Anglo-Catholic belief, as well as those like myself that are also closer to the E. Orthodox here. But as I have made point historically, the Church both Reformational and Reformed, is closer here, than modern evangelicalism. And for that matter, even John and Charles Wesley held to Mary ever virgin and Mother of God! Factual history here. I am one that believes strongly in historical theology.

    Father Robert
    D. Phil., Th.D.

  213. Karl said


    At the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.), St Augustine said: “He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.” [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].

    “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

    Stan, you have been deceived or you deceive yourself by thinking that your sins have simply vanished. They are still very much with you and will abide with your for all eternity if you willfully refuse to take advantage of the means of salvation offered by Holy Mother Catholic Church. Then you will here those terrible words in Matthew 25:41: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

    The same words will also be heard by all those who despised the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ.

    Otherwise St Augustine is a liar and, therefore, not worthy of the title of blessed. It is as simple as that.

  214. Augustine and Karl are both liars, it is as simple as that!

    Acts 16:30-31 (New American Standard Bible)

    30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

    31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    They DID NOT say join with a Mary worshiping cult called the Roman Catholic church.

    Avoid the Idolatry of Mary Worship

    Roman Catholicism Is Not Biblical

  215. irishanglican said


    Great testimony! It is a wonderful truth that the new nature can ascend over the old, or put to death his deeds (Rom.8:13 / Col.3:5). But sadly, he (the old nature) is never eradicated till death (Rom.7:25/ John 3:6). But, the new nature is Christ Himself! As we can see “greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4) And again, “Christ in you, the hope of glory (glorification).” (Col.1:27)

    “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spitit is life because of righteousness.” (Rom.8:10)

    This is a profound subject, and one that many Christians have yet to understand, and enter fully. That we already live in eternity, risen and ascended in and with Christ…Col.3:1-3! And the Christian life is never passive alone, we must be active in our daily life and living. But, it is life, love and liberty fully in Christ!

    The testimony of the living Christ within, appears to be something our friend Karl has either not experienced, or yet understands: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father.” (Gal.4:6)

    Sorry, on the run…

    Fr. Robert

  216. irishanglican said


    “The mystery of the Church”, its “invisible dimension”, is “larger than the structure and organization of the Church”, which are “at the service of the mystery.” – John Paul II, encyclical letter

    Fr. Robert

    PS busy today…

  217. stan said

    Karl, With all due respect you did not answer my question, neither did Augustine. My question contained the interrogative pronoun “Who.” In standard English, “Who” demands a name as an answer.

    You did not provide that. Your and Augustine’s statement sound much like the scientist who proved that bumblebees can’t fly.

    Please try again: Who made me stop sinning those sins I have mentioned?

  218. Well Stan, I think the same name is the answer to your question and the mystery of the flight of the bumblebee 🙂 .

  219. jesusblogger said

    Your definition seems to support the Oneness of God to me. Thanks!

  220. irishanglican said

    Our friend Karl has brought up a very important subject, and one which cannot be given just scripture proof texts. The Mystical Body of Christ! What is it? Where is it? And who is it?

    Fr. Robert

  221. Karl said


    if you were a little more thoughtful, you would answer your own question. Fact is, you have not stopped sinning. Only a deluded person would think so. Life is one long battle against concupiscence of the eyes and flesh; a battle that only ends at death. And, unfortunately, the majority lose this battle.

    Everyday, we sin in THOUGHT, WORD, and DEED, sometimes without even knowing it. And consider that, for the idle words and conversations that we consider trivial and love to indulge in without thinking, we shall render an account in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36). How about the sinful words and deeds that we are so given to committing.

    So, stannyboy, from whence do you get the courage to assert that you stopped sinning ?

  222. Job said


    “Everyday, we sin in THOUGHT, WORD, and DEED, sometimes without even knowing it.”

    Yes. Just like you sinned when you claimed that you would never return because I deleted a comment but came back anyway. That was, er, a lie.

    Second, if “Everyday, we sin in THOUGHT, WORD, and DEED, sometimes without even knowing it” what good does going to priests for confessions, rosaries, Hail Marys, etc. do? And what good are indulgences? But hey, maybe you guys figured that out way back when, and that was why you guys started selling them. Forgiveness for the rich who could afford it, but not for the poor who did not. Was that what Jesus Christ meant when He said “blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven?”

  223. irishanglican said

    I did not think anyone (on this blog) would really try and take up the subject of the Mystical Body of Christ. I have sought to add some theological sense to this blog, but to no avail.

    Here is one of my favorite blog sites: Energetic This is an E. Orthodox site, with many bloggers. But very theological!

    Fr. Robert

  224. irishanglican said

    My friendship with the E. Orthodox, does not mean I accept every position of theirs. I am still Anglican, western minded. How could it not be! I am Irish born, and my education is English and western. And just to set the record, I am still Catholic (Anglo) but also Reformed. But I hope in the best and most broad sense possible for a sinful man.

    Fr. Robert

  225. stan said

    Karl, re. #221. I have not said I stopped sinning altogether. I have stated more than once that I am not flawless. What I am trying to get through to you is that a number of soul-dominating sins I have had in my life are gone. I don’t do them anymore. I don’t even think about doing them anymore. They were such things as cursing, drunkenness, smoking, drugs, indulging in immoral thoughts toward women. I credit the Lord for this work in my life – the very work He said He would do for those who put their faith in Him.

    Since I never had any victory against them when they were a part of my life – even when I was a practicing Catholic – I want to know from you who you think took them from me.

    That’s all. Simple question. You have yet to answer it. Instead, you have presumptuously denied me my own testimony and have also lectured me. If I wanted that, I would have asked you. But, I didn’t. I asked you, “Who took them from me?” To answer it is the task before you; if you are up to it. If you’re not, tell me. I’ll accept that.

  226. stan said

    Robert: re. #215. Thank you for the kind words.


  227. stan said

    IC, re. #218. That’s right. The same Person does both.

  228. Karl said


    stop deluding yourself because your vices ain’t gone nowhere, they is simply lurking underneath that false exterior. As for your thoughts, nobody knows about them, except of course you and Almighty God. One thing is certain though, on that terrible day of reckoning, every hidden thought will be manifest for all to see. And, in any case, for you and all heretics, there will be really nothing to judge because you willfully left the Church of Christ. You are self-condemned because you profess a false faith and without TRUE Faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11).

    They who quit are not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians: otherwise they would have remained in the Catholic Church. They are a withered branch cutoff from the Mystical Body of Christ, the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church, which alone is established by Christ on earth as his “pillar and ground of truth,” in one fold, watched over by his own chief shepherd, ever immovable amid the storms of hell.

    “They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us” (1 John 2:19)

    “If any one, remaineth not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire; and he burneth.” (St. John, xv. 6.)

    The above verses specifically refer to all those who break away from the Catholic Church. For after being united in baptism to the Body of Christ, one can only remain united to Christ, her Head, by true divine faith and charity. But true charity cannot be kept out of the unity of the Church (St. Augustine), and since all heretics without exception are separated from Christ’s Body, the Church, they are branches cut off from the vine, Christ, and therefore the sap of divine faith and charity cannot flow upon them, as long as they are not united to Christ’s Body, the Church. He who thinks he can do good of himself, is not united to the vine. And he who is not united to the vine, is not united to Christ. And he who is not united to Christ is no Christian. (St. Augustine, Tract. 21.)

    The Catholic faith remains unshaken, amid the variations of philosophical systems, infernal persecutions of the wicked, revolutions of empires, attacks of interest, prejudice, passion, dissolving labors of criticism, progress of physical, historical, and other sciences, unrestrained love of novelty, and abuses which sooner or later undermine the most firmly-established human institutions.

  229. irishanglican said


    One thing, and this is everything, you cannot say I am “saved”! No one who follows the party-line doctrine of RCC can claim to salvation full and free!

    And here is a problematic verse for every old school Roman Catholic:

    “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all.” (Heb.10:10)

    Fr. Robert

  230. irishanglican said

    PS Salvation, is seen in Scripture under three tenses: past, present and future. The last two are often in tension, but they do not contradict each other. In fact when a believer senses that he or she had been called by God to an elect grace, the other two will come together in nature and grace. (2 Thess. 2:13-14)

    Fr. Robert

  231. irishanglican said

    *has been called

  232. stan said

    Karl, I see that you are incapable of answering my question. As far as you’re concerned, bumblebees can not fly. They have never flown. They never will fly. You have rather, blindly and prejudicially, resorted again to denying me my own testimony. So, I will answer the question for you. Perhaps you may learn that bumblebees do fly after all and that your calculations were somehow amiss.

