‘Rebel Priest’ Rev Jules Gomes: Welby is guilty of rank hypocrisy

Justin Welby has thrown George Carey to the wolves. Homo homini lupus est! Man is wolf to man. The Archbishop of Canterbury is wolf to his predecessor. Justin Welby has asked George Carey to step down as assistant honorary bishop of Oxford, after the Moira Gibb report found that senior figures in the Church of England colluded for over 20 years with sexual predator Bishop Peter Ball.

Has justice been done? Is this yet another juggling trick at the Barchester Episcopal Circus? If justice has been done, why has the Rev Graham Sawyer, the heroic victim at the centre of the abuse scandal, uttered these nightmarish words: ‘The church continues to use highly aggressive legal firms to bully, frighten and discredit victims ... In my own case, I continue to endure cruel and sadistic treatment by the very highest levels of the church.’

George Carey has stepped down. So why is Sawyer is still facing ‘cruel and sadistic treatment by the very highest levels of the church’? Is he pointing his finger at the current archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu? In that case, should Justin and John swallow their cyanide pills and walk the plank?

All abuse—sexual, emotional, physical or psychological—is an abomination. The victims of abuse cry out to heaven for vindication. When institutions collude to silence them, heaven weeps. When bishops perpetrate the most perverse of abusive acts, and other bishops protect them, covering up their sins under cope and mitre, heaven bleeds.

The Church of England smears saints, and shields scoundrels. I addressed the Ball scandal in a column this time last year, and pointed out how while the CofE was eulogising Bishop Ball and protecting his image, it was demonising Bishop George Bell of Chichester. Ball, the pervert, was busy fiddling with boys, while Bell, the hero, was standing with Dietrich Bonhoeffer against Adolf Hitler.

Justice has been done. That’s what Welby wants the world to believe. Two previous archbishops have apologised. But somewhere there is a smelly dead rat. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The ghost of King Hamlet is hovering over Lambeth Palace. It is the ghost haunting Wobbly Welby for his hypocrisy. “Hypocrisy in the highest! Pietas ficta in excelsis!” it wails in a shrieking tremolo, pointing a shaking finger at wavering Welby.

“Hypocrite” is made up of two words—hupo (under) and krino (to judge). It literally means, “to judge under” as a person judging someone from behind a screen or mask. The true identity of the person is covered up. In Greek drama, actors held over their faces oversized masks painted to represent the character they were portraying. The ‘hypocrite’ is one who plays a part on the stage. ‘You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye,’ says Jesus.

Welby’s blatant hypocrisy came to the fore when he dished out bonuses of £1 million to the Church of England’s 10 senior fund managers last month. ‘The payments brought charges of hypocrisy from City critics who say the CofE has opened a gap between what it tells other people to do and what it does itself,’ wrote journalist Steve Doughty.

So why did Welby preach hellfire and brimstone against the bonus culture when he was on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards? ‘What is it essentially about bankers that means they need skin in the game? We don’t give skin in the game to civil servants, to surgeons, to teachers,’ he said in 2013. So why did Welby not give bonuses to hardworking vicars in inner-city parishes? Ironically, at that time Welby ‘accused banks of “hypocrisy” in continuing to pay their staff big bonuses while insisting they are undergoing a cultural overhaul.’

Welby’s hypocrisy took a quantum leap forward earlier this month when he wrote to the Primates of the Anglican Communion criticising the appointment of Canon Andy Lines as the new missionary bishop for GAFCON. Welby dusted off the ancient Canons of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), claiming that the creation of such missionary bishops was a grave violation of Canons 15 and 16. Andy Lines was about to commit the mortal sin of “border crossing” (trespassing into another bishop’s diocese).

Here, Welby is being a hypocrite on two counts. First, on BBC Radio 4 he blamed terrorism on religious scriptures that have ‘been twisted and misused.’ Isn’t this precisely what he is doing with the Canons of Nicaea? Second, Canon 15 forbids the transfer of bishops, presbyters and deacons (not just bishops!) from one diocese to another. In that case, Welby needs to return to the diocese where he was first ordained as deacon and step down as Archbishop of Canterbury! Or at least return to the See of Durham, where he was bishop before he made his career move to Canterbury, which was precisely the reason why Canon 15 was framed! It was to prevent bishops falling into the trap of careerism. If a bishop moved to another bishopric, the council decreed, he must go back. A council in Alexandria called a bishop who moved to another diocese an “adulterer.”

Above all, Welby’s rank hypocrisy stinks to high heaven regarding his own presence at the camps where the pervert John Smyth was abusing Christian boys. Initially Welby denied any knowledge of the abuse even though he was dormitory officer at the Iwerne Christian camp during the mid-1970s where John Smyth, the camp’s chairman, had groomed and beaten more than 20 boys and young men. Welby said that he had ‘no contact’ with the organisation between moving to Paris in 1978 and his return to the UK in 1983. However, this month Welby changed his tune after fresh evidence emerged that he had indeed had come back to the UK and given a talk in 1979 to people at the camp, which was also attended by Smyth.

Numerous questions remain unanswered. The Gibb Report also points a finger at former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. If Welby has asked Carey to step down as assistant bishop, why has he not asked Williams to surrender his licence to practise as an Anglican priest? Moira Gibb also states that nine other bishops were part of the cover-up yet did not name them. Why are they not named? Are they still in ministry? Will Welby ask them to step down as well?

Yes, Lord Carey and other leaders of the Church of England behaved very poorly by the standards of today. The Gibb Report shows that this was as much about confusion as collusion. Other arms of the State responsible for enforcing the law against Ball colluded with him and covered up his crimes by handing him a slap on the wrist and not a hefty custodial sentence. But time and time we discover that in every institution of the State, the church and the voluntary sector and even the BBC and footballing authorities handled victims of abuse appallingly.

Gibb herself admits that the Church of England had no safeguarding policy at the time that Peter Ball’s crimes came to light. It was a year later that such a policy came forward. Now we are weighed down by policies. And yet, clergy are abused, bullied and harassed, often by their own bishops. But Welby chooses to ignore the unanswered questions that constitute the heart of darkness in his church. Instead of addressing the state of the Church of England, Welby and Sentamu have deployed a weapon of mass distraction and are using special powers to call for an emergency debate on the ‘unanswered’ questions about the state of the nation at the Church of England’s ruling general synod next month. General Synod’s agenda has zero mention of the Gibb Report. However, its farcical agenda, which borders on the script of a Peter Rogers’ “Carry On Church” movie, will discuss reaffirmation of baptismal vows for transgender people and banning therapy for homosexual people who are seeking to become heterosexual. So it is okay for a male to become female but it is not okay for a homosexual to even seek to become heterosexual? Sheesh!

The Gibb Report has very strong words that the Church of England will need to take very seriously if there is to be any change at all. ‘We were struck during this review by a manifest culture of deference both to authority figures in the Church, particularly bishops, and to individuals with distinctive religious reputations—or both. This deference had two negative consequences. Firstly, it discouraged people from “speaking truth to power.” Then, on the few occasions where people did speak out and were rebuffed by a bishop—the summit of the hierarchy—there was nowhere else to go.’

The actor’s mask hiding Welby’s face is slipping. Some day he will have to go. Unless Welby goes, there will be nowhere else to go.

(Image: FCO)

Rev Jules Gomes

  • Alan Llandrindod Wells

    Has anybody introduced Welby to Christianity.
    He has just issued another sermon on the dangers of Brexit.
    How about making him special Christian missionary to Yemen.

    • MorganCourtenay

      Has anyone introduced Welby to democracy?

      • Bruce Atkinson

        A better question: Has anyone introduced Welby to Christianity?
        Answer: Frequently, but he still refuses to listen.

      • Alan Llandrindod Wells

        He sermonises on the “poison of Brexit”.
        He never sermonised on the poison of staying in.
        The church of Cromwell and Cranmer, now led by a pathetic waster.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      A sermon on the dangers of Brexit? Where o where are the sermons on the dangers of ignoring and disobeying the Holy Scriptures? This nominal (in name only) archbishop needs to be ‘born again.’

  • StopIslamofascism

    The left have put their people in all places of influences during their long march through the institutions: media, legal, political, sports, entertainment. Religion is no different. Welby and Pope Francis are there to reconstruct, pervert and neuter spiritual doctrine in the left’s own image.

    • JabbaPapa

      Well, when your church submits its doctrines to the whims of majority voting and sundry party political agendas at Parliament, it’ll just end up being a hodge-podge of trendy PC fads lacking spirituality and discipline.

      The worst hypocrisy is the rank refusal to do anything significant about the major cause of these abuses : homosexual predation upon adolescent boys, which makes up about 80%-90% of the cases. After all, “homophobia” is a much worse “crime” isn’t it !!!

      • MorganCourtenay

        I have looked at these cases and wondered why so many of them involve men preying on innocent boys. Then again, you have the same perverts who are heterosexual, often preying on adolescent girls. It’s a very sordid circle.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          Very sordid indeed. But logical; if the pervert is into sodomy, either sex will do.

        • It’s predominantly a homosexual issue and, of course, one sees in the Casey Report accounts of some seeking to blame this on the church for not welcoming sodomites and therefore preventing them from forming “healthy “ same sex relationships.

        • JabbaPapa

          In the general population, easily the most common of the abuses is men preying on adolescent girls — though the % of crimes involving homosexual men is still about 10x the % of homosexuals. (paedophilia itself is different, but the huge majority of these crimes concern adolescents and so are not paedophile crimes as such)

          But for Christian clergy, it’s a massively homosexual scandal.

