Archbishop of Canterbury - Lourdes 29/09/2008 - Part 1

[RidinHighSince89]

I feel sorry for Dr. Williams. In the hornet's nest.

[02Blackbeard]

It's all a money spinning con.

[ilikezappa]

Do you believe , as a grown up , that Pope John Paul really cured that Nun of Parkinsons disease? If so , why didn`t he cure his priests of their sexual desire for children , instead of being actively complicit in protecting them ?

[ilikezappa]

It is appropriate that this sermon should be given at a centre for superstitious spirit worship.

[PaladinValer]

@ilikezappa The veneration of Saints is neither worship nor superstitious. The dead in Christ are more alive than we the biologically living.

[ilikezappa]

@Paladin The dead in Christ are dead , is the scientific consensus. To become a Saint , don`t you have to have a "Miracle" attributed to you ? (Which will invariably be crap) Seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary in a Yak turd is not compelling evidence for believing in a supernatural spirit world which controls everything according to Iron Age tribal morality. Just my opinion......

[PaladinValer]

@ilikezappa Except that science is silent on the issue of religious faith because it isn't testable. Therefore, to say "scientific consensus" is to go outside what science actually is an authority on. Those of the Christian faith believe in the immortality of the soul. Furthermore, the Vatican Catholic systematic method of recognizing who is a Saint isn't shared among Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. Your own bigotry shows by your examples you give, I might add.

[ilikezappa]

@PaladinValer Science can certainly test some of the claims made in the Bible , for instance the Book of Genesis can be shown to be incorrect about many things. Religious "faith" about untestable propositions that have no evidence in their favour must be catagorized as mere speculation , surely ?

[PaladinValer]

@ilikezappa I personally have no problem with evolution. The Bible is a book of theology, faith, and morals, not science or historian. And as a historian, I realize how erronous it can be in that particular field. Genesis 1's real theology is that God is the ultimate source of all things, it establishes the week, prefigures the 8th day, and rather nicely shows the equality of both men and women. Faith is something practiced, not just merely believed in. As the Latin goes, lex orandi lex credendi

[ilikezappa]

@PaladinValer The Prosper of Aquitaine founded this I believe ? Not an expert on catholic theology I confess .

I know something of Cosmology , which stands in conflict , as I think you have just agreed , with any literal interpretation on scripture. God is the ultimate source of all things ? Speculation. God has a moral code in keeping with an Iron age slave culture from an obscure planet ? Seems less than likely ...

[ThierryLR1973]

What a great moment may the Holy Spirit help eachothers to be united again

[01blackpete1]

This guy loves to eat papal cheese.

Mary...the anaemic goddess.

[idle44]

Is YouTube the only, or last, public forum for Christian debate? Keep argueing and thus talking. It reminds me of the time I read the Great Reformation debates. God will separate us in the end. Let us be humble and reflect and pray on that.

[masala505]

Painful to listen too!

[sirtinycreep]

What a great voice he has. :)

[iotaunam1]

@pipeup1

Yes, I am aware of the heretical modernist ARCIC. Vatican II and the Catechism are not Infallible. It is a FACT that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Christ. Henry VIII founded the Anglican sect. Baptism brings one into the Church - not a man-made Church, but the only Church which Christ founded. You may call this fact a mantra, but it is a fact nevertheless.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 As Patrick Moynihan once said, 'one is entitled to his own opinions, one is not entitled to his own facts". You conveniently ignore Mary's restoration of the Roman Church after Henry's death. Mary revived the old heresy laws to secure the religious conversion of the country; heresy was regarded as a religious and civil crime amounting to treason (to believe in a different religion from the Sovereign was an act of defiance and disloyalty). (cont)

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

I dont understand which exactly of my comments you are responding to, but they are irrelevant.

Firstly, as to the "one is entitled to opinion but not Truth" etc - well that is nonsense for a start. Truth, by its very nature is objective. We know that Christ is God. We know that Anglican "bishops" are merely laymen with no valid episcopal powers whatsoever. This is not opinion, but fact.

As to Mary restoring the faith after Henry - What is your point??

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Aslo, you wrongly suggest that it was a violation of civil law and Treason to have a different faith that the Soverign. That was not the reason heresy was a Capital crime at all. The fact is that God has founded ONE church, the Catholic church. Therefore, anyone spreading doctrines against Christ and His Church was Guilty of Capital Crime, because an offence against God was on par with an offence against Civil Rulers. Not disloyalty to the monarch, but to God.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

As to the reference to the Taliban - well that is just ridiculous. In those days the Law of God was the SAME AS THE SECULAR LAW. Divorce, blasphemy, heresy, abortion etc were treated as grave offences against the state as the state believed in the Kingship of Christ - that is Christs law should coincide with state law. Thus state punishment for offence against God. This is not an unreasonable doctrine as you suggest.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 states "No one, nor any organisation or force has been able to "kill" the Church in its 2000 year history." No, perhaps not. But the Roman Church is doing something more evil : It is making the church irrelevant. If Christianity is spreading anywhere in the world, it is in Africa and Asia. And the Christianity that is spreading is largely Pentecostal, or charismatic. Catholicism is dying a slow death. I suspect a bizarre grasping for something medieval is largely to blame.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

The Catholic Church is THE CHURCH. It is the ONLY Church founded by Our Lord. Pentecostal or other man-made protesant sects are namely that: man made. This is why more are created everyday, and they divide and fizzle out. They are not divinly instituted and protected like the Church of Christ.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 I'm beginning to wonder whom you are trying to convince of your position. The louder you scream the more I suspect a real lack of faith. But then that is pretty much the norm in Europe these days isn't it. I must say you continue to miss the point. While you write " Pentecostal or other man-made protesant (sic) sects are namely that: man made." Then "they divide and fizzle out". What do you think is happening to the church now? I can almost hear it fizzle out my window.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Funny you accuse me of lacking "real" faith when your arguments expose your complete indifferentism. If I said all religions are equal -there is no one True religion - just be "good" etc then maybe you would take that as faith! Just shows how little you understand of the concept.

