Debate: Should Rupert Murdoch’s papal knighthood be rescinded?
Or does his financial support of the Church make him a worthy Knight of St Gregory?
Friday, 8 July 2011
By The Catholic Herald
Rupert Murdoch, left, and Cardinal Edward Egan at the Alfred E Smith
fundraising dinner in New York (AP Photo/ Yana Paskova, POOL
In 1998 Rupert Murdoch was made a Knight Commander of St Gregory. He had apparently been recommended for the honour by Cardinal Roger Mahony, after giving money to a Church education fund. A year later he donated $10 million to help build Los Angeles Catholic cathedral.
Is it right that papal knighthoods should be awarded in this way? The honour is supposed to recognise a person’s service to the Church. Certainly, Murdoch’s money has helped the Church; but surely there are many, many faithful Catholics, whose tireless service to the Church goes unacknowledged, who deserve to be honoured much more.
And is Rupert Murdoch a person the Church should celebrate? He owns – or did own – a newspaper that lost its moral bearings; he ought to bear some responsibility for that.
On the other hand, rescinding his papal knighthood might be difficult to justify. Other papal knights may also have flaws. Where do you set the bar?
So, should Rupert Murdoch’s papal knighthood be rescinded? Or is it fair to honour someone who has helped the Church financially?
However undesirable the News of the World may have become, we still owe Murdoch a debt of gratitude for WappingTaking away Rupert Murdoch’s papal knighthood would be unpleasantly self-righteous. We’re supposed not to avoid sinnersOur glee at the Murdoch saga does Britain no creditMurdoch is to blame for the News of the World’s moral declineVatican newspaper intervenes in News International hacking row Disqus
Login About Disqus Like Dislike
9 people liked this.
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?Facebook
ShareNo thanksSharing this page …
Add New Comment
Optional: Login below.
Image Post as …
Showing 120 of 122 comments
Sort by Popular now Best rating Newest first Oldest first Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS
Harper 1 month ago
Murdoch should certainly be stripped of his knighthood. He should never in the first place have been awarded it. Not only does his latest behaviour and that of his company and his son disqualify him, he has been an enemy of anything that passes for decency for years. He loathes any hierarchy that does not have him or his son at the summit. He hates the monarchy because he cannot himself inhabit/buy its position, either in Australia or elsewhere. He failed, thank God, in assisting the subversion of the monarchy in Australia in 1999, when, despite loud voices from every corner of the media and chattering classes, the majority of the Australian electorate had the good sense to realise that he was trying to buy a future Australian presidency.Murdoch's son James had the cheek at that time to suggest that the Queen was a "foreigner", when he had just abandoned Australian citizenship and taken out US citizenship (the Queen, of course, is not uniquely British - she happens to have been born in England but does not possess any passport, being a Sovereign, and is equally British, Canadian, Australia, New Zealander, Jamaican and the dozen plus realms of which she is sovereign). HM the Queen has, even her most cynical opponents acknowledge, a keen sense of duty to each of these realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole. Murdoch, in contrast, together with James, his unelected hereditary heir to News International, have loyalty to no one, n Queen and no country, none except money.
Flag Kay4Justice and 28 more liked this Like ReplyReply Little_lisac 1 month ago
He donated 10 million towards the construction of the Cathedral in Los Angeles?! Has anyone seem that monstrosity? It should be revoked on that reason alone! It's sad that Los Angeles finally has a faithful shepherd in Archbishop Gomez, and that slab of concrete that in no way resembles what a Catholic Cathedral, is where he holds mass, it not fitting! Thanks Mahoney and have a happy retirement!
Flag Lee and 21 more liked this Like ReplyReply Anonymous 1 month ago
Why in the world was he made a knight of anything? If we actually took the trouble to see what a knight is then we would see all the most important ideals missing from Murdoch: vows of service to God, honesty, loyalty and the willingness to defend the Catholic Church. If we compare "knights" today with their predecessors in the Middle Ages then we would be asked why we insult the name of knighthood.
Flag LocutusOP and 18 more liked this Like ReplyReply Genius-d 3 weeks ago in reply to Anonymous
You poor deluded child, anonymous!
Knighthoods are made by seedy little people in their seedy little false man made churches. Knighthoods really do not have any bearing in Heaven...WOW! My next door neighbour just gave me a knighthood! Big Deal!Since when did the Good lord/ lordess say that it was okay to cover up for paedos as do the freemasons? Adam was thrown out of Eden for lying and enticing an unripe child called Eve and not for snooping in order to get to the truth which is Good!
Flag Like ReplyReply Donaldcwhite 1 month ago
I just hate that the "heirarchy of the church" continues to prostitute the Church by selling out the honors of the Church.
No difference than selling indulgences as far as I can see.
Flag Kay4Justice and 16 more liked this Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to Donaldcwhite
Well, there is a difference as it happens but let that go for now.
What amazes me is that nobody on this blog appears to have the slightest awareness that this papal knighthood did not come from "the Church" but due to the nomination of Murdoch to which part of the out of control bureaucracy deals with such trivia. And that nomination came from the notoriously apostate Cardinal Mahoney. The criticism that can be fairly levelled at the Pope and the Vatican is that they have allowed the governance of the Church to descend into the chaos we see around us in the appointing of unsuitable (to put it mildly) bishops and so on, that they don't even know the truth about the backgrounds of people like Murdoch just, stupidly, take the word of the likes of Mahoney when they should be better informed all round. And we're stuck with such scandals until the next Pope sorts out the mess.
Flag 12 people liked this. Like ReplyReply JeannieGuzman 1 month ago in reply to Donaldcwhite
Kay: Are you aware that the Holy Roman Catholic Church also "sells" marriage annulments (Question mark stuck). Of course, She doesn't call it "Selling Annulments," rather it is "paying" for the services of the Archdiocese's personnel and Canon Lawyers, who are so holy that they can't possibly work for "Free!" My guess is that many of them make as much as good divorce attorneys! Then, there are refusals of annulments, but for ANOTHER FEE, an individual can challenge the grounds upon which the annulment was denied, which means more fees for the services of Archdiocese personnel and more Canon Lawyers in the States and in Rome. Then, we have all of the Masses for the Dead, which believers pay upwards of $100 for, and they are "Outsourced" to India for the equivalent of about $500 in rupees, but you understand, that isn't similar to selling indulgences, or at least that is the Church's logic! I wish that Jesus would again appear to drive the "Money-changers" out of the Church, and that he'd show up at the Vatican, first!
Flag JuneAnnette and 6 more liked this Like ReplyReply irishsmile 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
This is just 'Catholic bashing'. My daughter went through the annulment process in Oregon. Took over two years and there were some office type fees that were very minimal, a few hundred but it was absolutley not even close to the cost of her divorce ($12,000). Additionally, as the mom of a priest, I know that it is absolutley untrue that Masses for the dead are 'outsourced ' to India. Let's stick to the topic and stop the Catholic vitriol.
Flag LocutusOP and 14 more liked this Like ReplyReply JeannieGuzman 1 month ago in reply to irishsmile
To Irishsmile: Masses for the Dead ARE outsourced to India. If you don't believe me, and obviously you don't, just Google, "US Masses outsourced to priests in India." Follow the links. Even the National Catholic Reporter reported on this issue a couple of years ago. The priests in India are paid about $5.00(US) in rupees! Someone else pockets about $95.00.......... possibly it is split by the Archdiocese and the priests, who are initially given the money. In addition to another comment which you made concerning my recital of historical facts concerning the Inquisitions, the Crusades, Pogroms against the Jews, which were encouraged through Papal Encyclicals, all one needs to do is to Google and of the above to get the full details! Recital of historical fact is not "Catholic Bashing;" it is "Catholic Enlightenment!"
Flag JuneAnnette and 3 more liked this Like ReplyReply Poverello37 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
do not believe everything you read on Google, a lot is put there to make you believe what the writewr wants you to read - the True Facts of the Inquisition can be obtained in the true history books etc etc
Flag Like ReplyReply Joeantony 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
I pity you if you take any crap that you get out of google search as "Historical fatcs". Everybody knows that internet is filled with personal opinions and very very very badly rsearched articles and incomplete news etc..... I am in India and a Catholic, I have never heard that the Masses are 'outsourced" to India. But it is true that priests here charge a maximum of 100 Rupees for a mass, and sometimes depending on the places it is only 50 ruppes or even less.
I am surprised is it true that you have to pay $100 for a mass ??? That is EXPENSIVE !!!
Flag Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
What a load of nonsense. There are no "fees" at all in the Church. We give the priest a stipend - an offering - if we ask for a Mass to be said but that is not a payment for the Mass, and anyone who wants the use of a church for a wedding or funeral should have enough grey matter to know that an offering is required to open and heat the church and so on. The C of E DOES have a price list and only today, I'm told, they have decided not to up their already hefty fees by 50 percent. So lay off the Catholic Church.
Masses "outsourced to India" - is your mother still reading you fairy tales at bedtime, cos if so, I suggest she stops. You're taking them far too seriously, Sugar Plum.
Flag LocutusOP and 7 more liked this Like ReplyReply Desmond Daly 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Reader Guzman's remarks are most unfair to the RC Church in England. The figures she quotes are just not true. It is true that certain fees (stipends) are expected from parishioners for services rendered, such as funerals, weddings, annulments, etc.. The reason the Church expects to receive these stipends is to keep herself solvent. She cannot rely on the generosity of parishioners because stewardship of time, talent and treasure is just not forthcoming from the people in the pews. It really is as simple as that. People, be more generous to the offertory plate if you want to see the abolishment of stipends.
