Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at:

Monday, July 29, 2013

Word of Faith Teachers: Origins & Errors of Their Teaching (Full Film)

Are you or someone you know a follower of the likes of Joel Osteen, Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, or T. D. Jakes etc? This film takes a responsible look at the major doctrines which separate this movement from historic biblical Christianity. Its origins and errors are documented with evidence and fact. Feel free to upload this film to your channel and please pray for the repentance and salvation of the false teachers critiqued in this film as well as those who follow them.

Section 1.) Are we little gods?
Section 2.) Preaching a Different Jesus 1:06:10
Section 3.) Declaring Health, Wealth, and Happines 1:58:24
Section 4.) Questionable Origins of the Movement 2:45:00

Foxe, Martyrs 63-137 and Narcissism

OK, we're trying to
have a little fun with the
picture. Especially
in view of the serious topic
at hand.
Foxe, John. The New Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2001.

Foxe, Martyrs, Persecution, & Narcissism.  This is a tribute to Mr. Joel Osteen and we call it Mr. Osteen's Polycarp Version of Your Best Life Now.

We are doing some counting. The numbers may be off, but we at least are getting some sense of it. Ephesians 2.1ff. speaks of "dead" men, but they are very much alive and demonically-energized in Paul's "anthropology and harmartiology."

Revelation 6.9-10

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The march continues through Mr. (rev.) John Foxe, a non-Conforming Anglican whom Elizabeth 1 loved and left unmolested. He wasn't about to yield either, but that's for another day. He returned from exile and died in England.

The numbering is our’s, not Mr. Foxe’s. The intent is simply to get a “handle” and “sense” of the numbers. It will not have the mathematical precision that would satisfy Rene Descarte or Albert Einstein. But, it gives a strong flavor of things.

Sixth Persecution. Emperor Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus (164-238 A.D.) He ordered Christians to “be hunted down and killed.”

63. Pontianus, a bishop of Rome. Exiled to Sardinia, he preached against idols. Killed in the island of Sardina, off Italy’s western coast.
64. Anteros, successor of Pontianus, murdered for compiling a martyriology.
65. On the same day as Anteros was killed, a Roman Senator, his entire family and 42 Christians—beheaded. We’ll assume the Senator has a family of four children and a wife. Ergo, we added 48 to 65 to equal 113.
113. Caleopodius. Dragged through streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber with a millstone on his neck.
114. Martina. Rome. Beheaded.
115. Hippolitus. Dragged by horses to death.

Maximus died. Succeeded by Gordian.

116. In Alexandria, a violent persecution breaks out. Metrus, an elderly man, beaten to death.
117. Quinta. Stoned to death.
118. 70-year old Appolonia beaten to death.

Seventh Persecution. Decius (249-251 A.D.) He was angry that Christianity was growing and that pagan worship was in decline. He ordered Christians to be killed. Mr. (rev.) John Foxe says there were “too many in Rome to number.” Ergo, 119 is way off but we persist with the general get a sense of it.

119. Julian, a Cicilian, was put in a leather bag with snakes and scorpions and tossed into the sea. This story comes from Chyrsostom, 398 A.D. We use Mr. Chrysostom's closing prayer in Morning and Evening Prayer of the old Book.
120. Peter, beheaded. He refused to sacrifice to Venus. Foxe reports the following: “I am amazed that you sacrifice to an infamous woman, whose debaucheries your own writers record, and whose life consisted of such perverted actions as your laws would punish. No, I shall offer the true God the acceptable sacrifice of praises and prayers.”
121. Denisa. Beheaded.
122. Andrew. Stoned to death.
123. Paul. Stoned to death.
124. Again, back in Alexandria, Alexander is burned to death. Alexandria, the famous town, is to the left.
125. Epimachus. Alexandria. Burned to death.
126. Nice, France. Two prominent Christian men. Trypho, scourged, dragged through streets, burned, beheaded.
127. See 126. Respicius, suffered the same death.
128. Quintain, Governor of Sicily, is offended by a woman who is beautiful, a Christian, and who refuses sexual advances. Several efforts result in her imprisonment where she died of injuries resulting from assault and, beatings for non-compliance.
129. 84-year old Cyril. Burned at the stake. Lucius, the Governor of Crete, ordered the Elder to offer a sacrifice to the gods.
130. Context. Decius ordered and erected the pagan temple in Ephesus. 7 Roman soldiers are ordered to arrest the Christians, but they are themselves Christians. They refuse, sequester themselves in a cave, and Decius orders the cave sealed. They die there. The first is Constantius.
131. Dionysius. See 130.
132. Joannes. See 130.
133. Malchius. See 130.
134. Martianus. See 130.
135. Maximianus. See 130.
136. Seraios. See 130.
137. Back to Alexandria, Leonidus, the father of Origen, killed. Origen himself will suffer imprisonment at age 64, but Emperor Decius dies and there is a respite. The respite is due to the successor, Gallus, having a more urgent call… a call to repel a Goth invasion. Origen obtained release, repaired to Tyre, Syria, and died there in 254 A.D.