    Jesus Christ, my Savior, took my sins from me. He did it according to His promise to all who call upon Him in faith. Which I did aned still do.

    If, as you assert, I am an anathemized heretic with my sins still with me; then your life, with its RCC sacramental advantages, should be much more of an example of godliness than I have testified about. Is it?

  233. stan said

    re. Bumblebees:

    Perhaps there are some readers of this thread who are confused about my bumblebee references above. Here is the story: An aerodynamicist was once asked how a bumblebee with its large body and small wings could fly. He then did some quick calculations. To his astonishment, he discovered that there was not enough lift in bumblebees’ wings to allow their bulk to fly. It got around somehow after as an unfortunate urban legend attributed to him, that “scientist proves bumblebees can’t fly.” After some time, though, he discovered that bumblebee wings don’t provide lift in a standard sense; but rather, act more like helicopter wings. As so often happens, his knowledge was incomplete at first. Thankfully, he didn’t get stuck in his original calculations. He was humble enough to keep at it until his calculations matched reality.

    Therefore, my use of it here as an analogy in my dialogue with Karl should be obvious to the reader. My life has a testimony which is a spiritual impossibility to his RCC views much as the flight of the bumblebee was to aerodynamicist’s original views. Karl, and by extension, every like-minded RC has not allowed for any one to be saved from their sins outside of being submitted to Rome. Therefore, his only option is to deny that it happens.

    To me, it shows the depth and power of prejudice we must all be wary of.

  234. stan said

    A following thought:

    Unlike science, our Faith was once and for all delivered to the saints by the apostles Jesus had chosen. By contrast, science is an ongoing search for natural truth. Earlier scientific views are overthrown in the light of discoveries made later. Prejudices are formed by the earlier views and resist the truths which come later, often with great acrimony. So, science struggles forward by this feature of human frailty.

    Faith, on the other hand, suffers from the opposite problem: Its original fullness became subject to alteration by man. Man “lifted his iron tool upon the altar” of the apostolic doctrine. Therefore, he defiled it in the process. Those who hold to these alterations resist any return to original truths delivered by the Lord’s Apostles and prophets.

    That is what I see.

  235. irishanglican said


    Great posts! How wonderful the flight of the bumblebee, and the sound of its wings – glory, grace and nature!

    Fr. Robert

  236. irishanglican said


    Speaking metaphorically of the Christian life of course!

    Fr. Robert

  237. Stan, isn’t it interesting how in scripture Rome is not viewed favorably at all, yet it is the place Roman Catholics turn towards? And far as I know, the apostles never kept any walled enclaves such as the Vatican.

  238. Karl said


    Other than earning you applause and honors from your equally blind comrades, your allusion to “bumblebees” can NEVER change a single iota of the Truth. But will the honors that your garnered from men alter that final and terrible sentence that will be read to you at your particular judgment immediately after death ? Stan, that horrible and final sentence will reverberate through out all eternity. This is not idle threat, for he who denies the Truth in this life will be forced to acknowledge it in death.


    The source and primary cause of our sanctification is the will of God, who so loved the world as to give us his only Son; the meritorious cause of our sanctification is the voluntary oblation of Jesus Christ, sacrificed for us upon the cross. Because of the insufficiency of the sacrifices of the old law, Christ our high priest shed his own blood for us, offering up once for all the sacrifice of our redemption. Hebrew 10, therefore, shows the excellency of Christ’s sacrifice above those of the former law. In Hebrews 10 The Apostle also exhorts them to perseverance (Douay Rheims / Haydock Catholic Bible commentary)

    But, not surprisingly, you and protestants in general, pick and choose verses in vain hope of vindicating your perverse beliefs and doctrines. And as if that is not bad enough, you shamefully misrepresent the tenets of Catholics, as if we excluded Christ from the work of our salvation, or hoped to be saved not by the merits of Christ, but by our own.

