I read 5 more psalms today. I spoke too soon if I conveyed that I had put away the anger. After you've been slandered and cast aside, it's hard not to be. But I read the Catechism section on anger as a check and a warning. I don't want to hurt anyone, but I'm angry. Angry that no one called to talk to me. No one said, "You're going wrong." And then I find that I had done great harm, irreparable harm, that my last warning had been given. It was over before I spoke a word in defense or reparation. No, I don't wish harm. But you have harmed me.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments