Trying to get healthy. I've had this cold/flu/cough thing for two days. On Monday, before it hit me full force, I went to the movies. I saw 'The Iron Lady' with some friends. My initial reaction found it excellent. As I think on it more, (inordinately focused on the present and her dementia) I can see where the critics are coming from. But it was engrossing. This is due in no small part to Meryl Streep, who carries the whole movie. There isn't much political articulation in the film; you wouldn't know what made Thatcher Conservative or her opponents Labor (and Liberal) if you didn't already come in with that knowledge. Overall though, really good. [But you love politics.--ed.] That I do. I suppose I should say that if you enjoy being ignorant of things and people that actually matter, you'll be bored by the film. But who cares, in that case?
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