Flag LocutusOP and 7 more liked this Like ReplyReply RJ 1 month ago in reply to Desmond Daly
Just to add to what you said: "The labourer is worthy of his hire" - even the priest has to live.
Flag 4 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Ken Purdie 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Thats just not true. The annulment process is completely free. Tawdry, but free.
Flag 5 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Harper 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Stick to annulments, for that is a valid criticism.
Flag Like ReplyReply Nick0959 1 month ago in reply to Donaldcwhite
An indulgence removes punishment (read purgatory) for sins already forgiven. It is a mechanism that allows a speedy entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. Selling an honor, such as a knight being honored for a contribution is just that. It is a public action with public rewards that remain in this world alone. There is no merit in Heaven for such contributions. There is an (after)world of difference.
Flag Like ReplyReply Jfkscw 1 month ago
I love the comment "He owns--or did own--a newspaper that lost its moral bearings." Hmm. He ALSO owns an American cable news service called FOX that has more-than-lost its "moral bearings," especially in the way it has dehumanized Barack Obama not only as a human person but president of the United States.
Flag CER1940 and 10 more liked this Like ReplyReply Ardgowan 1 month ago in reply to Jfkscw
You don't like the politics of the Fox News cable network, yet you don't say anything about his Fox cable network and movie-making company which produces things far, far worse than anything a pundit on Fox News might give you. I think your priorities might be a little off kilter.
Flag Like ReplyReply heartforhomeless 1 month ago
Rupert Murdoch owns the world's largest propaganda outfit (http://www.outfoxed.org/) through which wars of choice are glorified and the empty promises of corporate feudalism are propogated at the expense of the workers and the destitue.
I am shocked.
Flag LocutusOP and 10 more liked this Like ReplyReply John 1 month ago in reply to heartforhomeless
At least Murdoch doesn't steal your money through force via taxation. And the biggest propaganda outfits are always governments (paid for by you, without your choice). I'd gladly pick a private worker over a taxpayer-dependent government worker.
Flag 4 people liked this. Like ReplyReply penny 1 month ago in reply to John
Government workers are also tax payers. Unlike private workers they can't dodge their taxes and never get bonuses. They very quickly hit a pay ceiling and bear the brunt of the cuts necessitated by the excesses of the private workers (banks in particular) who, having brought the country to its knees, continue to get huge bonuses because they are, well, "special" i.e. especially rich and therefore very close to the hearts of the multi-millionaires who comprise our current cabinet.
Flag Ken Purdie and 3 more liked this Like ReplyReply heartforhomeless 1 month ago in reply to John
The truth matters! The Holy Spirit is truth!
You must not be homeless yet, but under the new corporate feudalism you soon could be. Don't get sick. Hopefully, my shelter will be up and running by then! I will help you.
Flag LocutusOP liked this Like ReplyReply JeannieGuzman 1 month ago in reply to heartforhomeless
Kay, whatever Rupert does in his business endeavors, he does openly in his own name. Now let's look at the RCC. They fought the Crusades, slaughtering many indigenous Christian and Jews, because "They looked like Muslims!" She oversaw the slaughter countless thousands in the Inquisitions. She encouraged "Pogroms against the Jews," through Papal Encyclicals, in which countless millions of Jews died over the centuries, and She did it ALL in Her own name, and claimed that She did so under the authority mandated to Her by God. In other words, She did all of the above, "In the Name of God!" Whether one like Rupert's politics or way of doing business, at least Rupert isn't blasphemous and uses his own name, rather than invoking "The holy name of God!"
Flag CER1940 and 2 more liked this Like ReplyReply irishsmile 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Again, non-sequitur 'Catholic Bashing'. Get a life, start loving & stop hating.
Flag LocutusOP and 4 more liked this Like ReplyReply Poverello37 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Pardon me , whilst I throw up - where do you get all this crap from!
Flag Like ReplyReply UKAmericanCatholic 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Papal encyclicals yes, but in dogma ex cathedra never. Unless you can find one such case.
The gates of Hell have yet to, and will never prevail over the Church.
Flag Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago
Flag Freiherr von Cabrera 1 month ago in reply to Guest
Saying that Mr. Murdoch is a pornographer or a disgrace is not true. This comment has the only purpuse to attack the Catholic Church.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to Freiherr von Cabrera
Murdoch brought the "Page 3 girls" to this land. For this demeaning of women as sexual objects alone, no Catholic should be speaking in his defence. Please don't try to imply that Murdoch is somehow a defender of the Catholic Church. To attack Murdoch's diabolical empire is to attack the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church? What are you on? T
Flag Parasum and 15 more liked this Like ReplyReply Caiaphas 1 month ago in reply to Freiherr von Cabrera
Even a cursory glance at Mr Murdoch's revolting tabloids will show that he is indeed a pornographer. The comment had nothing to do with the Church, except that his knighthood is thoroughly shameful because of his manifest moral corruption.
Flag Ken Purdie and 9 more liked this Like ReplyReply AgingPapist 1 month ago in reply to Caiaphas
The comment had nothing to do with the Church, except that his
knighthood is thoroughly shameful because of his manifest moral
If so Caiaphas, Murdoch's receipt of such an honor shows us just how venal the hierarchy and the papacy
have become. Both have a long history of selling their scruples to the highest bidder.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Tiggy 1 month ago in reply to AgingPapist
Nothing like stating thge obvious elderly person.!
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Angcore 1 month ago
"He had apparently been recommended for the honour by Cardinal Roger Mahony" - Tells me all I need to know.
Flag Kay4Justice and 9 more liked this Like ReplyReply Donaldcwhite 1 month ago in reply to Angcore
No truer words have been spoken.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Aidan Coyle 1 month ago
Mr Murdoch is eminently human with all the brokenness that accompanies that. While we all make errors of judgement, their implications are seldom as far-reaching as those of someone like him who wields such power. Given that, I don't think there is much to be achieved by rescinding his papal knighthood. The more important question is whether the Church should be handing out papal knighthoods and reinforcing structures of privilege and power or at least the question should be about the criteria for awarding papal knighthoods.
Flag LocutusOP and 9 more liked this Like ReplyReply elizabeth 1 month ago
In my opinion we should get rid of all papal knighthoods and rewards and while we are at it perhaps we could consider whether inflated clerical titles: monsignor, lordships, eminences and even your holinesses could also give way to a simple 'father' which might be more in line with gospel teaching...
Flag Fr Thomas Poovathinkal and 8 more liked this Like ReplyReply Parasum 1 month ago in reply to elizabeth
That'll be the day. The only objection I can see is that this would abolish the distinctions between clergy of different ranks; and these distinctions are useful as indicating who has authority over whom. Titles like Eminence, Holiness, Beatitude, Lordship, Grace, Excellency, OTOH, don't indicate anything. "Prince of the Church" is another one that seems wildly inappropriate for a Christian bishop.
Maybe there needs to be, not hierarchy, but specialisation of function instead: all in the Church could be equal, while being diversified according to their responsibilities. Popes would have authority over others in the Church, but without being exalted over them; as Christians, they would be no more and no less in status than the lowest member of the laity, instead of being at the apex of a pyramid, with the laity at the base.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Anonymous 1 month ago in reply to Parasum
You are right that all in the Church should be equal but a knighthood should never be something to prioritize a person over others; all it ever should be is something to recognise the services of a person to the Church and to God in accordance to the commandment ("with all your soul, with all your heart and with all your mind") and as such should have nothing to do with Murdoch. Knighthoods for those who truly serve the Church in a way that merits being noted (such as in founding missions or speaking out for persecuted Christians) do not seem to show inequality but simply a recognition of the fact of a person's devotion and courage as a knighthood used to be.
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply AReluctantSinner 1 month ago
Rupert Murdoch is also a Companion of the Order of Australia - an order of chivalry whose sovereign is Queen Elizabeth II. A papal knight, of the Order of St Gregory, is basically a knight like any other. The pope, as sovereign of various orders, can award knighthoods to anyone he wishes. It is in his gift to award such an honour. Just as it's in the Queen's gift to knight men and women or to confer the peerage on certain individuals.
One need not be a saint to be a papal knight, just as one need not be one to be a knight of the United Kingdom (even if most of our British orders of chivalry are Christian, headed by a Christian monarch). But being awarded an honour like a Christian knighthood might inspire in the powerful a desire to live a more Christian life. In fact, one need not be a Catholic, or a Christian to receive a papal honour. Although, Murdoch was born a Catholic, he has been married three times, so is by no means a paragon of Catholic morality. I don't think he'd view himself as such, either.
It is a fact that these honours are given to wealthy men and women, to noblemen, or to celebrities. Some unknowns (for want of a better word) sometimes receive honours, too. But, that's life, get over it. On judgement day, I believe it will be better not to have accepted honours in this world, so as to create a store of wealth in the world to come. But no one is forced to accept an honour. I wouldn't want one, some seem obsessed by them.
Murdoch has been generous to the Church in many ways and has been honoured by the pope as a "thank you". End of. The papal honours system isn't a democracy - just as our British one isn't. Both are prone to abuse, though, of course. Rupert Murdoch has also been honoured by the Queen for his generosity and service. As far as I know, the man hasn't committed a crime or been sentenced in a court of law. Even if he had, the honour that he holds is the pope's (or queen's) and derives from the graces that have been given them by God. And, as we know, we should never be jealous of the way in which God imparts his favours, even worldly ones through his earthly representatives. (By the way, there have been several Christian peers of the United Kingdom who have been imprisoned, but the Queen has not rescinded their honours).
At the end of the day, I think we all know that papal knighthoods have nothing to do with one's salvation. They derive from the pope's temporal power and belong to the worldly realm. In that sense, then, it is entirely up to the Holy Father whether a man receives, keeps or loses his knighthood.
The senior papal order of chivalry is the Supreme Order of Christ. One of its last knights was General Franco, who was awarded this special honour both for his services to the Church (he did save her in Spain!) and because he was a head of state (one of the necessary requirements for membership of the order). Some people might argue that Franco is in a completely different league of "baddies" than that which Murdoch might belong to!
Flag aearon43 and 8 more liked this Like ReplyReply Harper 1 month ago in reply to AReluctantSinner
Please see above for my response to this. I have no problem with Papal orders of chivalry; I would restore them all, including the Noble Guard (and the Pallotine Guard as well). Neither to I have a problem with wealthy appointees, but I - like many Catholics I am sure (indcluding traditionalists) - have grave isssues when such appointments consitute a grave stumbling bloc, Reform is drastically needed.
Flag LocutusOP and 7 more liked this Like ReplyReply Carlos 1 month ago in reply to AReluctantSinner
A Christian monarch? Nobody has persecuted the Catholic church more than the British monarchy. Catholics,not just Murdoch,should note this irony when they accept awards from the Queen of England.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Jamesmaherne 1 month ago in reply to Carlos
carlos, there has not been a King or queen in this country since the Reformation as only
the Catholic Church can annoint a head of state,this explains the anti christian laws we have suffered
in recent years!
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to Jamesmaherne
Complete pants.......A head of state doesnt need the blessing of any particular religion to be what they are!
They are either born into it, or kept in it through an agreement between them and the people, or, of old kept in it by the strength of Arms. If they happen to side with the Christian faith, Then that is simply an advantage to us.
If you are rather refering to a Head of State requesting the Blessing of the Church, then they have that too. It may just not be in the shape/form that you would like. I am sure too that the Pope acknowledges the present queen, because when he has met with her, he used terminology such as Your Majesty ect. I dont believe the Pope is into deceit?
Please quote where you are getting your facts from.
In addition i cant think of ANY law that has suffered due to direct interference from the present Queen. I think that in the UK you will find that that has been through parliment, which represents society as a whole.
In fact, if you look at the length of her Marriage, she is actually a good example to the people she leads.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Anonymous 1 month ago in reply to Jamesmaherne
Actually there has been one recognised by the Pope and the Church. Rather ironically he was exiled from birth as the son of King James II (who, owing to his dedication to the Catholic Church, we may also consider legitimate.) The actual last British King as recognised by the Church was James VIII of Scotland and James III of England and Ireland; as such his heir, and not the current "Queen" is the true British Monarch.
Flag Like ReplyReply AReluctantSinner 1 month ago in reply to Carlos
Well, don't say that to Bl Mother Teresa of Calcutta (Order of Merit), the late George Basil Cardinal Hume (Order of Merit) and George Cardinal Pell (Companion of the Order of Australia)... to name but a few, including, I believe, one or two popes and several other saints.
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago
You used to be able to buy commission's within the British Army to become an Officer, You can apparently still do it in the Church.
Neither means anything without the integrity to back it up.
One is achieved from a dedicated life to the service of the Country you live in through sacrifice and example, the other exactly the same but to Christ.
If the holder of the title doesnt meet the mark, its not about taking away a title, its about reducing its value in everyones elses mind and effects everyone else who wears it.
It would be interesting to see how many poor Old Women/Men (who have put their last penny into the church collection) have been public promoted and honoured with such a title.......i hope i am wrong but i dont know many pennyless knight commanders. Surely that is for the well off? Someone please restore my faith here and tell me im wrong.
Flag Kay4Justice and 7 more liked this Like ReplyReply Rich 1 month ago in reply to Guest
I agree, there was a story that went around a few years ago about a widow who put her last penny into the church collection ... it was pondered upon by one of the priests at the time. I guess there's a better honour than an earthly knighthood.
Flag Like ReplyReply Brian A Cook 1 month ago
On the website that tracks the lies (alleged or real) of Fox News, there is a person who consistently brings up the professed Catholicism of several people at Fox News. That person seems to imply that Fox News is a propaganda organ of the Vatican--Mother Church already has a problem with being seen as right-wing in nature. But that is perhaps less important than the perception that one can buy papal honors. I don't know what the solution should be. I just want to try to contribute to this discussion.
Flag Kay4Justice and 5 more liked this Like ReplyReply Harper 1 month ago
I should have added that Murdoch's chequered marital life is interesting in this context. Has he ever sought annulments for any of his marriages? I am sure that like the Kennedys and the Grimaldis, Murdoch's largesses would come in handy (Albert's spouse's reputed attempts to flee before the marriage already constitute convenient grounds for annulment once the much-needed heir has emerged).. Writing as a doctrinally and liturgically traditional but not slavishly docile Catholic, I hav to say that Murdoch's knighthood is a corruption and a scandal and highlights the legal quackery that passes for several annulment Tribunals in England and Wales, in which petitioners lack the financial means and influence of the illustrious "Catholics" mentioned above. The obfuscating and Eastern Bloc/Kafkaesque proceedings of Annulment Tribunals, which the Murdochs, Grimaldis and others in the diocescan lotteries contend with very mildly, will soon be challenged, for even traditional and faithful Catholics will no longer put up with such manifestly gross injustice.
Flag Kay4Justice and 4 more liked this Like ReplyReply Siobhan 1 month ago in reply to Harper
I agree with everything Harper says. I remember when Murdoch was given his reward from the Vatican, I genuinely thought it was a joke. When I asked a very traditional priest for his opinion on it he raised his eyes to heaven and said 'I truly do not know what to say, I fear it is a question of money talks, but who knows?'. For what it is worth, in my opinion Murdoch's press set the ball rolling for what is now known as 'chav Britain'. When he launched Page 3 it was only a matter of time before others joined him in the race to the bottom, but the issue is he kick started the race. I hold no brief for Claire Short due to her pro abortion views but when she tried to put a bill through effectively banning soft porn in newspapers she was cruelly mocked and ridiculed by Murdoch's press and much of their criticism centred on her personal attractiveness or lack of it. Thanks to Murdoch we now have an assortment of rags displaying various amounts of soft porn, all of them available to school children. As an ex teacher I can confirm that serious sexual harassment has taken place in schools where some boys display these papers as a means of belittling girls. Ironically it is mainly male teachers who get the most irritated by it. So aside from the big scale cruelty of phone hacking, an insidious poison has trickled throughout society from the nesting place of News International. How on earth can David 'Ca moron' talk about the sexualizing of school girls when his best mates run a whole business built on corruption.
Flag LocutusOP and 6 more liked this Like ReplyReply Sandy 1 month ago
Knighthoods are a mediaeval relic, be they awarded by the Pope or any other Soveriegn. They are part of a game not to be taken seriously. I cannot see the point of them in the Church which should be focussed on helping the faithful find eternal life, and not handing out baubles on Earth to a privileged few.
Flag Kay4Justice and 3 more liked this Like ReplyReply penny 1 month ago
Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is a thoroughly decent and faithful Catholic, but the newspapers and T.V. channels that he makes his money from are vile; they can sway public opinion to the extent of choosing the government, they drive the social acceptance of pornography and they publicly humiliate people with the greatest of relish.
I've just read this in William Oddie's blog on liberation theology; he is quoting Newman:-
'…. this well-ordered and divinely-governed world, with all its blessings of sense and knowledge, may lead us to neglect those interests which will endure when itself has passed away.… And hence it is that many pursuits in themselves honest and right, are nevertheless to be engaged in with caution, lest they seduce us; and those perhaps with especial caution, which tend to the well-being of men in this life. The sciences, for instance, of good government, of acquiring wealth, of preventing and relieving want, and the like, are for this reason especially dangerous; for fixing, as they do, our exertions on this world as an end, they go far to persuade us that they have no other end.'
Can Rupert Murdoch be held personally responsible for the content of his publications and broadcasts? YES. He takes the money and as a papal knight is seen by those who have not been given that honour as someone representing the values of the Catholic Church. Should he lose the knighthood? that is up to his conscience and those who decided he was of worthy it.
Flag Kay4Justice and 3 more liked this Like ReplyReply RJ 1 month ago in reply to penny
Although I have never bought the News of the World or the Sun, I understand they are full of sleaze and porn. If that is the case, then they are Mr Murdoch's moral responsibility. Surely he cannot fail to know what is in them.
Flag LocutusOP and 2 more liked this Like ReplyReply Wenner 1 month ago in reply to penny
From his modus operandi and modus vivendi it appears Murdoch has no conscience. By their fruits ye shall know them -- a bad tree does not produce good fruit, nor a good tree bad fruit. He's a sorry excuse for a Christian Knight, as any Catholic Boy Scout would tell you.
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply LorenzoNY 1 month ago
Of course it should be rescinded. His whole career was built on sleaze journalism. I can't imagine why he was given a knighthood to begin with. His knighthood is a testimony to the raw power of money, irregardless of principle. If the Church stands for truth how could it award such an honor to a man who has made himself filthy rich by distorting and twisting the truth for decades. Cardinal Mahoney's record on protecting pedophile priests is one of the world's worst. Now we can add his Murdoch accolades to the list. It is too bad because he was onle of the last progressive American bishops. Good riddance to him. Hopefully Murdoch's flim flam misinformation empire will start to dwindle. I cant't wait for the Faux/Fox News Network to implode.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply AgingPapist 1 month ago
Why revoke an honor given to a man who performs a great service to the entire world. Better to bounce the bishops from their honors and force them into the desert to do penance. They're expendable. Murdoch isn't.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Teasing 1 month ago
Will this 'honour' appear on his CV when presented to St Peter and will it make a blind bit of difference to his eternal application?
I have been awarded the Holy Order of the Tea Pot for tea ministry at a Parish Meeting...now that's an honour
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago
The recognition by the so-called "Holy" Roman Catholic "church" of Rupert Murdoch, a promoter of porn and sleaze, comes as no surprise, given their own unholy history. The RCC honours those who donate their filthy lucre, whoever they are, with the unstated policy: "Don't ask . . don't tell"! In TRUTH . . the RCC is not CHRIST'S CHURCH!
The absolute power that the Roman
Catholic “church” presumptuously and arrogantly alleges to have
in both the civil and religious arena has lead to the most flagrant
and egregious abuses of power known throughout history, to which the
so-called “Holy Inquisition” and the systematic abuse of children
by Roman Catholic priests and the diabolical cover up of their crimes
by bishops and cardinals both bear witness!
The TRUTH is a commodity in short supply in the RCC. The
widespread nature and global scale of unbridled and unchecked
corruption brought to light in our day by revelations of decades of
institutionalized child abuse and allegations of clerical sexual
abuse aggravated by a reckless and careless policy deliberately
adopted by the RC hierarchy in addressing these issues which placed
the reputation of both they and their church above that of the
welfare of children is ample evidence of that.
Add to that . . the irregularities, improprieties and practices
of the Vatican Bank recently exposed cannot be reconciled with, nor
even remotely construed as agreeable to those who claim to be
purveyors of the TRUTH, nor are they consistent with Christian
principles of honesty, transperancy and integrity. Article:
'Vatican Bank hit by financial scandal... again' / 19 December 2010 /
Source:The Independent ' / Link:
“Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (John 7:16)
See no evil; Speak no evil; Hear no evil or . . . . “Deliver us
from evil.” (Matt. 6:13)
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
So, ok smarty pants, what does represent the Church of Christ in your eyes?
In your reply, pse do not include any denomination or grouping that has at any level or at any time (local church or national) committed or held to the comments you have mentioned above. Because lets face it, the degree of the offence is irrelivant here, it is the offence that you are highlighting here as the reasons to discount the RCC in this case.
At the same time, pse refer to or state any creeds or teaching (web links will do) that this grouping all hold to and any visible leadership they have. Also state the numbers involved in this group (if you can, because i would be interested to see how active the Holy Spirit is within this group in reaching the lost).
If you can, also state where this grouping originates from in time and history. I ask this, to see how many times it has Split in order to be where it is today, Why? because, when Jesus and the Apostles spoke of the Church, they always refered to Unity being the sign of the Faith rather than anything else.
What would it take to split from your current group on say views of eschatology or on subjects such as Once saved always saved?
If you were willing to split on any of the points above, would you now become the real church and that one not be or would that one also still remain the church? How do you define Church and who is in it?
If you get to the point as you are thinking this through that this is now harder than you thought to define, how about that it is a collection of sinners bought throught the sacrifice of Jesus' death and resurrection on the Cross, Baptism and recieving of the Holy Spirit?
If you can agree this then your problem increases, because you are not defining The church of Christ on their groupings sins or practises (that you probabley do not understand in most cases from lack of instruction or downright propoganda) but on an act by Christ alone.
So, the Church is defined by those who are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, Baptised into the death and resurrection of Christ and have recieved the Holy Spirit. The people are born again.
That is what the RCC church believes in its most basic creeds since the time of Christ. (Admittedly people have highlighted different aspects of teaching over a long period of time (has your grouping existed long enough to have the same issues?)), but that is ultimately what it is.
So in the final analyse, if we believe the same, but you have have split away from the RCC, is it logical for the RCC to come to you, or you to return from where you belong? The Prodical Son senario leaps to mind here.
Im am sure that you will have reasons why not, but pse filter them for accuracy. A lot of what is printed about the RCC is horse pants. It is used to justify the positions of others and keep them in positions that they accuse the Pope of holding (over their own flock).
I will reply where i can or open the floor to others where i can.
God bless in the first instance and hopefully we can discuss this as family rather than enemies as the tone of your comment above indicated
Flag LocutusOP and 1 more liked this Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to Guest
All believers should be committed to a Bible believing, Christ-centered Church. They should be accountable to a Pastor and Spiritual leaders, on the condition that leadership meets basic qualifications of (1) a moral and Godly lifestyle (Matt. 7:15-16, 1 Tim. 3:1-7), and (2) that they proclaim the uncompromised Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
God has revealed in His Word how the churches are to be organized and ordered. The Roman Catholic “church” does not conform to the government established by God in His Word for the churches. Every believer has the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide them (1 John 2:27), but this does not discharge them from the Biblical counsel and ministry of the Church (Heb. 13:7,17). The Church is Christ’s plan for His followers. He is the head (Eph. 5:23), and commissioned it to represent Him and His authority in the world (2 Cor. 5:20, Matt. 18:17-20). He ordained elders, deacons, and pastors to supervise and manage the affairs of His Church (Acts 14:23, 1 Tim. 3:10-13), and additional ministries to teach, train, and spiritually equip the saints for service (Eph. 4:11-16).
Ministers are also accountable to the authority of overseers, who may offer counsel, reproof, or discipline when necessary. (Galatians 2:11-21)
When a church will not submit to the rule of God's Word, we defer to the very words of the Apostle Peter:
“We ought to obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5:29)
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
June Annette, thank you for your reply.
Firstly, it is brilliant that you are using Scripture to present your argument for your view of Christianity, if you will allow me, i will do exactly the same. At least we will be using the same start point and i emphasis that i am not preaching against you, just highlighting how it can be used to justify a position. If my reply gets long winded, pse bear with me as i am by no means an expert on the Catholic viewpoint. (i'll type in bullet points because that is the way my brain works).
1. I believe the whole Catholic and Christian churches would be in total agreement with you on your first point about qualifications for Church leadership however i will highlight the following:
a. Firstly whilst listing qualification for Oversees (Elders/presbyters/Priest) and Deacons, you have not confirmed what the Hierarchy/roles of your church are. The correct make up of the Church is found within 1 Cor 12 27 - 31. Historically, these roles have always been within the Church although individuals may encapsulate more than one appointment at any one time. Prophets (sometimes called seers) and workers of miracles are also included within the Church and often amongst the laity. As with everything, any claim of a vision or miracle is investigated thoroughly prior to an official announcement from the church and can sometimes extend beyond the life time of the people involved (you cannot accuse the church of being too quick here with their decisions - this is not the same in other churches where if someone says they have a word from the Holy Spirit it can lead to massive abuse if not really being so). Your reference to Matt 7 15 - 16 is totally right.
b. Preaching the uncompromised word of God is something i would consider to be of absolute importance. The way that this is ensured is that it is not only checked against Scripture, BUT additionally against the Tradition of the Church Fathers and Bishops. What this enables is for official teachings of the Church to be checked by Bishops and Archbishops ect. What this reduces massively is individuals proclaiming their own private interpretation of Scripture based on their reading of the Bible and leading individuals astray. A fine example would be the Once Saved Always Saved position, this has led to widespread abuse and grave carnality within the church groupings ( i am refering to relationships outside of Wedlock as defined by the Church as a Male and Female (the book of Genesis is a good place to start for original definitions), but also that nothing you do can effect your salvation ( i can expand on this later if you would like later but it would be disappearing down a rabbit hole for now).
2. At the risk of repeating myself at the start of your second paragraph, the Church IS made up of the correct Roles and Responsibilities (Para 1a refers). Every single Catholic/none catholic if they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD, who died and was raised from the Dead for their sins and has been Baptised, and therefore HAS the Holy Spirit within them. (You are probably referring to technicalities of adult Baptism and getting confused)? Each Christian (John 14 15 - 31) has the Holy Spirit within them. God is not a denominationalist like some like to believe. It is here that there are additional problems for the believer and the listener:
a. The moment a Christian claims to be speaking a word from God or correctly interpretting a saying within scripture. Who or what, provides the assurance to the people that what they say is true or correct? Para 1 B again refers. How do you know your are not being deluded? The many different denominations are a clear sign of this.
3. Christ's plan for his followers....ok. Firstly i will refer you back to 1 Cor 12 for how the Ministry roles have been laid out. They are all present within the RCC. What you will not see however is those with those gifts having ministries named after them or their own satellite channels pushing their own interpretation of scripture. They simply come under the banner of the Church. Surly this is the right attitude?
In addition, whilst there is debate on aspects of teaching or differences of opinion of certain matters, the RCC is one. It is One with the Trinity, it is one in relationship to the Pope with his brother Bishops, and it is one in relation to God's People with all the above.
I am failing to understand why you are being negative about the RCC? If we fulfil all the conditions you have set. Why talk us down? You walked away from us, not us you. If it was justified then at that moment in history, what are we so doing wrong now that make you want to keep the Body of Christ Divided?BE CLEAR. which leads me to the point below which has really annoyed me, seeing as the comments you have laid at our door can be proven to be baseless.
You did what i classify as a common mistake in your last biblical quote. You have totally taken it out of context, and to be honest it is very insulting - pse clarify why you wrote it. Acts 5:29
When this was said, it was to the Jews as followers of the Law who were instructing Peter and the Apostles to stop preaching the Gospel. Has the Catholic church ever told you to stop preaching the Gospel of Christ?
If you manage to get past a lot of the propoganda you have been fed you will realise that preaching the Gospel has always been the call of the Church since it was created by the Holy Spirit. The good news continues to go out.
Will the church ever screw up? Yes the Holy Spirit is currently purifying it of gross sin (mainly within the Priesthood). Is that an excuse to stay away? No. The Church like historical Israel is a body that God deals with as a Son. Before the Sin amounts to its full quoter he deals with it in order to purify and bring about repentance. Rather than mock, be afraid. For within your denomination i am sure there are sins that need to be dealt with (if you are protestant for instants you are definately moving towards forcing God to act - Again within the Priesthood and homosexuality). As one Brother to a sister, look at really what is going on and then compare it with your bible. A lot of what you have been taught is based on the middle ages. The Church has changed and is changing, dont just read a book and treat it as fact. Check with the actual source of your issue and see what they say.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to Guest
The Roman Catholic church places their “traditions” on equal footing with the Scriptures, though time and time again, it can be proven they are at variance with God's revealed Word. Christ often throughout his earthly ministry quoted and commended the Scriptures to his disciples.***
See: Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Matt. 11:10; Matt. 21:13; Matt. 26:24; Matt. 26:31; Mark 1:2; Mark 7:6; Mark 9:12-13; Mark 11:17; Mark 14:21; Mark 14:27; Luke 4:4; Luke 4:8; Luke 4:16-20; Luke 7:27; Luke 10:26; Luke 18:31; Luke 19:46; Luke 20:17; Luke 22:37; Luke 24:44, 46; John 6:45; John 8:17; John 10:34; John 15:25*****Yet on those occasions when he spoke of the traditions of the religious rulers of his day . . namely the Scribes and the Pharisees . . it was only to rebuke them *** ex.: “But he answered and said unto them, why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3)**** “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matt. 15:6)****:”And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mark 7:9)
Christ also rebuked them for their ignorance of the SCRIPTURES. (Matt. 22:29 This is the same spirit that the Roman Catholic "church" evinces.
It is a common snare among men to elevate a man to a position of prominence, as your church does:
***POPE BONIFACE VIII (pope: 1294-1303) ***³We declare, affirm, and define as a truth necessary for salvation that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff[i.e., the Pope of Rome].´( 1302) This type of statement is the height of ecclesiastical tyranny and once again shows a complete contempt for the Holy Bible, which nowhere tells us that a requirement for our salvation is to be "subject to the Roman Pontiff".
For Christians, Christ alone is to have the pre-eminence. (Col. 1:18) Christ has warned us that many false prophets would arise. (Mark 13:22) Christ said HIS sheep hear HIS voice and follow him. (John 10:27-28) He went on to say, those who keep HIS Word and obey HIS commandments are in truth HIS disciples. (John 8:31; John 14:15; John 15:10) In his earthly ministry, Christ often read and quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures. The Apostle Paul in the book of Acts commends the Jews in Berea for searching the Scriptures and not taking Paul at his word (Acts 17:11), and in Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy, we read: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Tim. 3:16-17)
The doctrines / traditions of the Roman Catholic “church” are at variance with Scripture and your “church” does not even remotely resemble the model God gives us of Christ's church as described in His Word throughout the apostolic era.
The spirit in Peter, whom "your church" regards as its' first pope bears no resemblance to your so-called "princes of the church".
(Acts. 10:25-26) "But as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am also a man."
THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST FROM ITS' INCEPTION HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
I simply don't have time to correct all the errors in your post and in other posts where there is much ignorance of the relationship between the Church and Scripture. So, I'll restrict myself to a couple of key points and give you a link to a website that I've just perused briefly in an effort to find you some scholarly help. As far as I can see this website looks good
Whether or not you like it, JuneAnnette, it is the Catholic Church which gave us the New Testament and it was the Catholic Church which printed it and distributed it when printing presses became available in the Middle Ages. Before that, hardly anyone had a bible to hand, so it is unlikely that Our Lord would have made reading the New Testament an essential part of being a Christian - as God He knew that most people would not have access to the NT for several hundred years.
Which is why He made His Church "the pillar and bulwark..." and gave His first priests, and first Pope, the power to administer His graces and to teach authoritatively in His name.
The other "churches" were started by dissident Catholic priests - like it or lump it, JuneAnnette, there's just no escaping that Christ founded only ONE Church and that Church is the one we call, today, The Roman Catholic Church.
It is, therefore, sheer nonsense to say that the doctrines of the Church are at variance with Scripture. That would mean you are accusing Christ of lying when He promised to be with His Church always, until the end of time. He didn't say He would be with His Church after the 16th century, once the "Reformers" got to work (what a cheek to think Christ's Church, established by Him, would need "reforming" by a bunch of dissident priests or anyone else."
The fact is, JuneAnnette, that there is nothing that is true in your "church" that is not to be found in the Church Christ founded - the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church - but there is plenty that is NOT true and which leads souls to Hell.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to EditorCT
Without the inspired Scriptures, there would be no Matthew 16:18 or I Timothy 3:15 for Rome to even use to attempt to justify itself. Before man was created, the Word of God (He who was revelation to man in the flesh, and of the same Spirit as inspired the Scriptures) made and ordered the universe and all the habitations into which man later would be placed. Christ also said that the house of the wise man must be built upon the immovable rock of His sayings. (Matt. 7:24-29)
The Word of God, the Scriptures which God has said He has magnified above all His Name, (Ps. 138:2) are from God Himself, God-breathed (theopneustos - qeopneusto$) to the inspired writers of Scripture, (II Tim. 3:16-17) thus their origin is God Himself. The churches, whatever their constitution, would not exist except that they were instituted and ordered by the Word made flesh who dwelt among us, nor would they have any mandate but for His commandments given to them as to their mission in the world and their conduct in their assemblies. The potter has power over the clay. Likewise, God through His Word and by right of origination has power over the churches.
With respect to your comment . . .
“Which is why He made His Church "the pillar and bulwark..." and gave His first priests, and first Pope, the power to administer His graces and to teach authoritatively in His name.” . . . .
I take exception.
Your reference is to the passage of scripture found in 1 Tim. 3:15.
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15)
As to the Roman Catholic church's claim by virtue of their interpretation of this passage, that “the church” is the pillar and ground of the truth, I would direct readers following this discussion to the words of one whom “your church” regards as an “early father”.
It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures have since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church’s faith. His exact statement is as follows: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith”.***Source: Alexander Roberts & W.H. Rambaugh Translators, The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874), 3.1.1
Clearly Irenaeus understood that the pillar and ground of the faith was the Scriptures, not your “church”.
With respect to your comment . . .
“Whether or not you like it, JuneAnnette, it is the Catholic Church which gave us the New Testament . . . "
I take exception.
By 170 A.D. Most of the Bible had already been approved and read by the church and the term New Testament was in use. This was long before any council. The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually INSPIRED and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament.
Actually the Catholic Church in 397 at the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century.
It is a Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible!
I repeat . . . the Roman Catholic “church” does not even remotely resemble the model God gives us of Christ's Church as described in His Word throughout the apostolic era.
The spirit in Peter, whom "your church" regards as its' first pope bears no resemblance to your so-called "princes of the church".
(Acts. 10:25-26) "But as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am also a man."
THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE ROMAN PONTIFF!
Take your own advice and REFLECT.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
1. Tradition V Scripture - Ok, confused again as there is no conflict that i am aware of. I have no issue what so ever with the authority of Scripture, i am convinced of it, take Genesis literally and fully accept everything within. To me it is the Holy Word of God. But and there is a but, you have to remember that the Scriptures that we have today were originally checked against the traditions of the Bishops in order to test their validity and formulate the bible. If a direct line as to their authenticity failed to exist (based on tradition) from the time of the apostles, they were disregarded from the Bible. There were over 80 Gospels around at the time. It is only through the tradition of the church that the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit came about. You will fully agree i am sure that they didn't just appear?! - Please state specific instances with scripture reference to any conflicts you are relating to and i will do my best to answer them.
2. The Pope - Here i admit i am definitely not expert, however lets look at logically. The logic behind this i would suggest is as follows. If the body of Christ is the Church and the Pope the acknowledged head of the visible church by the bishops , then it stands to reason that if you were not in communion with the Pope then by default you were not in the church. If you were not in the church then salvation was lost to you. Regardless whether you or i accept it, it makes sense and it is not illogical. Do you except that to be a Christian IS to be in the Body of Christ? You probably do but what will rub you up the wrong way is that it seems to imply that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not really in the true church.
3. Whilst providing Scriptures to read, you actually give no examples about what you are refering to specifically. Until you do i can't really comment. What doctrines and what practices are you on about. WHY doesnt the RCC resemble the early church. Again, be specific.
4. Final point, your definition of Scripture will depend on your view of certain things. For example:
If you are pre Tribulation it is very likely that you will also believe in once saved always saved.
If you are post Tribulation then it is likely that you will believe that salvation can be lost.
Every time you read the scriptures you are influenced by what you have heard others speak of and how They interpret the scripture. In some cases it can be difficult to stay in churches where your views conflict. Therefore......What is defining how you understand the scripture, has this been brought about by how you have understood things without human intervention OR based on how others have interpreted things i.e Teachers and Pastors and therefore you follow them? Be honest in your reply.
If it is the latter then you are letting your teacher influence you. How can you critise others who do the same thing?
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to Guest
I am laboring under frail health today, (so please bear with me) but I will make an effort, by God's grace, to address the other points you have raised in your most recent comment as soon as I am able.
To address your comment:
1. Tradition V Scripture - Ok,confused again as there is no conflict that i am aware of.
In the most vital and solemn matter of the salvation of the soul, the Bible declares:
“For by grace are ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” ” (Eph. 2:8-9)
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7 )
The gracious gift of salvation God extends to sinners in the gospel is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, who in life rendered a perfect obedience to God's holy law, and in his sacrificial death vicariously paid the debt / penalty owed by sinners for their sin. (Heb. 2:9; Heb. 9:24-28; Heb. 10:10 & 14)
“For the wages of sin is death;” (Rom. 6:23)
As Christ has stated, our conversion is altogether (predicated) dependent upon the vital work of the Holy Spirit whereby the “new birth” is conceived in our soul..
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) and Jesus goes on to say . . “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
In contrast the gospel of Rome proclaims:
“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are
necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”
“The whole liturgical life of the Roman Catholic Church revolves around the
Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church:
Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.” 2)
1) Catechism Para 1129
2) Catechism, Para 1113.
The gospel of ROME is not the glorious gospel of free and sovereign grace of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ, as set forth in God's Word . . the Bible, but is that gospel of which the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians as “another gospel.”
It is a gospel of works, not of grace, and those who preach that gospel are under the anathema of God.
Gal. 1:6-9 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another: but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
Romans 11:5: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works:”
June Annette, A sinner by birth; a Roman Catholic by tradition . . a Christian by virtue of the "new birth"
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
Thanks again for replying. I hope you are feeling better soon and i pray you will be strengthened in the Holy Spirit. It is obvious that you have a passion for Christ from your emails so once again, i am not preaching at you, just presenting another way of looking at the things you do.
In regards to salvation, i would like to say a couple of things and it will help you to understand where i come from. I am more than happy with the salvation quotes you have presented, they are very beautiful and great news for those that put their faith in the Messiah. My concern with those passages is that they do not however present the FULL picture of salvation, in that it can be shown from scripture that it is possible to fall away and be lost. I used to (based on teachings i received from pastors) believe that you couldnt, but now after many years of informal study can no longer sign up to that position. Almost every book or letter that salvation is mentioned (as long as you dont isolate passages and use them as pretexts for what you WANT to believe and start hoping around the bible to back up those verses) are always followed (less Eph) with the warnings of NOT following the advice that they have just given you. It always leads to being found amongst the unbelievers at Judgement.
Now, let me again be very clear, I do not believe that you can GAIN salvation through works, it is from grace and grace alone, but, i do agree that you can lose salvation through wilful and continual sin. Where you get to the point that you are so deadened to it that you actually end up denying Christ as Savour. You may from your point of looking at things call this Delusion in the individual concerned, but from their own mouth, they used to be fully convinced, operated in the gifts of the Spirit, but then went on to openly deny Christ publically as the Son of God. For someone to be exercising the Gifts of the Spirit, means that they were text book saved (sealed) from some peoples way of looking at things. They also confirmed with their mouth. So, what do we have here? I would say that what we are seeing here is a summary of the warnings of the Gospel, in that it is possible to fall away (although i pray he may turn back as he is still alive...Hebrews indicates that at this point it is next to impossible). Christ will save you from absolutely everything, full stop...apart from ourselves. It is the only thing not listed that Christ will save you from, and it is clear from the vine and the branches sayings of Jesus, that you can be broken off again due to unbelief.
The view above is how i understand the RCC to understand salvation in regard to having heard the Gospel and either turning from it (at whatever point in your life) or sticking to it as in a run. We compete for the Crown of Life, and we need to pass the finishing line through on going and active faith in Jesus Christ.
Now, being a former Catholic i would suggest that you know that you are not saved through the Eucharist? What you have explained is also very likely what you have gone through as an adult convert? so i am confused at your stating it in the way you have.
At the most fundamental level, You have believed in the Gospel message, you have been baptised into the death and resurrection of Jesus, you are allowed to participate in communion (because you ARE a Christian and you are encouraged to confess your sins to GOD. (because he loves and wants to forgive the things you have done wrong).
What is the issue? sure some things are practised differently but the meaning is the same.
Communion does not save you without faith, in fact you can only receive it IN good faith unless you wish to it bring condemnation on yourself. In faith it strengthens you in your inner man and feeds you soul. It (for me) is everything Christ is, it is the fullness of Christ who fills everything in every way.
Not one of them saves you WITHOUT Faith. The entire protestant movement also revolves around communion by the way. You have to be saved to receive it and you can only do so if you are in the church. It declares the death and resurrection of Christ!
So, if i am right in what i have said about the RCC in what they believe, i think that it can be said that you have travelled the same path. It is impossible to be a Christian without it.
Oh nearly forgot but it was important, "the other Gospel" the Apostle was referring too was the early Gnostics. They were teaching a different Gospel that denied the deity of Christ. That is definitely not what the RCC teaches.
Get better soon
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to Guest
Hello again Martin,
Thank you for your kind words and expression of good will toward me. Thanks be to God, I am feeling considerably better today. I will begin by addressing your concluding remark . . . and I quote:
"the other Gospel" the Apostle was referring too was the early Gnostics. They were teaching a different Gospel that denied the deity of Christ. That is definitely not what the RCC teaches. “
With that I take exception. I see no mention of Gnostics in this passage. By the following pronouncements, the RCC makes they do indeed proclaim “another gospel”, namely, a gospel that predicates justification by works as opposed to faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone!
“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”
- Source: R.C. Catechism Para 1129
And . . .
The Roman Catholic Church teaches as dogma that justification is conferred through her sacraments and that it consists of inner righteousness whereby a man, it is stated, becomes just within himself. The Church of Rome condemns the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was done at the Council of Trent. The RCC not only upholds the teaching of the Council of Trent but also declares that such Councils are infallible. The Council of Trent proclaims the following curses:
“If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema [cursed].”
“If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked [ex
opere operato] but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema.”
- Source: #822, Canon 12 & #851 Canon 8
Martin . . you have stated in a prior comment that . . .
“So, the Church is defined by those who are saved by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, Baptised into the death and resurrection of Christ and have received the Holy Spirit. The people are born again.
That is what the RCC church believes in its most basic creeds since the time of Christ.. . . .”
Your church's interpretation / understanding of the “new birth” however, is not consistent with the definition God provides throughout His own Word. “The people” are not en masse “born again” This is a very personal matter and is only known by those who have been brought under the influence of the Holy Spirit, a vital work wrought in the inward man, namely when the conscience . . the heart . . the will . . is brought under conviction of sin which leads to repentance (a Godly sorrow over sin II Cor. 7:9) and culminates in a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Word who are brought by faith (the gift of God – (Eph. 2:8) to rest in the His finished work alone for the salvation of their souls. The new birth is plainly set forth by Peter in his 1st
epistle, and elsewhere throughout Scripture. “Being born again,
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23) Christ Himself speaks of the necessity of being born again in the Word of
God as it is found in John 3:3-8. "Ye must be born again." The “church” does not confer the “new birth” . . God through the operation of His Holy Spirit does. This is the plain teaching of Scripture and that which the early church of the Apostolic era proclaimed as Gospel Truth!
The veracity of God's Living Word is known only by those, who have come under the influence of the Holy Spirit and have known for themselves its' vital power to convict them of their sin, bring them to repentance and impart faith to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to the saving of their souls.
The transformed lives of multitudes who have felt and known the prickings of the conscience, and the converting power of the Gospel in their own lives offer compelling proof, and of this I can personally testify. When God by His Spirit writes his word upon the fleshy tables of a sinner's heart, so that it leaves an indelible impression upon their souls, (Hebrews 8:10-11) any vain thoughts that some entertain that this Book was written by men will give way to an implicit faith that it is in truth . . the very Word of God!****“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” 1 Thess. 2:13****In the final analysis, a certain knowledge that the Bible is God's Word comes from the internal witness which is born of God himself to those who read it. In other words . . the witness of the Word itself.
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He
that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself;”
(1 John 5:9-10) Thanks be to God of these things I can speak experimentally!
This then is what it means then to be “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” (1 Pet. 1:23)
As I have stated in a prior comment, the following statement by “your church” is the height of ecclesiastical tyranny and once again shows a complete contempt for the Holy Bible, which nowhere tells us that a requirement and/or pre-requisite for our salvation is to be "subject to the Roman Pontiff".
***POPE BONIFACE VIII (pope: 1294-1303) ***³We declare, affirm, and define as a truth necessary for salvation that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff[i.e., the Pope of Rome].´(1302)
The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the head of the 'body of Christ´and the Christian Church, and not some fallible human pretender to the throne!
Again, on the vital and solemn doctrine of salvation, “your church” contradicts the Scriptures and the aforementioned pontifical proclamation offers more compelling evidence that the RCC brings “another gospel”.
It is by faith alone (Eph. 2:8) in the perfect obedience Christ rendered to God's holy law in life and through His substitutionary sacrifice at Calvary, whereby He offered Himself once for all for the sins of His people* thereby making payment of the demands of God's holy law . . for the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) . . . that sinners are justified before God. That is the work Christ alone came to do, of which He declared “It is finished.”! (John 19:30)
God-given faith is not to be understood as sundered from knowledge . . that is a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ which can only be found in the Holy Scriptures. "by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Is. 53:11b) “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17) It entails believing on the Christ of God that is is set forth in His Word and all that God has revealed about His Person and His Saving Work in the Scriptures. (1 John 5:10-12)
*”So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:28)
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. 10:10, 12, 13, 14)
"But by the grace of God I am what I am" (I Cor. 15:10a) . . a Christian and a "new creature in Christ" (II Cor. 5:17)
Flag Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to JuneAnnette
June, do you have an email address that i can take this this conversation off line with you? We are using a lot of space up here.
Its fine if you dont want to.
Flag Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago in reply to Guest
No problem Martin . . . my e-mail address is: email@example.com
Flag Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to Guest
Sorry, para 3 does not make sense. I was refering to an ex Christian i know, and using him as an example
Flag Like ReplyReply Genius-d 3 weeks ago in reply to JuneAnnette
Maybe what you write is true, but this man Goliath has certain morals when it comes to children/innocents. As for all of the rest... There is nothing wrong in what two consenting adults do. So sayeth the Good Lord!
Flag Like ReplyReply Bernie 1 month ago
Yes it is fair! He should not have it rescinded. He is serving the church and many when he contributes to build a Church. Ugly Church, who says? LOL!
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Gcrisafi 1 month ago
Can you not be wealthy and powerful and still be worthy of such an honor? it is not wealth that makes you sinful.
Flag aearon43 and 1 more liked this Like ReplyReply Bob Hayes 1 month ago in reply to Gcrisafi
Have we lost sight of Matthew 19:24? Jesus said, 'Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'. Rupert Murdoch has only an earthly decoration.
Flag 3 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to Gcrisafi
Depends how you got wealthy in the first place. It is almost always at someone elses expense.
Flag Kay4Justice and 2 more liked this Like ReplyReply John 1 month ago in reply to Guest
Actually, a wealthy person usually gets that way by offering a product or service that people want (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Richard Branson etc etc etc). People too often demonise successful people who have made our lives better with goods and services that improve society. Envy is a shameful thing to see, particularly in Catholics who should know better.
Flag aearon43 and 2 more liked this Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago in reply to John
Like i said, it depends how they got wealthy.....the negative examples i had in mind were drug dealers, pimps ect not necessarily the guys mentioned above, i should have been clearer.
As to the envy comment.....i'm happy for them and wouldnt want to swap places (well, maybe over the summer period for a nice holiday...but other than that..they are welcome to it).
Flag Like ReplyReply paulpriest 1 month ago
This is the umpteenth 'debate' question which is yet again - NOT A DEBATE!!!
Flag LocutusOP and 1 more liked this Like ReplyReply Mike 1 month ago in reply to paulpriest
Why not, Paul? Clearly some think it's OK to buy papal honors, others don't. That's a debate.
Flag Patrick_Hadley and 4 more liked this Like ReplyReply paulpriest 1 month ago in reply to Mike
Because this is posited as an eitheror when it is no such thing - it is not the first time that a debate paradigm has been constructed where the 'contrariety' has been imposed fallaciously. Agreeing with RM's knighthood being rescinded in no way necessarily negates any position on the awarding of knighthoods.
Flag LocutusOP liked this Like ReplyReply Ray Ryan 1 month ago
Will his $10+ million be returned as his Epaulets are ripped off ?? Ray Ryan
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Philip Reynolds 1 month ago
I am an C of E clergyman who has great admiration for the Roman Catholic Church; I
say the rosary; venerate the Mother of God and the Saints, recognise the
holiness of John-Paul II, and greatly admire HH Pope Bendict XVI. Thus I am not anti-Catholic; Nevertheless I was horrified to learn that Rupert Murdoch
had received a Papal Knighthood in the late 1990's. The extent of his unpleasant
activities were not as well known then; but surely now this is a disgrace, not
least to other holders of that Order? May it please the Hierarchy of the Church in the United
Kingdom to respectfully advise His Holiness that this sad anomaly may need
resolving, Philip Reynolds
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Tmurdy 1 month ago
Stop Papal Knjighthoods altogether ....... God himself will reward those that deserve it.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Richard Curmi 1 month ago
I'm hoping, may be against hope, that one day the Church hierarchy start doing the right thing in the first place so that there would be no place for more 'rescinding' or 'apologising'.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Frank Gallen 1 month ago
If you have money you can buy anything from the Church. Pope Benedict should be ashamed for his involvement with the Dirty Digger.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply RJ 1 month ago in reply to Frank Gallen
I doubt that Pope Benedict had very much to do with this. It is an error of judgement on the part of whoever put his name forward.
Somebody failed to do a Google search!
Flag Like ReplyReply JeannieGuzman 1 month ago
I genuinely like Rupert Murdoch, so the following comment doesn't reflect upon my respect for Rupert, but rather the whole concept of Papal Knighthood. I bet that God is laughing that men are so stupid to believe that if the Catholic Church honors them, then God will as well! What a joke. Think of how the Catholic Church "honored" the Knights Templar! They were hunted down and killed, en masse, on Friday the 13th in 1307. It only goes to show that "Knights," who were also monks, can be in favor with the Vatican one day, but when they outlive their usefullness, can be out of favor the next. Fortunately, today they can't be barbarically tortured by the Inquisition, before they are killed. Regarding the current "Papal Knights," I think that God's standards are leagues higher than the Catholic Church's, otherwise we wouldn't have had Pedophile Priests shuffled from one parish to another and their crimes covered up by inept bishops.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply heartforhomeless 1 month ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
I think that God's standards are leagues higher than the Catholic Church's
Well, duh, Jeannie, that's what we are talking about.
Flag 2 people liked this. Like ReplyReply Apgalea 4 weeks ago in reply to JeannieGuzman
Not by the Inquisition, but it can be farmed out to the CIA or Brit Int. or whatwver. There is always rendition!
Flag Like ReplyReply Genius-d 3 weeks ago
Rupert Murdock, you are the dearest sweetheart and you have tried your
very best to protect our children. You do not need a false knighthood.
You are the knight in shining armour against the abominations of children
and that can only be God given.
The Queen and her free-mason leaches are the minions of a
lower God. They can only revoke a tin & brass knighthood. But,
they cannot revoke a spiritual knighthood.
Well done Rupert for being the only human being in all of England who
has the guts to take on the British paedophile ring high up in the echelons of
our so called decent society.
Ignore the minions, their time is the nigh!
Flag Like ReplyReply Michael H Grant 4 weeks ago
Well as Jesus would have said to his disciples, "he has had his reward".
Flag Like ReplyReply Apgalea 1 month ago
So it's all a question of money.
Is Mr. Murdoch a Catholic?
It does not really matter.
A money making machine.
How far we have strayed...........................................
Flag Like ReplyReply Rich 1 month ago in reply to Apgalea
Yep, what does he get for his knighthood anyway?
Flag Like ReplyReply Apgalea 1 month ago in reply to Rich
I would still like to know if Mr. Murdoch is a Catholic.
His mother was Jewish.
Something strange here.
Flag Like ReplyReply Poverello37 1 month ago
JPII said that there is probably no one in Hell! But he has been beatified - let us not break the Fifth Commandment here by accusing someone who we a re not totally sure knew what was happening at that newspaper
Flag Like ReplyReply DoreenDotan 1 month ago
This link will make the inner meaning and truth of the destruction of Rupert Murdoch's empire clear. The
God of Yisra'el is cleansing the world of the last vestiges of the
influence of the worship of Mardukh, the inner core of Babylonian idol
worship upon which all subsequent idol worship is based - including
Christianity.Babylon is falling - for good this time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M?arduk#...
Flag Like ReplyReply DoreenDotan 1 month ago
We are now so close to breaching the fortress surrounding the Vatican.
Soon all of its horrors will be laid bare and the world will be purged of this 2000 year old scourge.
Blessed is the Name of the God of Yisra'el forever and forever.
Flag Like ReplyReply Douglasburnett 1 month ago
I had no idea that he had been awarded this in the first place. This looks like an instance of the church selling out in a very real sense. Rupert Murdoch should be held to account for the appalling behaviour of his newspapers and be stripped of his knighthood!
Flag Like ReplyReply JuneAnnette 1 month ago
To those following this discussion, this will be my final post in connection with this article. I wish
to share some of my own thoughts as well as the thoughts of others regarding God's Word . . the Bible. I would encourage those who have never applied themselves to a serious reading/consideration/study of the Scriptures to find out for themselves if what I have affirmed in the comments I have made here are true. Be as the “Bereans” of whom it was said by God. . . “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
Use the mind and intellect God has given to you in what I can assure you will be the most challenging
and rewarding undertaking you will pursue and one that will literally transform your lives. As God Himself has said of His Word . . . “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. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Tim. 3:15-17)
Note in verse 17 . . God says . . the “man of God”. This phrase can also be understood as the “godly
man” or the “God-fearing man”. Contrary to what some would have you believe God has not written His word to a limited audience. Some commenting here have intimated that the Bible can only be understood by “scholars”. Allow me to share the thoughts of some “biblical scholars” who commend the reading of God's Word to all men.
- David Field – Senior Tutor, Oak Hill Theological College, London - (deceased ?)
“The Bible is not written in a secret spiritual code which must be cracked if its message is to be understood. Provided it is read sensibly. . . it is clear enough for the simplest Christian to live by, as well as being profound enough to exercise the mind of the brightest scholar for a lifetime. The decisive qualifications for profitable Bible study are spiritual rather than intellectual. Among the qualities which the Bible itself
suggests, the following are particularly prominent: A will to obey: (John 7:17); Concentration: (2 Tim. 2:15); Patience: (Heb. 6:12; Heb. 11:17-19); Persistence: (Luke 8:18); Submission to the Holy Spirit: (Luke 24:45; 1 Cor. 2:9-16; 2 Tim. 3:15-17)”
- Kenneth Howkins – Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies – Balls Park College of Education – Hertford - (deceased ?)
