Writes Fr Ed Bakker:
Dear Blessed People of God,
My Collegue blogger Deborah , who runs a blog on foolish things (click on
the link here to access it) could not resist to give the Traditional Anglican Communion a bit of kick and paint a lesser dark picture of former Archbishop John Hepworth of The Traditional Anglican Communion.I am a former TAC Priest and I know Archbishop John well and am familiar with a number of the goings on in his Adelaide office and generally with the way he ran the TAC. I left the TAC because I did not want to become a Roman Catholic, but others Priests left the TAC because Archbishop John cancelled their license, because they dared to disagree with his policies. Deboarh I felt that your comments need an answer and I first of all repeat here what you said on your blog:QUOTE
Seems Archbishop Hepworth is winning on the public relations front
Posted on October 19, 2012
The new TAC tribunal convicted Archbishop Hepworth in absentia, without anyone representing him, and have published a statement that does not even list the charges Hepworth faced.
Fr. Smuts has the statement. Seems the new TAC is not winning the battle for public opinion on this one, though perhaps some new TACkers will suddenly develop multiple email aliases to make it seem this tribunal acted in a just and merciful manner.
You can go over to Fr. Smuts’ site to read all about it.
I wish the new TAC would cut their losses and move on. What pound of flesh do they wish to extract from Archbishop Hepworth? He is pushing 70, with no pension save for what the Australian government offers seniors. Will they now go after his house so he is thrown out onto the street? If the new TAC thinks this is a way to evangelize and grow new members, I hope they rethink the optics of their campaign.
The archbishop remains in my prayers as do others who are experiencing the brunt of his debacle.
UNQUOTE
First of all the reason Archbishop Hepworth was judged in his absence was his unwillingness to go to India and stand trial. He was quoted to say in the Australian papers that the TAC’s tribunal was in la la land. You are talking about someone to represent him. Considering the background , I am not sure whether anyone would be keen to take this on. His former mate Chancellor Peter Slipper was offcourse in no position to help his friend. He is in deep trouble himself. Deborah you will need to bear in mind that Archbishop Hepworth tried to sack Bishop Robarts, who questioned financial irregularities ( that is probably to say it mildly) – this is how Abp John dealt with anyone , who dared to speak up. Fortunately Bishop Robarts was able to secure his position and it is to his credit that he took the issue on. There is also the fact that Archbishop Hepworth failed to leave an alternative for those in the ACCA/TAC who were not going to go Rome.
It could be said that the Tribunal could have been a bit clearer of what Archbishop Hepworth was going to be charged with. Those of us who know all the background do know. I think if he is found guilt , then it must be referred to the Australian Police.
It is good Deborah that you are praying for Archbishop Hepworth, he needs all our prayers , but what strikes me and many others , that there is no remission of guilt , he even pretended to be back in his former role and was quoted in the papers offering Peter Slipper a job as a Priest in the TAC and he is offcourse in no position to do that. As the current Vicar General of the ACCA/TAC rightly pointed out : ” no way”.
It is rediculous to suggest that the TAC uses the court proceedings as a new way of evangelizing , I dont think they Bishops got together in India for the fun of it. Look if someone commits financial fraud and spends money recklessly, then that person should bear the consequences. You are going to be too soppy about all this.
Also there is no new TAC, it is the same TAC minus some who have gone to Rome.Also the TAC is not running a popularity conequest, not many Churches can do that anyway, especially the Roman Catholic Diocese of Melbourne with the public enquiry in years of sexual abuse by its Priests. Also we have not forgotten the story about the goings on in the Boston RC Diocese , someone is now making a movie about this. But I am getting of track.
Archbishop John Hepworth knew exactly what he was planning when he took his Bishops to Portsmouth to sign compliance with the Roman Catholic Catechism. But.. it is a pity that a number of Bishops signed this document blindly and then pulled out. Union in Holy Communion is fine , but many of us know that Rome will never buy that, so it was Union by absorption. The sad part is that there was very little communication from the Adelaide office to Clergy and laypeople alike what was going on in the TAC. Little room for consultation. Years ago we used to call his office the ” black hole of Adelaide”. Why ? Plenty of stuff went in, but nothing came out.
It looks to me that the whole Church of God needs a complete overhaul when it comes to Bishops , Priests and Deacons with sound integrity.Mission by exemple and by encouragement. Perhaps we can focus on that , not only in the TAC, but also in the Roman Catholic Church.
