Church membership is one of the mysteries of Grace. One reason why Christ gave the disciples the Great Commission was that He wanted everyone to have the chance to hear the Good News. We but rarely see the history of the spread of the Faith as it was and has been, preferring, instead, to view it through the lenses of our own perspective. Very few Christians in the West know anything about the history of the spread of Christianity outside the Roman Empire in the post-Apostolic times, and I have lost count of the number of times I have had to point out to people who talk about Christianity arriving in India in the eighteenth century, or in China with the Jesuits, that is not so. Christianity arrived in southern India in Apostolic times, and may well have been brought thither by St Thomas himself; the Christians of Kerala call themselves ‘St Thomas Christians’ to this day. Long before the Jesuits were thought of, Christians we chose to call ‘Nestorians’, brought Christianity to China some time around 635 – the same year St Aidan went to preach the Gospel in Northumbria. Even in England, the story that the faith came here with Augustine is not true, it was here long before that, and at Whitby we know St Wilfrid faced opposition to changing the date of Easter from those following the Ionan tradition – the exact date Christianity came to these islands is, in fact, unknown, but it could have been as early as the first century via travelling merchants.
This, for me, and for many, is where there is a problem trying to see Christianity as the preserve of one Church. The Ionan Christians in England certainly were not in communion with Rome – it is plain St Gregory the Great, who sent Augustine, had no idea there were Christians in these islands; the Christians of the Church of the East were not in communion with Rome; the Kerala, St Thomas Christians, were not in communion with Rome. To take the view that being out of Communion with Rome is to be, at best, imperfectly Christian, is, to me, as to all these Christian traditions, an act of cultural arrogance; it is to assert that one point of view is the only proper one. Naturally, if one is persuaded of that point of view, then one will be a Roman Catholic, but then, as I say, I have found few in that Church, or my own, for that matter, who know anything about these ancient and glorious traditions. What is known is that both the Roman Catholic and the Anglicans, failed to regard these organic and historic communions with the respect they deserved when they encountered them in the period after the sixteenth century. If you follow this link you will find a Franciscan reflection on a tragic episode in Christian history.
The existence of so many Christian traditions is a reminder to us that God’s Grace has no need of us and our structures, or even of our conception of what structures we think God wants. The Good News has spread as it has because it touches the need we all have to repent of our sins and to be made whole. The heart is indeed, restless, until it finds God. But for all of us the pilgrimage is different. Some find that restlessness stilled by the church into which we were born; others either had no faith to be born into, or it sat loose with them and they moved away – many going on long journeys of spiritual enlightenment – and disillusionment – before finding a safe harbour where peace descends; yet others stay within Christianity but move until they find that elusive place for which they have been searching.
Much is spoken about the ‘fullness of the faith’, and there may, perhaps be, a blessed individual who through Grace can embrace all the insights offered by all these traditions; there may – and alas may more likely be – the individual who, knowing nothing of the richness of these other traditions, thinks their own Church contains it all. To me it seems we find that fullness in Christ, Jesus. Some will say that only in their own liturgical practice can He be truly found; others will say he cannot be conjured up by special words and magic signs; yet others will find both these positions objectionable because they are offended – and yet some who adopt one of them will not, perhaps, see that those who hold the other view will be offended too. In the real fullness of theosis, we may attain the humility to know we cannot see the world as God sees it, and accept the mystery that He has come to us where we have met him.
Here endeth Jessica’s sermonette.
Dave Smith said:
A lovely sermonette and sentiment, dear Jess but lacking in some way the practicable realities of mankind and reasoning. If a you consider the faith that penetrates heathen parts of the world is ‘fully’ Christian because some missionary of unkinown understanding has preached of Christ and thus founded a practice of this religion upon only his words and practice what is it that is apt to follow when left in isolation? We know, we have them all over the place with mixtures of Christian and African religions, completely false religions such as Mormons and a host of other half-Christian, half-Pagans living all over the globe. If you do not see the necessity, and God’s purpose for founding a Church so that the purity of the Gospel message will survive and so that an authentic development of Christianity will be purposed by the Holy Spirit in men of His choosing then any old statement of being a Christian will suffice for you. It is true that we cannot stop the Holy Spirit from blowing where it will . . . but the Church recognizes that. We also recognize that the Holy Spirit was given in a special way to the Church He founded as were 10 Commandments given to His people to be safeguarded. If you do not thing that keeping the teachings safe and preserving them for posterity is something Christ had in mind then it shows that Christ had no understanding of human needs. We need a treasury of the Truth to safeguard and we need a way to answer the hard questions that are constantly asked of the Church as they arise. Who then or by what method are questions of the faith to be answered if they are to be answered? Who then, when Christianity finds itself being divided over some issue not defined, are we to turn to in order to put an end to the squabbling? Are we to just keep dividing like cells in a tumor until we are a grotesque body that is unrecognizable from one another? The Church Christ founded had the answer: the Keys, the ability for the Apostles and their descendents to bind and loose along with Peter’s . . . the Sacraments etc. And we even know when to shake the dust from our sandals if need be.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
It is interesting listening to the clip from the Franciscan. There is a difference between some random preacher and a firmly established Church, and that last is what I was talking about here.
The Portuguese Catholics treated the St Thomas Christians disgracefully (that’s not a partisan point, my own Church has been equally crass), almost wrecking a church that had been there since Apostolic times because of a conviction they alone had it right. That seems very unfortunate to me, and a mind set we should not be imitating. I don’t think one can realistically compare the Mormons with the St Thomas or Church of the East Christians. These Churches did indeed preserve their traditions from the beginning – and I am afraid the Catholic Church showed them no respect at all – it burnt their writings and persecuted them.
This isn’t about dividing – these churches were there before or at the same time as Rome, so by what right did Rome presume to call them heretical and persecute them?
This is where the problem comes. Rome believes it is in some unique way the Church Christ founded, so do the Orthodox, but then so too did the Kerala Christians and the Church of the East – none of these ever accepted Rome’s claims, and indeed Kerala and the Church of the East had never even heard of them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Well, I cannot help those who reject the Church that has someone sitting in the Chair of Peter and building upon the foundation thereof, which Christ founded. Without authority, we men are quick to dissolve into a Church of our own liking; for that is the way of humankind. I don’t know about the why’s of your history lesson and it may be that we some Christians did some dastardly things; that is also human frailty caused by the fall. I can only insist and place my faith in the promises of Christ to preserve the Church He founded and be with them to the end . . . even though He told us there would be scandals and perhaps a time when almost all faith would be lost. But He did not leave us orphans and God works with human beings as we are; the Holy Spirit works in the framework that Christ established for the Church . . . though nobody is saying that He does not save certain men and women outside the Church who are of good will. But whether or not people lay claim to being the Church is inconsequential if they have not the Authority to preserve and protect authentic teaching. The Orthodox have it all but a few minor things and one large one; the Pope. If I were to read into what you have written, I would think that you are proposing that we should not have any authority at all and that whatever we degenerate to in our own communities should be seen as the working of the Holy Spirit rather than the working of the human will and its love for novelty and its love to mediate a position somewhere between Truth and lies. Sadly, there is no mediation of the two without a distortion or complete loss of the Truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
But where is the evidence that any of these ancient churches had any idea that Rome so much as existed? There’s no evidence that across centuries these Christian communities did anything but spread the Good News and survive much persecution.
No, I am suggesting we need to appreciate that the world of Christianity has always been bigger than our attempts to read it through the lens of one Church, and that that attempt has actually damaged both some ancient churches and the cause of Christ. No one says this was done with malice, but it was done with the mind set that says our way is the only right way, you don’t do it that way, therefore we will force you. This is so far from being what Christ did and taught that it ought,surely, to give us pause for thought?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps there is no evidence as the faith may have spread from one imperfect source to another and ended up where they were. Perhaps they did not keep a history . . . but of what concern is that? What is of concern is what do they know, preach and practice. And for those communities that did keep the Good News and suffered persecution, I would think that the Holy Spirit would be working in them to accept with gratitude the Church in its fullness . . . the one that St. Paul claimed exclusivity for and the Church that is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
I think the Church does rejoice and appreciate the spread of Christianity but it must be realistice in recognizing where separated communities have erred and gone off track. It is our job to correct and bring into the fold and create the Unity that Christ prayed for.