Again, Paul's Biblical anthropology in Eph. 2.1ff. is about "dead men" who are "demonically energized" and who serve the "lusts of the flesh and mind." Er, um, sorta like Mr. Martin Luther outlined in The Bondage of the Will.  The Greeks don't like this "Westernized" anthropology. Nor does the bishop of Rome.  Nor do Arminian pietists in American evangelicalism.  And horrors no for the 19th-20th century liberals.  The brutal savageries against Christians as recounted by Mr. "(rev.) John Foxe are empirical evidences of the manifold wickednesses and demonic-energizations of dead, but very lively, human beings.   

Rule Brittania, Brittania Rules the Waves! Spanish Armada, 29 July 1558, in the Channel

Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003.

On July 29, 1588, the Spanish Fleet and the infamous Armada was in defeat. May the Triune God be praised for this defeat on the high seas.

"Man up, lads. General quartars! General Quarters!  All hands, to your battle-stations!  This is not a drill. To your battle-stations, set zebra conditions, this is not a drill!  The Spaniards are in the Channel. Give em' hell, boys! By God, that man of Rome shall have no rule in England!"

Some of the backstory which has been told often. Being the 29th of July, we remember the victory for English Protestantism.

Elizabeth 1 ascended the English throne in late 1558 after the tumultuous and bloody Mary, the half-sister of Elizabeth. We know the story here. At issue, Ms. (queen) Mary hated Protestantism. But, Elizabeth was a Protestant to some degree. This much, the bishop of Rome "shall have no rule in this dominion." Times had been perilous.

The most powerful monarch in Europe was Mr. (king) Philip II of Spain.

More largely in the Romanist fold, Emperor Ferdinand I of the Romano-Germanic Empire (Holy Roman Empire or Holy German Empire), Philip II, Mary Queen of Scots, and the bishop of Rome constituted the mighty phalanx in behalf of Western Romanism. Make no mistake. They were committed to extinguishing and extirpating that odious "Protestantism."

There was encouragement for Philip II to invade England and restore the holy, catholic and apostolic faith…as understood by the bishop of Rome.

But, marital arrangements could sometimes resolve the difficulties. At least that was a plan. Elizabeth toyed with Philip II, suggesting she might perhaps marry the son of Philip II. (But she had learned how that played out when her half-sister Mary 1 married the Spanish King. That was ugly.) Of course, Elizabeth was the master of Realpolitik.

Meanwhile, Sir Francis Drake (avid reader of John Foxe’s "Book of Martyrs") was plundering Spanish merchant vessels with Elizabeth’s tacit approval.

In another “meanwhile,” Philip II’s agenda was on view with the Netherlands, “those crabbed Dutch Calvinists.” Philip II’s story in the Netherlands with the effort to impose Romanism on Calvinistic Churchmen...well, that had long and ugly chapters.

The Dutchmen said, "We seal our Confession with blood. We give you our backs to the stripes and we confess with the heart and with the mouth..." That, is the Belgic Confession is what they "confessed." And these hearty Dutchmen resisted and the stories are many.

Elizabeth covertly helped to fund the Netherland’s resistance. She hoped that with Philip II pinned down in the Netherlands, they might avoid invading England. It was only delayed.

In another “meanwhile,” Elizabeth ran into a financial gain. English pirates drove Spanish ships into English ports—Spanish ships that carried the “pay roll” for Spanish soldiers in the Netherlands. For the meantime, Philip II “kept his temper” and Elizabeth 1 “kept the cash.”

“A” trigger for Philip’s temper was pulled when Elizabeth imprisoned the Roman Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. That was it. As a result, Philip implicated himself in a covert assassination plot against Elizabeth. The lines of opposition were hardening. Elizabeth evicted the Spanish ambassador from England and began war preparations. If you’re a betting man or woman, who do you put your money on? England or Spain?

Both sides fleeted up for a conflict. A Naval war would ensue. Elizabeth had 34 royal ships and contracted with 170 merchant ships to be equipped with armaments. The Spaniards had 130 vessels—the biggest and the latest in nautical developments for those times.

The Spaniards put their fleet to sea. (Of course, the ever-clever, seemingly ubiquitous Spy-Master, Sir Francis Walsingham, a committed Calvinist, had the preliminary intel-reports on the ships' movements.) Monks were aboard the Spanish ships to help convert England back to the fold of the bishop of Rome, the Pope. The morning that the fleet set to sea, all sailors partook of the Eucharist (that is, drinking blood and eating flesh…cannibalism). “All of Spain prayed.” Off they headed to old England.

However, as they approached England, winds drove Spanish ships back to port. When the later engagement unfolded, Sir Francis Drake set some small boats afire, positioned them downwind of the Spanish fleet, set them off, and they caused two ships to catch on fire. Several Spanish ships became “entangled” in the disorder, but also caught afire. At noon, English artillery laid into the Spanish fleet. Some sank. Others fled.

The Spaniards also encountered further bad weather and were driven into the North Sea…an inhospitable world as sailors have often noted (myself included). Some Spanish ships were driven off towards Ireland.

One Irish city found 1100 dead Spanish sailors ashore after, inferably, they went down at sea. It was beginning to look like a Naval and meteriological victory for the Brits.

Of Philip II’s 130 ships, 53 returned to Spain, damaged if not sea-worthy. Of the 27,000 sailors who left Spain in hopes of victory, 10,000 returned to home ports.

England lost 60 men. England’s Royal Navy lost no ships.

Of greater significance, England remained a Protestant, Reformed and mostly cleansed communion in the one true, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Without the victory of the English fleet in 1588, we might well have been speaking Spanish and….what else?

Without the victory of the English fleet in 1588, we might be:

1. Doing meritorious tours on Rosary beads to importune His Triune Majesty,
2. Believing in purgatory,
3. Invoking 100s of saints,
4. Hosting transubstantiatory Masses with the cannibalism of it,
5. Doing Mariology,
6. Worshipping at the Lady of Walsingham Shrine,
7. Reserving the blessed Sacrament,
8. Denying justification by faith alone,
9. Denying sola scriptura,
10. Denying sola fide,
11. Denying solus Christus,
12. Strenuously opposing Reformation theology of Confessional Lutherans, Presbyterians, the Reformed, and old school Anglicans.
13. Praying this:

"Hail, O Queen, on high enthroned, Hail, O Lady, by Angels owned; Jesse's rod; yea heaven's portal Whence hath shone earth's Light immortal: Hail, O Virgin, most renowned, Hail, O truly worthy Maiden: Pray Christ for us so burden-laden.

V. Accept my praise, O hallowed Virgin.
R. Pray that I may have strength against your enemies. Lord, mercifully assist us in our infirmity: that like as we do now commemorate blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, Mother of God; so by the help of her prayers we may die to our former sins and rise again to newness of life. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

Oh wait, Tractarians and Anglo-Romewardizers, e.g. FIFNA and their sponsors, already have these things. Oh my, have they forgotten 29 July 1588? Yes, willingly and willfully.

Fortunately, Elizabeth 1 and the Royal Navy prevailed in 1588. Largely, England was spared the above.

For some fun without surrendering the serious points above, we include this youtube: “Rule Brittania, Rule the Waves.”

On the serious point, Spain and the bishop of Rome was pushed off and away from English shores, religion, thought, liberty and life.  Western and American history was changed.


May we do the same with the Tractarians and other inhospitable parasites.  Send them back to Spain or Italy.