          I could probably do some number-crunching from the statistics, but one thing that they might suggest is that the heterosexual clergy commit such crimes far more rarely ; or if they break their vows, do so with women, not children. That’s just guesswork though — but there is another troubling statistic I came across a couple of months ago ; apparently 40-50% of homosexual men had their first sexual experience with a man before age 14.

      • Reborn

        The only serious homosexual advances I received, despite my good looks, and modesty, were very aggressive.
        My aggressor was a boy a year older than I who openly proclaimed in school
        to the carriers tutor that he intended to be a Catholic Priest.

      • Bik Byro

        Ironic that that the institution which does the most to oppose gay marriage seems to contain the most gay child abusers.

    • Bik Byro

      What’s that got to do with institutional child abuse ? Which is what this article is about.

  • MorganCourtenay

    Whilst I do sympathize with honourable members of the Church of England (not that there appear to be many left, I fear), who still cling to their pews whilst all is ash around them, I do think Welby and his motley crew deserve the mockery. Under his “leadership”, the Church appears even more beleaguered and rootless, which surely wasn’t the point of “reforming” its teachings. In other words, chucking the Bible out of the stained glass windows and replacing it with a selection of new religious writings like “The Female Eunuch,” and “Das Kapital.”

    Either way, any member of authority discovered to either have perpetrated sexual crimes, or colluded in covering them up must face the fullest wrath of the law. Rape and paedophilia are an abomination to human society.

  • I’m afraid my loyalty to the C of E is getting less each day; what is the point of belonging to a church (or indeed any other organisation) where its leader is trying to reduce the membership on a day-by-day basis?
    The only question remaining is which church should I go to instead.

    • Charitas Lydia

      Try the Grace Baptist Churches or the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) or the Antiochian Orthodox Church. These denominations have all kept their orthodoxy. Depends if you want something more liturgical or free…

      • As a child I was dedicated at the Baptist Church by my parents but was never baptised and subsequently went to the CofE when I met my wife. The main pleasure I get from the CofE is that I go there to bell-ring and help beginners at a couple of practices each week which is not only helping others and also helps stretch my back! We used to have a lady who rang at out church on Sunday and then dashed across the road to the URC which started to start 15 mins later. They seem to have quite a strong congregation.

      • Little Black Censored

        Investigate the Nordic Catholic Church, now encouraging Anglicans to join.

        • JabbaPapa

          These “churches” can call themselves “Catholic” ’til the cows come home — but they’re not.

    • There’s only one:
      http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/

      • Chefofsinners

        And only two popes these days, due to the impact of austerity.

      • Catholicism has never been to my taste and I don’t really feel that I have any more confidence in the present pope than the Archbishop.

        • Pope Francis is certainly a trial – but he isn’t the Church.

          • One, of course, could argue that about Welby!

          • Indeed. How do such men rise to the top of their churches?

          • Being nice and ‘understanding’ to everybody even whilst they are throwing people off the tops of tall buildings. The Hell-fire and Brimstone preachers are a thing of the past.

          • Jack suspects it’s rather more sinister than that. One thing’s for sure though, when you jettison 2000 years of tradition and the use reason and natural law in favour of liberal interpretations of scripture, you’re on the road to perdition.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        The only one for YOU. Many other valid options exist. If you lean toward the Roman Catholic Church, then the ordinariate is a good option. If you lean toward Cranmer, Calvin, and Jewel, then other Reformed/Protestant Bible-believing traditions (Baptist for example) will do. Even better, get a group of conservative evangelical Anglicans together and call ACNA or GAFCON to help you form your own congregation.

        • As if serving God is a matter similar to selecting which shop to enter when searching for a product.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            It sounds blasphemous to call God a ‘product.’ However if God is alive and worshiped in a number of ‘shops,’ then yes, we get to choose which shop in which to worship Him, one which fits our theology and worship preferences. We all do this choosing anyway.

          • “one which fits our theology and worship preferences”
            As opposed to God’s?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            And which one is God’s preference? The same as yours, right?

            Come on, Happy Jack, it still comes down to each of us discerning (to the best of our ability) which church is His favorite and/or which church is the one which He wants us to join. We cannot avoid our own responsibility to prayerfully evaluate and then to choose.

          • JabbaPapa

            We cannot avoid our own responsibility to prayerfully evaluate and then to choose

            The most important words there are “we” and “our” — that is how the Catholic Church makes these discernments ; together, not as a disparate group of individuals each deciding on his or her own.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            But when we come before our Lord, our excuse for any error cannot be, “well, that is what the Catholic Church taught.” He wants us to be responsible for our own choices (even of which church or tradition we will trust). We will have no excuse for our choices.

