Mon 1st Sep 2014 | Last updated: Mon 1st Sep 2014 at 11:50am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Debate: Should Rupert Murdoch’s papal knighthood be rescinded?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?

By on Friday, 8 July 2011

Rupert Murdoch, left, and Cardinal Edward Egan at the Alfred E Smith fundraising dinner in New York (AP Photo/ Yana Paskova, POOL)

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So, should Rupert Murdoch’s papal knighthood be rescinded?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?

  • RJ

    Just to add to what you said: “The labourer is worthy of his hire” – even the priest has to live.

  • RJ

    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.

  • Anonymous

    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:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-bank-hit-by-financial-scandal-again-2164321.html

    “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)

     

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Purdie/1162381995 Ken Purdie

    Answer: Yes. For reasons too many to count.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Purdie/1162381995 Ken Purdie

    Thats just not true. The annulment process is completely free. Tawdy, but free.

  • Jfkscw

    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.

  • Anonymous

    I think that God’s standards are leagues higher than the Catholic Church’s
    Well, duh, Jeannie, that’s what we are talking about.  

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

     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.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    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.

  • Jamesmaherne

    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!

  • Frank Gallen

    If you have money you can buy anything from the Church.  Pope Benedict should be ashamed for his involvement with the Dirty Digger.

  • ShakeandVac

    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.

  • Pachacuti

    Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah Shaaaadaaap!!!!

  • AgingPapist

    I love the LA cathedral.  Any architect who can design a zeppelin hangar , call it a Catholic cathedral , and sell it to southern California Catholics so well that they contribute millions for the construction, should be made archbishop of Los Angeles. A huckster selling snake oil to other hucksters ready to lap it up like a cat laps up milk.   A sure sign you can sell almost anything to southern Californians if it is packaged correctly.

  • AgingPapist

    The comment had nothing to do with the Church, except that his
    knighthood is thoroughly shameful because of his manifest moral
    corruption. 
    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    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.

  • Harper

    Ms Guzman should learn to spell: by pedophile does she mean a lover of feet? … It takes all kinds…

  • Harper

    Stick to annulments, for that is a valid criticism.

  • Da Mick

    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. 

  • Tiggy

    Nothing like stating thge obvious elderly person.!

  • walden

    It should not

  • Martin

    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.

  • Martin

    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

  • Masserkm

    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?

  • Teasing

    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

  • Anonymous

    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.

    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)

  • elizabeth

    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…

  • jng

    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 said, 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.

  • 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.    

  • Martin

    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.

  • JeannieGuzman

    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!”

  • Anonymous

    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
    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 TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD,
    NOT VICE-VERSA!

     

  • Martin

    Hi again,
     
    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?
     
     
    God Bless

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

     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
    http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/the-bible-in-the-church.html

    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.

    Reflect.

  • Matthew Steeples

    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.com/2011/07/news-is-screwed.html

    You might also be interested in my view on the disgrace that is the PCC: http://dasteepsspeaks.blogspot.com/2011/07/fall-of-another-flop.html

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com EditorCT

    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. 

  • Richard Curmi

    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’.

  • Anonymous

    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.

    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 TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS
    SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT VICE-VERSA!

    Take your own advice and REFLECT.
     

  • UKAmericanCatholic

    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.

  • Fr Thomas Poovathinkal

    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

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • RJ

    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!

  • Auricularis

    The cry of a deranged woman – Protestantism would be suit you better.

  • Anonymous

    Hello Martin,

    I am laboring under frail health today, but I will make an effort to 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:

    Tradition V Scripture – Ok,
    confused again as there is no conflict that i am aware of.

    In the most 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 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.”
    1)

    “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:”

    Kind Regards,

    June Annette, A sinner by birth; a Roman Catholic by tradition . . a Christian by virtue of the “new birth”

  • Martin

    Hi June,
     
    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
     
    God Bless

  • Martin

    Sorry, para 3 does not make sense. I was refering to an ex Christian i know, and using him as an example

  • Tmurdy

    Stop Papal Knjighthoods altogether ……. God himself will reward those that deserve it.

  • Nick0959

    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.

  • Philip Reynolds

    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