And just before I go Deborah, dont worry about + John being on the street, there some waiting in the wings with an open cheque book.
Jesus have mercy on us, Mary pray for us,
Father Ed Bakker OPR
For what it’s worth, there is absolutely nothing for Archbishop John Hepworth to win here. He is, if anything, Deborah, a ‘public relations’ nightmare. In the process of having self-destructed, and that in spectacular fashion, he has made a total mockery of the Church and brought into disrepute the precious One she represents. Accountable, he will be held…
UPDATE: Deborah Gyapong responds.
Amen there Fr. Ed, it is sad however that so many don’t see and acknowiedge the decision of the TAC here, and thus the authority of the Holy Scripture. As too I maintain the authority of the Local Church. Sadly postmodernity, rather than biblical theology, seems to influence the Church today but then that is the way of it as the great apostasy grows!
This verse or texts I have quoted several times, but it comes directly from our Lord, and certainly should press us today: “And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily, Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on earth?” (Lk. 18: 7-8)
I entirely agree that Hepworth is most certainly not “winning” on the public relations front. Nor is the Catholic Church, nor, for that matter is the TAC. There can be no winners at all.
There are no winners for the time being in this sad situation.
The TAC lost a whole lot: members, credibility, money, assets, etc. etc.
Bishop Hepworth lost himself. He became so enamoured with his pursuit of power that he lost sight of what it means to be a Christian and serve God. Above all he forgot that to be a priest means to be a servant first. His legendary appetite for money also made him reckless. This will still be his ultimate downfall. He made his choices without considering the consequences.
The TAC will come out on top. The remaining members are all aware of the enormous task ahead, and made a conscious decision to stay the course. Not because of, but in spite of.
Admirable, don’t you think?
Là où Dieu construit une Eglise le diable dresse une chapelle à côté.
The devil only gets a foothold if we let him…………
We can only defeat the great “Diabolos”, the accuser, slanderer, and the Adversary of God, the Devil (this name is derived from English, but should only be applied to Satan, as a proper name), by being “In Christ”! We are no match for this great enemy in ourselves, (Eph. 6: 10-20, St. Paul). WE battle ‘the world, the flesh, and the devil’, but always our victor and victory is Jesus Christ, alone!
In response to Mourad, “There can be no winners at all” . There can be no winners among faithful believers in Jesus Christ, and those who believe in, as Father Robert writes, “the authority of the Holy Scripture”. There is a winner in the person of Satan, aided and abetted by Screwtape et al.: what started as an attempt to engender unity in the church has not just spilt the TAC: it has divided what remained into some 4 factions: those who have gone to the ordinariate, those who have simply left the church, those who were ‘encouraged’, or forced, to leave, and those who have tried to preserve what was left of the TAC.
Our prayers and hope must be that with God’s will, this may provoke greater unity of those remaining in the Continuum: vide the forging of intercommunion accords in the USA, the reunification of several Canadian (former ACCC/TAC) parishes with the ACC-OP, the establishmnet of good and friendly relationships between the ACA, the APA and the ACC-OP, APCK and the UECNA.
This is the work of the Holy Spirit which must be our mentor and guide throught this painful process. In the second lesson assigned for this morning, St Paul writes to Timothy: ‘And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.’ (1 Timothy 6.2-7)
It is certainly the case that one has had the joy of seeing a significant number of Anglican clergy and laity in Canada join the North American Ordinariate and, Deo Volente, a Canadian Deanery will soon be established which in God’s good time may be erected into a Canadian Ordinariate.
There is of course, still the Anglican Church of Canada itself, still the Anglican body recognised as part of the Anglican Communion which developed out of the original schism. Then I understand that there is something of an alphabet soup of “continuing Anglican” bodies which, sadly, includes the remainder of the “Anglican Catholic Church of Canada” under Bishop Craing Botterill which continues to be a part of the “Traditional Anglican Communion” and, of course, the body to which I think you belong which I think calls itself “The Traditional Anglican Church of Canada” with, presently 8 or so clergy who at present look to a California based bishop for Episcopal oversight. I suppose here may be others, but I trust you will excuse my ignorance of the detail.
Since you make referenence to Screwtape, you may recall a postwar postcript which C.S. Lewis wrote for the US Saturday Evening Post and which is on line in that estimable magazine’s archive: Screwtape Proposes a Toast which is set in the satanic equivalent of what one may think of as an Oxbridge theological college.
When I read the posts on blogs such as “The Continuum” where Anglicans who feel they cannot abide the way the Anglican Communion has developed but seek to find justications for developing new schismatic bodies rather than obey the command “Ut Unum Sint” by accepting the Holy Father’s initiative in Anglicanorum Coetibus, I am put in mind of Screwtape’s description of the wine provided for the toast he is to propose to the College Principal, Dr Slubgob:
“Can it be? Mr. Principal, I unsay all my hard words about the dinner. I see and smell that even under wartime conditions the college cellar still has a few dozen of sound old vintage Pharisee. Well, well, well! This is like old times. Hold it beneath your nostrils for a moment, Gentledevils, Hold it up to the light. Look at those fiery streaks that writhe and tangle in its dark heart as if they were contending. And so they are, You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested, trodden and fermented together to produce its subtle flavor. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on earth . Some were all rules and relics and rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine, or cards, or the theater. Both had in common their self-righteousness and the almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each, slander was its gospel and denigration its litany, How they hated one another up there where the sun shone! How much more they hate one another now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled”
Isn’t that just what these continuing bodies will be: “conjoined but not reconciled”?
“Reconciled” to what, Roman domination and the idea that THEY are the leadership of the Church? This all sounds famillar, with the idea that the role of Peter can be continued, but this with the reality of St. Paul, just does not add up! (Gal. 2:11-14, etc.) And then when we look at the theological position of the RCC, Vatican II has some large wholes in it, and then of course the “filioque”, which Rome is certainly on the wrong side of; the EO and Orthodoxy have that correct in general. And the Anglican Communion has always been the Book of Common Prayer, with the Thirty-Nine Articles! We can somewhat appreciate the desire of the High Church Anglo-Catholics, but they really don’t have the full idea of the authority of the High Church Episcopacy, its just that simple. And surely the visible reality of the Anglican Bishops, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, have not shown this, sadly!
Note, of course I do not subscribe to the classic High Church idea of the episcopacy, any longer. I would be closer to both Jewel and Ussher! Awe, the doctrine of the Local Church has come again for me! This alone will close out for the faithful in this day of Gentile Apostasy, again just my thoughts at least.
Btw, for you Mourad, here is a quote, (and a piece of my idea of Protestant Scholasticism)…
“This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.” (Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40) — The London Baptist Confession of 1689.
@ irishanglican: Of course I fully expected you to be hostile to the Church you chose to leave, but it is interesting to note that you now question the concept of episcopacy as believed by most Anglicans (although with Anglicanism one can never be wholly sure of what Anglicans are supposed to believe) many of who would also have problems with your extract from the London Baptist Confession.
Perhaps you would have been more suited to the Jesuit approach than the Benedictines. BTW, since your are only a little younger than I, I wonder if you were at Ampleforth. Fr Edmund Hatton OSB who was Novice Master there for 9 years died last month in the Abbey Infirmary at the age of 90. RIP.
@Mourad: I am not really “hostile” with Roman Catholicism, per se, but I certainly don’t believe in its claims of being the Head of the Visible Church, i.e. in the doctrine of the papacy, and the papal claims of infallibility, etc. I would agree with Philip Melanchton, that the so-called pope is the Bishop of Rome, but he has no more authority in the Church than the other general patrarachs in the church. This is the general position of the Churches of the Reformation also. For those that have open minds they might want to see Luther’s Schmalkald Articles, (SA).. which was sort of Luther’s ‘last theological will and Testament.’ As Robert Jenson wrote: “The Smalcald Articles are Luther at his most characteristic.”
And as to the so-called episcopacy, I would again be more toward the general idea of the three church offices: deacon, presbyter, and bishop. And the Anglican John Jewel said (referencing Augustine) that “bishop is the name of a work or office, and not a title of honour; so that he who would usurp an unprofitable preeminence in the church is no bishop” (II. 6, 304). We certainly need to see a more “spiritual” and biblical reality in any episcopacy! And here Christ is always “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.” (1 Peter 2:25) Here I like the position generally of the early 20th century Swedish Lutheran Church, noting Yngve Brilioth one time Archbishop of Uppsala. But again, the so-called “episcopacy” must simply be spiritual, foremost, always! And again, “most” Anglicans historically are not High Church in episcopacy! See, the Anglican Articles XIX – XXXIX, The Household Of Faith and The Church.