And again, St. Paul set the exclusivity standard that the Church abides by . . . and if you think that St. Paul was so far from being what Christ did and taught then we disagree. “. . . tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” Hard words . . . but they exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
They kept their history faithfully – until the Portuguese burnt most of it. Those with an oral history culture preserve more from ancient times than those cultures which depend on writing.
I would doubt that the Holy Spirit caused their sacred books to be burned and their ancient liturgies suppressed; that sounds much more like the sin of pride.
It is the claim of Rome to know exclusively and to correct as it sees fit which has caused so many schisms. Others simply to not accept these pretensions, and there is, alas, nothing in the way the RCC is today which would make anyone look at it and say that it is the shining example, and of course we must follow it.
The Church, for those in Kerala, was the one founded by an Apostle, and they had kept the tradition for 1500 years in circumstances of great peril; how sad it should have been Western Christians who helped wreck it – and it isn’t as though the Jesuit missions to these places converted the non-Christians in these regions.
None of that seems a sign of anything other than Western insistence they were right – and the signs that they were right seem pretty elusive at the moment: our own societies are decadent, and no one could really say that the post Vatican II Catholic Church sets much of an example.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
No the post Vatican II Church is not setting a good visual or aural example by its obvious divides . . . though the deposit of the faith is still preserved and isn’t going anywhere. Claims to the ‘real’ apostolic faiths have come and gone throughout the last 2000 years and historians sifting through the remaining writing or oral histories are not the arbiters of what is the True faith . . . and the only claimant I know that has for their head the successor of Peter is the RCC not to mention all seven of the Sacraments and a history of their successors stretching back to the Apostles. Who were the folks that destroyed these others: were they churchmen or explorers who held the faith or merchants or someone who were as impetuous as St. Peter was. That is a character fault not a ‘proof’ that the Church is not the Church. You don’t seem to believe Christ that He founded a Church or gave to Peter the Keys or that it would struggle with faith and see scandals within it. You don’t seem to believe that it survived to our day . . . except in some watered down form of separate beliefs: some holding with a few sacraments, most with their own individual understanding and interpretation of scripture and so on. My problem is that when I look at the mess that we have in the RCC, I see what Christ told us we would see. I also see that the Holy Spirit is still making men and women of the caliber of a Padre Pio or Mother Teresa . . . and we still have Apostolic Priests and Bishops and all the Sacraments and (surprise of surprise) we even have a successor to Peter . . . the one that Christ gave the Keys to. If he is a flawed man, so was Peter. But the Office is alive and well and you will not see him pronouncing, ex cathedra, any new dogma that is not in keeping with the Deposit of Faith. The Church has survived 2000 years of such criticism and it will survive until the 2nd coming. I hold this as a matter of faith and as a matter of simple observation. And to be honest, if this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith could not be found on this earth today . . . I would not even believe Christianity itself. For then it would be nothing but a fairy tale for children.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Philip Augustine said:
Powerful words, in the end. it always harkens back to faith.
Again, my faith relies on Eucharist doctrine of the Catholic Church and without it I wouldn’t believe Christianity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
The mere existence of the Church is in many ways the Truth we seek for our faith. It is the door that opens our hearts to the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
It was an improvised ending borrowed from a great:
AUGUSTINE ON AUTHORITY OF CATHOLIC CHURCH
“I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.”
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And, of course, Rome claims only it is Catholic. This claim is not accepted by anyone else. There are so many reasons to accept the Gospel – and I think the evidence shows that many do not need Rome to do that – just as many RCC Cardinals seem to ‘believe’ in a rather special way which seems close to unbelief 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Then dear lady, please imagine yourself, an intelligent woman without any predisposition or knowledge of God or religion. Now think of being placed in a room to read the books of many religions and the various books that make up our Bible. Task one: tell me which books belong together in the Bible. Task two: decide which of the faiths is true. To what authority do you look to decide? The one that appeals to your own sensibilities or the one that has a authority that you believe in? I accept the Authority and you deny the Authority except when it suits you: such as the Books that were gathered together and pronounced Canon of Holy Scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
We both know no one could do that. One looks to the authority – and I think we both know that it was not Rome which told us which books were Scriptural back in the 320s. Indeed, the first canon is from Alexandria and was accepted by Rome. St Jerome had lively doubts about Hebrews, which he know was not by Paul, but he accepted its authenticity not on the authority of the Pope or Rome, but on that of the saintly Athanasius, who assured him it had always been received in Alexandria. Similarly the East, which had doubts about Revelation, accepted it because it had been received in the West. The Ethiopians received books in the Codex Siniaticus which we no longer receive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’m not asking about a history lesson on the authenticity of the books to be included: because whether accepted as the first canon or accepted by further research as part of the second canon, once accepted it has received the authorty of the Church. It is the Church that gives us the permission to hold a writing up as being authoritative. And why? Because, the writing agrees with the traditions and oral teaching of the Church. Indeed there was a Church before St. Paul joined. For some 16 years we managed to be Christians without him or his writings which seem to be the first NT writings.
You simply do not want to give to Rome, Her due. It was Rome who Codified the Bible. And yes there are many other good books, some lost and some not Divinely inspired that are helpful . . . such as the Didache. But the decision to include or exclude came down to the final Canon around A.D. 400.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I agree, but that takes us back to the definition of ‘Church’. The St Thomas Christians had a canon very similar to that of Codex Siniaticus, which is not quite our canon. They had it for the reason we do – they received it by tradition. That tradition rests on the Church, but not on Rome, which no one but Rome has ever said was the Church.
The history matters here. It isn’t that I don’t want to give anything to Rome, it is that the historical record does not give it to Rome. It was not Rome which codified the Bible. Churches which had nothing to do with Rome and which do not recognise its authority have a canon which, like Rome, they inherited from the Church as it was at Nicaea, and since Nicaea I only codified what tradition said, it occasions no surprise that Churches who had never heard of Nicaea had a very similar canon.
The only Church which believes that Rome codified the Canon is based in Rome, which, oddly, is the only Church which makes that claim. We all inherited it from original tradition going back, as the St Thomas example shows, to the earliest times. Rome inherited it, Alexandria inherited it, so did Antioch and jerusalem – and then Babylon, Kerala and so on. Rome is one of many churches which inherited this – there is no historical evidence it either originated it, or that anyone else thought it needed Rome’s authorisation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
We never had to call it the Roman Church as it was just the Church and the primace resided in Rome. It is only when Her authority is being disputed that we must refer to Rome and thus Rome becomes this magical invention of Herself. And the Church did not end at Nicaea. And that Rome is the only Church that makes the claim is because if you deny the authority of Rome you would not expect to them to admit that Rome had any authority.
Again, you speak of some mythological Chrisitanity that stays pure without an authority. Every tradition no matter their differences, no matter their practices, no matter how long isolated and deteriorating or without growth in their theology while the rest of the Christianity did, are of equal worth. In fact, it seems that you wish that all Churches were just like the ones founded by the Apostles . . . stagnant and without change. But even there, it is not possible as there are changes that will grow in any Church. Luther would be quite shocked at Lutherism today. Authority is all that keeps us from going astray and to what Authority are you going to place upon Christianity?
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Only Rome claims that it alone has the authority; but then one would expect that. What the history of these ancient churches shows is that this was never part of the deposit of faith. So it isn’t that we deny the authority resides in Rome as much as we say it never did and that it was an early development in the Latin Church. Had Rome been content with a primacy of honour, it could have had it still. It is not that anyone in the Catholic Church denies Rome’s authority on some matters, it is that we don’t accept the, to us, exaggerated form it has come to assume.
There’s no evidence that the St Thomas Christians or the Church of the East, or the Eastern Orthodox have fossilised, they, like Rome, have developed. The one difference is that they don’t accept that only Rome has the right to say what development consists of. Certainly the Orthodox have found the changes since Vatican II a rela barrier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
And Jesus said, “upon all of you apostles I will build my church” I guess. And that is not to say that the early Church’s foundation was not laid by each of the Apostles . . . but that there was one person that Christ specifically stated had the Keys. If it is the deposit of faith today . . . where did we find it that nobody else could find it? It’s in the scriptures but not your history books . . . but you would hang your hat with the history books and deny the words of scripture.
I said as much about development in one of my replies. But will they then develop with dogmas that contradict one another? How is that being the same Church?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Again, no one questions Peter’s role, it is the definition later offered by Rome whic is questioned. There are many signs in the early Church that it was neither asserted as Leo would assert it, or accepted, even when Leo asserted it. The Eastern Church regarded it as a novelty.
The deposit is in Scripture, which was never just the product of Rome, and it was found by all who had received Christ by faith in their hearts with thanksgiving.
I am not sure what developments you have in mind when you say they contradict each other?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Jess, I know, and you detest that definitions are offered to explain that which was already understood among the faithful. That some did not and did not accept the definition was then and is now a point of departure. Sad really, but to whom shall we go . . . you have the words of everlasting life. Sorry, but that is how I feel about the authority of the Church. Without such authority, I like, Augustine would not believe the Gospel. And if I was moved to accept that God became man and died for my sins and this man was Christ then I would have to choose which denomination and which rules and beliefs are proper. As many as there are today . . . I could not find the Church because I wouldn’t live long enough to explore all the differences. There must be an easier way. The only easy way I know is look for Peter . . . where Peter is, there is the Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I so appreciate that, dear friend, as I do your good humour and patience. I rather think that if Rome had always done as you do, few in the end would have thought it worth going into schism!
For me, of course, the answer was easy. I found Christ in the Church into which I was born, I find him there still 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You always stir up a good discussion, dear friend. Enjoyed it. My poor wife has been sick all week and has been sleeping alot . . . so this has been a great distraction and an enjoyable use of my time. Thank you again for an engaging discussion. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I sm so sorry to hear that – I shall pray for her at Mass tomorrow – and I always do for you. I must also dash now 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thank you dear friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It will be an honour and a privilege.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
My faith is even simpler and relies on who it is I meet at the Eucharist.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is, I think important to distinguish, as I tried, between ancient churches and modern ones.
The Kerala Christians preserve the memory of being founded by St Thomas, and have been there since the first century. The Syriac and Assyrian Christians were also evangelised very early on. None of these places were in communion with Rome, and none invited to any Ecumenical Council. They simply did what Paul said – passed on the traditions inherited by word and in writing.
What, I think, was wrong, and remains wrong, is to approach these ancient traditions with the mindset that we have something they do not; that really is simply imperialism mapped on to Christianity.
Yes, Rome developed, and quite early, a systematic Petrine theology. It was not, we know, accepted in the Eastern Roman Empire, which, correctly, points out it was a development. That does not make it illegitimate, any more than it makes it legitimate; it is a major part of the Roman tradition, which, as such should be treated with respect. But when Rome shows no respect for other traditions, it helps create a situation in which others respond in kind.
The Christian Church has existed in many forms from the beginning, and survived quite well in those traditions with no theology of Petrine jurisdiction. It is interesting to note that some British and American Catholics have joined the Orthodox Church precisely because it has not done what their own Church in the West has done.
We can all insist the Church meets a definition we have inherited and to which we subscribe – but it is sad when that leads, as it has, to ancient traditions being damaged in its name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
My dear Jess, it is not that we do not respect other traditons for we have very many who are in communion with Rome. It is that you want to decide which ones are legitimate and which ones aren’t. Isn’t that the decision of the Church after evaluating what they hold as Truth? Mistakes are made as well . . . I will grant that. But in general the point is unification of the Church under a Mediate Authority that is plainly given to THE CHURCH by Christ. Not everybody accepts the authority and they become their own authorities . . . and Rome rightly does not except their claim.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
What I am advocating is that we respect these ancient traditions more than we have. I don’t want to decide which is legitimate, and they don’t want Rome to. If Rome insists on doing so when no one wants it to, then it must put up with the inevitable frustration when no one takes any notice.
No one save Rome has inherited the tradition of Petrine jurisdiction, and of course, the existence of these other ancient churches which never received it does rather show it is one local, Latin tradition, spread to the ends of the earth by RCC missionaries, but all originating in the one tradition.
If it was an inherent and essential part of the Christian faith, one would expect to find it in these ancient traditions – and one does not – and that is surely because the Petrine claims, ancient as they are, do not go right back to the beginning. If they did, why were they unknown in India or beyond the Euphrates?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
No, if separtated from the Head, I would not expect them to hold such traditions because they lost touch with Authority. Thereby, it is the job of the True Church to keep its teaching pure. Thereby, that which illegitimate must be pointed out as illegitimate. That which is legitimate must be embraced. That is the only way unity works. Families without a father or a mother do not fare very well and those that do but do not accept their authority are rather dysfunctional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Isn’t the point here the one about authority? There is no evidence that Rome had the authority it now claims – indeed the very existence of these churches prove it.
Because they were oral cultures, they kept very closely to what they had received – the St Thomas Christians can recite their ancestors down to the time of St Thomas.
So what happened here is that more than a thousand years later people turned up with guns and ships and said we have the right to tell you what to believe because we are from Rome. Now, if these ancient churches had received any tradition that authority came from Rome, they’d have welcomed it. We can be sure of this because one group, which descended from a Syriac bishop in Babylon, looked to him even when all regular connection had been lost.
There was no connection to Rome to begin with. Unity was through faith in Christ. There is no sign they did not believe in Christ. That their labguage expressed some almost inexpressible things in ways we did not understand was proof only of our arrogance and ignorance, not that they were wrong. Most theological scholars now admit that all these ancient differences about hypostases and the rest of it were the result of not understanding the other – and that, alas, stemmed from our very bad habit of assuming we were the measure of what should be believed, and others had to come on side with us. A little humility and willingness to learn from others and to hear them, might have helped us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
The evidence is that we see it pretty early on and it is still here today. Keeping pretty close is nice but not the ‘fullness’ of the Faith which is the responsibility fo the Church to correct and perfect.
Christ did not sit in humility to to learn from others . . . He came to teach. And if the Mediate Authority from Christ given to the Mystical Body of Christ cannot be Christ on earth to the following ages then there is no need for a Church. Her role is to preserve, protect, teach and correct. We are dialoguing now: how is that working out for us . . . save for the friendships and joy in finding unity in many things within the faith. But of correcting error and teaching truths . . . are we not suffering from not doing what we were meant to do? We listen very well today; we just forgot to teach and to correct and to act with Authority.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Christ did indeed, and those, like St Thomas, who knew him, took that authority with them. They clearly did not take any record that only Peter and Rome were authorities. Had they done so, these extremely conservative, traditional communities, would have preserved and observed it.
I am not sure we really do listen any better. The dialogue of the deaf in your own church between the traditionalists and the liberals doesn’t suggest so – alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Of course, each of the Apostles had authority . . . as they all preached the same Gospel. The same is expected of each Bishop though it is not always the case. Isolation, of a Diocese from the others and from a final authority during a dispute will soon foster many Gospels. And that we have no words of Peters authority among the Apostles we certainly saw his primacy in how his name is presented in the Gospels and by the special way in which Christ treated him. It was not taught so much as lived . . . it seems that if the writers of the Gospels could recount things such as “when you turn, strengthen your brothers” or “feed my lambs” . . . there is much primacy shown to Peter and you know it but you hate the fact that we eventually stated it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Except, dear friend, that isn’t what happened in Kerala and S India – what happened was they kept to what they had received and resolved any differences amicably – no one appears to have excommunicated anyone – how I wish our own Western tradition had been that good 🙂
No one questions Peter had some form of primacy. The problem comes from the fact that the early Church regarded it as one of honour, whereas, after Leo the Great, Rome claimed it was more than that. There is no sign in these early Churches of such a doctrine, which suggests it was, in that form, unknown to the Apostles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
And how do you honor someone if you not honor what he decides or you do not allow him to settle a dispute? Why is this “primacy of honor” not seen as a final arbiter of faith?
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
There are two points here.
The ancient Churches dating back to Apostolic times did not inherit any tradition about Rome at all. Those who were in the Empire (and remember it was the Emperor who sent the invites to the Councils, which was why the Persian Kings would not let bishops in their empire go) did inherit the developing tradition, but did not do so as implying universal jurisdiction. Not only did no Pope attend the early Councils, but no Papal delegate had veto powers. Whether later developments like it or not, the early Church was conciliar in its operation, which the Pope having no veto – at least if he did, no trace of it has survived or been recorded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It still is largely conciliar. When was the last time a Pope used His power to define a Doctrine and how many times has this been done over Church history? Most of our defined teachings came out of Councils. But does that impede a Pope from his use of the Keys? The Keys are obviously something that belongs to an Office . . . not a man. It was so in the OT and it is so in the NT. So if you don’t think the Office is necessary and a wise thing for Christ to do then you’ll need take that up with Christ when you arrive in Heaven. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
The difficulty here is that the time it was done broke the unity of the Chalcedonian Church – that was over the filioque.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
But as my conversation yesterday, the filioque was important to both sides and both are at fault here. Mark made the point that much of it may have had to do with language differences itself which seemed quite reasonable. But it is water under the bridge now. What is defined, I accept. I can do no other. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Fair enough – now I must dash!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Breaking into over 45,000 different communities creates heresy. It’s an awful word but that’s what it is the fruit at the end, rotten. There’s a ‘Christian’ church on the highway south of the town I live in and their nickname is “Goats to Glory” because they have actually sacrificed goats.
There IS evidence that St. Ignatius and Roman elevation within the Christian communities in the 1st century, “St. Ignatius elevated the Roman community over all the communities using in his epistle a solemn form of address. Twice he says of it that it is the presiding community, which expresses a relationship of superiority and inferiority.” ( Ott, Ludwig (1960). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. p. 289.)
If we go to the Epistles we can see how St. Ignatius forms this primacy:
Epistle to Ephesians:
““It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing,” [1 Corinthians 1:10] and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.”
** Ignatius refers to his Bishop and presbytery (Rome) also says , “unanimous obedience…in the same mind.”
At the end of the letter, he says this, ““Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”
** So there IS evidence one can find just by doing some basic looking. However, it’s whether you choose to be convinced by it. To me, it’s strange how folks have faith in God and Christ but want so much empirical evidence for the formation of the Church. I suppose it connects to what Dave said the other day that there those that believe the revelation is over as oppposed to a living Church revealing God’s will.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
None of which speaks to the case of the Kerala Christians or the Church of the East.
I am familiar with the letter of Ignatius, but it nowhere says:
‘** Ignatius refers to his Bishop and presbytery (Rome) also says , “unanimous obedience…in the same mind.”
Is that Ott’s footnote? If so, it is another example of the way some RCC apologists play fast and loose with the evidence.
Rome was not invited to the 381 Constantinople Council, it convened none of the first seven councils, all of which would be odd if its primacy in these things was as well established as Ott claims. It is this sort of use of the evidence which makes many of us sceptical – it isn’t we’re not convinced, it is that we are convinced that if you have to play such games, your case is as soundly based as the Donation of Constantine!
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Why do people dismiss when it’s a Roman Catholic, it’s pure silliness and a fallacy. I put it there out of good conscience. Do you dismiss everything Dave says? It’s contextual evidence, which many scriptural evidences are as well. Where does Christ say he’s God? He never says it, one of the reasons is because first century people communicated differently. He says, “I am,” which could be a typology to Moses and the Bush but it’s the same type of skepticism if one chooses not to believe.
So did Christ play games as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’m not sure these are parallel cases.
There is ample Biblical evidence that Jesus is God, not one bit of which depends on anything Rome ever said. As you know, Romes was never the powerhouse of theological debate in early Church, and all the real break throughs came the Greek speaking world.
Dr Ott’s footnote is poor scholarship, he adds something not in the text – well it’s not in the text of either of the two copies I have – is it in the original?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Do listen to this from Dr Brock:
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I’m at my mom’s in the country, so you’ll have to excuse me and wait until I return to more a civilized abode with faster internet to watch videos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Fair enough – it’s rather good, and I hope you enjoy.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I will view it, but it’s like the dial up days out here…
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Sympathies, most of the places here are – this is the one decent wifi place.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Well stated, Phillip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Certainly there had been some contact in the thirteenth century, but it was sporadic. I suggest you read David Wilshire’s book on the subject – you’ll be no wiser, but better informed.
LikeLike
Rob said:
What a sad statement Augustin makes it seems to suggest his faith rested more in the institution than the in the words of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
We have the Scriptures through the Church, and that Church was not centred on Rome, nor is God’s Church. Rome is part of it, and if it ever stops insisting it is all there is, then things would be better for all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It seems to me you may not know anything about the churches I write about here.
Are you saying that the St Thomas Christians rejected a dogma they did not like? If so, do provide your evidence; scholars in the field will be agog; a Chair will be yours for the asking.
Are you saying the Church of the East was invited to Ephesus in 431, informed of its decisions and rejected them? If so, Sebastian Brock who has spent a career studying the subject knows nothing of it.
My Church descends from the first Christians in these islands and from Augustine – that a foreign bishop does not agree is of no consequence to a free born English woman. You have Pope Frank, I have HM Queen Elizabeth II – I think we both know which of these bears the best Christian wisdom.
I am sorry your restlessness has led you to a place where you have to depend on dodgy Germans and Argentinians, but if you had just been content to stay with good English common sense, you would not be reduced to writing satire about the head of your own church. I am sorry for you, but you brought it on yourself by going after foreign ways. Never a good idea for a freeborn Englishman – our spirit is not one to submit to Italians, Germans, or even Argentinians.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That’s a very French way of dismissing 80 million souls, and a tradition which includes John Donne, George Herbert, John Keble, Pusey, TS Eliot and CS Lewis. I’m happy to be in company with them and the Queen – I leave you with your gaggle of German modernists, Belgian pedophile defending bishops and Argentinian clowns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As you know, it is the Queen’s duty to give assent to Parliamentary laws. And, as you undoubtedly know, if the law had kept to the provisions of the Act, there would be far fewer abortions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Quite correct – amazing how few people actually seem to know what the law says – almost as many as those who ignore its provisions. It was meant to come into operation only when two doctors certified the mother’s health was at risk. No doubt in QV’s world that is dreadful – let the woman die, and her baby! I oppose abortion, but not if it costs another life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
She swore a sacred oath at her Coronation to observe the Law, and she upheld it. It may be a French practice to play fast and looses with oaths, but it is not an English one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’m getting in first this time – her oath says so. She swore the oath before God. That may mean nothing to you, but it would to a Christian.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
There is no evidence that she thought it was evil – or that it was in intent. Are you sure no one died and made you Pope?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is impossible to see that if the mother’s life is in danger it should be saved – except for you.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As I say, if you have the medical qualifications, pontificate, if not, have the grace the pipe down.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jessica got in first. When one swears an oath before God one does not do so with sophistry. The law as passed was very restrictive, and she is not responsible for the permissive way it has come to be interpreted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Since there was no sin, there was no need to abdicate. I marvel at the number of stones you cast – you must be so without sin as to be canonised already.
The Queen is not a Christian, Jorge is not a Christian, the Keralans who did not convert at gun point are not Christians. If this is your version of Christianity, you speak against the very words of Our Lard. But then I guess you think he had some pretty hokey views – saving a thief who had not converted to catholicism – very bad.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No to the RCC he didn’t! That’s the whole point. No one needs to convert to Rome – except those poor souls who thought they’d find certainty there – and found Jorge.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
There is, and only Rome narrows it down to Rome – poor darlings, so imperial of them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A somewhat general statement. For that to be proven you would need to show that the intent of the law was sinful within the Anglican theology of the body. I it quite unclear to me that is the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That begs so many questions. It is clear from the parliamentary debates that the purpose was to put an end to the evils of the back street abortionists. In the real world where people live, this prevalent evil was costing many lives. To claim an attempt to prevent this was objectively evil is the sort of silly-clever argument which treats people’s lives as secondary to an abstract concept; quite hard to argue that was any part of Christ’s message.
It is patently clear that the spirit and letter of the Act have been ignored; it is not clear that it was bound to be. It may be that in some abstract theological plane, it is fine that women seek backstreet abortions, or, if they have the means, travel to another jurisdiction where abortion is legal, but back in the real world, people who hold positions of responsibility do not enjoy such luxuries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That seems as far from Christ as a man can get before Satan receives his hardened heart and lost soul. May the Lord have more mercy on you than you have on those other sad and desperate souls – and may he preserve you from ever finding yourself in such a place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
C got in first. If you oppose abortion even when two doctors say the woman’s life is in danger, you are breaking the moral law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
And where, pray, in the British law, is there any intention to kill the child unless two doctors say it will lead to the woman dying? Arguments from ignorance from you – yet again.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The law stipulates it should be done only when the mother’s life is at risk. Your church may be happy to condemn mothers to death, mine is not. As a woman, I think I prefer mine.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Unlike you, I am not a medically-trained doctor and leave it to those who are – you should try it sometime – less of a strain than being a know it all.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Trained doctors say otherwise, Who to believe, Mr DIY or trained professionals- ooh that’s a hard one.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, but they can tell when someone’s life is in danger.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Since I am no more a qualified medical practitioner than you, I have the humility to know I can’t answer it. Sometimes best keep your mouth shut when you are ignorant rather than be thought a fool; I see you adopt the other tack.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Says the medically trained doctor – or the autodidact happy to juggle with women’s lives for the sake of his own view.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, so we gather. When you have some professional qualification to back it up, we could call it an informed opinion and take it seriously.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t need to – the law provides for professionals, I am not one, and unlike you, don’t intend to pretend I have any competence in this area.
Now I am off!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I should not have thought a chap with the feelings of a gentleman would make such a remark; I should hope that if it were pointed out, a chap would apologise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
As I say, my words apply only to those with the feelings of a gentleman.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I think if I were not an English gentleman, I should wish to be one; but each to his own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Not him then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Don’t worry, I expect nothing better from such a boorish man.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Physician heal thyself. Can you show us where Christ says we shall know those who know him by their boorish hatred?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I think you’ll find they were cords, and I think you’ll find that his attitude towards sinners as far from your own as possible.
You do not get to judge who is and who is not a Catholic.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I think you will find that your own church says that only those who are within its boundaries can be judged as being heretical. Mind you, when did what your own church said stop you – a man who wrote that disgraceful song about his own Pope is a fine one to throw stones.
Let;s face it buster, you made a mistake, you find yourself led by a man your despise, and you have to make Jesuitical sophistical excuses to justify your fales position. I am sorry for you, but your own intellectual dishonesty allows you to fool someone – yourself- everyone else sees it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Another ludicrously self-aggrandising claim accepted only by those insane enough to imagine others accept their claim to be Napoleon. You’re in the right set of lunatics.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Your church has authority over those who accept its claims to be the only church; which bit of this is not clear to such a clever man?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I have been a catholic all my life. You have been this, you have been that, you have been the other, so pardon me for not taking the views of a man with itchy ears and unstable faith seriously. You were an RCC five minutes before you started telling those who had been in that denomination all their lives how to be RCC.
The Catholic Church in the Creed is not just the RCC. That you have wandered from your natural home into a foreign cult which you find does not really suit you is your problem. You had the wit to trap yourself into it, God grant you the doubling of that wit needed to get you out of it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As you say, having no response to my accurate charge that you have shifted yourself from church to church, you resort to ad feminams. Or am I wrong, have you been loyal to a church without telling us?
It is rather rich for one who has never managed to stay in one place for very long to tell someone who has what their faith is. When you find one of your own for more than a couple of years will be time enough for such a display of arrogance.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is. It is the reason you are so ignorant of what the Church of England has written on this, and why you insist on apply rules that are not part of its tradition.
You have shifted into a foreign sect in which you are clearly most uncomfortable, and you respond to all criticisms of that by calling them ad hominem – when that is the reason for the extreme bitterness which marks what you say.
You may be the one person here who is ignorant of the origin of your biliousness, but then as you have the emotional intelligence of a 5 year old, that’s no surprise.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And who, when you have stopped shouting at yourself, defines murder in the law of the land? Can you kindly name one jurisdiction which accepts what the decalogue says without qualifying what counts as murder? No, of course you can’t.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The legal definition is what it is, and if you can show one legal case where the law has said abortion under the act is murder, you will have proved your point. If not, you haven’t. You haven’t, and you can’t, so again, you retreat to the margins of theory and shout you are right because you say so. I rest on legal precedent – as does English law.
Do you think English law doesn’t define what is legal for the Queen?
Keep floundering, you’re becoming even more of a joke than usual.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is the Courts which interpret the statutes. All you have to show is one English court of law interpreting the terms of the Act as murder than you have proven your point. You can’t, which is why you keep waffling.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, you have not shown that according to the law of the land, which the Coronation Oath bound the Queen to observe, any English statute defines abortion as murder. Why, therefore, should HM the Queen have broken her Coronation Oath? No reason except your personal feeling. That’s not even binding on you when you feel the need to change your denomination.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That would be the logical corollary of swearing an Oath and sticking loyally to it. Perhaps you don’t have much experience of being loyal or sticking to something?
I see that whilst getting, eventually, the basic theory of parliamentary democracy, you don’t get the practice. If the people had been allowed an unrestricted say, we’d be hanging people. That suggests parliament works quite well to me. Maybe you don’t agree with parliamentary democracy either?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which means you take it on yourself to be the sole interpreter of what is and is not consistent with your interpretation of the divine law. Meanwhile, back in the real world, churches have moral theologians and others who work on this and help those who, unlike yourself, lack omniscient access to God’s will.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And you miss the blindingly obvious fact that it is the legal system which defines what murder is, not the moral law as interpreted by you.
I agree murder is wrong, so does everyone else. What not everyone agrees is that all abortion is murder. What I have stated on many occasions, is that if the provisions of the Act had been followed, there would be far fewer abortions. This, as a quick Google would have shown you is, and has long been, the Anglican position. You don’t like it, tough.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
My position is what it has been throughout. There is no murder (something which can be defined only by law) where two professionals say that it is in the interests of the mother’s health for an abortion to occur. I am sorry that does not agree with your personal desire to interpret the law of this country as would suit what little is left of your argument, but them’s the facts.
Yes, that last is the sort of thing you’d say. Were i as given to childish outbursts, I’d no doubt make reference to the RCC having blood on its hands over something else – but unlike you, I don’t think hysterical outbursts and capital letters the way to conduct a discussion.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
By the same authority every other legislature in existence defines murder in its legal code. I have asked several times for you to provide me with an example of an authority which does this unmediated by definitions – the only one I can think of is Saudi Arabia.
In which case, the point of melodramatically proclaiming Anglicanism has blood on its hands was what?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not at all, Someone needs to interpret what murder is – it is not self-evident – were it, then your church erred greatly in supporting capital punishment. Did it? Did it used to be right but is now wrong? Or, is the case as I have said, that the law defines murder and the penalty for it? Your position is illogical and, as ever, hypothetical.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If it were self evident all societies would agree on it. Evidently they don’t, so evidently what you assert is false in the real world.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Good – and in English law, abortion is not murder – QED – see, you got there bless you.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I had not realised you belonged to that school of theory which imagines it the business of law to pronounce what is and is not ‘evil’. The law here took the view that it would be wrong to allow the health of the mother to suffer from an unwanted pregnancy which two medics thought was charming here. That seems a little too complex for your theory, but then real life is.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Let us see. The point, which you keep wandering from, was to do with the Queen’s Oath of respect the laws of this land. You claim that a Roman Catholic version of Moral Law should have superceded that, but fail to explain why an Anglican monarch in an Anglican State should have been bound by a Roman concept which you keep insisting must be accepted by all. That is the origin of your error, and much though you keep insisting Rome rules apply, they don’t. Anglican ones do, and those who advised the Queen at the time went with what Anglicanism allows. If that’s too hard for you, tough – man up.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Indeed. Whenever I think you can get no more boorish, you prove me wrong.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That, I take it was from the 1960s? No? Well we were talking about what was known by the medical professionals when the Queen signed the Act – or had you forgotten?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Do try to keep to the subject. You said that the Queen should have abdicated rather than sign the abortion act because it allowed murder. You then quote recent medical evidence which has nothing to do with the 1960s. At least you admit your ignorance – which never stops you from insisting you are right. Your wife must be a saint.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not if the intent is to save the mother – of course, you do not know what the consensus in the 60s was, but your arrogant ignorance makes you continue mansplaining. What a bore you are.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Did I miss where you showed us all that the intent in terms of the medical knowledge of the 1960s was not to save the mother and was intended to kill the baby? No, by Jove, I didn’t. Keep mansplaining, you’re doing a marvellous job of illustrating why women stop listening to boring men.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You seem rather confused here – as usual. Were started this talking about the QUeen’s Coronation oath, and I pointed out the terms of the act, which state quite clearly that abortion is allowable only when two doctors say the mother’s health is at risk. You say, quite rightly, it has spiralled out of control and gone far beyond that – the remedy is for our lawmakers to apply the act. To return to the origin of this, your disgraceful attempt to smear a good Christian woman has been busted.
The head of my Church on earth is someone I admire and respect. You are unable to say the same about the foreign church you entered because your intellect overpowered your heart and common sense. You are stuck with it. You are hoping your next Pope will suit you, you are hoping, desperately, that there will be some wriggle room in whatever this Pope says about almost anything. What a sad and pathetic position to be in.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Again, anachronism marks your argument. You use what it became to have a free pop at your own monarch. Is there anyone in authority over you you respect, or are you one of these carping papists who secretly wishes to be his own pope?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It gave them that permission if the mother’s health was at risk. That your own misogynistic church puts a woman’s life second to that of her unborn child surprises no one, but as I keep reminding you, England is not governed by celibate old men. Still, if you will not accept the views of two doctors and prefer your own, that really is your problem. You should take it to someone who cares what you think.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If you can just point to where it says that.
It is quite clear you had and have no idea of the Anglican position on these things. It is that position which governs the Queen’s signing of the Act, and that is entirely consistent with the Anglican position.
You, of course, cannot accept that because it fails, as does the Pope, to agree with your personal opinion. That is relevant only to you, not to the Queen.
Still, as we have established, you disrespect your own church often enough, so it is hardly likely you would respect a good Anglican woman who has served the nation you disgrace for longer than you have been alive. What a fellow you are to be sure. Is there anyone except you that you respect and agree with?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No it is not, as the definition of murder is that of the law of the land.
As ever, you ground yourself in theoretical constructs and condemn those in the real world who apply them. Had you actually read that document, you would have seen how Anglican theologians wrestled with the demands of the moral law and reality. You might like to try joining the real world at some point.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As I said, if you can show me one country where ‘God’s law’ is in legislation without qualifying what it means, feel free. If not, you’re busted again.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The Pope’s a heretic, I’m a heretic, parliament is a prostitute, no doubt the law is an ass. Tell you what, you try ignoring the law and see where that gets you – how about it?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Now who is off point? Whoever said the law provided the way to heaven?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
We refer to how we understand God’s law. Not being God I don’t claim to understand it unmediated by anything save my own views. I’m guessing you’re not that humble.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That, you will find, is an RC definition. Since your church allowed ‘murder’ in the form of capital punishment for many years, I think you will find that even a church needs a church to define what murder is.
Killing another being in self defence is not murder, but who defines what self-defence is? You will note the Abortion Act talked about defending the life of the woman.
I know you don’t much care about the life of a woman you regard as a sinner, and I know from your own comment you are callous enough to suppose that a young girl fearing social stigma and actual physical harm from male relatives in the circumstances of the 1960s is just a murderer who deserves your scorn and condemnation, fortunately the Anglican Church and parliament took a view about such women more in line with the teaching of Jesus about the spirit of the law; you, as ever, take your stand with the Pharisees.
I wonder if that means you will be judged by Pharisees – how will that go with you?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I rest, as I have done throughout, not on the changing views of your church (I take you admit it has changed its mind on capital punishment) but on the properly enacted laws of this Kingdom. It was those laws the Queen swore to unhold and abide by, and those law are clear that where two medically qualified professionals avow it is necessary in defence of the health of the mother, for an abortion to occur, it is not murder. That’s the law of the land, the Queen swore to uphold it. Only a disloyal papist would criticise her for that and expect her to abdicate. Good job she didn’t.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not at all. You seem always to have this view that what was in the past should stay as it is, and changing it isn’t allowed. That is where your confessional allegiance betrays you. In English law a properly enacted statute defines the law. The Law changed, the Queen is obliged to go with that. It is only in your denomination people have to invent fantastical convoluted plays on words to explain why they haven’t really changed something. I suppose this is why you find English law so problematic. Perhaps you prefer the Code Napoleon. Sound like one of these EU sorts to me.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The vow means to uphold the law of the land as the duly elected legislature provides, which bit of that is hard to get? If George IV had taken your line, RCs would never have been allowed to vote or hold public office, and they would still have been subject to penalties. Would you have preferred that?
Royal assent is what it says. Had the Queen had doubts about the Act which the then Archbishop of Canterbury and her other spiritual advisers had supported, then indeed she could have abdicated. Quite plainly she either had no such doubts, or her spiritual advisers calmed them.
Not everyone sets themselves up as a one man tribunal competent to interpret the moral law and discern who goes to hell. Is that a surprise to you?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes it does, and in giving her assent, she has advice from those qualified to give it. Do you have reason to suppose she did not seek advice and acted, as you would have, on her own vis et voluntas?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Who defines ‘objectively sinful’? The Church does not say it is (your cult may, but so what, the Pope is a foreign ruler with no jurisdiction within these islands). You speak, as ever, for yourself.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I think you’ll find you are not licensed to speak for your church.
I accept your admission of defeat – took you long enough.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No need, anyone reading the foregoing will see yu retreating more and more to the margins of theory.
We started with your ludicrous claim the Queen should have abdicated rather than have signed the Act. You have provided not a shred of evidence for this odd view. Better stick to silly disrespectful songs about your own leader and leave mine alone.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Since you have conspicuously failed to show that any sin was involved, the obvious course would t have been to have withdrawn the suggestion
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not only do you start it, you presume you have the fiat to stop it – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
In the world in your head. In the world real people have to deal with where real women and real unborn children present moral dilemmas and health problems, it is less straightforward. The difference is, as usual, between the world in your head and the world as it is.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As I lack your expertise in midwifery or the delivery and care of babies in the womb, I rely on those who do.
I love the way that you just can’t admit other people may know things you don’t. Perhaps you should become a male midwife?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not at all. The law leaves it to medical professionals, and not being one, so do I. Unlike you, I am not omniscient and do not make up stuff to justify my position. My position rests securely on English Law and my Church. Yours rests on hot air – as usual.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As I say, I don’t believe there is any church or country (Saudi Arabia excepted) which had unmediated Divine Law as its national law. I keep asking you to give me and example and you keep staying with theory. What is closed is your mind.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I note you have no answer.
It is highly relevant to the argument. You have adopted a foreign faith and its definitions, you seek to apply them to an English context governed by English law and Anglican understandings. This is why you keep getting it wrong.
This strange view of yours that the Pope of Rome hath any jurisdiction in this realm, or that his out-dated ideas on women’s bodies do, is at the root of your error.
If you had remained loyal – which you haven’t, you’d not have fallen into the trap you are in. Perhaps you will need to bit your leg off or something.
You keep banging on about Roman conceptions of moral law not held by an Anglican state and insisting it applies – what a very odd thing to do. Are you saying your error has nothing to do with your current, temporary, denominational affiliation?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Says who? Says you. The Queen’s Coronation oath, which is, let us recall, where this began, is part of the law of England, and the law and theology which apply are those of the Anglican Church. None of that is irrelevant, what is irrelevant is for you to introduce a law which is no law at all, Let me remind you, for a law to be valid it must be accepted by a legally competent authority and it must have some authority to implement it. Your philosophical notion meets none of these criteria.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Someone needs to define what ‘murder’ is, and that is not theologians, it is the duly elected legislators. This is done here, and I think you will struggle to show that the law of the land says it is murder. As you know that and cannot prove your case, you go all shouty – you are very funny when you do that!
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You really do know no English Church history. The Church is the Church of England established by law, because we are a civilized nation governed by law, parliament has allowed other denominations to coexist. Does this in some way offend you?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
He got over it, I guess you’re even more sensitive. He was a terribly cry baby.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And just to be helpful in attempting to locate you into the sort of guidance the Queen would have received, here is the Anglican position:
Click to access abortion.pdf
Whether you agree is not the issue, it is whether there is anything in it which means the Monarch should have abdicated because signing the abortion act would have violated her oath. And that, let me remind you, not your RC moral law, is what bound the Monarch.
I doubt you’ll get it – you listen only to the voices in your head which have landed you in the absurd situation where you write songs insulting the head of your church. If I were reduced to such a sad state, I would begin to think about whether I had made the right decision – but you have nailed your trousers to the mast of a sinking ship and must either go down with it or suffer the embarrassment of getting out of your trousers. Best of luck.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If you were to look back, you would see it reflects what the Anglican Church maintained in the 1960s. Face it buster, you haven’t a leg to stand on here. This is an Anglican position for an Anglican Queen, and your Pope and his odd ideas hath no jurisdiction here.
A gentleman would withdraw his claim the Queen should have abdicated and would apologise; but we have already established you are not one, so I expect you to carry on mansplaining.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Only if two doctors certify that. I am happy to leave it to those who are trained, you’re happy to risk other people’s lives for your own beliefs.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t need to – you need to show you know better than two doctors.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
When I want a moral theologian, I don’t go to a qualified medical practitioner – the reverse also applies.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If you think saving the life of a mother is the devil’s work, who’d be surprised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Are you a medically trained doctor> No, thought not. When you know what you are talking about, do feel free to offer and informed opinion.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, the law, in its ignorance of your omniscience, delegated that to the decision of two people who had trained for years in medicine. I do hope that during your wife’s pregnancy you did not take the place of those trained professionals or pit you ;know more than most’ against their training.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, I don’t – I am simply pointing out that unlike you, I am not claiming to that expertise. Any how, I must dash – have a hot date tonight – but only with an old female friend!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
As always, Quiav the Great is correct. There is no condition that calls for killing the baby to save the mother. Removal of the baby is sometimes needed to save the mother, then hope it survives. Once in awhile the there is a rH factor incompatibility , but im not going to get into that…no one will understand one word I say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
We were talking in this context of what was known in the 1960s in the UK. The law was primarily to stop desperate young women going to back street abortionists – of course, as it turned out, it did so much more than that – but that was not the intention of those who passed the law.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Back alley abortions. These kids are not being raised rite. Its the parents fault.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t know if this still happens in the US, here it doesn’t any more.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Love what you’ve done with your hair……but wheres the red nose?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
There weren’t, until the Portuguese forced them – that’s the point. History is a matter of time – unless you are making the remarkable claim they were with Rome before the Jesuits turned up. Jesuits – ah, what would your church be without them – much better?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
So, in your blind ignorance, you condemn those who kept the tradition they received from an Apostle to hell.
I am sorry for you – what a narrow and fear-ridden place you occupy. One day you will be ashamed – that is when you come to Christ. Have you actually met Christ, or did you convert to a Church?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which is not what St Paul said – another bit of ‘development’ there. Perhaps you should try Christianity some time? Even read the Bible where Paul says not what you quote.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You can have Jerome, I will have the Apostle. I recommend him.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Let me translate into English: Jerome twists Paul to suit Rome. My Church does indeed, and that is because it does not accept your narrow-minded version of Catholic.
Glad to see you agree.
LikeLike
NEO said:
This from a man whose forefathers butchered most of the clergy in the country. Pot meet kettle, except the English remained Christian until well in the twentieth century, and many still are. Somehow I seem to believe that the Apostle Thomas is as good a source as the Apostle Peter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
No, but he took with him to India no record that Peter’s authority was what Rome came to claim later.
It is perfectly clear from these ancient churches that the systematic claims made by Leo the Great were unknown in Apostolic and sub-Apostolic times. It totally undermines your unhistorical claims about Rome – still, you’re stuck with Jorge and I have HM the Queen – you never did say which of them you thought a better example of Christian discipleship.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That’d be you and Jorge at one then would it 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The only person I am aware of who meets the definition of a man who knows the letter and not the spirit of the law is you – do see what Jesus had to say about such men. Odd the way they are all men.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Quiav the Great is the only real catholic in here. There is no salvation outside the catholic church. Three cheers for Quiav the Great
Hip hip hurrah
Hip hip hurrah
Hip hip hurrah
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If that’s so Bosco, does that mean we shall be bathing together in the lake of fire? Shall I order an asbestos swimsuit? 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Make you get a bikini swimsuit…none of that one piece old fashioned madness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
🙂 xx
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
On another note, I have been staying at my mom’s the last couple of days, she recovering from surgery to remove cancer. If you could add her to any prayer intentions, thank you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
I have and will, Phillip. Hope she does well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Thank You, Dave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
My honor, friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I certainly will – my very best wishes and prayers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
What’s your mother’s name?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Her name is Judith.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
For some reason, my response didn’t post. But I said I will pray for her and I have been. God bless
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
Done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Count me in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
Retrospective blind support by Catholics for an outdated and inhumane suppression of Apostolic traditions that didn’t suit the imperialist power games of Rome makes me feel a little bit sick.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Me too, Gareth. I knew some Keralan Christians at University, and I learned a lot about their history and traditions – I was fortunate enough to be able to go to some lectures by Sebastian Brock on the Syriac Christians – such richness, and a shame to lose it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Another branch of the church that RCC does not count as church https://www.facebook.com/evangelistreinhardbonnke/ but taking the good news to the ends of the earth.
Jess you may be interested Bonnke’s commission to preach has an interesting Welsh connection. He was trained in Swansea the Bible college of Wales established by Rhys Howells a man renowned for his faith and life of prayer.
Then leaving for home (Germany) at the end of his course he had a few hours in London, walking around he passed a house with a plaque on the wall indicating that it was the home of George Jeffries (A Welsh evangelist). He rang the bell, asked the house keeper if it was the home of the man evangelist who spread the Elim Pentecostal Church throughout the UK. The answer was yes but that he was old and frail and did not see visitors. However Jeffries called out send that young man in – he prayed for Bonnke and laid hands on him with the intention of transferring the anointing of the Holy Spirit that he carried for his ministry to Bonnke. A couple of days later Bonnke read that Jeffries had died.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That’s a touching story, Rob – and so full of the power of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Bill F said:
interesting article. But curious that you assume Iona is in England, given what you said about Anglicans
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you, and you are quite right of course. 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
An interesting argument between you and QVO, Jess. I am curious about your abortion laws. Does it compel a doctor to violate his moral or ethical conscience to provide an abortion? For it seems that it would be morally fitting if the law were enacted only to prevent the persecution of a doctor if faced with that very rare dilemma of having to make what might be called a “Sophie’s Choice”. If it is simply taking what was illegal and making it legal because people broke the law and ended up killing both the child and the mother then it is a case of justifying an immoral means for a percieved good. Or am I missing something here?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No it doesn’t oblige any doctor to violate his conscience.
The law was meant to provide an answer to the awful problem of young women going to back street abortionists in the 1960s. It was clear that the then blanket ban did not work. Parliament and the Church was presented with the problem that whatever its good intent, the law was not only not protecting the unborn, it was not protecting vulnerable young women either.
No doubt in a better world, the answer would have been to persuade all these women to have the babies and remove the stigmas of bastardy and of single motherhood. Alas, in practice, it was these last two stigma, as well as the reaction of their parents, which pushed so many of these young women towards the back street butchers.
Of course, Parliament and the Church could have said what QV said much earlier, that these young women deserved to die, but they took a more merciful view, which was to allow abortion in restricted circumstances. No abortion was to be allowed unless two senior medics said that it would help the health, physical or mental, or the mother.
The problem is that no one then could see the moral degradation of our society which would lead so many doctors to take their responsibilities here less seriously, or that so many people would be so promiscuous.
The C of E has long campaigned for the law to be obeyed properly, but alas, there are no votes in it here. The issue is absolutely absent from British politics except in Ireland.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
In the US our young ladies (of my generation) were not worried in the least about stigmas, though they detested cutting their fun short for having to be a mother. So here, it was a matter of having your cake and eating it too; as it was primarily another form of contraception. So there were wasn’t anything noble in these young ladies that prevented them from having the child and giving them up to adoption . . . in fact we have had a shortage of adoptable babies in this country ever since the abortion laws went into effect. The argument, of course, that was used to persuade (mostly aimed at the genteel public) was that it was to prevent the death of mothers etc. as well which was statistically a rather rare phenomenon. I think most women would be more likely to die by a lightning strike than from a back alley abortionist. Drugs and sex fueled our abortion laws and now they continue to sell it as women’s health care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That was not, I am told, the case here. The early 1960s saw a rise in the number of back street abortions. I’ve no way, of course, of knowing what took young women there, but given the death rates, I doubt many of them went there if they thought there was a good alternative. Unmarried mothers were treated very badly, and would often have their babies taken away without choice. I am sure if our society had spent less time stigmatising these young woman and more time holding out the hand of help and mercy, then it would have been much better.
Sounds to me as though the American experience was quite different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps or another urban legend has developed around this whole business. Yes my generation was responsible and I think the UK was powerfully influenced by the US and our hippie culture of sex, drugs and rock and roll. The moms (mine felt like throwing up even at the “a” word, so strong were here maternal instincts, were made to believe that deaths of young women (their daughters) was staggeringly high. It was a myth here and I wonder if it were a myth that was sold there as well. The pill was popular and most girls did not get pregnant. Those rare instances where they did (and I knew first hand as I was quite typical of the generation) were treated usually by a doctor doing it illegally or by some who were making good money and doing it safely and well. I heard of onely one girl who had complications and needed hospitalization. It was a rare story to hear of such things . . . though it was made to seem to be an epidemic in the women’s movement. The numbers never tallied the way they sold it. But then politicians got involved and were afraid of losing the women’s votes and it is all history now. Politicians will sell any snake oil to get re-elected. But I will give your politians a benefit of a doubt . . . though it is a very small doubt, admittedly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
The push for the Act was really pre-pill, and the pill itself caught on very slowly here – it had to be prescribed by a doctor, or, when they came into existence, family planning clinics.
I’ve not made a study of the period, and daresay there was a good deal of exaggeration on both sides, as there always is in these things.
I think if the Law had been applied as it was meant to apply, it would have been a good deal better. But, as I say, here, the issue has no political traction at all – even the RC bishops say nothing much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Aye, the RC bishops tend to steer away from controversy these days . . . don’t want to get anyone upset. I am surprised that as prevalent as the pill was here and in Europe that it was rare in the UK. So your statistics might differ a bit from ours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’ve just provided a link which I think shows it was.
That’s not surprising, as we have an NHS which is the sole provider of Health care, so it was more tightly regulated. I know from older women in the family that it was not, at least in the late 60s, easy to get your doctor to prescribe the pill, and even into the 70s there was the presumption that only married women could have it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
My how things have changed. It does seem, however, with these changes that it might be time to rescind the old abortion laws now that the circumstances are changed. Seems that a sledge hammer is being used to do the work of a tack hammer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
There’s no pressure here for that. It looks to me as though all that has really happened is across time those abortion figures have moved from the ‘illegal’ to the ‘legal’ column.’ As someone who, alas, cannot have children naturally (and even when married I would not go down the artificial route as I think it sinful) I much wish it were possible to adopt – but with so many abortions, it isn’t. I guess that’s why I teach young children and love it so much 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed, there as here, once a ‘benefit’ is enacted it becomes next to impossible to admit a wrong or even right the wrong . . . it becomes established in society as a non-issue and irrevocable no matter what has changed. Charititable giving has changed from welfare to an entitilement and is one of the quickest growing tax ependitures in our budget.
Yes, I too lament the fact that after killing 57 million babies in this country that I know of couple that had to wait years to adopt and go to Romania to get their adopted children. It makes little sense. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
None at all dear friend. And it is not, now, as though those stigma from the past are still there – but hedonism will have its way – alas 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It certainly does. I recognized it then even as they paited a pretty face on the practice and it has never abated. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
There are some Catholic agencies here who do very good work with young women. I don’t think anyone should just go straight to an abortion clinic without counselling about the alternatives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
If the feminist will even inform them of the options anymore. It is almost a sacrament of the far left progressive feminists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’m a feminist – I believe in giving all women the information needed to make an informed decision – radical feminism 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
And the center of that information should be the Gospel of life and the understanding about the need to fulfil a woman’s maternal instincts. it is hard-wired into our genes- though most think it is simply a financial or life-style choice. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
For me, that’s the really hard part – but I channel those strong maternal instincts into my teaching young children, and I think everyone benefits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It does . . . God knows, these children today need far more than they are getting in many of their dysfunctional homes. A loving teacher is sometimes the only compliments they receive and the only time they are made to feel like they are a person that is worthwhile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I think that was God’s plan, and who am I to go against it? 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You might be interested in some statistis that were not the made-up NARAL statistics that are taken by most folks without verification as gospel: http://afterabortion.org/2011/the-truth-about-back-alley-abortions/
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It seems quite different from the UK.
Here, in 1959, a Parliamentary commission of inquiry found that about 20% of gynae admissions were for problems stemming from illegal abortions, and in 1966, another commission estimated that about 100,000 babies were being aborted. The same source says that about 40 women a year were dying. In the decade before the Act illegal abortions (and of course all abortion was illegal) were the main cause of maternal mortality.
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/campaigns-and-opinions/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/rcog-opinion-the-abortion-act-40-years-on/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I couldn’t comment, of course, to the veracity of their report as I do not know there the RCOG gets their statistics and how much political pressure is brought to bear on them . . . I assume that they receive monies from the Government however, you might know. My gut check for information on this is personal observation . . . having been deep into the subculture of my day. The NARAL numbers over here are simple politics by my own experience and observation and the link I sent is far and away more obviously what I actually witnessed. So no comment, I guess. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I’d trust the RCOG as it is a professional body, and it gets it money from the NHS whatever it says. As I say, abortion is not a political issue here, so it tends not to produce pressure to massage the stats. The parliamentary commissions, likewise, are all-party affairs, and usually a good and reliable source of figures. It’s all long before my time – and as someone who can honestly say they have never used any form of contraception, all a bit beyond me 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Sounds like you still hold some respect for the truthfulness of the government. We squandered ours many years ago in a number of arenas . . . thus, a Donald Trump as a finger in the eye of politicians. I think like most Americans, I expect to hear lies as soon as a politican opens their mouth . . . especially in this arena where the abortion industry has become extremely profitable and influential.
I do love your continued innocence of your youth. Prodigal sons look at things differently, I suppose. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I guess so – I just find it so sad that so few people here ever care – but then I have my own reasons – as well, I hope, as what I would see as a natural Christian dislike of abortion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
indeed so as it is almost a natural dislike born of human nature. I think of the test of the two women by Solomon. Today they both be agreeable to have the baby cut in half . . . though todays wisdom would be that the women that wanted the baby killed would probably be the rightful mother. Something is dreadfully wrong in society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Too true, dear friend. I do feel something of an oddity at times. My then husband never understood, despite my explaining, why I would not go down the artificial route, and he refused to contemplate adoption. I suppose it was a conflict between an old-fashioned girl and modern man – probably explains why I don’t date 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
He obviously didn’t understand Christian morality and to your credit you did. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you. No, he didn’t, and I discovered the hard way that being yoked to a non-believer isn’t really a good idea – even though dear St Paul thought a woman might be able to bring her husband to the faith – oh well
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
And you may have if given the time to do so but divorce, having lost its importance, makes it an easy answer to all marital problems. So sorry for the scars that has left for you . . . but then what is life without a few gaping wounds?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Very true that. I guess he wanted what he got – a pneumatic blonde who could give him a son – wouldn’t be the first or last chap to want that – or the first to dump his wife to get it 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Instant gratification and a no patience to make the best of what life gives you. The door that God seemed to open to him of the satisfaction of giving a home to a child that had none was not seen as a gift but as a punishment. It is all too common and a very sad commentary on what we have become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Alas. The one good thing is he is a very good dad to his son, and seems to be happy with my replacement – I long ago wished them well – and meant it 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That is a wise and mature outlook though I doubt that what he did will cure his lack of faithfulness nor the loss of dignity when he broke his vow and sullied the veracity of the constancy of his word. After all, we are only as good as our word and that has consequence to anyone who has lost it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I hope he, and she, and the little one are happy. We all make mistakes and can all be redeemed 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
That, of course, is true. I am a prodigal son twice over; in the realm of God and my own parents. Amazing grace is proved in my humble little life and now I must beg God and man to forgive what I have done and for the actual grace I need to persevere in the faith. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Hope you like the new ‘avatar’ – I thought as so many of you were using a picture, I’d do one – this was taken by a friend recently :)xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I do. I’m always curious to put a real face to the name . . . it is so much more personal. It’s good to see the real you for a change. You don’t need to hide a pretty face behind a drawing after all. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
*blushes* – thank you 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Following your link that mentioned poetry and the church of the East’s tradition.
The value of poetry for theology is mentioned in this quote from Michele Guinness. I met her some years ago at a conference in Lancaster Parish Church where her husband was the vicar.
“It is my conviction that to do theology well we must bring the poets to the table along with the theologians and listen carefully to what they have to say” – Malcolm Guite in his wonderful Advent, “Waiting on the Word”. He is so right. Imagination is as important as reason (sometimes more so) in telling the story of our faith. But we don’t really believe it. Let’s bring artists, poets, musicians, dramatists, story-tellers, actors from the church’s “fringe” where they’re always put, right to the centre of things where they belong.
Michele Guinness
PS. Good to have real face to put to the name!
LikeLiked by 1 person