    Reminds me of Tertullian’s admonitions NOT to argue with heretics on matters concerning Scripture (The Prescription Against Heretics). And boy oh boy was He right!

    Chapter 15: Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them. .

    They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.

    Chapter 16: Heretics, According to the Apostle, are Not to Be Disputed With, But to Be Admonished..

    …that our faith owes deference to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on questions, or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements, 1 Timothy 6:3-4 or to consort with a heretic after the first and second admonition, Titus 3:10 not, (be it observed,) after discussion.

    Chapter 17: Heretics, in Fact, Do Not Use, But Only Abuse, Scripture. No Common Ground Between Them and You

    Heresy does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text. Their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of their ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.

    Spot on ! These men knew what they were talking about. One can sense the guiding hand of The Holy Ghost, for their teachings are even more relevant in today’s impious world

    But then again, I guess you gonna throw out Tertullian too, just like you tossed out Augustine, and all the Church Fathers, because they say what you neither want to hear nor want to know. Yet, at one time you claimed to adhere to their teachings, until you found out that they condemn you. Then you promptly chucked them, like a hot potato.

  239. irishanglican said


    It seems you can only bring anathematizations. And all of us who have read them on this tread, can only shake our heads! The 1983 Roman Codex abolished the distinction between anathema and excommunication so that the formal has no official application. In its strict sense now, anathema means to be separated from the Christian community. And any penal aspect is most absent. As in St. Paul then, “anathema mararatha” combining one Greek word and two Aramaic words meaning: Let him be accursed (separate). Our Lord come.” Simply, in other words, our Lord alone will separate those who HE wills! But as the text shows, it is for not loving the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor.15:23)

    I like Meister Eckhart’s statement: I may be in error, but I cannot be a heretic; the former is a matter of the intellect, but the latter ia a question of the will. And the true Christian never “wills” anything, save the true will of God! (in his heart) He or she is always humbled by the true will of God. And will always cast “our crowns before Him.”! Walk softly Karl!

    As to Augustine, I value him greatly! But I never give infallibility to any Church Father, not even the Greek Orthodox. No, as the Judeo-Christian truth…it is the Scripture Text alone we must give the only infallibility! (Rev. 22:18-19) And as was mentioned, we shall ‘not put our handiwork upon the altar!’

    I can follow Augustine in many places also. And in the doctrine of Concupiscence he is closely Pauline I believe. Perhaps we would agree here?

    As to Tertullian, the “Father of Latin Theology”. You better read him again, he was a Montanist. Though somehow he escaped being ejected from the Catholic Church of his day? He led a group increasingly critical of episcopal leadership. As to the nature of the second century, and the then churches nascent development, he was often in error by our later and better biblical and theological understanding. But he did plead with Christians in his day to shun personal contamination, corruption, and idol worship of pagan society.

    I would hope you would someday become a modern day Roman Catholic Karl, and catch-up on the best of what has been happening to both Roman Catholic’s, and the rest of the Church Catholic! Though there is no perfection in any so called ecumenism, it is not all liberal and compromise.

    Fr. Robert

  240. irishanglican said

    It needs to be noted that there is vast differences between the past Roman Catholic doctrine, decrees and definitions, and that of both the E. Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Roman Catholicism has in the past, a tendency to formulate the whole dogmatic inventory of the Church. Sadly much of this still exists and is on the books for the Roman Church. Thus our friend Karl. But since Vatican II, there has been many changes in the liturgy and practice of the Roman Church. And the long pontifcate of John Paul the II, which was so pastoral, etc. And the RCC is still seeking to digest and formulate Vatican II.

    Generally speaking, the Churches of both the Orthodox and Anglican are content with an indispensable minimum of obligatory dogmas. This goes to the opposite of the Roman Catholic Church. And even many western churches (Lutheran, Reformed) present a theological character that is practical, more moral and more centered on man, with his sin, or justification. But on the other hand, all Orthodox theology that is its most obvious and characteristic feature is its speculative, mystical, and theocentric nature and character. This is indeed the nature of Greek and a type of hellenised theology. Here some aspects of the Anglican High Church movement rests, away from the West and the scholastic.

    If one may be permitted to speak figuratively, one may say that the Western theologian is the successor of the “advocatus” or legal council of imperial Rome, whereas the E. Orthodox theologian, be he Greek or Slav, is more the intellectual heir of the philosopher, or even sometimes the spohist. The logical and legalistic elements of Western theology produced, at the Reformation time, one of the most finished systems of mediaveal scholastic theology, in the theological system of Calvin, with its predestination, election, penal satisfaction, and “substitution”, etc.

    This opposition between logical and legalistic elements, on the one side, and rhetorical and philosphical elements on the other, may be found if one compares the theological tendencies and the interpretations of scripture in the likes of Tertullian (First Latin Father) and Origen (Eastern). We could go on, but the point is made.

    Finally, somehow we must bring it all together. But this will never be anywhere close to perfection in a fallen world, and our own fallen nature. My own opinion is that the Biblical and even Platonic categories are more within the NT itself, and thus toward the essence of both mystical but spiritual realities of St. Paul, St. John and St. Peter. And from this sense every true member of he Church is “Catholic”, by virtue of his/her union with the invisible Church, in the truth. Catholicity is through the Spirit who dwells in the Church, and searches the heart. And yet it must also be linked to the concrete world where people live, and to the visible Church. Catholicity is also “conciliarity”, in the sense of active “conciliation”, of the participation in the integral life of the Church, of one common life in the same truth, and this is broad in the whole theological sense.

    Fr. Robert

  241. stan said

    Karl, you left my last question to you unanswered. I would like to know how your exclusive RCC access to the grace of God has affected your life.

    Tell me about your Roman Catholic life: having received all these RCC sacraments as I presume you do constantly, that your life by now is an exemplary example of Christianity and that men see your good works and glorify your Father Who is in heaven.

    So, are your sins gone and going from your life? I don’t ask that you be more specific than you care to be on a public blog, just enough for me to understand the progress of righteousness in your life as a faithful Roman Catholic.

  242. irishanglican said


    Nice of you to join us on this now very long tread. We started this out on the subject of the Trinity of God. We have often had side trails, as our brother Job knows, and has graciously allowed I might add. This is his blog!

    Your point is well put. The Immutability of God does not need anything or anybody. God is quite complete, immutable, unchanging and unchangeable. He can neither suffer: He is impassible! And yet, within the Triune Nature of God, there is also the great reality of God’s nature of Love! For God is Love! (1 John) Also in reality it is here too, that we find the creature of Mary the Mother of the Lord. She was an elect vessel created by God triune for the purpose of the Incarnation, and is also the elect archetype of the redeemed Church and People of God. But she is always herself, a redemptive person and vessel. As she herself said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, amd my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (St. Luke)

    And as the Roman Church itself has said, any and all Marian apparitions are not neccessary for the faithful to believe. Just that some have been thought to be of worth and can be a blessing to the faithful. But this is not the place to debate this however. And I will not do so.

    But I will say that the end of history and the eternal day, will be centered in the Last Adam and the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ! Of fundamental importance here is the understanding of “the Image of God” as itself designating, ontologically, the eternal Son, and the understanding of man as by creation constituted in or after that image, by sin fallen away from that image, and by redemption reconstituted in that image. Thus perceived, the divine purpose of creation is grounded in the Son. He alone is ‘The True Image of God.’ Only the Son will finally give everything back to the Father! (1 Cor.15:24)

    Fr. Robert

  243. Demonic Mary Apparitions Decieve Roman Catholics

  244. irishanglican said


    Well, let me say first and right off, since I was a Royal Marine and reconnaissance officer (also some work in Intelligence), in Gulf War I, plus some other affairs, I am the wrong guy to believe conspiracy theories.

    Also since I spent over a year in the Pontifical Institute in Rome, I have my own insight and take on the RCC. It is certainly one political animal! And it is here that I place most of her personal problems! Not to mention some real biblical and theological weakness, even serious errors! And yes, I would be a certain kind of Reformed Catholic, which is always Anglican. We in the Anglican Communion do not have to take a back seat to either Rome or the Orthodox Church! In fact the Anglican Church and Communion has given the Church Catholic some of the most profound English speaking saints the Church has seen! From the Catholic side…St. Alban to St. Patrick (SS. Columba, Aidan and Columban. Irish saints!) And then St. Bede the Venerable (English). The list is long! Before the Reformation, there was the English speaking Catholic Church! The Cloud of the Unknowing, Mother Julian, Richard Rolle. And not to forget, the perhaps best theologian of them all, least his precision therein: Walter Hilton! To the Reformed and Evangelical, that list is way too long to quote! But just one will do, John Wesley! (Note I did not pick a Calvinist), again perhaps I should pick at least one…John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace!)

    So I don’t think you want to trade the essence of Christian spirituality and people! Roman certainly has hers, but so do the Irish, Scottish, and English!

    The whole point and fact is that we will never do away with the whole base and reality of the Christian Church, which would and will always be, the Judeo truth! “You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews!” (St. John 4:22) My point here is that the whole salvation history is always Jewish! The Savior was a Jewish man, and His mother…who is the Mother of God (incarnate) and Mother of the Church is also Jewish! Yes, in Christ there is now neither ‘Jew or Gentile’, but that does not diminish the historical reality, and the fact that St. Paul said, “To the Jew first” (Romans 1:16). And Christ will redeem yet a people, Jews, under the covenant of grace. (Rom.11:26-29)

    Sorry, but I must run for now. Perhaps again, and later?

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Father Robert

    PS This Karl yes? Under a different screen?

  245. stan said

    @ Spaxx re. #244.

    Since you have deigned to answer for Karl, you make me wonder what Robert asked: Are you Karl? Since you have answered for him, I will respond to you as though you are Karl.

    it would be a vain and unfruitful exercise.

    Sorry, Karl. You live in a glass house. Every one who names the name of Christ does. Your refusal to answer about your life as an RC makes me feel sorry for you and is actually making me pray for you.

    Everyone is a living epistle of what they believe. Anyone in the world has a right to demand proof of a Christian’s faith, so, there is nothing vain or unfruitful about it, unless, of course, those words describe your RC life. Do they?

    James says, “show me your faith by your works,” and Paul told Timothy, “let your progress be evident to all.” What a person believes either works for him or it doesn’t. Faith isn’t only about what looks good on paper, which is what you major on. All of your long-winded posts now seem suspiciously like a smoke screen to hide something about your real life. Prove me wrong. Prove to me and every one else on this thread that you’re not merely outwardly religious with nothing on the inside. As James says, “faith without works is dead.”

    You must make the case to the world that being an RC does set you free indeed from your sins, for that is the acid test of salvation. If it doesn’t, no one has to believe a word you say.

  246. stan said

    Karl, re. #248

    The proof I or any one would demand is the one I have laboriously sought from you: a changed life – sins gone; replaced by righteousness. A life that men can see has the proof of God. A life that causes men to glorify the Father in Heaven for the good works they see in you.

    If you cannot provide that, then you are an invalid witness of the Lord’s power to save from sins. I hope you can get this very simple point of mine. Don’t be a victim of your own accusation: “You have eyes but cannot see.”

  247. irishanglican said

    Amen to Stan. The NT states plainly that each and every Christian is quite simply “called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” (1 Cor.1:2; see Rom.1:7)

    But the depth and magnitude of each Christian’s Sainthood, is both God’s good pleasure and the Christian’s measure of faith and obedience. Here it is a synergy, a work together with God by grace and nature – “the obedience of faith.” (Rom.1:5; 16:26)

    FR. Robert

    PS Happy 4th Americans!

  248. irishanglican said


    “Unhappy men”? That would be a subjective statement, and only objective for each of us. You are not the Spirit of God, and are not allowed to judge our subjective hearts and minds!

    Fr. Robert

  249. stan said

    To the thread:

    After several dozen exchanges between myself and Karl (now, aka Spaxx), starting at #104; here are my thoughts:

    My lifelong Roman Catholic mother had a saying, “Empty barrels make the most noise.” When I first read this thread and came upon Karl’s long-winded, tedious posts, mostly citing catholic councils, doctors and fathers to “prove” that believing non-catholics were anathemized, as though these councils, etc. carried the full authority of the New Testament apostles, I knew he was an empty barrel.

    It did not take long to prove it either. I gave him ample opportunity to testify that the Lord, according to the principal promise of the apostolic Gospel, had freed him from his sins and that he was walking in good works which cause men to glorify the heavenly Father. He stubbornly refused to offer any such testimony; but instead, trivialized the need to do so; and regaled me and the thread further with his non-biblical citations. He seems completely blind to the need to prove the claim that only Roman Catholics can be saved. If he, as one, is not, how can he put forth such a claim without earning the title of “False Witness?”

    There are not many conclusions one can draw from his refusals. Mine is that Karl is not saved from his sins. That is the case, despite all his RC sacramental advantages. That is because he is believing in more things (i.e., his sacramental works, non-apostolic authorities) than the Lord alone to save him from his sins. Not surprising, considering that he trusts in these other things as a loyal Roman Catholic. That is why he struggles as he does, which he speaks of in post 137. I have sympathy for him, though. It took a long time before the Lord removed that sinful struggle from my life.

    I gave my testimony of the changes wrought in me by the Lord’s saving power from sins. It came to me when I looked to Him alone. I was eager to share about the power of the Great Physician of the Soul to work his great work of salvation in my life (see post #135.). For, the Word tells us, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.” And, “Let him who boasts, boast in what the Lord has done.” So, I did. That’s called “obedience” and “the sacrifice of praise.” I found that the Lord’s yoke is easy and His burden is light.

    I know what kind of life I led and my abject failure at finding freedom from my sins, even as a practicing Roman Catholic up until I was about 18. I know what happened to me after I trusted only in the Lord through the influence of non-catholic believers at the age of 23. This difference in my life can only be attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Where is Karl’s similar testimony? He said the church is a hospital. Why is he not well by now, then? Will he ever be? Where is the work of the Great Physician of the “hospital” to this patient? According to his claims, he should be light years ahead of any non-catholic; but he’s not. He’s way behind many who he believes are heretics. Since Karl has declined to boast in the Lord, I advise him to question if he has truly submitted to the Physician. For, the Lord’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save you, Karl.

    Karl’s response to me on June 19th, that was deleted by the blog owner, (which I have a copy of, thanks to a friendly soul) was, uncharacteristically, not long-winded at all. It was terse and derisive. In it, he also denied me my testimony. Brevity is the soul of wit, Polonious said. The soul of Karl’s thoughts are not shown in his carefully crafted, long-winded posts; but in his short replies; for the heart’s thoughts are concentrates. He shows his true colors in such posts. #251, just above, is a great example of his petulant nature. He gets mean when he sees a flying bumblebee (see posts 217, 232, 233 for my bumblebee references).

    The irony, which I am sure is lost completely on Karl, is that the claim he puts forth that only Roman Catholics have access to the grace of God through their sacramental system; does not provide for him the one great thing that God’s grace is all about for man – freedom indeed from sin. (And, no, I don’t mean flawlessness, or that a believer may not be overcome in a fault for a time.)

    So, I won’t ask Karl again about this, nor continue these exchanges; unless he wishes to respond to my long-standing question. One word of caution to the readers: look out for possible new user names, like the one Karl’s using now, “Spaxx,” that he may use to weary you with his RC mythologies. Karl, a Roman Catholic, came to this non-catholic blog with an Agenda. He will keep at it unless the blog owner becomes too weary of him.

    Last thought: I don’t hate Karl. I feel sorry for him. I hope he comes to find the Lord’s saving power. He won’t find it as long as he trusts in his sacramental works as he does, or in these councils, doctors and fathers with the same 100% trust that may only be placed in the inspired writers. What these Prophets and Apostles taught is that only God can save us from sin. Man must trust in Him alone.


  250. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    I don’t think you should allow somebody to take on two names, Karl aka Spaxx. Perhaps he used two email addresses to fool you.

    I use my real name in its entirety because I am not ashamed to own Jesus.



  251. irishanglican said


    As an Anglican priest, and one that is rather Anglo-Catholic, I hear confessions from some former R. Catholics etc., who still feel the need to have personal confession. I wonder do you have a confessor, and do you go to confession still? Since you are traditional RC, you must? But with your whole conspiracy ideas, how can you trust anything Roman, and especially a Roman priest that is under this combination and duplicity that you see in Vatican II?