The True faith has not fizzled out nor will it ever - it being divinely instituted, unlike the others.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Nearly everything you write speaks to psychology, not theology. By screaming to the heavens that you're a solid absolutely orthodox catholic- what you are in fact doing is trying to justify yourself. I use that term in a theological sense. William James noted the tendency. It's a sad commentary; you create one dichotomy after another: "I'm good, you're evil, my church is real, yours is not, I am saved, you are not." You beg the question, 'just whom are you trying to convince

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc -

It seems to be your own mind which cannot grasp what I am saying, rather than inconsistancy or anything else for that matter, on my part. I have presented the Truth Clearly, These truths I present are dogmas of the Church and therefore it is not merely my opinion, nor did I say "i'm good your evil" or certainly not "im saved your not" - in fact the ironic thing is that; that kind of presumption is somthing which the Church intrinsically disavows. You are confused.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 If as you argue, the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH, and the only church, Christianity will simply disappear, or "fizzle". I did find your use of that word ironic - I recall standing at the base of the monument to Jan Huss at the place of his burning at the stake by THE CHURCH. I'm sure "fizzled" then too. For any Protestant Church to have emerged required not only real faith, but courage. Huss shows us why it was difficult for Protestant Churches to emerge and survive.

[dsindc]

@dsindc Perhaps one day there will be a monument to the children victimized by the Roman church, (with its complicity). I would remind you of the following passage "Ye shall know them by their fruits". To make an argument that the Roman church has a rather mixed history is charitable. To base it's mandate on the Petrine Theory (yes I said theory) is specious. To pretend to have warrant and direction from God to alone be divinely inspired, is dangerous. And it no longer is convincing.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Regarding Jan Huss, he was burned by the state after being handed over by the Church to the state - being accused of heresies. He was asked by the Church and state authorities to recant but he chose to die a "martyr" for his heretical beliefs. The state chose to burn him as capital punishment.

Regarding the Papacy, it is unquestionably a Biblical doctrine of Christ Himself - again, too deep for here but if you PM me I wil show you at length the absolute proof for Papal primacy.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Your argument is ridiculous!

I NEVER SAID that CHRISTINANITY would "fizzle out" - Christianity is the Faith founded by Christ - CATHOLICISM. There was no protestant "christianity" before the 15th Century. It is not True Christianity because it rejects the teachings of Christ.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 By the way, I suggest you work on your polemic. On the one hand you write "In those days the Law of God was the SAME AS THE SECULAR LAW. Divorce, blasphemy, heresy, abortion etc were treated as grave offences against the state as the state believed in the Kingship of Christ - that is Christs law should coincide with state law. Thus state punishment for offence against God. This is not an unreasonable doctrine as you suggest." I.E. church and state are essentially one in the same.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Yes I agree. Any comparison between the Taliban and the Roman church is ridiculous. Secularism had taken hold to the extent that the Inquisition is no longer tolerable. Humanism <gasp> has increased enough that death by fire at the stake, or worse is no longer a weapon in holy mother church's arsenal. What a shame .. for some. What liberation for the rest of us. Your apology for the church is tired, much like the church herself. The world looks elsewhere now. Change or die with it.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

This was the law of THE STATE - not the Church. Heresy was a Capital crime and the state punished capital crime in these ways all across europe and most of the rest of the world. Your comment exposes your ignorance regarding the inquisition also- what do you know about it?

My apology for the Church is not tired nor near it. Truth is objective, and these same truths have been defended since the church's inception and are as true now as they ever were.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 To argue that there was some sort of division between Church and State until quite recently is a disingenuous and pathetic argument. Where was the Church when Cortez slaughtered thousands of Native Americans in an episode of history that compares to the Rape of Nanking? Oh, I forgot Bishop Landa was behind it. What more do you think we need to know about the Inquisition? Pope Innocent IV's papal bull 1252 authorized the use of torture. Does one require more facts??

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

You have clearly shown that you know nothing about the inquisition. I suppose hundreds of thousands of innocent protestants were burned on command of the Pope?? This topic is way too indepth for here. You need to read about it, or if you want to discuss by PM I will answer your arguments.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Perhaps one day there will be a monument to the children victimized by the Roman church, (with its complicity). I would remind you of the following passage "Ye shall know them by their fruits". To make an argument that the Roman church has a rather mixed history is charitable. To base it's mandate on the Petrine Theory (yes I said theory) is specious. To pretend to have warrant and direction from God to alone be divinely inspired, is dangerous.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 And on the other hand you completely contradict yourself by writing-- "This was the law of THE STATE - not the Church. Heresy was a Capital crime and the state punished capital crime in these ways all across europe and most of the rest of the world. Your comment exposes your ignorance regarding the inquisition also- what do you know about it?" -- I appreciate the comic relief, but one cannot have it both ways. I suspect you're going through a phase. If this continues, seek help.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Regarding the so-called "contradiction" - it does not exist.