“Clearly also the Christian must use his own mind to receive the word of God. He must read carefully,
compare one passage with another and use all the aids he can. Besides this he needs to seek the help of the Holy Spirit, through whom Scripture was written, to illuminate its meaning. As with the writers of Scripture, so with its readers, the mind and whole being needs to be dedicated to God. It is one of the remarkable features of the Bible that it contains enough to occupy the greatest intellects for a lifetime, and yet the simplest soul can read and understand, and in reading with an obedient heart find God himself."
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:25)
May God grant you discernment.
"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple." (Ps. 119:130)
JuneAnnette . . a "simple soul"
Flag Like ReplyReply Dd 1 month ago
I dont even think the issue should be brought to an open discussion like this. Were we consulted before he was awarded the knighthood? Also when you open such issues for public discussion , who gives you the right to do so? You just create room for unnecessary comments and insults...also are we not told that the catholic church is not a democracy? This kind of discussion is disrespectful to the Pope who also must have made an input to the decision. It is not an issue to be discussed in the public. Let us respect our church elders and their decisions and let us have the faith and confidence in them that the issue will be resolved and God will still be glorified. it is not our problem or business...
Flag Like ReplyReply Ardgowan 1 month ago
Murdoch can't be stripped of his knighthood, because, the last I'd heard (courtesy of Guy Stair Sainty), his purported creation as a Knight of Saint Gregory still has not been published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, and therefore legally never took place. You can't rescind a knighthood that the pope has never officially created.
Flag Like ReplyReply mac78 1 month ago
There is one item about this government and some politicians and the royals and big business and the bankers and the police and the judiciary and the press that people do not seem to be aware of....... The thing that connects them all is the FREE MASONS.Each and every one of them is steeped in free masonry,all brothers under this vile cloak of secrecy.A point worth remembering during your musings.
Flag Like ReplyReply Fr Thomas Poovathinkal 1 month ago
I WANT MY CHURCH TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN EVERY AREA OF LIFE. IF ANYBODY MAKES A MISTAKE OR COMMITS A SIN CORRECT HIM ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET BY THE LORD HIMSELF; IF NO GOODWILL IS SHOWN AFTER DUE PROCESS TREAT HIM/HER AS DEMANDED BY THE LORD.
Fr Thomas Poovathinkal
Flag Like ReplyReply Matthew Steeples 1 month ago
Murdoch is being portrayed more and more like Citizen Kane. I personally think removing honours he's been given for generosity is as childish as the campaign orchestrated to make Rebekah Brooks the scapegoat. There are many to blame in this sorry saga and frankly the public who buy these papers are the fuel that have caused it. The incompetent PCC, which could have dealt with this matter in 2007 and thereby prevented recent events, is the real rogue.
Whatever happens, today is a sad day for investigative journalism. Not all journalists at the NOTW were bad apples, just like not all MPs were not expense fiddlers and not all bankers were fat cats.
Check out my view at http://dasteepsspeaks.blogspot...
You might also be interested in my view on the disgrace that is the PCC: http://dasteepsspeaks.blogspot...
Flag Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to Matthew Steeples
I sincerely hope you don't claim to be a Catholic. As I've said already on this blog, the fact that Murdoch brought the notorious "page 3" girls to the UK, thus demeaning women as sex objects, is sufficient to prevent any Catholic worthy of the name from supporting him and his murky empire.
Flag Like ReplyReply jng 1 month ago
It seems, recently, that, no matter what the subject, the Catholic Herald blog sites are used to attack the Church by means of some very suspect history. The crusades were not laudable but hardly out of character with a brutal, militarist age: The first did lead to an anti Semitic reaction, particularly in France, but this was firmly condemned by the Church and those indulging threatened with excommunication, while bishops offered protection to those Jews who were threatened. The Fourth Crusade was hijacked by the Venetians to attack Constantinople and its leaders excommunicated. The part played by the Church should be discussed and lessons learned but it was the major influence in transforming a continent of squabbling greedy states and landowners into more or less civilized states. The progroms, by which I assume are meant those in Russia and Istanbul, while having a traumatic effect on the Jewish population, many of whom fled abroad, did not result in countless millions of deaths, in fact surprisingly few: perhaps two dozen or so: the number irrelevant to the argument as neither Russia or Turkey were Roman Catholic countries. The countless thousands slaughtered in the Inquisitions, by which, it seems, the notorious Spanish Inquision is referred to, were three thousand, more than enough for most people who want to criticize the Church. This number included bigamists, priests who had married under Moorish rule and heretics, probably including some of the many who had converted to Islam under the Moors for, if they did not, they would have been barred from many professions and from business with the state: virtually everything. While The Inquisition had little to do with the bloodletting that went on in Southern Spain as the Northern armies indulged in their pay back time, it was, in the end, taken over by the State and did develop an anti Semitic character, excused in part by a perceived continuing threat from the Moors, which resulted in mass expulsions rather than deaths. Hardly, it must be
, justifiable as Christians as well as Jews had collaborated with the Moors.
Of course, more examples of misdeeds within the Church can be given, and anyone who wishes to pick through two thousand years of history and ignore the good will probably have enough to fuel their predjudices without the need for fiction.
As in the recent case when, on the site relating to Julian Norwich's book, slanders were quoted as facts and the proven facts were dismissed as a Catholic whitewash of Pius XII. A Catholic whitewash perpetrated by two rabbis, one who had spent the war in Rome and probably had as much first hand knowlege of the subject as anyone, the other an eminent history professor, and two Israeli political leaders, both of whom had lived through the war.
If such people are not listened to because the truth they declare is not sufficiently anti Catholic, one must begin to wonder what we are witnessing and what else people are being fed if such material is found on the website of a Catholic newspaper.
Flag Like ReplyReply jng 1 month ago in reply to jng
It has occurred to me that my failure to mention the Polish progroms when hundreds of Jews were killed unbalanced my entry. The killings occurred under Tsarist, Nazi or Communist rule, and not just Jews were killed in the mayhem, which makes any brief mention of the facts seem like an unsavoury excuse as far as the Church is concerned as there was a anti Semitic culture in Poland between the wars, Catholics were involved in the killings and the attitude of some Polish clerics was hardly Christian. As it was the most bloody of the progroms, I should have included it in my entry.
Flag Like ReplyReply Masserkm 1 month ago
Let him keep his knighthood. I have worshipped at Our Lady of All Angels and am a native of LA. Who are we to judge?
Flag Like ReplyReply walden 1 month ago
It should not
Flag Like ReplyReply Da Mick 1 month ago
Are you insane? One aspect of his global enterprise has an apparently observed fault......and we should cut him loose? Peter denied Christ how many times? Yet, upon his faith, Christ built his church. The author"s implication has more to do with a political score card than with Christian love.
Flag Like ReplyReply ShakeandVac 1 month ago
I guess that, if it was up to Pope Benedict XVI, he would not be as quick to hand out a papal knighthood to Murdoch or anyone like him.
In this case, it wasn't.
Flag Like ReplyReply Ken Purdie 1 month ago
Answer: Yes. For reasons too many to count.
Flag Like ReplyReply Carlos 1 month ago
We all sin.I'd say try help the guy before trying to bring him down. Obviously his unscrupulous devotion to misery is not to be admired,but I'm sure there's good in him that can be coaxed out.
Flag Like ReplyReply Gregory C. Jewell 1 month ago
Should the Pope step down for what criminal priests have done to minors? I am a Knight of St. Gregory and have owned my own business for a number of years; and yes, my employees have commited many, many mistakes that I was unaware of. Do I condone them...no; but I cannot be everywhere at once. Not like you! What does being a Knight have to do with anything?
Gregory C. Jewell
Knight of St. Gregory
Safety Harbor, Fla.
Flag Like ReplyReply Parasum 1 month ago in reply to Gregory C. Jewell
Presumably, however, you don't preside over a media empire which spreads corruption and depravity. Murdoch does. His empire is anti-humane and anti-Christian; whereas the CC is supposed to be Christian, not a rewarder of pornographers.
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Guest 1 month ago
Flag penny 1 month ago in reply to Guest
Yes, and Father Corapi is flawed like of us too. The thing with a great big T.V channel devoted to Catholics is that you then expose the (flawed) presenters to the temptations accompanying celebrity. Thus providing an extra source of income to news international as it bottom-feeds off the resulting scandals.
Flag Kay4Justice liked this Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago
Now, now. Mustn't criticize the Pope or the Vatican. Where will it all end?
Flag Like ReplyReply RJ 1 month ago in reply to EditorCT
That would be almost as bad as criticising the SSPX.
Flag Like ReplyReply EditorCT 1 month ago in reply to RJ
You are obviously not a member of the Planet Earth. Where, pray tell me, is the SSPX NOT criticized?
Read any Catholic Herald blogs lately?
Flag Like ReplyReply Reactions
monaraba 1 month ago
From twitter 5 more retweets from Duncana Spark_Magazine KerryMP Show all
RT @shipoffoolscom: The @catholicherald is asking if Rupert Murdoch should lose his papal knighthood. The church flogged it to him for $10m http://is.gd/MwB74Z
donaghkebab 1 month ago
From twitter 2 more retweets from lurganista Dublinshewolf
RT @shirleybar: Just to make matters more incendiary, Rupert Murdoch is a Papal Knight http://bit.ly/nio02j #Illuminati
shirleybar 1 month ago
Just to make matters more incendiary, Rupert Murdoch is a Papal Knight http://bit.ly/nio02j #Illuminati