To the Triune God, be all praise, honor and glory, now and forevermore.

Or, this, Gilbert and Sullivan's "For He is an Englishman...:"

Further Biographies of Mr. (Canterbury) Thomas Cranmer

Ridley, Jaspar. Thomas Cranmer. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Some more on Cranmerian biographies beyond those previously noted.

Two 17th century benchmark-biographies have held the field and appear in almost all bibliographies on Mr. (ABC) Thomas Cranmer.

They are Mr. (rev) John Strype (1694) and Mr. (bp) Gilbert Burnet (1679). Mr. Burnet’s view of Cranmer is, allegedly, not as laudatory as Mr. Strype’s. Mr. Burnet wrote shortly after the “excitements of revolutionary politics.” Mr. Strype did as well.

Burnet, Gilbert.  History of the Reformation of the Church of England, 6 Volumes. No location: Ulan Press, 2012. Available at: They are available online at:

In 1679, Mr. Burnet says: “…as eminent virtues, and as few faults in him as in any prelate, that has been in the Christian Church for many ages.” In 1715, he nuances this with: “…if it had not been for Cranmer’s too feeble compliance in King Henry’s time, and the last inexcusable slip, he might well be proposed as one of the greatest patterns of history.” This was Mr. Ridley's editorial selection as a summary of Mr. Cranmer.

In 1694, Mr. John Strype speaks of “the first Protestant Archbishop of this Kingdom and the greatest instrument under God of the happy Reformation of the Church of England.” Repeatedly, Mr. Strype calls Mr. Cranmer “the good Archbishop.” Mr. Strype was more laudatory.

Of note, acclamations by Mr. Strype of “Protestant,” “Archbishop”, and the “Happy Reformation” are connected to the Church of England.  While that may seem rather self-evident, one must remember the self-loathing Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics who abominate and excoriate such terms. 

Strype, John. Memorials of the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Cranmer: Sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Wherein the History of the Church, and the ... Greatly Illustrated; and Many Singular Matter. No location: Ulan Press, 2012. In hardcopy, it is available at: . It is available online at:

Mr. Strype has written other suitable works on the Reformation as well.

Both Misters Burnet and Strype would remain the unchallenged and governing biographies of Mr. Cranmer in the late 17th to the 19th centuries.

Mr. Ridley, 1962, states the above biographies by Misters Strype and Burnet held the field. Mr. Ridley say that Thomas Cranmer’s “Protestantism and his loyalism endeared him to both Whigs and Tories.” Despite the 19th century Tractarian efforts to impugn Protestantism, it is interesting to see Mr. Ridley characterize Mr. Cranmer as a “Protestant.”  A "Protestant" for all parties.  For Anglo-Romewardizers this is nearwise akin to cursing or swearing in public or private.  Generally, one gets a "harrumph! harrumph!" with tones of a high dudgeon, especially when theological matters are raised.

By the early 19th century, two biographers would cross swords—it would appear—in a rehash and a reworking of the old views, Romewardizing v. Protestantizing. The disputants in this 19th century go-around would be Mr. John Lingard v. Mr. Henry John Todd.  Mr. Lingard in one corner of the boxing ring and Mr. Todd in the other corner.

Mr. Lingard, according to Mr. Ridley, reportedly rehashes the old Romanist attitudes and arguments put forward earlier by Misters Harpsfield and Sanders. To wit: the consecration oath, Mr. John Lambert’s burning at the stake, the recantation and related issues. Mr. Ridley thinks Mr. Lingard is a mere rehash. Further review is warranted.

Lingard, John.  A True Account of the Gunpowder-Plot, Extr. from Dr. Lingard's History of England, and Dodd's Church History, with Notes by Vindicator. No location: Ulan Press, 2012. There are several others as well. The particular hardcopy volume is available at: There are several other volumes by Mr. Lingard if one does a search at; for Cranmerian scholars, it would be recommended that all volumes by Mr. Lingard be purchased and reviewed. This one noted above is available online at:

Lingard, John.   History of England. London: George Bell, 1906. It is available online at:

Mr. Henry John Todd, seated in the other corner for the 19th century boxing match and representing the Protestant cause, wrote a number of volumes.

Todd, Henry John.  Archbishop Cranmer, 2 Volumes. Ulan Press, 2010. Available in hardcopy at: It is available online at:

Todd, Henry John. A Reply to Dr. [J.] Lingard's Vindication of His History of England, As Far As Respects Archbishop Cranmer.  Ulan Press, 2012. Available in hardcopy at: It is available online at:

Todd, Henry John. A Vindication of the Most Reverend Thomas Cranmer, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: And Therewith of the Reformation in England, Against Some of the ... the Rev. Dr. Milner, and Charles Butler.  Ulan, 2010. Available in hardcopy at: It is available online at:

Charming. Mutual standoffs?  "Ding, and the boxers are at it again...two heavy-weights trading blows..."  Suitable for serious readers of Cranmer.

According to Mr. Ridley, a slight shift occurred in the 19th century. Allegedly, this shift concerned Mr. Cranmer’s “subservience to an autocratic monarch.” But, this seems rather odd and old as well. See Mr. Gilbert Burnet above. Mr. Hallam in 1829 is the purported sponsor of this wider shift. Mr. Hallam apparently shocked many Englishmen. We are not convinced that a shift, in fact, occurred. In what sense did the shift occur? Tractarianism? Oxbridgensians? A shift amongst academics and elites? Amongst the rank-and-file Churchmen? We leave the question hanging. We know Mr. Ridley's view. What saith Mr. Diarmaid MacCulloch?

Hallam, Henry. The Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II, Volume 4.  Ulan Press, 2012. Available in hardcopy at: It is available online at:

In 1827, Mr. Hallam said:

“If casting away all prejudice on either side, we weigh the character of this prelate in equal balance, he will appear far indeed removed from the turpitude imputed to him by his enemies, yet not entitled to any extraordinary veneration. Though it is most eminently true of Cranmer that his faults were always the effect of circumstances, and not of intention, yet this palliating consideration is rather weakened when we recollect that he consented to place himself in a station where those circumstances occurred."

As you may see, there is some reading to be done if serious views of Mr. Cranmer, his work, and his legacy are to be had.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Knifed in the Back: Mr. (Rev) McIlvaine Answers Mr. (Rev) Onderdonk

Mr. (Rev.) McIlvaine (1799-1873) had to pull the knife out of his back by Mr. (Rev.) Onderdonk (1789-1858). 

The latter considers the former Episcopalian a "low churchman," a "half churchman" and errant cleric due to studies at Princeton Seminary.  Therefore, a knife in the back was considered suitable for Mr. McIlvaine.

This is an excellent read on the considerations of low v. high churchmanship in early 19th century American Episcopalianism.

This handy little read also reflects an ugly letter whereby and wherein Mr. Onderdonk, later a bishop who was suspended for serial advances on women parishioners, was willing to knife Mr. McIlvaine in the back.  This knife is pulled from the back and Mr. McIlvaine experiences a full recovery.  It's "dirty churchmanship."  Some things just don't change.

Charles Pettit McIlvaine (January 18, 1799 – March 14, 1873) was an Episcopal bishop, author, educator and twice the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate.

From 1825 to 1827, McIlvaine served as chaplain and professor of ethics at the  U.S. Military Academy at West Point where two student included Robert E. Lee and Jefferson David, both Episcopalians.

Mr. McIlvaine was highly respected internationally for his opposition to the Romewardizing Oxford movement within the Episcopal Church.

He often had coffee at Buckingham Palace, lunched with the faculty of Oxford, and conversed with cabinet members, and influenced debate in the House of Commons. 

McIlvaine died in Italy in 1873. His body, carried through England on its journey home to Ohio, was honored for four days in Westminster Abbey, the only American to this day to lie-in-state at Westminster.

Rev. Mr. M'Ilvaine in Answer to the Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk, Part 4.  Philadelphia: William Stavely, 1827. 

Available at:

Some additional information is available at:

Anglo-Catholicism in Antebellum North Carolina: Levi Silliman Ives and the Society of the Holy Cross

Anglo-Catholicism in Antebellum North Carolina: Levi Silliman Ives and the Society of the Holy Cross

Lewis Wright is a retired neurosurgeon living in Midlothian, Virginia.

The closing paragraph states:

"Although little known today, the Society of the Holy Cross and Valley Crucis Abbey were among the earliest ventures of the Anglo-Catholic movement in America. Established in an area where most of the inhabitants were unchurched, poor, and illiterate, the movement fostered, from its beginning, dual goals of mission and advancing catholic principles in the church. Bishop Ives was a restless churchman whose personal journey in faith took him from protestantism to pre-Tractarian high church Anglicanism. Greatly influenced by the Tracts of the Times, he introduced into his diocese, which was considered high church at the time, controversial practices. These included monasticism, auricular confession, reserved sacraments, prayers for the dead, and prayers to the Virgin Mary and to the saints. Impatient and depressed by criticism, he resigned and entered the Roman Catholic Church. Short-lived institutions of the church are not necessarily failures. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the Anglo-Catholic movement reached its zenith, all of these practices would be recognized in that branch of the church. Decades of discussion and debate followed. With the emergence of liberal Anglo-Catholicism both issues and practices changed. But that is another story."

Spoofs on Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans

A spoof on Anglo-Catholics and their Evangelical opponents.  In a few senses, it's more sad than funny.

28th Jul 2013                    

Rood Screens

When a group of Ritualists arrive in a parish church, they will usually begin by making relatively minor, cosmetic alterations to the chancel and changes to the order of service. At some point, however, a point will arrive when no more Romish accessories can be added to the church; the chancel has been completely filled with statues of saints and gold-plated bric-a-brac, and the air is thick with the sickening odour of sherry and stale incense. At this point the Ritualists will begin to attack the fabric of the church building itself, like termites.

The first order of business in renovating a church building along ritualist lines is the installation of a rood screen. One of the most degenerate relics of the Dark Ages, the rood screen is an ornamental frame mounted between the nave and chancel, for no other purpose than to block the parishioners’ view of the altar area. The ritualist’s ideal is a rood-screen made entirely of marble, surmounted by an enormous crucifix and completely covered by images of the virgin Mary.
Once Ritualists are able to install a rood screen, it is very difficult to extricate them from the parish, since the cover provided by the screen allows even a small group of priests to defend the chancel against an infantry attack from the nave.


Candles provided a source of artificial illumination before the invention of the electric light bulb. Since modern churches are equipped with electric lights, and since their services take place during daylight hours, there is no reason to produce light by burning cylindrical pieces of wax. The presence of candles is thus an early warning sign that ritualists may be present. If you find yourself in a church that contains lit candles, however properly appointed it may otherwise seem, you should consider yourself to be in grave personal danger: at any moment a ritualist priest may descend upon you, surrounded by incense and clutching a handful of rosaries. Do not attempt to extinguish the candle yourself: call the fire department.

While even one candle is cause for concern, the presence of six candles on the church’s altar is associated with the most extreme branches of ritualism. Mounted on tall candlesticks, these candles frame the priest’s head as he mutters Latin phrases, surrounding his form with an unholy orange glow. Despite the bright gleam produced by the candles at first, their eventual fate symbolizes the ultimate destruction of all ritualists: they flicker and gutter, spattering wax in all direction, before finally melting into a puddle of putrid ooze.

"Solemn" Things


A sure sign that a parish has fallen into the clutches of Ritualists is the presence of services labelled as “solemn." A properly-equipped Ritualist church will mark each Sunday with a Solemn High Mass, a Solemn Evensong (with or without Solemn Benediction), a Solemn Te Deum, the Seven Solemn Anthems of Our Lady of Lichen, a Solemn Litany in Procession, one or more Solemn Rosaries, the Solemn Angelus, the Solemn Baptism of Such as are of Riper Years, and anticipated Solemn Sext of St Enodoc (transferred). This level of solemnity is felt by Ritualists to constitute a bare minimum, to which other services may be added.

Future reports will describe the structure and ceremonial action of all these services in greater detail, so that loyal churchmen will be in a position to flee at the first sign that one of these services is about to take place. A good rule of thumb, however, is to avoid entering any church at which “solemn" services are advertised. Unless you have the proper training, it is not advisable to enter a church where a “solemn" service is in progress, even if you only intend to document its ritualist practices for informational purposes; the time you spend at such a service would be better spent in writing a letter of complaint to your bishop.


Ritualists may be evil, but they are cunning. While some pieces of ritualist paraphernalia have an obvious function, others have no clear use or purpose, so that the loyal churchman must resort to guesswork to determine their part in the ritualist masterplan. Such items include the “maniple," illustrated above. Barely visible underneath the priest’s other vestments, this decorated band of cloth is held in high esteem by the ritualists, who believe its presence to be crucial in the performance of their mystical incantations.

The maniple’s name derives from the Latin word mane, meaning “early in the morning." The ritualists claim that it is a stylized handkerchief, derived from the cloths that the priests of the early church would use to wipe their faces. This is clearly a lie, since ritualists in fact never use their maniples for this purpose. Various explanations have been ventured as to the true purpose of the maniple: does its elaborate embroidery contain coded messages from the ritualist’s true masters at the Vatican, or does it conceal a loop of piano wire that the priest can use to garrotte an adversary?



As a parish succumbs to the full horror of ritualism, its liturgical practices may come to include Processions. A brief Procession may take place at the opening of a Sunday service, while a more extended procession might take place on a day of special note. For a convinced Ritualist, of course, a “day of special note" does not refer to the accepted Christian holidays set forth by the duly elected civil authority, but includes such dubious celebrations as “Our Lady of the Snows" and “St Philibert of Jumieges."

Consider the mindset of the Ritualist priest as he lurks in the sacristy of his church, his villainous features half-hidden by clouds of incense. If you or I were to enter our place of work, we would proceed quickly and efficiently to our position and embark upon our assigned tasks with due diligence. Nothing could be farther from the mind of the Ritualist than “diligence" or “efficiency," as he begins the service by perambulating aimlessly through the aisles of the church. This exercise serves to confirm the priest in his vanity, as he parades in colourful vestments before his mortified congregation. But the procession also serves a more subtle purpose, since the distraction it provides allows the priest and his accomplices to steal money and other valuables from the assembled parishioners.

Organ Shoes


The presence of “organ shoes" such as these is one of the first warning signs of ritualist musical practices. A loyal Anglican always wears ordinary shoes, such as may be purchased for reasonable prices at your local shoe store; he reverts to specialized foot coverings, known as “boots," only in cases of inclement weather. For the ritualist, however, ordinary footwear is not enough: the organ shoes he craves cannot be purchased at normal shoe stores, and must be ordered by mail order from specialized companies of dubious reputation. This signifies the ritualist’s elitism, and his unpatriotic preference for garments of foreign origin.

The ritualist church musician will venture various excuses for his adoption of elitist foreign footwear. He will first claim that organ shoes are necessary to facilitate proper performance of organ music, to which the flat rubber soles of modern shoes are ill suited. If pressed, he may protest that he is not attempting to make any theological statement by wearing organ shoes, and that similar shoes are worn by organists in all denominations. The loyal churchman will know to treat all such excuses as the purest sophistry, and will indignantly reject the unnatural idea of playing a musical instrument with the feet. True Anglicans know that the feet have one purpose, and one purpose only: to stand firm against the onslaughts of ritualism. The ritualist church musician’s feet are never still: they slither unnaturally across the length and breadth of a grotesque pedal keyboard, as a symbolic rejection of the English virtues of honesty and uprightness. Any attempt by your organist to introduce such shoes in your parish must be met with implacable opposition, for behind the seemingly innocent face of a young church musician is the grim visage of the Bishop of Rome.

Canterbury cap

Among the many ritualist appurtenances modelled in the above photograph is the so-called Canterbury cap. Despite its misleading name, it ought to be obvious that no true Anglican would ever wear such a garment. It may initially seem innocuous for a clergyman to wear special headgear in church - particularly when the hat is of relatively sober design, lacking the ostentatious flamboyance of the episcopal mitre or the biretta. Yet if the symbolism of the cap is understood properly, its use is an affront to the very foundations of the Anglican way. Whereas the properly-dressed gentleman doffs his hat to show respect to a lady, the Ritualist clergyman dons a cap to show his disregard for Reformation ideals, Anglican order, and English values. Many a High Church clergyman has donned the Canterbury cap in youth, bewitched by its attractive appearance; the older Ritualist, hardened by a life of treachery and deceit, knows that wearing the cap is the only way to hide the demonic horns on his head from the congregation in his charge.



The chasuble is an outer garment worn by ritualist priests in their superstitious ceremonies. Its voluminous folds hide the priest’s hands from view, so that the congregation cannot see what mystical incantations he performs at the altar. Underneath the chasuble are worn various other garments, such as the so-called “alb," “cassock," and “amice;" these multiple layers of clothing symbolize the deceitfulness of the ritualist priest, who also attempts to confuse his deluded followers by wearing garments of different colours throughout the year. Underneath the chasuble the priest can store other items used in the liturgy, such as rosaries, alleged relics of saints, ‘holy’ water, vials of poison, grains of incense, and instruments of torture. Those who would wear such garments are condemned in Psalm 109: “My accusers will be clothed with disgrace and wrapped in shame as in a cloak."

Gregorian Chant


Gregorian chant, also known as ‘plainchant’ or ‘plainsong,’ is a form of so-called ‘music’ developed in order to stifle true congregational participation. In contrast to the apostolic simplicity of modern church music, Gregorian chant contains long and complex musical phrases, often containing dozens of notes on a single word (its practitioners call this ‘melismatic style’). These long melodic lines symbolize the chains of High Church doctrine, by which innocent Christians are ensnared by the bishop of Rome. It is typically performed in a style known as “a cappella," indicating that neither guitars nor drums are used.



The use of incense is a Romish superstition, totally inappropriate for any Anglican church service. The spreading smoke represents the malignant influence of the Bishop of Rome, billowing forth from the Vatican to contaminate everything it touches. Exposure to incense is a known cause of cancer.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Mr. (Rev. Dr.) John Piper: TULIP

New Course on Calvinism from John


New Course on Calvinism from John Piper

From Desiring God ministries: The Bible gives us a glorious vision of God’s sovereignty in saving sinners. “Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for this Christian body of doctrine on salvation that so appropriately humbles humanity and so magnificently exalts divine grace.

In a new eight-hour course on Calvinism, or “the doctrines of grace,” John Piper walks through the historical “five points,” digging into text after text of Scripture and responding to many of the most common questions.

“The doctrines of grace,” Piper explains, “give the lowest view of the saved person as utterly depraved and hopeless in himself, and the highest view of the saved person as individually chosen and loved and purchased at infinite cost.”

These truths expose our desperate neediness, such that the subtlest form of boasting in ourselves becomes ridiculous. And at the same time, they highlight the grace of God such that we marvel with the apostle Paul, “To him be glory forever” (Romans 11:36).

TULIP (Part 1) — Introduction: Why Is Calvinism Relevant?
This class is devoted to building foundations under Romans 8:28 so we can survive. If you think we’re in this for fun and games, for a kind of theological ear-scratching, you don’t understand anything. The things that come at us in our lives cannot be managed by fluff. These are survival techniques
TULIP (Part 2) — Irresistible Grace (Piper starts with “I”)
God’s saving grace can be resisted and will be resisted by all human beings until God acts to overcome the resistance. When God decides to overcome your resistance to anything he can do it, without turning you into a robot.

TULIP (Part 3) — Irresistible Grace continued; Total Depravity
Christians ought to be supremely concerned about the invisible aspects of our nature. And I am arguing that when we get there, it’s really bad. . . . I don’t think most Americans feel nearly bad enough about how bad we are.

TULIP (Part 4) — Total Depravity continued; Unconditional Election
The reason we come to Jesus is because we belong to God… The call of God provides the decisive cause of faith 
TULIP (Part 5) — Unconditional Election continued; Limited Atonement
How do we know if we are the elect? Are you calling God “Father?” Do you call Jesus your Lord? You pursue the knowledge of your election indirectly. You pursue it by submitting to the lordship of Jesus and you pursue it by embracing God as your Father through Jesus Christ and his atoning work.

TULIP (Part 6) — Limited Atonement continued; Perseverance of the Saints
I love the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The older I get the more I love it. In a sense you should love it when you are young because it is the reason you can believe you’ll be a Christian in 60 years. But once you have lived those 60 years you look back and say, “Amazing. He is amazing.”