I said the Church and State had the same law - Because the State believed the religion of Jesus Christ to be True. When I refered to the Capital Crime as being a Law of the State and not the Church (Capital Punishment) I meant exactly that. Capital Punishment was the states responsibility - Judging heresy was the Church's. Both agreed that Heresy was abominable and a serious crime.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 This is clearly dysfunctional: " When I refered (sic) to the Capital Crime as being a Law of the State and not the Church (Capital Punishment) I meant exactly that. Capital Punishment was the states responsibility" So, the church desired the dirty work, but did not want to soil its hands in carrying out its judgment. Heresy is an abominable crime... It is this sort of bizarre absolutism that has doomed the church, and the Mosque as well. I suggest again, please get counseling.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

No. Once again you are wrong. The Church did not desire the "dirty work" as you claim, but the Church disowned heretics and took away protection since they were no longer members of the Church. Thus, when the state punished this Secular crime, it did so by its own secular means.

To say that "heresy is an abominable crime" is no way "bizarre absolutism" - it is a truth that one can know for certain. Dont want to debate philosophy with you since you have a subjective idea of truth.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 "To say that "heresy is an abominable crime" is no way "bizarre absolutism" - it is a truth that one can know for certain. Dont want to debate philosophy with you since you have a subjective idea of truth." Osama Bin Laden.

Really, this nonsense could have just have been written by Bin Laden. There is in your mind no truth other than what is discerned by a relatively small group of men. Blind faith is dead, you just haven't smelled the stench.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Heresy is an abominable crime before God. Osama Bin Laden does not even come into it.

Also, Catholic Faith is NOT Blind. Therefore your fallacies are based on ignorance of the actual nature of faith and the Church.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Once again you have missed the point. William James spoke of the "sin of religion". By that he is commonly understood to mean that a movement, a man, a tribe, a religion equates its tradition, scripture, holy men, etc. with God ...ABSOLUTELY, then it becomes evil. This is a truth repeated throughout history that you fail miserably to grasp. Bin Laden has no doubt, NONE that he is not doing the will of God. The Koran could be read to support his twisted views. How are you different?

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc -

I have not missed your point - as I explained earlier I disagree with it and said it is an illogical position to hold. To hold Truths for certain IS NOT "evil" as you claim. I had a conversation with someone of your mentality not so long ago and he stated that we cannot be sure that we even exist!! He claimed we could not be sure this "reality" wasnt all a "dream-like" experience. This is simply your position taken to its logical (or lack thereof) conclusion.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 You don't want to debate philosophy because you can't. Your mind is trapped by a dogmatic tradition that renders free thinking not only irrelevant, but evil. To the Existentialists philosophers, you're not fully human. Animals live by instinct. When men live exclusively according to dogma- be it religious, cultural, political ( Kim's North Korea), they have sacrificed those things that make them human. Men are reduced to something that resembles animals. How sad.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

No, not because I cant, but for the reason I just gave. You seem to have a subjective idea of Truth, which is why a debate on philosophy would be pointless with you. You make up your own truth which is "right for you". This is Not reality nor reasonable. Also, I dont care how much of a "human" I am to existentialists since they have the same aversion to truth as yourself. It is the Truth of Jesus Christ which sets us free which you cannot see. This is True freedom.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 I have to laugh here - truth is NOT subjective you say. Is child molestation evil? The church claims so, but has shown thousands of times over that it MAY be, but it is less evil apparently than exposing the church to secular scrutiny. Your absurd argument just got shot down. When the church makes the identification I alluded to, church = God, then 'Truth' is whatever it says it is. To believe otherwise then becomes heresy, and we know what happens to heretics. You are truly blind.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc -

I stand by what I said - Truth IS NOT subjective. Anyone who denies this is not only thinking illogically, but has to reject the entire Christian faith.

Is this act you give as an example evil? - Yes of course. however, by YOUR logic it is only evil if a person thinks it is so. If Truth was relative, as you claim, then there must be a situation where this evil act is NOT evil - according to your twisted logic. That is how ridiculous your position is.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 WRITES "If Truth was relative, as you claim, then there must be a situation where this evil act is NOT evil - according to your twisted logic. That is how ridiculous your position is." OH REALLY?? Is this not exactly what the Roman church has done consistently - certainly in this country for decades? What Bernie Law did WAS EVIL. Yet we find him in a place of honor in Vatican City. You are truly living in a delusional world.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Yes we do know what happens to heretics. Your refusal to believe that Truth is objective means you cannot know that any Truth is actually a Truth for certain. This is why your position is ridiulous. Either God exists or He does not! If He exists for one person he CANNOT "not exist" for another. Your reasoning is childish and absurd.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Finally, I understand the pathetic state of British technology. I understand why you are on an American site. But would you please keep your 5th rate petroleum extraction technology away from us. You have all but destroyed our southern coast. If your pathetic technology isn't bad enough, your moral positioning on this matter has been abhorent. One last thing..If you're studying to become a priest, please, PLEASE stay away from children.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 I completed my undergraduate degree at Harvard-,the university that Oxford's faculty has consistently identified as the finest in the world. You refer to no scholarship. Your 'reasoning' consists of rants that a street preacher would be ashamed of. "THIS IS THE TRUTH - THE CHURCH SAYS SO.. END OF STORY". The only difference is that the preacher would refer to scripture. Then he would be hauled off to a mental institution. There's no real difference between you and that man. 

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc -

You think a degree from Harvard gives your ridiculous arguments credibility? You want references to scholarship?

This was not a scholarly debate. It was a small comment. If you want to debate reasoning and Philosophy (with references etc) by PM then I will be happy to. The very reason I did not want to get into this debate with you in the first place is beacuse you are not a rational thinker and cannot accept that some truths are objective, thus debate would be pointless.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Re; your education I will take your response as a no, you have none. If it's not a degree from Harvard something is giving me an advantage. What you've done here is engaged in a sort of verbal masturbation as evidenced by comments such as "I stand by what I said - Truth IS NOT subjective. Anyone who denies this is not only thinking illogically, but has to reject the entire Christian faith."

This sounds like something a Red Guard would have said during the Cultural Revolution.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Since you appear to flounder about mouthing ' the party line ', I will ask you a pointed question to help you focus: "to what degree are religious scriptures a source of objective historical facts and to what degree are they subjective accounts — or even just theological propaganda? How do you tell the difference?" I.E. by what means do you arrive at truth?

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Just curious... are you a student? Do you have any education? As dead as Christianity is in the U.K. and Europe as a whole, you must have a tough go of it. Probably stick out like a sore thumb. Poor thing. Oh, the martyr complex!! I get it. One does hope you get help before you find your arse in a padded cell. That would be most unpleasant now wouldn't it? Cheerio.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 As a result, around 300 "heretics" were burned in three years - apart from eminent clergy such as Cranmer (a former archbishop and author of two Books of Common Prayer), Latimer and Ridley, these heretics were mostly poor and self-taught people. In spite of the almost mechanical smugness of your post, is an almost total loss of touch with reality. I'm all for anachronism, but not when it becomes farce. Have you not been keep up with contemporary affairs? (cont)

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Mary Tudor burned no one. She simply let the Laws on the books across Europe at the time hold. Heretics were offered a chance to renounce their errors and be let off - if they did not then they faced the punishment of this Capital offence.

As for Elizabeth, she murdered more than anyone!!

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 I would find the recent revelations regarding the RC Church merely comical, but thousands, likely tens of thousands have been severely damaged. The Roman church nearly everywhere, Ireland, the U.S., Brazil, the list goes on and on, has behaved in a manner that would make fascists proud. The Magdelene sisters ran what can only be called a gulag. But the fact that the hierarchy of the church is so clearly implicated makes one wonder how anybody would continue to support it. (cont)

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

You also seem ignorant of the fact that the recent "revelations" have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If you think these men are IN the Catholic Church then you need to get out your baltimore catechism or any Catholic tehology manual and look up the definition of the Church.

Also, these men, for the most part, have rejected the Catholic Faith ENTIRELEY. If abuse was a doctrine of the Church, THEN you would be correct, but it is not so dont accuse the church of it.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Finally, for the church to expect its edicts, traditions, the Magisterium itself to be considered sacred, but at the same time in the face of horrific criminal activity argue that the church is "only human" is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. It can't be had both ways. If I sound angry it's because I was molested as a child. The leaders of the diocese I have since found out were aware. Yet you support this organization, and blather on about Henry. How sick. The church is dying.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Lastly, you show your complete ignorance once again regarding the Church.

The Church does not claim its doctrine is sacred BEACUSE OF THE CONDUCT OF SOME UNWORTHY MEMBERS, but on account of the fact that they come DIRECTLY FROM GOD. Thus, there is no hypocrisy at all.

Also your claim that the Church is dying is ridiculous - people said that at the time of Luther.

Lastly, in charity, I must warn you that there is no salvation outside of the One true Church of Christ.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 Oh thank you so much for reminding me that I'm going to hell.. LOL. Your reasoning is so dysfunctional that's it's impossible to address all the bizarre notions you've accumulated here. God only knows what else is floating around your head. In reference to my claim that the church is dying, I would direct you to Christopher Caldwell's well received "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe- Immigration, Islam, and the West". Niall Ferguson found it quite on point.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

I didn't "remind" you (seems you already "knew") that you were going to Hell, I just restated in charity what the Church of Jesus Christ has always taught. It is your choice entirely.

The Church is growing all the time. I mean the real Church, not obviously those nominal or claiming to be Catholic while rejecting the Faith. No one, nor any organisation or force has been able to "kill" the Church in its 2000 year history. Christs promise still stands as it shall continue to.

[dsindc]

@iotaunam1 The statistics across we once called the 'First World' paint a very clear picture in Europe and increasingly in North America. You can create your only reality -as it appears you have - but the facts are the facts. Nobody is paying much attention to the church anymore. If this is not a tap on the shoulder by the Holy Spirit, I don't know what is. In fact it's more like a dead on hit by a 4 X 4 piece of wood. I will assume you think Vatican II was evil. How quaint.

[iotaunam1]

@dsindc

Again, the statistics you mention are superflous given that the majority of those caliming to be Catholic in the first place have not had one iota of the Catholic Faith. No loss.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 1) Henry didn't found a church; he merely kicked the pope out of the Church where it existed in his kingdom. 2) For someone who claims Catholicism, you express repeatedly a sedevacantist position which is easily more anti-Catholic than Anglicanism in the eyes of the actual Vatican Church. Vatican II is a proper Ecumenical Council according to the true Vatican Catholic Church - all who disagree and claim to be "Catholics" of that ilk are sedevacantists.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Your comment only exposes your ignorance. I am not a sedevacantist. I never said I was nor did I take the sedevacantist position. Henry VIII most certainly did found a new religion. Papal Primacy is a doctrine - a biblical one - which was rejected becuase Henry wanted something which was condemned by Christ. PM if you want to debate indepth the biblical doctrine of Papal Primacy. Anglicanism is a heretical sect, and has no valid orders.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 I actually know what sedevacantism is, and your post strongly implies it, using words such as "heretical modernist" and especially "not infallible" in reference to an Ecumenical Council accepted by the Vatican Church. As for Papal Primacy, it is not necessarily the same as Papal Superiority, which wasn't even dogmatized until Vatican I and iffy. Henry believed and practiced the same as he did before kicking the pope out, so you're dead wrong there, and Anglicans do have valid Orders.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

You only prove my point about your ignorance. Sedevacantism believes that there is no Pope - I reject this. Heretical and modernist does not mean the office falls vacant. You need to research Catholic teaching more. Vatican II was pastoral and not Dogmatic, as J XXIII and P VI stated. Only that which was previously dogmatically defined is de fide. Papal Primacy is Biblical - Superiority doesn't come into it. Anglican orders are invalid. They are just laymen. PM to debate.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 1) If you actually read what I said, I never called you personally a sedevacantist; only that your positions reflect their positions. Rather "ignorant" (to borrow your own bombastic terminology) of you. I know Vatican Catholic theology rather well, and while VII was pastoral, there is still the entire infallibility dogma of ecumenical councils that still rings true. And the restoration of the catechuminate as it exists there is good and ancient. Papacy as V I expresses isn't ancient.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

You are simply a liar. What you said was: "you express repeatedly a sedevacantist position" - which I most certainly do not. Not at all. The conclusions I make do not lead to sedevacantism - you are confused.

Papal Infallibility and primacy as it was formulated by VI is the same biblical doctrine which Christ Himself revealed. If you feel otherwise I will be happy to debate indepth the Biblical evidence by PM.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Also, I have explained why Vatican II was not infallible. Anyone who has even a scant knowledge of dogmatic theology and the loci theologici will realise this. Unless you can do what no Catholic even claims to be able to do: list one teaching which VII taught as Dogmatic and infallible, which was not previously considered infallible. I await your reply.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 Furthermore, Anglican Orders are valid due to false premises that gave rise of Apostolicae Curae (particularly the Nags Head Fable, but also the common non-use of "living and the dead" terms with the Eastern Orthodox and the actual belief in the Real Presence and Sacrifice of the Mass by them as proved by Saepius Officio). Lastly, I have no interest in debating anyone who repeatedly it seems ad homs anyone who disagrees, doesn't apologize, nor debates but repeats over and over.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Regarding Apostolicae Cure - you obviously havent read the document, or if you have you have not understod it. It does not base itself on any fable. Anglican orders are clearly defective due to form and intention. "Nags Head" doesn't come into it. The reason you dont want to debate, like any other anglican, is becuase when you really get into specifics your position is illogical and doesn't hold up. Anglican clergy are laymen -hertical ones at that.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 Nag's Head has quite a bit to do with it. Form is irrelevant since neither the EO ordinations ordain their clerics to either read nor celebrate the Sacraments "for the living and the dead" and the Vatican accepts their Orders. Finally, Saepius Officio makes it clear that Anglicans do actually believe in the Real Presence and that it is sacrificial. As for reasons why I have no intention of debating is due to your proven "style" which is repetition, ad homs, and Luther's bombasticism.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

It is clear to anyone why you refuse indepth debate: your arguments don't hold any weight. Anglican "real Presence" is different to the true doctine - it is not the same doctrine at all. Further, your last posts shows you know nothing about the form when you bring up the living & the dead etc. This has nothing to do with the form. As for "style" - repetition is necessary when someone is incapable of taking in facts.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 The EOs reject transubstantiationism as well, so to say Anglicans don't adhere to Real Presence yet the EOs do is hypocritical and is an illogical double standard. The so-called "lack of intent" is nonsense; a major example is that it is clear even in the 1552 Ordinal that priests had the power to absolve sins. Lastly, repetition is NEVER acceptable in respectable and scholarly debate. Lastly, the idea of not using "both for the living and the dead" was an issue.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

If you really think your position is so strong then I offer to debate you indepth by PM, as I have done before. When we really get into the issue in detail you will see how your arguments dont hold any weight. The EO do hold the same doctrine, though they do not have the scholastic language to describe the metaphysics - they use other terms meaning substantially the same thing. Anglicans do not, even if they did the rite would still be defective. AC still still stands.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 The EOC absolutely rejects the idea of transubstantiationism as it is understood by the Vatican; any EO will tell you that. They believe in a physical and spiritual presence, but they reject the time in which it happens, emphasize different wording (the Episclesis), and utterly reject scholasticism's take. Anglicanism historically has shared the same Real Presence theology as the EO's, and therefore to reject their Orders or their Eucharist but to accept that of the EO's is illogical.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Once again you are wrong. I have debated EO many times and I have read their theology books. To say they reject scholasticism's "take" is absurd. Scolastic language merely goes into detail on the metaphysics - matter/accidents etc but the belief is the same. Anglicanism is completely different. They reject it as heretical. Also, this is not the issue with the defects of the ordinal. The lack of form and intention is still there, even IF a valid bishop were to consecrate.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 I'm dead right. They despise any sort of scholasticism to try to pin down details. They merely believe in an "Objective Reality:" that the elements become The Body and The Blood. They believe any sort of scholasticism isn't orthodox because the only orthodox position to them is to leave it a complete Holy Mystery, which is one reason why they deny the Vatican's Mass as valid. Anglicanism rejects transubstantiationism in its sense of pinning things down, like the EO; they don't deny RP

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

You can insist all you want: you are wong, Why do you still refuse indepth debate? Are you afraid of repetition or are you unsure of your position?

Catholics & orthodox believe the bread becomes the body, blood, soul & divinity of Christ. the metaphysics is superflous. Anglicans do not hold this doctrine, which should be obvious. Orthodox recieve Catholics as clergy while they ordain Anglicans. Anglican orders are invalid and completely void. They are laymen/women.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 repetition is baseless in debate. Anglicans believe in the Real Presence and always had. Proof is in their liturgy, their use of Massing vesture, Saepius Officio, and the writings of the Caroline Divines, most particularly Archbishop William Laud. Finally, you are dead wrong about the EOs accepting Vatican Orders. It is true that many clergy who convert to them are given economia, but, as Vaticans, they are considered invalid. Anglican clergy are given economia as well if they convert

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Perhaps if you actually agreed to have a debate we could avoid the repetition and examine which arguments are false.

Say what you want about Angclians - it doesnt alter the fact. They deny the True doctrine, as I have needed to repeat, but like the Lutherans they claim a "real presence" but this is only a spiritual presense. Ask any Anglican clergyman/woman. I have talked with many and am well aware of their doctrine: it is clearly false. Read the 39 articles.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Furthermore you are either lying or ignorant about "orthodox" accepting Catholic orders. The largest part- the russian orthodox and most others accept schismatic catholic priests without ordination. You need to contact some if you have any doubts. Doesnt sound like youve discussed this at all. Furthermore, every "orthodox" priest I have spoken to denies the validity of Anglican orders. They issued documents about this in synod. PM to debate indepth.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 Accusations of lying are either out of desperation or poor form. I said that, as Vatican clergy, EO consider them invalid; that says nothing about economia, which has always been for them a case-by-case issue. The same is for Anglican orders; I have EO sources as well. It often depends on the bishop and the line of the petitioner. EOs deny the validity of both Vatican and Anglican sacraments. You might give ++Ware a read and in 1922, Ang Orders by the EP were declared valid.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

I did not judge that you were lying; I said you were "either lying or ignorant" about the matter as your last comments show. You can go in circles and repeat all you want (even though you accused me of this) but it will not alter the facts. There is no point in continuing this conversation if you refuse to debate indepth at all costs. You clearly have no idea about the issue, and you have not proven that Anglican orders are valid in the least.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 I have a clear idea; I've presented all the counters. Furthermore, you did accuse I was lying. Just because you used "or" doesn't logically imply you didn't. This proves YOU do not use logic in your debates. It also proves, as I noted above, your inability to debate without sophistry. I have no intention of debating a sophist. If you want to debate, you need to agree to HONORABLE terms which you don't seem keen on. Anglican orders are valid for the reasons and more given above.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to ignorance. Also, you cannot accuse me of not using logic in debates since you havent had a debate with me - you refuse. Throwing out one sentence and a response is not a debate. In a debate the issues can really be broken down to seperate the logic from the fallacy - the truth from lies. If you think your points give any validity to Anglican orders, then you only expose your lack of knowledge of theology.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 Again, all you give are ad hominem: if I disagree with you, I must be ignorant. You don't wish to debate; all you do is practice sophistry...another typical SSPX or Sedevacantist trait. All you do are throw out one sentence as well the whole time (take out your own speck, as Christ would tell you). Unless you agree to HONORABLE debate without ad himinem, double standards, and simply repeating "Church says so, period," there is no reason to debate with you. My theology is very strong.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

If your theology was so strong, firstly you would not hold the position you do, and secondly any ad hominem remarks wouldn't phase you. Your accusation of double standards is groundless, and you can accuse me of any dishonarable debate tactics you want but it will not give you any arguments for the validity of Anglican Orders. They suffer both defective form and intention. Your accusations are like a broken record, and just typical of protestant excuses to avoid debate.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 You've given the No True Scotsman fallacy right from the go. Secondly, you've clearly now shown you have no intention of offering debate; just crude remarks (a mortal sin in this case due to willingness and due to moral indifference, I might add). If you are a member of the Vatican Church, you offer a grave disservice to them. That is all. I'm done.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Being accused of mrotal sin by a heretic who rejects the Catholic faith is really something. Also, anyone who reads any of these comments will clearly see that you are in fact lying, and it was I who offered to debate, while you continued to refuse. I predicted your reusal from the start, which can also be seen, as deep down you know your arguments wouldn't hold up.

[PaladinValer]

@iotaunam1 And yet when you look up the definition, it fits you to a tee. Your attitude is anti-Christian, anti-Christ, and outright anti-human. You don't even know what religious persuasion I am. You've let the world see you for what you truly are. I only pray to God that people won't loose faith or become disillusioned of the Christian religion and Apostolic faith because of your behavior.

[iotaunam1]

@PaladinValer

Your rejection of Christian doctrine has displayed your religious persuation quite sufficiently - I do not need to know which particular sect, if any, you belong to. I assume you sit somewhere in Anglicanism/episcopalianism - but that is superflous. Anyone who reads these exchanges will see whose position is logical and who is avoiding the issue and second guessing.

[bzhseat]

may te hooly spirit help us to be united again

[iotaunam1]

I cannot believe this Apostasy!!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Archbishop of Canterbury" is not even a valid Bishop! He is just a layman (a heretical one at that). For any Catholic who denies this, they need to read Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, in which he proclaimed the matter settled once and for all that Anglican orders lacked any validity! He dosent even believe that St Bernadette seen Our Lady!!!

[jesusthroughmary]

Preach on, brother.

[pipeup1]

You need to move with the theological and ecumenical times. Vatican 2 document Unitates Reintegratio spoke strongly about bringing the love of Christ to all. Pope Paul spoke about the Anglican Church being "our ever beloved sister". Its time to move beyond the narrow denominational confines and seek the Lord whereever you can find him!

[iotaunam1]

The Vatican II documents also claim that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics!

Bringing love to all is bringing them the True Gospel of Christ, not a mutilated, corrupt version.

The Catholic Church is not merely a "denomination", like the protestant sects. It alone is the Church founded by Christ. Christ is not to be found in man made sects. Read Mortalium Animos.

[jvaz003]

@iotaunam1 Are you a Sedevecantist and if not, do you support or reject Vatican 2

[iotaunam1]

Not a sedevacantist, but I do reject vatican II inasmuch as the teachings e.g. Lumen gentium no.16 contradict unchangeable Catholic Dogma. Error binds on no one, no mater if one in authority is trying to bind. VII is responsible for the current condition of the Church and was predicted in the Third secret of Fatima - but the Gates of Hell shall not prevail.

[pipeup1]

But what is the "Catholic Church"? You seem to have a very narrow idea of it.

[iotaunam1]

The Catholic Church is the one and only Church founded by Christ. To be a Catholic one must be baptized and be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as well as holding all the defined and revealed Dogmas and teachings of the Church.

What the Catholic Church is not, is one big umbrella organisation for all the man made protestant and schismatic sects.

[pipeup1]

The rite of Christian initiation is very clear that it is not a rite of admission to a club. This is evidenced by the fact that the RC church recognises baptisms by any Christian as being saved for Christ.

[iotaunam1]

@pipeup1 -

I assume you refer to Baptism, which is NOT an "initiation" into anything! It is a sacrament proper, the effects of which incorporate one into the Catholic Church and wash away original sin.

The Church accepts Baptisms performed even by heretics -yes, but this incorporates them into the True Church, until they follow man-made protestant doctrine and reject the teachings of the True Church of Christ.

Baptism alone does not save anyone above the age of reason.

[pipeup1]

"incorporates them into the true church"??

I think you need to relook at the teachings of the Church on Baptism. Section 1210 onwards of the CCC gives the clear teaching on RC Baptism. Theres nothing there anymore about being "subject" to the Pontiff. We agree on RCI being the act of incorporation but the CCC mentions nothing about converting non-Catholics.

[iotaunam1]

@pipeup1 -

Yes, Baptism incorporates one into the True Church - the ONLY Church which Christ founded - The Catholic Church. Christ did not found a multitude of sects - the schismatic and protestants did!

Yes, Baptism makes one subject to the Roman Pontiff, which is necessary for salvation: Read Unam Sanctam and Nobilissima. Also see Council of Trent session 6 as well as Sapientiae Christianae. You should not speak on these matters especially when you know nothing about them.

[pipeup1]

@iotaunam1 Clearly it is not me who knows nothing about them! I referenced the Catechism and a Vatican II document and you quote Papal letters. They do not have the same status. Obviously you are not aware of the work of ARCIC on this matter. Simply stating that the Catholic Church is the "True Church" is not an answer but a mantra. Theology is faith seeking understanding. The answers to understanding Baptism does not only lie in The Council of Trent, or even Augustine!

[iotaunam1]

@pipeup1

Men cannot found Churches beacuse they dissagree with Christs doctrine. You are clearly ignoant of the Church's consistant teaching on Baptism and its effects.

[YBPhotoeditor06]

I love this video very much. Welcome. I am very delighted that the Archbishop was there & gave the sermon to Mom's kids, so that we love each other more and more & live in Love and Harmony on Earth as in Heaven as Jesus wishes. The Kingdom of Love & Harmony we enlarge on Earth, will be transferred to Heaven. I do love English, because they are Angels. They have been cornerstone and builders of Christianity since antiquities. They are most faithful to Christ & Mary. Their virtue is World famous.

[blairsel]

i huv no doubts but i disbelieve in anything 2 do with disobidience to our Creator and to the teachings of the prophets.i m fluent in 4 languages.the term christianity can only b explained in greek.greek?what has that got to do with jesus and ur faith?y dont u take from the apostles of jesus if u r true believer?e.g from barnabas?he saw jesus spoke 2 him heard him.

[Grmario85]

Enough with this Islamic nonsense. And no we do not take from Barbabas because there are no valid scriptures from him...unless you mean this stupid text called "gospel of barnabas" which is false. everybody knows including muslim scholars that its a false text of the middle ages. Find a real argument or text from the Bible if you wanna argue for Islam. As for the prophets before Christ, they are all inferior and below the Roman Church.

[starchyp92]

Any Christian would know that only God can forgive sin. This 500 year schism has deprived millions of faithful from receiving most sacraments. What a typical protestant response. If one only studied Catholic theology, without any of the assumed bigotry. Study the history of Christianity, friend. Then there will be no doubts.

Also, its not really coming home to "Rome." Rather, its entering into full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which Our Lord Jesus Christ founded.

[blairsel]

i truly appriciate what u say bout studying the histroy of christianity in fact that is the origin 4 every single christian to reflect upon but all today'schristians will b totally disappointed for what christian clerics manifest today tging opposite to god and christ

[blairsel]

jesus came in this world with the very same message as prophets came before him with to establish monotheism teaching the children of israel to worship God and impliment mose's law.however christians put three God's in to 1 and 1 God becomes three this is nonsense.Cross was never mentioned or worshiped by Jesus himself.Who is more reliable of faith Jesus or pope and the prists who invent lies upon lies

[starchyp92]

blairsel: What "lies" are do you speak of? Could you please point them out? It appears you have doubts of the Trinity, the Triune God. Are taking the Jewish/Islamic tradition of only recognizing God the Father, the Creator? Christians do not worship the cross. It is merely for the remembrance of Christ's death, and is used to assist in devotion to the Passion to our Lord. It helps us to remember the perfect sacrifice of Calvary. I urge you to look into "patristics."

[iotaunam1]

Islam is a false religion! It teaches contrary to the eternal doctrines of Christ!

(GAL 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Jesus clearly teaches that he IS GOD : John 1:1, John 8:58 Isaias 9:6, Acts 3:15, Isaias 41:4.

The Infidel Mahommad is False! Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: "there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.

[blairsel]

if pope eugene said that he is in th hellfire eternaly,if he did not say that but he died as a christian ,he is still in the hell fire guaranteed,u can follow his footstes and u'l b provided with th same abode in th hell fire.

[iotaunam1]

Islam is a false religion! Pope Eugene IV is not in Hell! Muhammad was a tyrant speaking Satans words and claiming they were Gods! He murdered thousands of people! Jesus is God and was sinless! Thankfully our Lord Jesus Christ forewarned us about false prophets such as Muhammad, who would claim that he was not God. Muhammad will be judged by Jesus on the last day, just like you! Convert now before it is too late! Viva Christo Rey!!!

[blairsel]

o u idiot i don't huv 2 convert as i m a muslim convert.paul said jesus is god not barnabas,not mary nor jesus's brother.o blind follower jesus is waiting 2 b judged but who m i talking 2, to sum pagan worshippers who believe their god was crossified hehehe.god helpless what a doctrines.

[blairsel]

what huv muslims got 2 do with adopting ur christian traditions when they r on monotheism on the religion of all prophets including jesus.Did jesus command u 2 innovate?not realy the msm was 2 impliment who r u 2 innovate better than him? I l soon get the time 2 send u the proofs that jesus wasn't send 4 u but 4 the jews.

[starchyp92]

Dr. Williams

You must led your flock home to Rome. You will and can be fully received and forgiven.

[jme1976]

I would rather he led his flock to Christ and AWAY from Rome.

Who is going to forgive him, the pope? and what powers does he have to forgive sins?

[NEPHESH74]

Why does this surprise people of the protestant faith? Your all trinitarians at heart anyways arent you?

[markdsumner]

Since when did you become God and able to know such things?!

[jme1976]

This man has COMPLETELY lost his way.

He endeavors to please everyone and in doing so puts his soul and the many who claim to be under his leadership at peril.

[dancupid]

Your comment puts you own soul in peril (actually just being alive is enough to put a soul in peril if you believe this sort of thing)

[jme1976]

Absolutely not!! I would be a hypocrite if I were saying and doing something different.

We are supposed to judge those inside 'the church' with discernment. Not those outside.

We now have the church full of the unconverted, man pleasing apostates who do not know God nor care for His word.

Show me biblical evidence where I am wrong.....

[dancupid]

It's not your job to judge anyone - "judge lest ye be judged" "look to the beam in your own eye" "let those without sin cast the first stone" . Words of Jesus himself, and the only bits of the Bible I can be bothered with personally (the bits that most Christians like you seem to take pleasure in ignoring).

[jme1976]

Go to the verse you have quoted and finish it in the context. If I was promoting ecumenicalism and then in the next breath condeming it I'd be a hypocrite. I don't believe the way the church is going is biblical and it needs Godly man and women to stand up and make a stand for biblical truths.

BTW I'm a sinner, correct, but I'm a saved sinner and one by Gods grace who takes no pleasure in it.