Monday, July 14, 2014

Church of England votes...

"...and women rule over them." Isa. 3:12

The Church of England voted today to allow women to become bishops. Now, to be sure, the modern position of 'bishop' has nothing to do with the Biblical revelation regarding how the church is to be led and administered. It is an obvious bastardization of the New Testament message and as much the work of the flesh as was the whole of the Church of England at its birth. Still, the current move to appoint women as its leaders could not be a more obvious sign of wrath.

Lets be honest, because any thinking person can see it.

What we have is a dead and dying church's pathetic attempt to gain cheap popularity as a poor substitute for the divine glory that has escaped it - a last minute gasp: Look at me, am I not hip? Don't you want to join me now? Grant us the approval of men, O Lord!

Why? Why would anyone want to waste a Sunday (or even an hour) to partake of a culture which is offered every where free in this world of absolute conformity? If what the Church creates is no different than what is available in any bar or club, why should anyone think that the message behind the madness is special? How could it offer any respite?

It doesn't.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

In a few decades the pulpits of the Church of England will spill forth the vomit of Islam.

Welcome to the Judgment.


Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Catholic Mag Encourages Voter Deception

In the 19 June 2014 issue of the Catholic Review - Maryland edition - Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference advocated switching parties long enough to effect an opposing parties primary with a view towards effecting an outcome more favorable to one's political persuasion.

In a question and answer session with staff writer Maria Wiering, Wiering asked Russell this question: "What should a voter do if he or she is registered in one party, but wants to affect the outcome of a race in the other party?"

Russell's answer: "Anyone can switch parties to vote in the primary and then switch back again for the general election - but they have to do it before the voter registration deadline."

If anyone else finds this kind of advice, being given in a religious newspaper sanctioned by the church, to be a bit shady, they are not alone. Some arguably point out that this type of 'crossover voting' may constitute election fraud. Perhaps they are correct. But whether or not that judgment is too severe - after all, electoral fraud usually covers only those acts which are illegal - it may be argued that this type of activity, while legal, is nevertheless morally suspect, increases the perception of fraud, and may lead to a reduction of voter confidence in democracy. Not really the business of Christians, you think?

With our Scriptures teaching us to "avoid even the appearance of evil," Ms. Russell's advice smacks of corruption. Since we are told never even to be seen participating in those things done in the darkness, what should be our response to Ms. Russell's advice? This should be an easy one to get right.

But lets be honest about what is probably happening here. This advice does not go out to just anyone. Republicans, who vigorously support election integrity, have so rarely been involved in this type of activity that one can hardly recall a legitimate instance. No, it does not go out to Republicans, it goes out to those whose faith in democracy is sorely compromised. It goes out to those who do not believe that they can win with a platform of infanticide, excessive confiscatory taxation, and support for a totalitarian state. Yes, it goes out to Democrats, who have no moral compulsion to appear pure when they can hoodwink people into thinking they are just. To do this they know that they have to cheat. And they do.

It is no secret that the Catholic Church in America has had a longstanding pact with this party of deception, thus the ease with which Ms. Russell can exhort the flock to participate in shady business. Its the end that matters, not the means. Marxist means for a Marxist church. With both retailing in a notion of 'social justice' that involves theft and the coercion of the moral life through the barrel of a gun, it is no surprise that Christ is long absent.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Growth of the Maryan Heresy

I am a Catholic, but not in any modern sense - but as one who believes that the purpose of the organized church was to pass down what it once received - the position of early Catholicism. That makes me a Catholic in generally good standing with most of the church up until the Council of Nicea - and less so with each passing generation. Beginning with such concepts as the development of dogma, and the heretical acceptance of subsequent revelations and additions to the kerygma, what was once passed down has been smothered in the same idolatrous methods that engulfed the ancient Jews in their latter biblical history. Today we see the recapitulation of history, whereby the New Testament Church repeats the same collapse into idolatry as the Jews of Old Testament times.

Could any honest person believe that the bishops of the first council would recognize this great Whore that pretends to be in continuity with the faith once delivered to the Saints? What first century Christian could recognize the modern church with its professional clerics; idolatrous 'pantheonic' worship; and a multitude of traditions that nullify the Word of God? Would it be prophetically amiss to say that it represents no more than a vast and demonic cult that has countless millions drunk with it elixir like the Whore who rides upon the back of the Beast? This is no insight - I am aware that this has been noticed and said before, many times.

So, where is this going?

It has been noted on several internet sites that the Catholic Church may be considering the next step in its protracted move to quasi-deify 'Mary' as a co-equal with Christ within the Church. As seen on several internet cites, a movement, based upon the private revelation of a certain Ida Peederman, a 40-year old office worker, who claimed to have received a series of 56 apparitions/visions over a 14 year period, seeks to bring about the triumph of the "Immaculate Heart" i.e., the declaration of the final Marian dogma. The CM, as many are now proclaiming, will finally receive the position due her: The Lady of All Nations; Co-Redemtrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. Read: Jesus redivivus in female form.

Look at the development of the various doctrines of the Catholic Mary (CM) over the course of Catholic Church history and one can see this comparison emerge. Is it accidental? Coincidence? Even a casual observer will note that throughout Catholic history there has been a continued move to parallel the development of the CM with the kerygmatic proclamation of Jesus Christ. Already the Church for a thousand years has been busily elevating the hapless 'Mary', who grew out of the popular romantic imagination of both laity and cleric, to the status of demi-god. Jesus was born sinless of a virgin, CM was born immaculate; Jesus was ever virgin, CM was ever virgin; Jesus was resurrected, CM was assumed into heaven before death. Jesus is the intercessor between man and God, and so with the CM. With such a pedigree only one last step remains: Making her the co-redeemer with Jesus. The Queen of Heaven, a new Astarte.

The worship of the Queen of Heaven as depicted by the prophet Jeremiah (7:18; 44:17-28) was instrumental in calling forth the judgement of God upon the idolatrous practices of the Jews of that period. Are we to believe that it will be any less so now? The wrath is already being poured out as illustrated by the presence of the homosexual clergy (See Romans 1). Still, very few will flee. This is the nature of deception.

Nothing new here, just the bewildering phenomenon of spiritual blindness.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Ignorance and Observation

Atheists often scoff at believers for adhering in times past to a naive cosmology which the atheist assumes was the result of a linear relationship between ignorance and religious dogma. The atheist asserts that if one were to embrace the pure reason of science then one would just as readily release one's grip on the idea of god. For my part, I've often wondered how mere observation, however more scientifically detailed and correct, could demonstrate that reality is godless? What if theism were true? How different would the world look? The point being this: Not necessarily different at all. In fact, a great many, including myself, would say that it is the atheist's world that would look very different, if true.

Recalling one of my grade school science books, I am reminded of an illustration of the sun moving across the sky that was used to demonstrate that how things appear is not necessarily how things are. The sun "appears" to the unaided observer to be 'rising' - a conclusion we now know to be naïve being drawn as it was from incomplete data.

(Despite this "misperception," we still use the old cosmology thinking in our linguistic conventions, especially our poetry, and things work just fine!)

While this belief is not considered damning, it is however viewed by the modern atheist to be ignorant (a word used most often as a pejorative). Religion, they say, is just the same: an idea based on the same type of ignorance. We only need to recognize the authority of science.

Here I recall an incident that I had in grade school in which, upon observing a physical model of the solar system which functioned with an electric motor, I playfully grabbed the model by the 'earth' as I and others watched and laughed hysterically as all the planets and the sun bobbled about it in wildly elliptical motions. I asked the teacher, how do we know that this is not how it works? It would not look any different to us! In other words, I was expressing in a childish fashion that there is a perspective in which the earth is the 'center' - if one is only willing to alter one's point of observation.

I am not arguing for geo-centrism. That my observation is not scientifically the case is not the issue. What is the issue is that those folks were not a bunch of ignoramuses who avoided rigorous thinking in order to believe a religious myth. They were merely pre-modern in their descriptions of what they perceived. It is important to note that we - being significantly more informed - still reserve for ourselves the right to pick which perspective is 'real' depending on our mode of activity. When we write poetry, the sun rises; when we launch space shuttles, the earth orbits. Strangely, there is a sense in which modern man is bored with space travel, yet the musical expression of poetry is doing just fine. Truth is everlasting, fact is incidental and pragmatic.

Weighing in again on this incident, it seems to me that it is Atheism which looks most like the bobbling solar system. Yes, it appears to make sense from the viewpoint of mere observation, and may be logically possible, but it is odd and leaves so many things - the most important things - strangely or poorly explained. Morality, Beauty and the Divine - the three great a priories, if you will - appear ill-fitted in the atheists bobbling universe.

A universe in which they are ordered as a natural part could very likely look like what we see in our own world - and experience, even in ignorance, to be true. If so, this might explain why atheists 1) still worship those things they believe enhance or provide self-worth; 2) bring in morality through the back door; and, 3) recognize that, while a dog may pee on the rose, it is only man who enjoys its beauty for its own sake.

Things might not necessarily look any different in an atheist or theist world. However, seeing the universe in grander, more smoothly moving terms seems, at least from one perspective, far better than the explanation which gyrates wildly when trying to explain life holistically.
This is the atheist's dilemma. Despite all his arguments, perhaps a divine explanation of the universe is true and the believer is not stupid for holding to it. This 'perhaps' is frightening to them, I'm sure.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

An offering of stones

It has become clear to me over the years that the ancient mystery held something that satisfies me while very little that remains today can do the same. When I hear the Gregorian chant I sense that it has grown out of this mystery, so also when I stand, sit or kneel in a medieval cathedral. Unfortunately these things also have become relics - what remains demands a long journey to the European shores to know its metaphorical power, its ability in signs, symbols and simplicity to transport one to the glory of what once was. The Catholic Church -my home - once the preserver of all things old, has fallen under the gnostic spell of both American evangelicalism and agnostic Liberalism ... thanks to all that was bad in Vatican II and the capture of the Catholic seminaries by the radical Left. Today the air at the height of the great mountain ranges is too thin to sustain life. None of it breaths the miracle.

How does one return? How does one recreate what was lost? First and foremost we must recognize that what came first was the work of the Spirit and not the result of the reformulation of the Faith by those claiming to be its 'Doctors'.


Sunday, September 21, 2008


It is a miraculous thing to have your vision restored. There is an obviously deep analogy between this and spiritual insight as is demonstrated in the actions and parables of Jesus. Darkness is a horrible place, truly to be contrasted with the Word that is a "lamp unto my feet." Still, despite it all, it is the physical darkness that can often assist us in seeing beyond the spiritual black hole that is consuming nearly all Christian religion in America and basically all of that in Europe.

The trivialization of God; worship of self passed off as worship of God; and the fellowship of the Messianic family replaced with personal advancement and networking opportunities.

It's not, of course, that this was not predicted by the prophets, it all was. The tragedy is the unknown whereabouts of the "remnant" and the difficulty of maintaining a healthy life in the body when the body has been scattered to the four winds.



Saturday, September 30, 2006

Religion or Relationship?

It has been pointed out to me that the description under the title of this blog is inaccurate in that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. In defense of the present description, let me say a few words. First, I am fully aware of this popular aphorism, but I chose to use the word religion because this word – so unpopular among evangelicals – still packs more truth and has more depth than its faddish competitor. Secondly, the relationship that we have with God the Father through Jesus His Son is quite unlike anything that we experience in any earthly relationship. So much so that to continue using the word ‘relationship’ is to follow a path that is dangerously misleading and could result in faith’s novices falling into confusion.

But why does religion pack more truth? To begin with, religion by definition encompasses all the things that humans have normally associated with devotion to a supernatural entity or realm. Religions is natural to us; it is divinely patterned in the hearts of all people. As such, to be religious is to be correctly responding to the imago dei within us. Religion connotes the use of symbolic formalities such as the Lord’s Supper or Baptism. Prayer or meditation is recognized as an essential part of any religious life. Historically it can be shown that a prayer life can be greatly facilitated by a symbolic environment that captures the essence of the respective religion. Thus, the rise of church buildings. Religions have dogma and are recognized by the fostering of a community of like-minded individuals. In these things, Christianity is very much a religion. It uses symbols and metaphors to describe the otherwise un-describable. And, while prayer can theoretically be conducted anywhere, religious architecture devoted to the life of the soul has generally been first choice. Man is a symbolic being – divinely so. It is the restoration of the biblical view of these things that this site seeks.

In contrast, the word relationship does not even remotely imply any of these things – excepting, of course, that everything is in a relationship of some sort. But this is not what evangelicals mean. To them it connotes something akin to friendship or marriage. Now, to be sure, these metaphors exist in Christianity, but again, not in any exact earthly sense. They are metaphors. Christ is truly our friend, but we are not likely to have a beer together any time soon. We are the bride of Christ, but we are unlikely to lose our virginity in the relationship. (I write as a man.)
However, the part most worthy of disgust is the deceit. For along with the evangelical’s use of such canards is the dishonest implication that something of a certain nature is going on when in fact it is not i.e., they are trying to convince unbelievers that Jesus and they are chums, if you will. But in doing so they imply a level of familiarity that on closer inspection is absent, uninformed and blasphemous.

Lastly, there is an irony evident in the evangelical’s employment of this obvious wrangle. It is this. When the proper understanding of a word becomes critical to the maintaining fellowship in any supernatural enterprise, than that word becomes a shibboleth or right of passage. In other words, it attains to the status of a religious word. Therefore, in their misguided piousness they are being religious - but erroneously so.

In closing, let us realize this, that Jesus was a carpenter, but He is now LORD. That is the meaning and implication of the resurrection. This is why people fell at His feet. That is why Saul was blinded by the light. That is why the seven sons of Sceva discovered the embarrassment of public nudity. It does not pay to be cavalier with eternity’s foundation. Perhaps this is why the world finds the evangelical’s god so non-enticing and unworthy of worship - very few people acknowledge the open worship of their buddy. Nor should they.