            Besides, we each must interpret what the Catholic Church (or any tradition) publicly states, no differently than we interpret the scriptures themselves. We cannot avoid the personal interpretation of everything we hear and read– and we must take responsibility for that interpretation. To say that you do not personally interpret the Catholic tradition according to your own way of thinking would be worse than disingenuous— it would be a blatant lie.

          • JabbaPapa

            But that is precisely why the Catholic teachings remain so cautious and conservative — and regardless of the inevitability of personal re-interpretations, nevertheless a robust corpus of Catholic interpretations that all are expected to cleave to exists, not overly voluminous, and capable of being accurately taught and correctly understood.

            Your own Modernist-Relativist preference for “everyone invents their own theology more or less out of thin air” leads not to a church, but to a chaos of pure individualism.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Not “invented out of thin air” but discerned prayerfully from the scriptures themselves, with an examination of many traditional respected sources. I do not trust my own ability to accurately understand all that I read, either from the scriptures or from the early fathers. We are all fallible. I must measure all I believe with what has been commonly believed among Christians. Of course, they do not agree on many things and I must make my best choice and live by it until a better understanding comes along.

            I believe in Prima Scriptura, even as the Anglican Articles state it (VI, VII, XX). I can easily prove that Catholic Church tradition departed from the scriptures over millennia in many ways. No church or its tradition is perfect. All are constantly in need of reformation back to the center of the faith.

          • JabbaPapa

            many traditional respected sources. I do not trust my own ability to accurately understand all that I read

            And yet you criticise Catholics for doing the same thing, and paying attention to the Church Authorities ?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            It does not take much analytical skill to compare the scriptures with Catholic traditions. The Reformation happened for some very good reasons. The RCC has departed from the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in a number of areas.
            I have clearly stated where I primarily place my trust: Word and Spirit. I listen to tradition and also to top theologians, but their authority is always secondary or tertiary. You apparently prefer to trust the Catholic organization and traditions above what you read in the scriptures (that is, your interpretations of scripture will always be in submission to what the Catholic Church says they should be). Your choice.

            I think the Holy Spirit wants to influence my interpretation of scripture more directly than that.

          • JabbaPapa

            It does not take much analytical skill to compare the scriptures with Catholic traditions <> I do not trust my own ability to accurately understand all that I read

            Do make up your mind !!

            the Catholic organization

            No, the Revelation and the Catholic Church.

            “Sola Scriptura” is non-Scriptural, “Sola Fide” is non-Scriptural, and as for the 39 articles they’re essentially a hodge-podge of non-Scriptural errors. So please don’t complain about non-Scriptural “innovations”, when you’re overtly and explicitly basing that claim on exactly such innovations yourself.

            What Protestants usually complain about are actually matters of discipline, liturgy, practice, and tradition, not Doctrine as such nor readings of Scripture that they’ve arbitrarily decided to dislike.

            No private reading of the Scripture can possibly be more Authoritative than the Revelation, nor can one individual interpretation of the Revelation be above that of the Church. You are attempting to deny both of these truths.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Being humble about the fact that I am not God does not mean I do not have strong opinions– which I hope and pray are informed by His wisdom.

            Of course Roman Catholics do not value Reformed statements of belief, just as Reformed Christians do not much value those from Rome. We can fight the Reformation all over again on this thread, but that would be a waste of time I am sure.

            What I will always deny is that any earthly authority is above that of Jesus Christ, and until He returns, His words contain that authority. To the extent that any church or tradition (or individual) adheres to Holy Writ, it expresses that authority. To the extent that any so-called “Revelation” or church departs from Holy Writ, it loses its authority.

            By the way, I support Anglican “rebel priest” Rev. Jules Gomes and his views.

          • JabbaPapa

            What I will always contend against is the idea that any earthly authority is above that of Jesus Christ

            A false accusation frequently made by Protestants against the Church.

            To the extent that any so-called “Revelation” or church departs from Holy Writ, it loses its authority

            Given that the Revelation and the Christ are One in God (In initium erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum), that’s a strange comment.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Not a false accusation; if you presume that the Catholic Church has more authority than the written Word of God (the only place where we can find the words of Jesus, the Apostles, and OT prophets), then then it is placing itself above Christ.

            Just because the church asserts that its proclamations are “one in God” does not make it so. The history of heresies, abuses, and corruption in the Roman Church is clear and ugly. No church is yet perfected, but to assert your church IS so is the height of hypocrisy. No protestant church is perfect either but they are not saying that they are. I am only saying that, as Paul said, the scriptures are “God-breathed” but human beings are fallible and all churches are works in progress.

          • JabbaPapa

            Not a false accusation; if you presume that the Catholic Church has more authority than the written Word of God (the only place where we can find the words of Jesus, the Apostles, and OT prophets), then then it is placing itself above Christ.

            Thank you for detailing the contents of the false accusation.

            It remains false, Catholics believing no such fake & grotesque Protestant lies.

            Just because the church asserts that its proclamations are “one in God” does not make it so

            Please learn how to read — the Church does not pretend to be equal to God, contrary to the exaggerated claims of “sola scriptura” radical Protestants.

            The history of heresies, abuses, and corruption in the Roman Church … has led to the establishment of the heretical, abusive, corrupt, slave-holding, and positively genocidal English Protestantism. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of murders from Cromwellian English Protestantism, eh ?

            Until Christ returns, there is no higher authority on earth

            A clearer statement of your deep disbelief in the Resurrection would be hard to imagine.

            All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

            Bad translation — not “all Scripture” meaning the Bible, but “all [good] writing” provides the sort of good instruction described — St Paul obviously CANNOT be referring in his letter to the Christian Codexes that did not yet exist.

            Dr. John R.W. Stott lacks any and all Magisterial Authority.

            As for 2 Peter, {1:20} Understand this first: that every prophecy of Scripture does not result from one’s own interpretation.
            {1:21} For prophecy was not conveyed by human will at any time. Instead, holy men were speaking about God while inspired by the Holy Spirit.

            You are proposing a doctrine exactly contrary to the Scripture.

            But human beings can easily masquerade as God’s sheep, hence Jesus warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing and goats mixed among the sheep

            So, are you goat or wolf ?

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Have I not said (I have) that no churches are perfect? “Thou dost protest too much methinks.”

          • Coniston

            One point you have not covered – the Early Church existed before any of the New Testament was written. Indeed it was the Early Church which decided (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which of the many texts in existence were to be accepted as authoritative, and accepted as Holy Scripture. The Church existed even as St Paul was making his missionary journeys.

            So the Church cannot be dismissed as easily as you seem to suggest. It is very easy to do so. All Churches are full of sinful people, and have done great wrongs over the centuries. It is easy to (largely) ignore them and rely solely on a pure and pristine Holy Writ. But then this has to be interpreted – and history has shown that many good and faithful people have interpreted the scriptures in different ways. I am not here questioning the main doctrinal beliefs of Christianity, but sola scripta alone is too simple.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The reality is, we simply do not know how early some the words and acts of Jesus were written and passed around. Just because we now have no manuscripts that early only means that we do not know. But even the oral tradition was a divine process, was it not?

            It was not simply that the Church decided on the scripture canon. I agree with the following theologians. From the book “God Has Spoken,” J.I. Packer has written:

            “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the NT canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up. Newton did not create gravity, but recognized it, by considering (so it is said) the fall of an apple; similarly, the various churches of Christendom, through an un-coordinated, seemingly haphazard and erratic process covering several centuries, came to recognize the extent and limits of the God-given canon, by checking and cross-checking the pedigree and contents of the many books that bore apostolic names, or were alleged to proceed from the apostolic circle, to find out which of them could make good their claim to be genuine apostolic products, embodying the revealed truth of which the apostles were trustees. …. All that the churches were trying to do [in determining an inspired canon] was to see which of the books claiming to be in some sufficient sense apostolic really were so – a question primarily of
            historical fact, though one on which character and content were also held to bear, both positively and negatively.” (Chapter 5, “God’s Word Written,” subheading The Church and the Canon, p. 119).

            “It was not until the 27 books [of the New Testament] had been
            generally accepted by Christians throughout the known world that they were first made the subject of decree by an ecclesiastical council – the Synod of Carthage in 397. When at last a church
            council gave a ruling on the matter, all that it did was to ratify the general consensus of Christians, who (we may well believe) had been guided in this respect by a wisdom higher than their own.” (F.F. Bruce)

          • JabbaPapa

            I believe in Prima Scriptura, even as the Anglican Articles state it (VI, VII, XX)

            Scripture does not “containeth all things necessary to salvation” (VI) — that statement can only possibly be true of God Himself

            Man is not “of his own nature inclined to evil” (IX), because the nature of all creatures made by God is not evil, but good and inclined to the good — it is Original Sin and the fallen human condition and the resulting damage to our nature, rather than the nature itself, that prompts us towards sin and evil ; it is our inclination to the good, and the help of God and of his Saints and Angels and the Sacraments and the Church and the Scriptures, that guide us away from the evil and towards salvation

            It is not true that man “cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God” (X) — not only is it blatantly false to claim that God hates all of the works of men outside of the narrow boundaries of a Protestant ideology, but it is also false to claim that a man could not see errors for example and reject them, and so make himself amenable to a conversion, from his own natural strength and good works — this is because man’s nature is fundamentally a good created by God, and because if works are good then it is absurd to suggest that God would not see them as such as well.

