Once upon a time there were three wise midwives. Their names were Shiphrah, Puah and Sarah. The biblical Book of Exodus tells us the story of Shiphrah and Puah and how they saved the people of Israel from genocide. The Times tells us the story of Sarah and how she was nominated as Bishop of London.

Shiphrah and Puah lived in Egypt and worked for Raamses Health Service (RHS). Sarah lived in England and worked for the National Health Service (NHS). Shiprah and Puah were called to take risks and so did not reveal their full names. Sarah was called to create safe spaces and ensure safeguarding and so she told everyone her full name – Sarah Elisabeth Mullally.

One day, the King of Egypt, Pharaoh Terminator III, decided to launch his RHS-sponsored pro-choice Planned Parenthood programme. Terminator III had an elderly relative named Auntie Cemite, who hated the Hebrews living in their land. Pharaoh said, ‘It’s my land. My people. I’m pro-choice. I choose who lives and who dies. I will plan the parenthood of the Hebrews.’

Pharaoh and his wife Ms Andry were Third Wave feminists. They wanted only female children to live. So they called the Hebrew midwives and told them, ‘Slaughter the sons, spare the daughters.’

Pharaoh did not know that once the girls were four or five years old, they could become boys by self-identifying as boys, especially if they went to Church of England schools. Pharaoh had not heard of Weaselword Welby, the Archbishop of Circumlocution, who lived in England.

Wizard Welby, who possessed great spiritual powers, had recently waved his magic wand over five thousand schools and taught the children an astonishing trick never before performed in human history. Children as young as five could magically transition to a different gender when boys wore tutus or tiaras and girls wore firemen’s helmets.

None of Pharaoh’s mighty magicians could imitate Welby’s mighty magic. When confronting Moses, they could turn their staffs into snakes or the Nile to blood. But despite all their ancient secret arts, they could not turn boys into girls or girls into boys. (Of course, Welby was as mad as an Egyptian flea with an incurable itch when priests Jonathan Pryke, Gavin Ashenden and Andy Lines turned into bishops. Boys could identify as girls but priests could not identify as bishops without his permission, said Wizard Welby.)

But like lost sheep, we are beginning to stray from the story. We must pick up the plot of the three wise midwives before Goldilocks returns and finds her porridge has gone cold.

The Hebrew midwives feared God and did not do as Pharaoh commanded them. Pharaoh said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and let the male children live?’ The midwives replied, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’

Meanwhile, in faraway England, the NHS decided to follow in the footsteps of the famous Pharaoh. Being broadminded, non-discriminatory, and believing in equal opportunity for all, they decided to allow women to kill not just Hebrew male children after they were born, but children of all races and both sexes before they were born. Since 1967, NHS-sponsored abortion killed almost nine million unborn children.

In 2014, Catholic midwives Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood defied Pharaoh’s orders. They believed that ‘all human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that termination of pregnancy is a grave offence against human life’. The midwives lost their case in the UK Supreme Court. That year government guidelines said that nurses and midwives could take the ‘main role’ in performing abortions. In 2017, the Royal College of Midwives was accused of pushing for ‘an abortion free-for-all’.

Midwife Sarah Mullally had served as the UK’s Chief Nursing Officer. She was appointed a Dame for her contribution to nursing and midwifery. So, like the two Hebrew midwives of old, how did she address the biggest ethical question of her day? Sarah said NOTHING. Shiphrah and Puah dared to defy the mighty Pharaoh. Sarah silently acquiesced to the murderous morality of modern-day abortion.

But Sarah is not just a former midwife. Like Welby, she is a magician skilled in many dark arts. Her most outstanding trick is logolubricus – she can make words as slippery as eels. The BBC broadcast her first magic show the day after the Church of England announced her nomination as Bishop of London.

‘How would you vote when Synod debates blessings for same-sex relationships?’ Mishal Husain asked Bishop Sarah on Radio 4. Sarah softly muttered her magic spell ‘Obfuscari!’ and said out loud: ‘Well, at that point I won’t be in Synod, so I won’t have a vote. But what we have to remember is . . .’ Husain interrupted: ‘How would you vote?’ ‘Er, um, er, um, all you need is love . . . diversity . . . reflection . . . mumbo jumbo . . . abracadabra . . . Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be, the future’s not ours to see! Obfuscari!’ replied Slippery Sarah.

Magician Mullally then performed a second trick. This English trick is the opposite of the Indian rope trick. In the Indian rope trick the magician stiffens the rope so his assistant can climb up the rope. In the English version, the magician slackens the human spine so it goes as wobbly as jelly and as limp as a mollusc.

Magician Mullally’s biggest potential opponent was William Taylor, High Priest of St Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate. Taylor had threatened to split from the C of E if the new Bishop did not ‘condemn homosexual relationships as sinful’. His words were ominous. ‘My first question to him or her will be: “Are you prepared openly to declare as sin what God calls sin and to summon all people to repentance and to do so publicly?” If the answer is “no” then there is an “unavoidable avoidance” for us all,’ he had publicly declared.

Mullally’s deadliest spell was reserved for evangelicals such as Taylor. Her English rope trick could turn evangelicals into evanjellyfish. ‘Invertebrati!’ she whispered, pointing her magic crosier at Taylor. The High Priest of St Helen’s was no match for the new High Priestess of London. Taylor’s spine shrivelled, shrank and collapsed like custard.

‘We offer Bishop Sarah our congratulations and assure her of our prayers as she takes up the significant role as Bishop of London. The Church of England is committed to “mutual flourishing”. We look forward to Bishop Sarah working for this within the diocese of London,’ tweeted St Helen’s.

Here endeth our tale of three wise midwives. Midwife Mullally is now Bishop Mullally. She came, she saw, she obfuscated. But Wizard Welby is worried. What does the future hold for him? He asks his mirror: ‘Magic mirror in my hand, who is the archbishop in the land?’ The mirror never lies. ‘Wizard Welby, you are the archbishop now so true. But Mullally is waiting in the queue. One day you’ll be gone and then she will succeed you.’

  • martianonlooker

    Your ‘sermon’ made me laugh. The need to poke fun or derision at our establishment is probably no greater than it is today. I guess your chances of promotion will be zero but fear not, your opinion, from what I can tell, appears to resonate with the commenting section of our population.
    Never have I known a time whereby our establishment have been held in such complete and utter contempt. Public sector, Houses of parliament, Honours list, Royal Family, CofE, academia (?laugh!).
    This being Sunday, I will be found, for a time, around our local church. Not praying, not seeking guidance from some PC libtard, but walking the dog through the graveyard. He likes it and it is usually peaceful.

    • Charitas Lydia

      The actions of the hierarchy of CofE have put hundreds of church goers off. They have been stumbling blocks for many. Though I pray that this heretical church is disestablished, my hope and prayer is that those who have stopped going to church will find a good Bible based church and will continue to receive spiritual sustenance. There is no alternative to being a Christian and no alternative to going to church which is the Body of Christ.

      • Barry Guevara

        Are you a Catholic?

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Charitas Lydia can answer for himself, but in my observation of many past comments, I would say conservative orthodox Anglican like myself. Reformed catholic.

          • Barry Guevara

            Why do you stay with a church you dislike?

          • Charitas Lydia

            It does not matter which I belong to. I belong to the universal church of God which is catholic, holy and apostolic.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I am an American. I did leave The Episcopal Church in 2004 and joined first AMiA and then the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). I very much like orthodox traditional Anglicanism. What I dislike is heresy and the promotion of immorality, which is easily found in the Church of England (and radical leftest provinces like the Episcopal Church and and Anglican Church of Canada). I encourage members of the Church of England who are unhappy with the direction of their leaders to join more orthodox groups like Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) or the Free Church of England (FCE).

      • martianonlooker

        Couldn’t agree more

  • Julian Mann

    ‘The High Priest of St Helen’s was no match for the new High Priestess of London. Taylor’s spine shrivelled, shrank and collapsed like custard.’

    There is no evidence for this contention that William Taylor has lost his evangelical backbone. The tweet congratulating the new Bishop of London was sent on the day of her appointment and was arguably either a matter of courtesy or an unnecessary gesture. The ‘car crash’ interview on Radio 4 happened subsequently and clearly has to be a matter of grave concern for orthodox Anglicans in London Diocese. They need the Lord’s wisdom as to how to respond faithfully and courageously to the now different ethos from the previous Bishop of London’s clear stance that sex outside heterosexual marriage is sin.

    But to confuse the chronology of the tweet and the interview in order to make a cheap shot at Mr Taylor does not help the cause of Anglican orthodoxy.

    • Tricia

      I think her appointment was a response to his challenge. He has had his reply from the hierarchy – they are determined on their path and they are not for turning.

      • Homer Simpson

        You are spot on, Tricia. Conservative evangelicals have played this game so often that the liberal hierarchy know that they can call their bluff. Sarah Mullally’s appointment is a real ‘So whatcha gonna do about it, mate?’ kick in the face to St Helen’s. Ironically, one of their ministers was on the Nominations Commission. He would have or should have known her theological position on the sexuality issue EVEN BEFORE agreeing with the nomination.

        • Julian Mann

          Is Homer Simpson your real name? If not, then are not your accusations of cowardice against orthodox Anglicans serving in the Church of England an instance of, to quote Roger Waters, ‘the bravery of being out of range’?

          • Charitas Lydia

            I don’t think Homer Simpson is writing as a public figure. Neither is he making claims as a public figure. Does this really matter, Julian? Are you not making a desperate attempt to deflect the topic from the real issue of St Helen’s losing its backbone and kowtowing to the powers that be? In the ultimate analysis, on an online forum it doesn’t matter what one’s identity is. We are discussing serious issues. We all know that Jules Gomes is Jules Gomes, William Taylor is William Taylor and Sarah Mullally is Sarah Mullally. Why don’t you respond to Don Benson’s comments on this page: ‘I am truly shocked by this tweet from St Helen’s Church; it is a serpentine statement of which Satan himself would be proud.’ I am presuming that Don Benson is not a moniker but his real name? You are dodging the real issue in your vain attempt to protect other conservative evangelicals.

          • Homer Simpson

            Come on Julian. You are honest enough to know that this is irrelevant. Do you know who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Focus on the issue and not on the person commenting.

          • Julian Mann

            Thank you for this. The problem with anonymous commenting would appear to be the lack of accountability attaching to it. Yes of course truth from whatever source is still truth but when it comes to an accusation of cowardice, surely the person making it should go on record?

            The point stands that the accusation of cowardice against Mr Taylor is unsubstantiated. Under his pastoral leadership, St Helen’s will in the coming months, the Lord willing, take a prayerfully-made decision over the ‘unavoidable avoidance’ of false teachers in London Diocese and be prepared to pay the cost of that for the sake of the gospel.

            Certainly people like me would be looking to a church like St Helen’s for a Christian example here.

          • Homer Simpson

            I honestly, for the sake of the gospel, hope so, Julian. We have had these declarations of bravado made a number of times and we feel extremely let down by our leaders. Mr Taylor should not have thrown down the gauntlet if he wasn’t prepared to stand by his word. Perhaps, as a conservative evangelical clergyman associated in some way with St Helen’s, you could do us a favour by alerting him to the comments and discussion on this site (and other social media) in the hope that this would spur him on.

    • Homer Simpson

      The ‘car crash’ interview happened the next there. There is enough evidence that Mullally is pro-LGBT. She DID NOT make a statement that matched William Taylor’s challenge. On the contrary, she obfuscated. So could St Helen’s not have waited for her to state her position on LGBT issues before fawning so obsequiously before her on Twitter and causing confusion among Christians who respect what St Helen’s stands for?

      OK, Julian, here’s my challenge to you and to the conservative evangelicals of the Diocse of London. Let’s wait and see what the “courageous” conservative evangelicals at St Helen’s, Church Society, Reform, Gafcon and the entire shebang are going to do! We’ve heard them talk, talk and talk but very little action. So what has Bishop Rod Thomas said in response to Bishop Paul Bayes’ decision to jump on Jayne Ozanne’s bandwagon. Has he joined the Masonic Sect of the House of Bishops as well?

    • Charitas Lydia

      William Taylor has let himself and his congregation down by just going back on the stand of St. Helen. If evangelicals and orthodox Christians are not going to stand by the teaching of the Bible uncompromisingly they too deserve to be ridiculed, because they are also letting down the teaching of the Bible. I understand that none of us is perfect but we have the Word of God by which we are called to follow the footsteps of the perfect one. If we shake hands with those who trash the Bible then what do we deserve but ridicule? Remember what the Lord said? If we are ashamed of Him, He will be ashamed of us in the company of angels. And congratulating this woman for having a very high post is one step in the slippery path of concession and then destruction…. William Taylor needs to stand firm and leave CofE on account of the CofE’s failure to be orthodox in Christian doctrine.

  • David

    Well written Jules, thank you. You are very good at this, describing how the actions of the establishment are increasingly departing from both truth and reality. Of course, being fully immersed in post-modernism they don’t believe that there is truth, in the singular sense.
    I suspect that many of the so called Conservatives are totally unaware that they have succumbed to this philosophy, still believing that they are conservative, which is both sad and tragic. This is paralleled by the many bishops who, although deaf to the voice of God, cling to the self delusion that they are followers of Christ.
    Although as a Christian I believe that God can always work miracles and turn around a good proportion of any nation to obey Him, our present trajectory suggests that we will accelerate into a full spectrum national decline.

    • Anne

      The rot set in with the making of female priests. Take down one major boundary – the male priesthood – and the whole edifice comes tumbling down. Jesus instituted 12 male disciples and sent out the seventy, all of whom were male. He had very good reasons for doing so and in ignoring His example, we put ourselves in spiritual peril.

      • JabbaPapa

        Take down one major boundary – the indissolubility of Marriage – and the whole edifice comes tumbling down

        Good jolly old Henry VIII Tudor, eh ?

  • Jolly Radical

    Amazing that her first stated priority as Bishop was to safeguard children from her own clergy!

  • Bruce Atkinson

    I would have thought that this topic would be boring and that we would all miss the subtle meanings inherent in these ecclesiastic-political (culture war) events. However, I am amazed at how Jules Gomes can be so entertainingly creative in his accurate critiques of western culture, especially as he focuses on the secular snakes and pagan philosophies which have infested the Church of England.

    • Homer Simpson

      I agree completely, Bruce. I couldn’t stop laughing when I read the article! No wonder Jules Gomes really gets under the skin of the Leftwing liberals. Satire! What a weapon!

    • Charitas Lydia

      I agree. Apart from London having a bishopette, what angers me most is that this midwife has no regard for the sanctity of life. She has been an accomplice in the slaughter of countless unborn children. Shiphrah and Puah were rewarded by the Lord for saving children… what would be His judgement of this bishopette of London? She is CofE’s counterpart of Sadiq Khan. What an insult to the Londoners! Jules has brought out the sad reality of this appointment in a very powerful satire. Only those who do not see the sad reality will appreciate the appointment.

      • Barry Guevara

        How is Khan an insult to Londoners?

        • Homer Simpson

          Khan is an insult to himself, not just to Londoners.

          • Barry Guevara

            You’re going to need to explain.

          • Homer Simpson

            Data from the Mayor of London’s Police and Crime Office — led by former lobbyist-turned-Deputy Mayor Sophie Linden — reveals a sharp uptick in violent crime in Khan’s first year.

            From the years 2015/16 to 2016/17, homicides in London rose by 27.1 per cent. Youth homicide jumped 70 per cent. Serious youth violence was up 19 per cent. Robbery was up 33.4 per cent, while home burglaries rose by 18.7 per cent.

            Theft went up by over 10,000 incidents in a year, up 33.9 per cent, and there were more than 4,000 additional knife crime incidents under Khan than under his predecessor, a rise of 31.3 per cent.