Indeed, the London Baptist Confession, is like its so-called Presbyterian counterpart, save of course over the doctrine of Baptism, and too the nature of church goverment to degree. I don’t follow either literally, but in places they are both just great divinity! And yes, I do tend to see an important place for scholastic theology, but of course Protestant & Reformed! The presupposition is always Holy Scripture, itself!
I was not a Ampleforth.
*at
@irishanglican: You wrote: ” I am not really “hostile” with Roman Catholicism, per se, but I certainly don’t believe in its claims of being the Head of the Visible Church, i.e. in the doctrine of the papacy, and the papal claims of infallibility, etc”
In your haste (at least, I hope it was haste), you have got your syntax more than a little muddled. Catholicsim does not claim to be “the head of the visible church” – it claims to be the one true Church, the mystical bride of Christ who is, of course, the Head of the Church.
I could go on, but I don’t think there is any need to explain to you step by step what follows on from that – you ought to know it as well as, or better than, I do. What actually comes out of your post is that that your approach to theology has become rather like that of my 5 year old great-nephew to a self-service salad bar in a pizza joint
Take some leaves of Calvinism, add diced Lutheranism and some grated Presbyterianism, garnish with nuggets from assorted other sects and some some chopped Dispensationalism – shake on some biblical quotations and drown the whole in some homegenised muck purporting to be “Thousand Confessional Dressing”.
@Mourad: Your funny mate, you like to say that you don’t do “theology”, and yet, when you don’t hear Roman Catholicism in your certain idea and especially old school traditionalism, you can’t dialogue, but start the old ad hoc statements. It is simply true, according to Vatican II, that Rome sees herself as “the Head of the Visible Church”, and yes we all know the older aspect as you quote. And there certainly is a sort of cafeteria style in modern Catholicism now, we can note this with the rejection of Vatican II, with groups like the SSPX, etc. But, in fact, though Vatican II is flawed in places (like the pastoral), it is also more blblical in places. And thus really shows the Reformational principle itself too. So whether Roman Catholics like yourself, like it or not, the RCC is also a Pilgrim Church (as Pope John Paul II has written himself). The grave problems for Roman Catholics like yourself today, is that the Catholic Church’s theological statements just don’t add up in this postmodern age, nor really in the past certainly! If one uses the authority of Holy Scripture, alone! This really is the whole issue! I don’t have the room here (this blog) to go further, but again, Rome’s past “Scolasticism” bears out much of this, now, great Catholic inconsistency!
I hope those with open minds here would get what I am expressing? I am not attacking Catholicism really, but just seeking to show that it is hardly “infallible”! Indeed the real Church is both a Mystical Body…invisible and somewhat visible, and known really only to God In Christ! The great question is always, am I a member of Christ’s Body “Invisible”, with Christ above, where HE sits upon the Throne of Glory? And yes, I can and must know that now, by faith in “Christ Jesus” above!
“according to Vatican II, that Rome sees herself as “the Head of the Visible Church”
Would you kindly refer me to a SVII document which is the basis for this strange statement of yours?
The Catholic Church is the Visible Church, not the “head” of it (what would it mean anyway?)Even if you refer to “Lumen gentium”, this matter has been thoroughly explained by the CDF.
@CC: Of course this does not mean that Roman Catholicism does not see itself as the older definition given by Mourad, but that she sees herself as the “Visible” earthly Head of the Church, also. Btw, I think my quote comes from Henri de Lubac’s book: Theology In History, and somewhere in the chapter and section on: The Mystery of the Supernatural (staring at page 281; Ignatius Press, 1996). I cannot at the moment pull it up? (See too, as I remember, the chapter just before,The Development of Dogma).
Note btw, there are many R. Catholic theological “moderates”! I suppose De Lubac would be one of those, though no doubt for some he is not really a true “Catholic” theologian. Which is perhaps where both you and Mourad are at? If so, this is certainly very sad! As he got the “red” hat too!
PS..Btw, CC, I note nobody (R. Catholic) likes to deal with my stated statements themselves, but in fact many come from people like De Lubac. I am always amazed at such overt Catholic traditionalism in biblical and theological ignorance! This was my point about getting Catholic people to read Luther, and the Schmalkald Articles. If that ever happens, then there might be some real thinking in the Catholic ranks, besides the theologians.
Oh, so strictly speaking not “according to Vatican II”, but “according to some interpreters of Vatican II, Rome sees herself as the Head of the Visible Church”.
Not that I fully grasp what this whole notion of being the “Head of the Visible Church” could possibly mean with respect to the Catholic Church…
I cannot seem to find the exact quote from De Lubac? (I read quite alot, I will try to find it again). But he was somewhat quoting Vatican II here, and of course adding his understanding. You did not answer about your feelings toward De Lubac, do you see him as too moderate or even liberal? And I think the point is to the Visible aspect of the Church, which always includes the great mystery of the Church! And not just the dogmatic statement about the Roman Catholic idea of the Mystical Church itself. And as I am saying other Christians have and still debate this! It is here that Vatican II has been somewhat problematic to say the least, itself! Simply, it has yet to be theologically and fully dogmatically understood (defined). And of its very nature, I am not sure it can? But then I am always looking thru the eyes of the Reformed and the Reformational! But, not just to reject, but see truth and Christ! We simply MUST learn this in the true Body of Christ, which is each other, also! WE cannot remove ourselves in this quest! This is one of the grave problems of our lawyer friend “Mourad”! Who sees this always as black or white, in or out. None of us has this key, not even Roman Catholicism and the papacy! This will always be the Reformational position. Which btw, always sees and allows God’s great mystery! Btw, I have Gerrit Berkouwer’s book on Vatican II, just sweet to my mind! He was of course an invited observer to Vatican II (as was Barth also).
@ Irish anglican: You wrote ” The grave problems for Roman Catholics like yourself today, is that the Catholic Church’s theological statements just don’t add up in this postmodern age, nor really in the past certainly! If one uses the authority of Holy Scripture, alone!. This really is the whole issue!”
“Sola Sciptura!”The point is indeed neatly encapsulated right there.
Catholics do not seek to interpret Holy Scripture in a vacumn but with the assistance of the the likes of St Gregory the Great, St Ambrose, St AugustIne, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Jerome, St Bede (The Venerable), St Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm, the “Doctor Magnificus” who was a Benedictine Monk and Archbishop of Canterbury, St Peter Damian (another Benedictine) to name but a few of the Doctors of the Church.
To put it very simply, I prefer the guidance of the Fathers of the Church to the likes of John Nelson Darby – or you!
@Mourad: Your argument fails simply too because the Reformational & Reformed, read the Church Fathers also, but when they/we apply the final argument, the presupposition is always the Holy Scripture, itself.. which in the end is really “alone” in the sense of authority!
Btw, note the Five Solo’s of the Reformed here!
*Just a note, my last name is Darby, but no relation to JND. But in the area of the genesis of Dispensationalism as a theology, John Nelson Darby was/IS a Church Father!
*Sola’s
@ irishanglican
I don’t it is right for us to abuse of the hospitality of this blog by prolonging this. My position is quite simply that Holy Scripture is to be read and understood in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Not by reference to what you may think it means or by reference to other seriously bewildered persons.
As for your suggestion that John Nelson Darby should be classed as a Father of the Church, while Father Aiden Nichols OP is wont to refer to some Anglican divines as “separated doctors of the Church” the suggestion than one might number Darby among them leads me to think it would be no bad idea if you were to go and lie down in a darkened room and start taking your tablets again.
Obviously, Mourad, you do not understand the breadth and subtlety of “irishanglican’s” understanding of Sola Scriptura. He does make use of the Church Fathers and the Reformers, and only discounts them when they disagree with his own views.
Wow, I expected better from you Mr. Tighe, besides a stab of ad hoc and even ad hom! YOU have never done too well in our exchanges… Your lack of Reformational understanding and dialogue, and the whole reality of Protestant Scholasticsm! See too btw, “authoritas Scripturae”, and too “principia theologiae”. And indeed the doctrine of the sola Scriptura certainly stands upon the “presupposition” of God’s Word, itself! I would point open minds to the theology here of both Cornelius Van Til, and his student John Frame!
And btw, I have surely noted that no one has showed-up to debate or dialogue, with my biblical and theological points about Christ as Mediator (His Work “In Sessions” above), and as prophet, priest and king!
Finally, Mourad… It is almost a waste of time with you sir, again one would expect better of you also, since you are a Church lawyer. I know a few of these myself, and they “dialogue” first and foremost, within any debate. YOU don’t!
My point about the man and “person” himself of John Nelson Darby, is toward again his “genesis” of/in Dispensationalism. It is here btw, that I see (as others) his place of so-called “Church Father”! The old saying, when you cannot debate the issue, then attack the man, is sadly all you bring!
Finally, yes, thanks to our blog host Fr. Stephen.. for his longsuffering with us both!
Look, apart from Ioannes and you, most people here are rather restrained in repeating their ecclesiastical/theological claims all over again. I have begun to follow Fr Stephen’s blog partly because it differs from so many others in avoiding mostly fruitless theological debates and in matters of faith focuses rather on such Christian concepts as fidelity, charity or unity. If you crave for sound, scholarly doctrinal debates, particularly along Reformed vs. Catholic lines, I suggest you try these guys: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/.
@Irishanglican
I do agree with Continental Catholic, I think he has a very good point; could we avoid ‘mostly fruitless theological debates’, please? What makes this blog special is the (quasi total) absence of people ‘repeating their ecclesiastical/theological claims all over again’. I think that we all know that you think/believe. Btw (if needed and since I never introduced myself), I am a Roman Catholic of Ambrosian Rite.
@ Frederico Z
Molto lieto di incontrarVi. Saite il benvenuuto – Milano – piu nebbia d’inverno che a Londra, piu caldo d’estate che in Algieri – e dove la gente mi dicevano che l’inglese italianato é davvero diavolo incarnato. Si puo sempere schiacciare le coglioni del toro in Galleria ?
@Mourad
Grazie moltissime del benvenuto, che mi fa molto piacere, e non sono parole di circostanza. Seguo infatti i Suoi commenti con particolare attenzione; Lei – ed è rarissimo – è assieme moderato, colto, intelligente e capace di synpathein (alla greca). Grazie davvero del benvenuto. Sì, sono di Milano dove si possono ancora pestare i coglioni del toro in Gallerie (ma si dovrebbe farlo solo il primo dell’anno) e c’è più nebbia che a Londra. Lo so bene anche perché ci vivo a Londra!
Indeed as I have said, I am the odd man out here, being the only Evangelical “Reformed” Anglican on this basically “Catholic”/Ordinariate (Anglo-Catholic) blog (with an EO too now and then).
But lets remember this is an open blog also! And since I am an old “theolog”, and certainly Reformational/Reformed, I do try to keep people honest here! At least somewhat theologically and historically!
@CC, I am really more of a “biblicist”, seeking as Jesus said: “spirit and truth”! I know this really is an odd man out again in most Anglicanism today! And I actually have a few friends at the Westminster in Escondido, S. Cal. So I am well aware of the “battles” going on there! Which thankfully are certainly more Reformational and Reformed.
Btw, lets write and do Latin here, the more language of theology, at least Western!
Now, if someone wants to go on Tertullian here, I am up for it! Of course Tertullian was the first so-called Latin theologian of the West!
…………into the fire says:
October 22, 2012 at 07:38
The devil only gets a foothold if we let him…………
I read somewhere his name was Legion. I wonder how many aliases you have… Sorry, just couldn’t resist that!
@Continental Catholic I, too, wish that Fr. Robert would restrain himself from hijacking almost every comment thread to argue the same tired arguments over and over again. To those who are tempted to respond, please don’t. It’s a drag to have to scroll through so many off-topic comments to find the ones here and there that are related to the post at hand.
Point taken
Note btw, making my “point”, Mr. Mourad never comes over to my blog to make any comments. He knows he will be off this friendly blog support there. And I see this somewhat as a form of mental or intellectual cowardice!
@ Frederico Z – .Sono onorato, adirritura lusingato dei tanti Suoi complimentI.
I didn’t know what real fog was untl caught in heavy traffic on the Milano – Bergamo – Brescia , All the drivers nose to tail at 14Ok/hour in the thickest sort of pea soup fog! Or even on the Naviglio Ticinese inside the city. I don’t get the chance to practise my Italian much – though I’m enjoying watching Moltalbano on BBC4 and picking out all the Sicilan usages such as “maritato” for “sposato”. I’ve always enjoyed dialectal usages. I recall suggesting to a neighbour in Milan that we take a trip to Pavia – only to get the emphatic respnose “al vo mi in Terronia no!”
© Mourad
Thanks to you. Your Italian sounds almost perfect (and quite elegant as well). Well, the fog… I miss it very much but these days London is able to make me less nostalgic. I am glad you are enjoying Montalbano, it is a good show.