            To claim that we “are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings” (XI) is simply to set up the Protestant doctrine of justification as being above the Sovereignty of God’s Salvific Grace. To claim that this fabrication of men in the 16th Century is “scriptural” is absurd. The truth of who is and who is not saved, and why and for what reasons, belongs to God and to God alone.

            The claim “that Good Works … are … pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ” (XII) directly contradicts (X) which claims that “we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God” — they can’t even keep their own story straight.

            And more self-contradiction in (XIII) “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God” — it’s as if they just jumbled together three completely different doctrines about man’s actions in the world and before God, each contrary to the other, and thought that nobody would spot the problem.

            The doctrine of Predestination (XVII) is objectively wrong, quite apart from directly confirming that the Protestant doctrine of Free Will (X) is grotesquely flawed and directly contrary to the Scripture (Genesis). Man sins or does good (or does things that are neither sinful nor virtuous) from the determinations of his own God-given Free Will, and he can seek his own perdition or his salvation from those same determinations. To seek salvation is not necessarily sufficient to attain salvation, but to claim that this salvation or lack of it is based on some Predestination is to empty morality itself of its very substance, and so it is objectively evil to teach such a thing. It is also to completely fail to comprehend the relationship between our Free Will and God’s Knowledge of our decisions produced by it.

            The claim that are to be “accursed” those “that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law” (XVIII) is a de facto condemnation of the very nature of these 39 articles.

            The statement that the “visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance” (XIX) is hard to apply to the Church of England, founded as it was on direct violations of the Sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist. These latest proposals about “reaffirmation of baptismal vows for transgender people and banning therapy for homosexual people who are seeking to become heterosexual” constitute a proposal to violate the Sacrament of Baptism, and to ban the teaching of Christian morality in and of itself. This is NOT “the pure Word of God” ; it is NOT “the Sacraments duly ministered” — clearly then it cannot be “the visible Church of Christ”. This all of course also violates (XX), “wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same”. This CoE cannot keep even to its own mandates, given that it has, since its founding, never ceased declaring things against the Scriptures.

            (XXI) overtly submits this CoE to the will of politicians, not that of God and the Holy Church : “Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes” — nowhere can this be justified from Scripture, which instead provides us with lengthy descriptions of the evils that proceed from such arrogation of religious power by worldly men.

            The claim that the “Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” is grotesque, particularly in the outright LIE that Catholics give worship to any other than God. The Temple of Jerusalem was instead BTW filled with images and relics, and as for the Invocation of Saints, it is a request to them to pray on our behalf to God (as they do, Revelation {5:8} “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having stringed instruments, as well as golden bowls full of fragrances, which are the prayers of the saints”).

            1 Timothy specifically and overtly requests of us to request intercessory prayers, and states them to be pleasing to God : {2:1} And so I beg you, first of all, to make supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings for all men,
            {2:2} for kings, and for all who are in high places, so that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and chastity.
            {2:3} For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
            {2:4} who wants all men to be saved and to arrive at an acknowledgment of the truth.

            There is no fundamental difference between asking a friend to pray for you or asking a Saint to do the same, except that the Saint is already in Heaven, and your friend may never be.

            False is the claim that it is “a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people” (XXIV) — nowhere in the Scriptures is anything of the sort suggested, but the opposite : 1 Corinthians {14:2} For whoever speaks in tongues, speaks not to men, but to God. For no one understands. Yet by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries.

            Overtly and plainly heretical OTOH is the claim that “those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel” (XXV), for it simply enshrines into doctrine the worldly desires of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I Tudor, by subjecting these matters to the law of the land, not the Law of God. It also constitutes the very breach of Apostolic Succession ruining the claim of Anglicans to be “catholic”. The phrase “Sacraments of the Gospel” is also plainly wrong, for the Sacraments are from the Christ.

            Transubstantiation is not “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture”, nor does it “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” (XXVIII) — this is anti-Catholic verbiage, having no value at all, except as a Sacrilege against the Eucharist.

            The suggestion that the “person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance” (XXXIII) was rightly condemned far earlier by Pope Martin V, as being a cause of scandals and divisions — as indeed is proven by the history of Protestantism in the British Isles.

            The claim that “Princes” “rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal” (XXXVII) is “Scriptural” is a lie, and an egregious one — “Render unto God what belongs to God, and render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar” obviously contradicts it, as does the litany of bad Kings in the Old Testament who have their authority destroyed by the simple spoken words of God’s Prophets and Priests.

          • James Chilton

            Assuming that you’re not a priest and judging by your posts on this thread, few Catholics, in my experience, have mastered the fundamentals of their faith as you appear to have done.

          • JabbaPapa

            Thank you, though in point of fact, this is a gift of Charism and Grace and revelation (uncapitalised), not good works on their own. 🙂

            And no priest, I’m a Lay Catholic.

          • Many Vatican II priests don’t understand the Catholic faith nowadays – or, at least, don’t teach it.

          • James Chilton

            Perhaps. The question your comment raises is why such priests were admitted to seminaries in the first place; and what were the conditions that allowed them to be theologically ignorant and willing to compromise with the world when they were ordained?

          • Vatican II and the embracing of liberal-modernist ideologies – in particular those relating to morality.

          • James Chilton

            Quite. And that ideology is at the root of the scandal of sexual abuse by priests. Unsuitable, indeed immoral candidates for ordination were not weeded out by the seminaries – presumably because a moral judgment would have to be passed about their homosexual inclinations.

          • Yep … just as the modernists ignored the teachings concerning birth control, they ignored Vatican instructions about the admission of homosexuals to seminaries. Many young men were corrupted in the seminaries.

          • JabbaPapa

            Not Vatican II itself, but the continuing insistence by so many to refuse its actual orthodox teachings, and instead to promote sundry heretical interpretations — oh well, we’ll see, it took the broader Church about a hundred years to accept Trent, including the liturgical innovations of the Council …

          • Possibly …. though the texts of the Council are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. The main problem relating to the abuse of adolescent boys was the infiltration of homosexualists.

          • JabbaPapa

            Not if you read them in the Latin they aren’t, with the particular exception of the grotesque Nostrae Aetate, actually worse in Latin than translation.

          • Charitas Lydia

            Nostra Aetate is super-soft on Islam.

          • JabbaPapa

            Nostra Aetate has been overtly and officially criticised more or less ex cathedra by a sitting Pope as being flawed and in need of revisions

          • Bruce Atkinson

            Wow. That is a long post. I guess I pushed your buttons.

            If Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, then God obviously values His Word above other things. And we only have His words in the scriptures. No place else. Jesus often subscribed to OT scriptures: “It is written…..” . And this had authority for the Jews and should for us. Note what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20. Jesus highly valued the scriptures and since He is The Lord, His own words and those of His chosen Apostles and writers of the NT contain that authority— which is above all other authority until He returns.

          • JabbaPapa

            the original divine source (the inspired scriptures themselves)

            The original Divine Source is God, in the Persons of the Trinity, not the Scriptures.

          • Bruce Atkinson

            The original divine source of the scriptures (special revelation) is God, in the Persons of the Trinity. No other authority in this world has this definitively divine source.

        • Bik Byro

          Do the other valid options include the “muslim” option ?

      • Charitas Lydia

        You must be joking! With all due respect to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis is so left, he makes Corbyn looks like a postulant. The Jesuits are Marxists–headed by a Marxist. The Ordinariate has refugees from the CofE.

        • Pope Francis is *unusual*, agreed, but he is not the Roman Catholic Church, nor are the Jesuits. Look at the reaction of Catholics to his various “off the cuff” comments and his Apostolic Exhortation. The Church has its issues but is protected by infallibility (meaning Francis cannot change past doctrine to suit modern thinking) and by the indefectibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
          The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham allows Anglicans to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church whilst retaining much of their heritage and traditions. No women priests; no contraception or abortion; no divorce and remarriage; and no sanctioning of “gay” culture or same sex relationships.

          • Charitas Lydia

            I agree. However, Vatican II has unleashed anarchy in the RC Church and it has problems similar to the CofE. The only good thing is that it does not wash its dirty linen in public like the CofE. The problem of compulsory celibacy for priests has decimated numbers of clergy. Lots of reform needed.

        • JabbaPapa

          The Catholic Church does not magically become “marxist” just because some wreckers decide to accuse the Roman Pontiff of Marxism.

    • DespiteBrexit

      I can recommend Baptist (BU – although from what I can see Grace Baptist are sound but not to everyone’s taste). Not perfect of course, and highly variable.

    • Coniston

      The priests in my parish (there are several churches and several priests) are all very orthodox in their preaching and conduct. I’m sure they are distressed at what is happening in the CofE and (I’m guessing here) some may leave it when they retire. But I’m sure they do not want to leave their congregations to the tender mercies of who might be imposed upon us if they depart now.

      • That is essentially why I’ve stayed. We have three churches in our parish, a High Church, a more Traditional Parish Church and a “Happy Clappy” Church, something for all tastes. I go to the Parish Church every Sunday, but I often don’t stay for the service; We’ve said our prayer and I’ve done my duty in the tower.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        This states well the only really valid reason for an orthodox Anglican priest to stay.

    • Bik Byro

      Do you need a church? Christianity is not “Churchianity”

      • That is an interesting question. Congregations in the CofE are falling, and it is generally assumed that this also means that the number of Christians are falling. My reaction is that things are not as bad as they seem, that there are indeed many Christians who have given up church going because the Church no longer practices the Christian teachings that they were taught in their childhood and handed down by their parents and grandparents.

        • Bik Byro

          My own view is that it’s a bit half and half. When people see that the institution that sets itself up as our authority on Christianity that deems to instruct us on our morality, is riddled with corruption and evil, obsessing about what many see as relatively trivial issues such as women vicars and gay marriage whilst deliberately covering up child abuse in their own organisation, then it’s tempting just to cast the whole baby and bathwater aside.

    • Daniel

      If you wish to go to the Church which holds fast to the tradition taught to us whether by word of mouth or by epistle, then I can only point you to the Orthodox Church.

  • Chefofsinners

    It would appear that Justin Welby has somewhat misunderstood the Christian doctrine of someone else taking the blame for our failings.
    The water is now lapping dangerously close to the door of Lambeth Palace and Justin seems set to learn the lesson of King Cnut: words will not turn the tide.

    • Good job Happy Jack doesn’t suffer from dyslexia.

  • DespiteBrexit

    Welby’s actions and attitudes in anything can only be understood once you realise that he is the establishment’s man in the CoE, not vice versa.

    And then you understand everything.

    • Reborn

      Exactly.
      He’s proved excellent at emptying churches.
      Now he thinks his views on Brexit are of interest to anyone but himself.
      No democracy could tolerate the House of Lords as currently configured

  • David

    It is becoming plainer by each passing day that wobbly Welby is nothing more than the establishment’s man in the C of E. For he says and does everything that is “of the establishment”, whether it is on homosexuality, Islam or Brexit. He has no feel for the needs of the people. God will be his judge as to how sincere a Christian he is; but I will say, as a faithful, conservative, evangelical Christian, who happens to be an Anglican, that he is very poor leader of the denomination.

    • Bruce Atkinson

      Jesus warned us about false shepherds, “hired hands who care nothing for the sheep”

    • Bik Byro

      It is certainly becoming plainer each day that the church of England has no moral high ground to preach to anyone on matters of morality when it is riddled to the core with corruption and covered-up child abuse.

      • Tricia

        This is this is rubbish. There are thousands of local priests serving their communities who are totally trustworthy. There are thousands of unpaid local people serving and caring for their communities and loving their neighbour as themselves.
        We despair of our hierarchy, but not of our Saviour.

        • Charitas Lydia

          The problem is with the hierarchy; the local priests who become bishops have to toe the Leftist agenda. The good, faithful clergy continue to serve God faithfully in their patch.

        • Bik Byro

          I don’t doubt that there are many decent individual people, but the organisation they work in is rotten and corrupt, thus the organisation has no moral high ground.

          • Charitas Lydia

            I am a committed Christian and agree entirely with you. As the article says, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” i.e. CofE.

        • Bruce Atkinson

          This is the attitude that needs to grow in the UK. But since the hierarchy continues to go downhill, eventually the faithful will have to depart from that organization and connect with a more faithful organization.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    The immense hypocrisy of the pansexual left: “So it is okay for a male to become female but it is not okay for a homosexual to even seek to become heterosexual? Sheesh!” (Rev. Jules Gomes)

    An inevitable inherent problem with clericalism (the rule of clergy over laity) that generalizes to this situation is quite transparent: “We were struck during this review by a manifest culture of deference both to authority figures in the Church, particularly bishops, and to individuals with distinctive religious reputations—or both. This deference had two negative consequences. Firstly, it discouraged people from ‘speaking truth to power.’ Then, on the few occasions where people did speak out and were rebuffed by a bishop—the summit of the hierarchy—there was nowhere else to go.”

  • Christopher Shell

    You said John Smyth was doing certain things at the camps.Not true in any way. His appalling abuse took place in the shed of his own home, not during camp and in a different county. Nothing unwholesome took place at the camps.

    • Graham jones

      No, there was abuse at the camps. I know

    • Graham jones

      The police OperationCubic have the evidence of abuse at the camps. So does Welby. Welby admits he was told about the Smyth abuse in 2013, yet by his own admission he sat on it until 2017 and only the great reporting by Channel 4 and Tom Stone forced this into the open. Why is this different to Carey and Williams sitting on evidence for years ?

  • Bik Byro

    This is exactly the reason people are turning away from organised religion. You might have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of the flock in the middle ages, but people are too wise today to turn up to church every Sunday morning to listen to a paedophile in a frock tell them how to live their lives.

  • Bruce Atkinson

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”
    – English proverb attributed to John Heywood, 1546

    Deception and denial lead to hypocrisy, spiritual pride, and to becoming mired in an unregenerated state— or at the very least, stuck in spiritual immaturity and shallowness. This is because such self-deceived denial of the truth about one’s own sinful state prevents repentance and confession of sin, which effectively prevents spiritual regeneration, healing and growth.

    • JabbaPapa

      OK, unless that’s intended as some sort of implicit personal attack, in which case it would be entirely self-defeating.

      • Bruce Atkinson

        May those who are guilty take it personally.