            Rape in the capital rose by 18.3 per cent, while there were 2,551 incidents of gun crime, representing a rise of 16.3 per cent on the previous year.

      • martianonlooker

        She should be wearing the lightning flashes of the SS for her support of “the slaughter of countless unborn children”

  • Charitas Lydia

    Brilliant! These apostates masquerading as ambassadors of Christ need to be exposed, ridiculed and done away with. Shame that the conservative evangelical vicar of St. Helen is so spineless that he had to congratulate the Bishopette, at best he could have just kept quite and carried on as usual and not brought the entire St. Helen’s church to disrepute. I wonder how many of his congregation members will leave and join a Bible believing church and stand up for truth. Or how many will remain as spineless and continue to pretend that they do not support the apostate CofE with their disgusting and increasingly heretical actions( for instance, Jane Ozanne’s recent circus…etc.) I pray that this church will be disestablished soon. They are deceptive and are a stumbling block to many.

  • Don Benson

    ‘The Church of England is committed to “mutual flourishing”. We look forward to Bishop Sarah working for this within the diocese of London,’

    I am truly shocked by this tweet from St Helen’s Church; it is a serpentine statement of which Satan himself would be proud. What? That’s an outrageous thing to say, Don; it’s nasty and hateful in the extreme!

    Well let’s think it through. The essence of ‘mutual flourishing’ in this Church of England context is this: “you and I believe something different but I respect and want you and your ministry to flourish just as much as my own.” How might that work out in practice? As an example, it means that we must all be perfectly happy for our own children to come under the spiritual guidance of a homosexual vicar who promotes the gay agenda within his or her own church even if we fundamentally disagree with that vicar’s position. If we could not be happy about that then we could not in all conscience be happy for other people’s children to be in such a situation: ‘mutual flourishing’ would be utterly hypocritical.

    At the present time within the Church of England, the mantra ‘mutual flourishing’ is toxic. It’s classic double speak: sounds lovely but is in fact utterly cynical. It is tacitly used by those who endorse an agenda which is fundamentally at odds with biblical teaching and the church’s own time honoured understanding and statements in that area of doctrine. It’s the CofE equivalent of a Masonic hand shake. For St Helen’s to fall in with that way of speaking at this pivotal time in the CofE beggars belief.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Actually, it is quite believable, given the great amount of evidence of the toxic cultural Marxist influence in the Church of England (and in Britain in general). Although tragic, it is to be expected.

  • JabbaPapa

    Anglican orders are invalid in principle, so in some way who cares ?

    • Charitas Lydia

      That is precisely the point. The Catholic hierarchy of London was ultra-effusive in his welcome of Mullah Mullally. It is hilarious and pretentious since he won’t even be prepared to permit her to receive communion in his church.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        Excellent ironic point.

        • JabbaPapa

          This monotone slandering is extremely tiresome.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Yes, I imagine the truth hurts you a great deal. The obvious hypocrisy of the Catholic leadership welcome to the liberal female bishop Mullally (underlined by Charitas Lydia) is no slander.

          • JabbaPapa

            The obvious hypocrisy of the Catholic leadership in welcoming the liberal female CofE bishop Mullally (underlined by Charitas Lydia)

            Please explain how, exactly, I have denied the very hypocrisy that you denounce …

            Your problem here is basically just some vacuous whataboutery — having precisely nothing to do with Christian Faith.

            the Reformed Christian scripture-based belief system

            1) To suggest that Catholicism is not based on Scripture is mendacious.

            2) To suggest that only Protestantism is scripture-based is mendacious.

            3) To suggest that Christianity is a “belief system” is to pander to atheistic “values”.

            I pray for you: In 2018, may God give you true discernment

            Try 1994.

            the written Word of God

            Please can you demonstrate that the Hand of God Personally wrote the Bible.

            above any more recent church tradition

            So much then for the modern claims of Luther, Zwingli, Henry VIII Tudor, Calvin, and the grotesquely genocidal Cromwell.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I have clearly revealed some of the Catholic departures from scripture. You just choose to remain in denial. To call “mendacious” every point I make without using scripture to
            back it up is itself mendacious (or as prefer to say, deceived, because I do not believe that you intend to lie).

            Of course Christianity involves a belief system, even a worldview.. Jesus was clear that it is all about believing His words and the scriptures. This is not Gnostic, just the Truth.

          • JabbaPapa

            every point I make without using scripture to back it up

            And here is the very bibliolatrous fetishism that I implicitly denounced in a previous post …

            Jesus was clear that it is all about believing His words and the scriptures

            Christ’s two Commandments are :

            Matthew : {22:34} But the Pharisees, hearing that he had caused the Sadducees to be silent, came together as one.
            {22:35} And one of them, a doctor of the law, questioned him, to test him:
            {22:36} “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
            {22:37} Jesus said to him: “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God from all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind.
            {22:38} This is the greatest and first commandment.
            {22:39} But the second is similar to it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
            {22:40} On these two commandments the entire law depends, and also the prophets.”

            I cannot seem to find in these two greatest Commandments that the Scriptures, nor even Christ’s own Words, are to be worshiped above all else.

            No one has ever, in my 71 years, accused me of “pandering to atheistic values.”

            Better late than never.

            God chose Jesus to be born apart from the institutionalized Jewish priesthood

            In fact, Jesus was recognised as a Rabbi.

            You are confusing the Temple with the priesthood and you are also confusing it with the Church.

            It is of course extraordinarily unhelpful that the word in Greek ἐκκλησία and in the Latin ecclesia is almost systematically rendered as “church” in New Testament translations …

            totally outside of the religious institution

            That claim is absolutely false. The 12 Apostles, just for starters, were and are “a religious institution”.

            It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

            That is precisely why I have no trust in the claims of Martin Luther nor any of his followers through the centuries.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Anglican orders are valid in principle to Anglicans, so why would Anglicans care what you think?

      However, many of us Anglicans believe that “orders” for female priests (especially bishops) are scripturally invalid.

      • JabbaPapa

        There can be no valid Sacraments except for Baptism wherever the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist has been explicitly denied, as the CoE has done (article XXVIII).

        • Bruce Atkinson

          We obviously have a different understanding of these deep spiritual things.

          Clearly the “real presence of Christ” has not left me since my conversion forty years ago and perhaps has always been with me, at least since baptism. According God’s Word, I have been born again from above and my own body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

          Christ is not only with me at the Eucharist but is always with me. He is not embodied some magical way in the wafer and wine that I must partake in order to have Him within me; this superstitious idea is heresy, it idolizes merely material things.

          When Jesus told His disciples that this is my body and this is my blood, He was right there with them in the flesh— so it was obviously meant to be symbolic of what He was about to do at the Cross… a graphic illustration of our own unity with Him when we believe. He is always with me, no more so and no less so at the Eucharist, where I worship Him along with my brothers and sisters, and where I remember with thanksgiving what He has done for us. “Eucharist” means thanksgiving, as I recall.

          • JabbaPapa

            He is not embodied some magical way in the wafer and wine that I must partake in order to have Him within me; this superstitious idea is heresy, it idolizes merely material things.

            aaaaaah yes, bad old Jesus the heretic :

            John : {6:50} This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die.
            {6:51} I am the living bread, who descended from heaven.
            {6:52} If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”
            {6:53} Therefore, the Jews debated among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
            {6:54} And so, Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.
            {6:55} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
            {6:56} For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
            {6:57} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
            {6:58} Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me.
            {6:59} This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall live forever.”

          • Bruce Atkinson

            His words are the true manna from heaven, represented by the bread, and the wine represents His Spirit. Word and Spirit. . Jesus used metaphors constantly. Jesus spoke these metaphors so that we would understand the depth of our unity with Him, not so that we could invent a Romanesque required work in order manipulate God into giving us eternal life. It is all about belief and trust in Him (that is, faith).
            “Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: to believe in the One He has sent.” (John 6:29) It is all about believing His words, which are the very words of God. Note John 3:16 is about belief, not sacraments.

            Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3)

            Then Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

            Jesus: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

          • JabbaPapa

            Jesus used metaphors constantly

            Well, I suppose it must be dead easy to believe in “sola scriptura” when you can pick and choose according to mere whim what its contents signify …

            No need to, eh, actually ever take any notice of what’s written there … no, just cleave to the man-made doctrines of Protestantism !!!

            John 6:29 does not constitute any contradiction of the commandment to eat of Christ’s Flesh and drink of Christ’s blood ; John 3:16 does not constitute any contradiction of the commandment to eat of Christ’s Flesh and drink of Christ’s blood ; Romans 10:17 does not constitute any contradiction of the commandment to eat of Christ’s Flesh and drink of Christ’s blood — furthermore, the context of that verse is {10:16} But not all are obedient to the Gospel ; Matthew 4:4 does not constitute any contradiction of the commandment to eat of Christ’s Flesh and drink of Christ’s blood — furthermore, the meaning of “not by bread alone” hardly constitutes a condemnation of the eating of “bread”, but a statement that bread and the Word of God (the Revelation) are BOTH necessary for life ; John 6:68 does not constitute any contradiction of the commandment to eat of Christ’s Flesh and drink of Christ’s blood.

            As for John 6:63, first the Holy Eucharist is of the Spirit, not of the flesh — and it is only your Anglican, heretical rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist that leads you to the false belief that it is mere bread (a “wafer” according to you, quire blasphemously) and mere wine.

            works-to-gain-salvation-oriented

            This is absolute nonsense.

            James {2:17} Thus even faith, if it does not have works, is dead, in and of itself. — {2:26} For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

            Revelation {2:5} And so, call to mind the place from which you have fallen, and do penance, and do the first works. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

            {2:23} And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

            {14:13} And I heard a voice from heaven, saying to me: “Write: Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord, now and hereafter, says the Spirit, so that they may find rest from their labors. For their works follow them.

            {20:12} And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in view of the throne. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged by those things that had been written in the books, according to their works.
            {20:13} And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. And death and Hell gave up their dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

            {22:12} “Behold, I am approaching quickly! And my repayment is with me, to render to each one according to his works.
            {22:13} I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

            As for your claim that Faith in the Real Presence is “Roman” — https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist :

            It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, His true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.

            In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

            One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

            The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            He doth protest too much methinks. For all your words, you are unable to deceive a Reformed catholic apostolic Christian.

          • JabbaPapa

            So now he’s accusing me of “deceit” … /face-palm/

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You were not listening. I never accused you of being deceiving (deceit) but of being a victim of deceit– that is, both you and your church in general have been deceived by the great deceiver in a few obvious areas. Revisionism came early in the Roman church, disobeying Christ (Mark 10:42-44, Matthew 23:1-12) with clericalism (power politics in the institutionalized church) and sacramentalism (taking on aspects of the pagan mystery religions with superstitious ritualisation of everything, and the elevation/worship of objects, relics, bread/wine, angels, Mary, etc.). The Roman Church and to a lesser degree the Eastern Church were deceived by the worldly ways (zeitgeist) of their times, straying from the Apostolic doctrines found in the New Testament. And I will continue to “contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)— the faith delivered by the Apostles as we read in the NT but NOT by many of the church leaders after the Apostles had passed on.

            Perhaps you and your church are not deceitful, but certainly you have been deceived.

          • JabbaPapa

            worship of objects, relics, bread/wine, angels, Mary, art objects, etc.

            And then you accuse me of spreading falsehoods — this obnoxious Protestant lie is egregiously grotesque.

            I hear neither repentance nor discernment

            Why should I “repent” for not believing in man-made doctrines created in the 16th and later Centuries ?

            as I have explained

            Your paraphrasing of man-made Protestant dogmatics does not constitute “explanation” — the Faith is not anyway just some mere product of the intellect.

            I refuse to elevate any church above the authority of Holy Writ or above Jesus Christ Himself– as many in the RCC do

            More rubbish — No creature is above God, and the Church is a creature. As BTW is the Bible.

            Shall I start to point out that many Protestants appear to worship the Bible — or rather their own personal interpretation of it — as if this were some sort of “supreme authority” ? The only Supreme Authority is God, including via the Revelation.

            Being a member of a church

            It’s raining strawman arguments …

            Oh and BTW — jolly good show there of not addressing a single one of my actual points, and instead just coming out with the anti-Catholic propaganda that we’ve all heard 1000 times before …

          • Bruce Atkinson

            You make my point. You are very strong on elevating your church and denigrating the faith of others, but I hear very little from you about elevating Jesus Christ in the world and in the Church to His proper place of Lordship.

            Colossians 1:15-20
            “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
            Note that the only mention of church is about Christ being the true head. Not bishops, archbishops, or Pope.

          • JabbaPapa

            denigrating the faith of others

            What denigration of faith ???

            I said “Anglican orders are invalid” — and in point of fact, the 39 articles expressly deny that there is a Sacrament of Holy Orders — to which your response was to accuse me and the Church of “heresy, deceit, magic, superstition, idolatry, error, revisionism, clericalism, “sacramentalism” , worldly ways, corruption, and so on — and now you want to have your cake and eat it, by claiming that this obvious denigration by you of another’s faith is magically of my responsibility.

            I hear very little about elevating Jesus Christ in the world and in the Church to His proper place of Lordship

            If you were less concerned with the permanent denunciation of Catholicism in so destructive a manner, I would be less motivated by the need to defend the Catholicity from the distortions and falsehoods that you insist to carry on posting about it.

            {1:24} For now I rejoice in my passion on your behalf, and I complete in my flesh the things that are lacking in the Passion of Christ, for the sake of his body, which is the Church.

            To deny the corporeal nature of the Church is the mechanical consequence of denying the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist, and it is close in kinship to denying that the Incarnation of God took place in Christ Jesus.

            Your quote from Colossians explicitly teaches that the Earthly Church is of Divine origin, and a Spirit made flesh.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Of course the Church is of divine origin. But you and I disagree completely on the definition of that divine Church. Let me repeat:
            Only God knows the REAL Church. The “bride of Christ” is
            made up of true believers from many churches and some who are members of no organized church at all. As Peter made clear (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9), ALL believers are members of Christ’s priesthood. It is this heaven-born grace-faith kingdom, this spiritual Church (invisible to us, as per Luke 17:20-21) which is truly universal.

            No organized church has a right to display the Pharisaical hubris we see in the RCC, at least as observed in your comments. Fortunately, your views are not the same as all Catholics.

          • JabbaPapa

            Only God knows the REAL Church

            The Church in its absolute mystical sense is the gathering under Christ of all of the Angels and of the Saints, the quick and the dead, and so your statement is objectively false — the Angels and those Saints who are in the Afterlife with Christ also know “the real Church”. So no, not just God alone.

            BTW, your notion of “the Church” is clearly of at least some degree of Gnostic origin, given that you seem to think that only some sort of “special elect” AKA “true believers” can belong to its ranks.

            the Pharisaical hubris we see in the RCC, at least as observed in your comments

            This is grotesque, you’re the one claiming that these or those aren’t “true believers“, just as the Pharisees claimed that these or those weren’t “proper Jews”, and you’re the one claiming some especial hubristic powers to define who belongs to the “real church” and who doesn”t.

            believers from many churches and some who are members of no organized church at all

            What you describe is neither a religion nor a church, but some sort of syncretist neo-gnostic mish-mash with neither shape nor form — such a concept is alien to the Revelation and to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and to the Commandments of the Lord.

            But you’re right about one thing, many contemporary Catholics have bought into this sort of modernist nonsense of false ecumenism too.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Jabba,
            We are talking past each other, this much is clear. We are committed to our own faith-based stands and are not going to change our minds. You continue to spout the same old dogmatic errors of the over-institutionalized (worldly) RCC and do not truly answer what Jesus and Peter actually taught. My views as stated above are entirely based on the scriptures themselves as I can prove.

            If you truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the
            Church (and of course its originator) then why do you (and the RCC in general) ignore His teachings? … Such as Mark
            10:42-44:: “And Jesus called them to him and said to them,‘’You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.”

            Through Christ, all believers have access to the Father, all have salvation, all are siblings “in Christ”, and no one is qualified to
            “rule” over another brother or sister. Leadership is to be servant leadership (no special honors or privileges or fancy dress or titles or worldly powers).

            In Matthew 23, it is Jesus Himself who severely criticizes the Jewish leadership for just the kinds of corrupted tendencies developed by the Roman Church as it became increasingly
            institutionalized (worldly). Speaking of the institutionalized Jewish priests, teachers of the law, and the Pharisees, Jesus said: Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven… The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

            How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the Roman Church? I can tell you why and how— because of human ego and the desire for power and public prestige. The governments and military in Greek and Roman lands were quite hierarchical in their power structure and their culture had a clear caste system. Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the churches co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism (a culturally based revision), quite against the teachings of Jesus (see above) and of Peter who indicated that the priesthood was of ALL believers (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9). And Paul too revealed this leveling of the membership playing field (Gal 3:23-29, 1 Cor 12), reminding us that we are all part of the same Body, but we each have different gifts and thus different roles in the larger Body of Christ—but all are equally important, and the lesser are to be treated with the greater honor.

            So the separation of the Church into two classes of Christian was and remains very wrong.

            This ecclesiology I reveal here is based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, Peter, and Paul. As an evangelical Reformed catholic Christian, I am far from alone in my faith in
            Christ and the scriptures on this issue. I have learned not to trust the teachings of the worldly and self-appointed hegemony of the Roman church.

            Worship your church if you want, Jabba (churcholatry), but I will worship only God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My authority down here will always be His sacred Scriptures, not the teachings of those who came after the Apostles went home. When leaders and churches obviously stray from apostolic teaching, I will not accept their words as inspired by God. It is that simple.

            I have exposed these truths to our readers (those who have the spiritual ears to hear) for their edification, but I know you Jabba will not be able to hear or accept it, for your faith is embedded in your church rather than in the Word of God. True “Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ” (Romans 10:17), not through a corrupted church institution.

          • JabbaPapa

            We are talking past each other

            I agree.

            You continue to spout the same old dogmatic errors

            In fact, my understanding of these matters has been founded in personal revelations and in multiple Divine Interventions. For my sins. These have contradicted the Deposit of Faith not a jot.

            That you should confuse Dogma with Error is OTOH very disturbing.

            and do not truly answer what Jesus and Peter actually taught

            That is a false claim.

            why do you (and the RCC in general) ignore His teachings?

            Why on EARTH do you ask such a grotesquely preposterous and false “question” ???

            Neither the Church nor myself personally do any such thing, regardless of your sectarianism and schismaticism.

            I am not responsible for your grotesque insistence that this or that verse of the Scriptures, interpreted according to your personal prejudice, should thereby somehow “justify” destroying the Catholicity of the Faith.

            all have salvation,

            A claim easily disproved — oh, and never mind of course that this claim radically denounces your own suggestions that Catholics might be somehow excluded from salvation.

            Salvation for all, except for those whom you personally have decided to be excluded from Heaven.

            Jesus Himself who severely criticizes the Jewish leadership

            Please can you explain to me how the See of Rome is “Jewish”. Should be good, at least, for a belly laugh …

            How did these clear commands of Jesus become ignored by the Roman Church?

            … asks the prideful man, seeking to ignore the very Authority that he claims as his guide.

            Romans {13:1} Let every soul be subject to higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God.
            {13:2} And so, whoever resists authority, resists what has been ordained by God. And those who resist are acquiring damnation for themselves.

            Your blatant ignorance of Church History is actually quite drastically shocking.

            Once the Apostles were gone and the churches started to become larger and more organized, the churches co-opted some of these systems and turned it into clericalism

            What a load of bollox, but then even IF it were true, then all that it would constitute would be a direct condemnation of your own “church”.

            (churcholatry)

            Wot a load of effing evidence-free hateful ad hominem rubbish truth-free presumptuous self-serving circular-“reasoned” bollox

            To paraphrase my father, “engage brain before hitting keyboard”.

            the separation of the Church into two classes of Christian

            … is an invention of schismatics, heretics, and protestants.

            Christians are Christians, even when they should by Error choose to reject the Grace of the Holy Catholic Church.

            This ecclesiology I reveal here is based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, Peter, and Paul

            No — it’s based entirely on sectarian ideologies and directly false and/or manifestly contested theological claims, with which I must in obedience to the First Commandment – “I am the LORD your God” — denounce as being of little value at all.

            I have exposed these truths to our readers

            Your own personal opinions do not constitute the Revelation.

            I know you Jabba will not be able to hear or accept it

            I am not responsible for such prejudice.

            I will worship only God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

            Your implicit claim that I might somehow do otherwise is a grotesque and evil LIE.

            When leaders and churches obviously stray from apostolic teaching, I will not accept their words as inspired by God

            That attitude is the very essence of sectarianism and heresy.

            your faith is embedded in your church rather than in the Word of God

            What a load of presumptuous and ignorant rubbish !!!!

            To the contrary, I have no claim whatsoever as to what your own faith might be based upon.

            That is because I do not engage in the sort of grotesque a priori bollox that you seem t be enamoured of.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Name calling makes no case except revealing your own heart and mind. See ya later. I’ve got a lot better things to do than to continue reliving the Reformation with you on this thread. At least we have allowed people here to see some real differences between the Roman and Reformed faiths.

          • JabbaPapa

            Name calling makes no case except revealing your own heart and mind

            … quoth he who directly accused me of “heresy, deceit, magic, superstition, idolatry, error, revisionism, clericalism, “sacramentalism” , worldly ways, corruption” …

          • Bruce Atkinson

            I did not personally accuse YOU of anything. These are simply apt descriptive terms for what I believe to be wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. If you personally want to identify with these terms, don’t blame me.

          • JabbaPapa

            I am not enamoured of hypocrisy.

          • JabbaPapa

            These are simply apt descriptive terms

            No, they are direct slanders — having engaged in such slanders, you are ill-placed to complain about direct attacks by others.

          • JabbaPapa

            I’m starting to think that “Charitas” is a sockpuppet.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Sockpuppet for whom? Not associated with me. As a Moderator on another site, I refuse to do such things. I have no idea who Charitas actually is, but I can say that Charitas and I agree on quite a few issues.

          • JabbaPapa

            Not associated with me

            Sorry — if that comment elicited any confusion, I most certainly do NOT accuse you of such activities.

          • JabbaPapa

            As to your blatant Modernism, it’s just the same old, same old that was rightly denounced a century ago :

            Pius X, Pascendi Dominoci Gregis :

            The Modernist as Theologian:
            His Principles, Immanence and Symbolism

            19. And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us to study the Modernists in the theological arena – a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end to be attained is the conciliation of faith with science, always, however, saving the primacy of science over faith. In this branch the Modernist theologian avails himself of exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher, and applies them to the believer: the principles of immanence and symbolism. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. So too, the philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. Truly enormous errors both, the pernicious character of which will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula, but avail himself of it only with the scope of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours to express but without succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines.

            20. With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate what is meant, and this example is offered by the Church and the Sacraments. The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also forbidden by the law of immanence which rejects what they call external application; it is further forbidden by the law of evolution which requires for the development of the germs a certain time and a certain series of circumstances; it is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. Still it is to be held that both Church and Sacraments have been founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so, too, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ is according to faith, and so, too, is the life of Christians. And since this life produced, in the courses of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments, it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ and is divine. In the same way they prove that the Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And thus the Modernistic theology may be said to be complete. No great thing, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science must always, and in all things, be respected. The application of these theories to the other points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily make for himself.

            I’m not saying that you agree with every single little detail of these Errors, but as Pascendi Dominoci Gregis suggests, (paraphrased) “it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean … for their own opinions … vary“.

          • Lawrence Jones

            Well, I suppose it must be dead easy to believe in “sola scriptura” when you can pick and choose according to mere whim what its contents signify

            Do you realize that if you maintain that only a physical corporal presence is real and something being spirit makes it not real- that given that Scripture teaches that God is spirit then by your reckoning He is not real?

          • JabbaPapa

            if you maintain that only a physical corporal presence is real and something being spirit makes it not real

            Do you know what “a strawman argument” is ? Anyway, that’s an example of one.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Do you think that Christ came to establish a clerical bureaucracy modelled on the Roman Empire?

      • JabbaPapa

        What, the British Empire ?

  • Steve

    Refused stipends. Ignorant clerics should study Vespasian

    “Pecunia non olet”

    • ecclesiaman

      There used to be an expression in Christian circles describing money received from dubious sources as, ” tainted money”, or worse, “dirty money” when income was derived from gambling i.e. not something a Christian should be seen to be doing, potentially wasting money on games of chance. Some have viewed the Stock Exchange in a similar light. To rely on a worldly system was seen as not trusting God. A well known quote of the famous (to me anyway) missionary to China, Hudson Taylor, said, “Where God guides, He provides”. Times have changed (ethical investing) but principles have not.
      In the St Helens case there is more at stake than where the money comes from, IMO. He who pays the piper calls the tune. There are conscience issues here. It may not be long before the C of E and other denominations and possibly the government make laws which override conscience, e.g. a requirement on clerics to conduct SSM whether they approve or otherwise. In the non-religious sphere this already happens as cake bakers and Christian magistrates know only too well.
      A simple matter of a Christian burning incense to a Roman Emperor such as Vespasian was regarded as Apostasy and excommunication followed.
      The sad thing about Rev Taylor is that it appears he has reneged on a principled position.

      • Charitas Lydia

        It seems that in this case the 30 pieces on offer is the building in the very heart of London which would be worth millions of pounds. For William Taylor and his congregation to take a principled stand and walk away from the CofE would be to sacrifice the building: is this too great a price to pay? I’m afraid that for most conservative evangelicals this is sadly true. A 4-5 bedroom vicarage, a nice stipend and an attractive pension… it would take a person of considerable convictions to take a stand and make this sacrifice. So far, we have seen little of this. I am not surprised that Rev Taylor has reneged. I would have been surprised if he had kept his word. But, why then make such a foolish threat you cannot carry out? Apparently the longer conservative evangelicals remain within this apostate organisation, the more they are buying into the delusion and boiling to death like the frog in the kettle.

        • ecclesiaman

          I am surprised if Rev Taylor has reneged on his initial statement. I honestly would have expected a principled continuation of his Biblical stand. I suspect when push comes to shove he will find the building will be lost anyway. The same applies to other denominations with a hierarchy of oversight not in alignment with scriptural teaching.