    I will end this with a wonderful quote from a great High Church Anglican: “All great direction of souls is at once traditional in doctrine and original in application.” – Evelyn Underhill

    Fr. Robert

  252. to irishanglican

    in love your confessor does not seem to help you. firstly. when you continue to lose your temper and abuse others still undeniabl;y and the subject heading was trinity not your own hidden, now exposed agenda of promotng yourself and your pets.

    (Mat 7:5 KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  253. Common Profile of abusers:…

    * Short temper, snaps at a moments notice. Becomes abusive, or violent fast.
    * Can’t cope very well with life situations.
    * Is cruel to animals, or young people.
    * Denies that any abuse, or violent attack ever occurred, or blames others and the victim for the attack.
    * Can’t take responsibility for their own abusiveness,violent actions.
    * Low Self-esteem, but not always.
    * Very insecure.
    * Has a diabolic need for power and control over others.
    * Threatens with more abusive acts,violence.
    * Very jealous.
    * Lies and Apologizes for their actions and begs for forgiveness, but still continues to abuse the victim.
    * Needs to have power and control to compensate for their low self-esteem, or insecurities.
    * Can be nice, witty, and funny, but there is a dark side and a history of violence and abuse.
    * Criticizes others constantly: they can never do anything right.
    * Puts-down others to lower their self-esteem to make themselves look good or feel good about themselves.
    * Uses religion as an excuse to abuse others too. Men will never be “gods”. Men will never be profits to a higher being. Men are mortal not immortal (God the “higher” being would never approve of abuse).
    * Reckless behavior (drives wildly to scare victim, personally uses drugs or drinks)
    * Tendency to Drink and then gets violent.
    * Abuser knows what they are doing, and still doesn’t see a problem with their actions.
    * Carefully pre calculates what they want their victim to do, and how they will next control them.
    * Makes up things or looks for things to jump start the abuse, or violence.
    * Accuses others of being unfaithful, immoral when the abuser is the one being unfaithful, immoral
    * Abusers often also stalk their victim: driving past their house, or shows up at odd hours of the night or by phone, or sending them absuive emails..
    * Abuser lives to dominate and take away the rights of their victim.

    Beware always of men and women, bullies, tormentors, control freaks, persons, civil and public servants, politicians, pastors, leaders, elders, who falsely do, will try to enslave you, oppress you, exploit you even while they claim they are proclaiming the truth, democracy, trying to help you, etc.,

    Is 51:23 ..your tormentors {and} oppressors, those who said to you, Bow down, that we may ride {or} tread over you; and you have made your back like the ground and like the street for them to pass over.

  254. irishanglican said

    Does anyone know what “page” or the sense of “Thenoncorformer” is on? Strange?

    Fr. Robert

  255. Coram Deo said


    “the nonconformer” has been trolling over at DefCon recently as well.

    I personally believe that he’s projecting.

    In Christ,

  256. irishanglican said


    “Projecting” lol That is a a good way to state the nature of many bloggers! Being that I am in my 50’s, I am not sure that the blog is that profound? At least for theological and spiritual work. My thoughts at least.

    Fr. Robert

  257. Coram Deo said

    Profundity is in the mind of the beholder.

  258. >>irishanglican said 1 day ago: Does anyone know what “page” or the sense of “Thenoncorformer” is on? Strange?

    the Gospel according to Fr. Robert is not the Gosple of Jesus Christ as we all can see

    He bashes me, bullies me, abuses me and he calls me strange.. get calling is according to his Christianity.. I rightfully HAVE NO REPSECT FOR A PASTOR WHO BEHAVES LIKE THIS EVER! and he canot stay on the topic of the trinity but has to reveal his hidden agendas.. I also can note his lack of Bible applications and lack of Bible references often too

    (Mat 5:22 KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    (Mat 5:23 KJV) Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

    (Mat 5:24 KJV) Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

    (Mat 5:25 KJV) Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

    (Mat 5:26 KJV) Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

    (1 Cor 3:18 KJV) Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

  259. Devon said

    Uhmmm…is it just me or that there are some really odd characters around here???? Not mentioning names but…well…oy….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: