The five year old dressed up in her witch outfit for the Boo at the Zoo on Saturday. What with school parties and the like, I'm not sure that she's actually taken it off since then. Nor will she, I think, until perhaps Christmas.
1
Are those eyes for real, or is there some Photoshop magic there? Too precious and too blue.
Posted by: Hucbald at October 31, 2007 12:51 AM (WuRTe)
2
Thankee. Nope, they're the real deal. All the Llama-ettes have big blue eyes, but I think hers are the biggest and bluest. When she's all worked up, they positively glow.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 31, 2007 08:11 AM (0JsTF)
Got to hand it to Lucas if he approved the licensing rights for this.
It has three more parts, featured at HotAir.com. This first part gives you the jist of the bit, however if you have a few minutes you might want to head on over and watch the whole thing.
And while we're on the subject of our favorite Dark Lord of the Sith, if you've never seen comedian Eddie Izzard's "Death Star Canteen" bit, it's a scream (keep the speakers down at work, though, because of the language).
Random Commuter Observations - Lightly Frosted Llama Division
***We've had a trace of frost in my neck of NoVA the past two mornings. I suppose this means that I'm going to have to put up the side panels on the ol' jeep pretty soon. It's always a bit of a transition after having a free airflow all summer to suddenly being boxed in. (I used to leave the back panel off until the first snow, but now that I'm carting Llama-ettes around on such a regular basis I've had to stop doing that.)
***I'm continually amazed at the number of people who do not seem to realize that they can be seen while sitting in their cars. I watched a woman through my rear-view mirror devouring a muffin in the manner of a wood-chipper this morning and then vigorously dusting crumbs off her person. Not quite as bad as a nose-picker, but still pretty unseemly.
***I'm not overly fond of vanity license plates, but there's a big ol' red Yukon that parks near me at the metro every day that has plates which read CLFFRD. That always makes me smile.
***Perhaps I've just been too wrapped up in myself in the past but there seems to be an awful lot of electoral glad-handing around the metro this year. Elections, you ask? Yep, and in this off year the real down-ticket items. This morning it was a couple guys running for county supervisor and the clerk of the court. I know that I should take more interest in local level politics but, well, I don't.
Can anyone give me a rough translation for this logo:
Image fixed---I uploaded the tiff instead of jpeg
Long story, I just don't want to be one of those dudes who gets the cool chinese tats only to discover that it reads, "I like to be humped by Mullet wearing Mets fans in prison."
It comes from this page.
Trust me, there's going to be a hilarious story to tell this time tomorrow night.
I take it, based on the link, it's Russian. I've got friend who my just be able to help.
Posted by: Sarah G. at October 29, 2007 10:42 PM (Pp4ZX)
2
Is the logo not showing on our page? it's in th epost.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 29, 2007 10:50 PM (c/Lzh)
3
In red, it says "Civitas" again, in grey it says "Civitas Fund" and "preserve freedom".
The events listed on the website are voter education fora and seminars aimed at everyone from schoolkids to voting rights lawyers, looks like.
Posted by: kross at October 30, 2007 03:26 AM (BfMYm)
4
I have tracked down and verified the correct pictograms for the phrase "my name in Chinese", but as funny as I think such a tatt would be there is no patch of skin I wish to commit to it.
Posted by: triticale at October 30, 2007 06:59 PM (374tx)
Trouble soon erupted at Boylston and Ispwich, where the sounds of “Dirty Water” echoed from nearby buildings. A Teletubby dressed in Red Sox gear and a man naked but for a giant red, plastic beer cup costume were part of a procession that included a large number of kids in BU and Northeastern gear.
One man climbed a streetlight to photograph the crowd, inspiring more than a dozen other youths to scale poles. They started jumping into the crowd while others tore down street signs.
One person climbed high onto a streetlight and was dangling at least 25 feet over Boylston until he dropped into the crowd. It was unclear as he disappeared into in the throng whether anyone was hurt.
Cops wielding batons struggled to control the crowd until a mounted unit galloped up and sent the crowd stampeding in the other direction. The cops then began moving the crowd more slowly to prevent anyone from being trampled.
Emergency radio chatter indicated at least one vehicle on fire. In some areas police began using pepper spray on rowdy revelers. Meanwhile, a crowd was seen flipping a car on Boylston Street.
The wild incidents raised fears of a repeat of riots that marred the Red Sox 2004 pennant win, when Emerson College student Victoria Snelgrove was killed by a police pepper pellet near Fenway Park. But after the crowds broke up around 2:30 a.m., police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said later there were no immediate reports of serious injury.
Fans chanting “Let’s go Red Sox” were rushing into Kenmore Square even before the win, only to meet phalanxes of Boston riot cops.
Firefighters had placed cops on the roofs of a bar and a souvenir shop around Fenway using a ladder truck to keep fans from climbing up. The bars around the park were packed and the streets came alive with restless fans.
The lines outside the bars - from the Cask ’n Flagon to Boston Beer Works - were long early in the night, but didn’t last as fans were pushed out of the area by cops, unwilling to let any crowd amass around the park. Boston police started brooming fans from the area around Fenway Park at the start of the sixth inning.
Last week, 17 revelers were arrested after the Sox won the American League pennant, and several were ordered by a Roxbury judge to write essays on why they shamed the city.
Gee, I don't know, the giant naked guy and the Sawx teletubby embarrassing the city? No. Cheating in the Super Bowl and then being a dick about it, maybe.
But gosh, can you imagine how hilarious those essays are going to be?
Festive release
Champs let loose with wild, emotional party
By Michael Silverman
DENVER - Champagne and beer droplets hung from the white and silver ceiling of the visitors clubhouse at Coors Field after the Red Sox [team stats] won the World Series last night.
It looked like an ice palace, but the steam and heat from an emotional championship team melted the scene as the celebration commenced.
After Jonathan Papelbon [stats] whipped off his hat and threw his glove over his head upon striking out Seth Smith to end the game, the Red Sox whooped it up.
After a massive group hug near the mound started by catcher Jason Varitek [stats] jumping into Papelbon’s arms, the party moved to the clubhouse.
Massage therapist Russell Nua donned his blue goggles and joined the fray. David Ortiz [stats], delayed by some interview or another, finally broke free with a “Hey, (expletives), wait for me!”
Massage therapist Russell Nua donned his blue goggles and joined the fray...okay. No word on what types of gloves he was wearing.
Ortiz bounced and danced and jiggled in place as he was sprayed from 20 directions with bubbly. At one point he pointed to his World Series champions T-shirt and yelled, “When you wear ‘Red Sox’ on your shirt, you’re good at something, (expletives).”
Okay, this is taking the Neil Diamond thing a little too far.
Josh Beckett [stats] looked at the trophy and yelled, “This is what all the hard work is for,” and then got utterly doused by a well-aimed bottle of Domaine Ste. Michelle Brut. “I’m going to hand this off so I don’t get sprayed anymore.”
Papelbon had his turn: “This goes to the baddest team in the (expletive) big leagues.”
Royce Clayton, who had a total of six at-bats for the Sox in the regular season and was left off the playoff roster, was called up to the table. In the majors since 1991 without a World Series appearance, Clayton cried into the shoulder of Ortiz, then spoke.
“I love you guys, I love all of you,” the 37-year-old said before catching his breath. “I waited all these years and all I can say is, ‘Woo-woo, woo-woo!’ .”
The party was back on.
Assistant trainer Masai Takahashi shook up cans of beer, opened them and poured them down the back of revelers’ T-shirts.
Daisuke Matsuzaka looked in awe at the World Series trophy and held court with the Japanese media with a smile on his face. He and his interpreter, Masa Hoshino, shared a heartfelt hug in the middle of the clubhouse.
Bryan Corey walked around the room silently videotaping the proceedings.
Kevin Youkilis [stats] roared to head trainer Paul Lessard, “You bald SOB!” before their bear hug.
Advance scout Todd Claus complained, without really complaining and to nobody in particular, “I just got a beer poured in my ear.”
The longest-tenured member of the team, Tim Wakefield [stats] (who was left off the World Series roster because of a bad shoulder), could not stop grinning.
“I’m happy and very blessed to say I’m a two-time champion,” he said. “We’re ready for the parade.”
John Henry, principal owner of the team, kept using reporters as human shields to ward off liquid attacks.
Yeah, got to ward off liquid attacks. And Albus Dumbledore had the best wandwork according to Griselda Marchbanks.
Because, after all, sometimes festive release is just, umm, festive release.
Jonathan Pabelbon is freaking insane.
Posted by: rbj at October 29, 2007 03:47 PM (UgG6+)
2
Off topic, but what happens to all those championship shirts and hats and whatnot pre-printed for the team that winds up losing? Perhaps with a sweep like this there wasn't any need to start printing Rockies stuff yet. But what happens when it comes down to Game 7? Are they, say, donated to some Third World country? Can we expect to see some kid in Somalia sporting a shirt that reads, for example, "Cleveland Indians - 2007 American League Champions"?
Or do they just quietly burn the losing teams' champeen gear?
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 29, 2007 04:20 PM (0JsTF)
3
Funny question given the joking theme of the post.
hopefully, the answer is "NO"
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 29, 2007 04:46 PM (ozFcL)
4
Insert joke including the phrase "Manny being Manny" here:
Posted by: The Colossus at October 29, 2007 05:12 PM (QBuXz)
5
Robbo, they do get donated to some third world country, or they are destroyed. So somewhere there is a kid walking around with an Indians 2007 ALCS champions t-shirt.
Posted by: rbj at October 30, 2007 07:20 AM (ybRwv)
Finally got myself to see 300. It's not my sort of thing, but I can understand why people who like this kind of movie really really like this movie, as the overall - what - style of the film, basically a comic book come to life, was quite interesting. The fellah who plays King Leonidas kept reminding me of Sean Connery, probably because of the Scots accent. And I could, if pushed to, develop some warm feelings for Lena Headey (although looking her up on Google image reveals that she seems to have tattoo issues). As for the fighting, well it's Spartans, man! What more do you want?
Robbo's Recommendation: All in all, not bad. I'd see it again, I suppose, although I doubt I'd go out of my way to do so. Let's say three yips! out of five.
Next, I ran off 1995's The Quick and the Dead. I hope that Clint Eastwood personally hunted down Sharon Stone and slapped her silly for trying to rip off his Avenging Angel genre of western. Stone may be blonde, but she's no Blondie. The basic idea itself is not bad at all. (Woman made to shoot her own father in her youth by bad guy appears in bad guy's town for revenge and becomes involved in deadly gunslinger game. You know from the very start that the climax is going to be her facing off against the bad guy.) But the plot that developes around it (including Stone's relationship with bad-guy-turned-good-guy Russell Crowe) is just insipid, the cast of gunslingers cardboard and silly and not even Gene Hackman as the villain of the piece can save this dog from itself.
Robbo's Recommendation: You want teh Clint, go for teh Clint. Unforgiven is a far, far better revenge flick, and Hackman's psychopathic Little Bill there is downright chilling. I'll give TQATD one yip! out of five just as a nod to Stone's shmokin' looks of the time.
1
Robbo, you are thinking too much. You should, on occasion, adopt the LMC approach to movies: be the world's shallowest moviegoer. You are not there to think deep thoughts, reflect on lessons learned in college English or fine arts classes or anything of the sort. As a shallow moviegoer you are there only for escape. Instead, ask yourself if the flick has: a plot of any kind, babes, firepower, and a high body count? If yes to all, pull a chair, open a bottle of your favorite beverage and start watching. The only question thereafter is whether the gals can be enjoyed with the sound off or on.
Posted by: LMC at October 29, 2007 02:14 PM (3oGF5)
2
Heck, that's what I liked about 300. And I didn't have a single thought about historical accuracy all the way through. You guys should be proud.
But the dumb stoopid in TQATD was just too distracting. Now, had there been a "lady gunslinger takes bubble bath in order to wash away cares of teh day" scene, well, that might have been a different matter.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 29, 2007 04:06 PM (0JsTF)
3
I actually kind of liked the Quick and the Dead.
Posted by: The Colossus at October 29, 2007 05:14 PM (QBuXz)
4
I agree with LMC. I rent a movie to get my $4.50 worth. I don't want to moved, think deep thoughts, wrestle with deep issues, or be crying at the end. I want to be entertained. A quasi plausable plot line, special effects, and things that fly, shoot or otherwise go boom.
That's all...
Posted by: kmr at October 29, 2007 06:38 PM (Dl7SW)
5
Your thinking "High Plains Drifter. "The Quick & the Dead" sounds more like Once Upon A Time in the West. Clint Eastwood wasn't in that one. But then Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, & Jason Robards are all dead. Eh, get Eastwood to do it anyway. Sharon Stone is a twit.
Posted by: stillers at October 30, 2007 03:38 AM (blNMI)
6
I did think of High Plains Drifter, but just making a reference to "the Stranger" in the post seemed too vague - better to reference a movie in which Clint's character actually had a name.
OUATITW would work better, of course, both because of the name ("Harmonica") and also because the plot was closer. But then no Clint. I understand he was originally cast for the part and that Bronson only took over when that casting fell apart.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 30, 2007 11:30 AM (0JsTF)
I'm inclined to appreciate the new French President in light of his willingness to be more of a partner to the U.S. rather than a huge pain in the applebag.
France's president abruptly ended a "60 Minutes" interview aimed at introducing him to U.S. audiences, dubbing it "stupid" and a "big mistake" and refusing to answer questions about his wife.
Before the CBS news show interview in Paris even began, Sarkozy called his press secretary "an imbecile" for arranging the session on a busy day.
"I don't have the time. I have a big job to do, I have a schedule," Sarkozy said through a translator before the interview began. In English, he added: "Very busy. Very busy."
In the interview conducted earlier this month and aired Sunday night, he candidly discussed what he likes about the U.S. But he grew frustrated when asked about his wife, Cecilia, who helped negotiate the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor charged with infecting Libyan children with HIV and then failed to show up at a ceremony in which Sarkozy was given a medal by Bulgaria.
"If I had to say something about Cecilia, I would certainly not do so here," Sarkozy replied.
He declared the interview over and said: "Bon courage." Two weeks later, the Sarkozys' divorce was announced.
1
Cecilia's face seems to be plastered across every magazine here in France, and she's an open book as far as her divorce. Sarkozy's keeping mum (which I admire). I know Leslie Stahl's just being a journalist and asking all the questions journalists like to ask, but one can't blame Sarkozy for getting annoyed.
Posted by: Christine at October 30, 2007 01:43 AM (6xpDS)
The two great composers were certainly aware of each other for many years before they met. In addition to his younger brother's firsthand reports, Haydn would have read published accounts of Mozart's exploits as a child prodigy. And by the time Mozart came to maturity, Haydn was already the most celebrated composer in Europe; knowledge of his influential scores was de rigueur for any serious contemporary musician.
Later, they were members of the same Masonic lodge in Vienna, and became personal friends as well as mutual admirers. This last is noteworthy, especially with respect to Mozart, who was often scathing about colleagues. When he spoke of Haydn, however, it was with reverence. His six great string quartets were dedicated as a set to the older composer, partly as acknowledgment of how much he had learned from Haydn's own essays in the form. Haydn's later quartets are said to have been influenced in turn by the quartets Mozart wrote under his influence. After Mozart's death, the older composer even seems to have experienced something akin to survivor's guilt; he declined a request to write string quintets and refused permission for his early operas to be performed, on the grounds that Mozart's work in these genres was supreme.
Read the rest. The piece discusses (and illustrates with linkies) audible differences in the two men's works based on their relative social backgrounds, their comparative approaches to wit and the depth and complexity of their emotional expression.
Overall, I don't see anything in the article with which I would in general terms disagree, although I think there are a few "yes, buts" along the way. For instance, the "Surprise" of Haydn's Symphony No. 94 is discussed as an example of Papa's more straightforward slapstick humor. It's certainly true, but wouldn't one also have to consider the fact that he wrote the piece for a London audience at a time when the Brits were not quite as musickally sophisticated as some of their Continental contemporaries? He had also produced a set of six symphonies for the Paris aristocracy, at the time notorious for its demand for musickal sophistication and elegance. They knocked the Parisians' socks off. (One of them, No. 85, is still known as La Reine because it was said to be a favorite of poor Antoinette.)
Sorry. I get a tad defensive on behalf of Haydn because I feel his musick is dismissed too readily by some these days as pleasant to listen to but lacking much bottom, not because of the musick itself but because Haydn does not fit into the standard stereotype of the "artiste". He came from humble beginnings, worked hard in a job he didn't much like for a number of years, struck out on his own and hit the big time, writing music that people could both understand and enjoy. As the article notes, he was the most celebrated composer in Europe in his own days, which were long, prosperous and happy. Hardly the prototypical Romantic. However, all you need to know about the real quality and worth of Haydn's musick is the fact that both Mozart and Beethoven positively worshipped the man.
Yips! to Arts & Letters Daily.
1
I read that a couple of days back when it appeared in my inbox (An old comp teacher of mine sent it to me). Tarloff is well trained as a composer, so I appreciate his insights, but as with everything else "musickal" I have my own opinions.
The older I get, the more I appreciate Haydn. In fact, I like his music better than Mozart's now because there is so much more humor in it. Had Mozart been composing into his fifties, sixties, and seventies, it might be a different story. Alas...
In some of Haydn's late symphonic recaps, for instance, the phraseology is just... well, wacky. He does the musical equivalent of putting the acCENT on the wrong syllABLE. It really is well and truly funny once you notice it, but I bet most people miss that sort of stuff these days.
Mozart's favorite student once said to him something along the lines of, "Well, I'll never be a Haydn." To which Mozart responded, "Neither will I, or any of us." Pretty freaking awesome compliment.
Posted by: Hucbald at October 29, 2007 01:12 PM (WuRTe)
2
In the third movement of Haydn's late, great C major piano sonata, he plays a continual joke with its main theme. The first time through it sounds find. However, in the second, repeated an octave higher, the left hand hits a crunchingly mistaken dischord, which Haydn marks with a fermata as if to make it seem that the performer has stopped and is trying to figure out where he (or rather she, because I believe the piece was dedicated to one of his patronesses) went wrong. After the pause, the sequence is repeated back in the original octave and gotten right, and the piece moves on.
He does this all the way through the movement. The infuriating part about playing it in front of people who aren't in the know is that it makes it seem as if I'm screwing up, when in reality I'm simply playing what the man wrote.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 29, 2007 01:44 PM (0JsTF)
3
And has anyone ever written a more playful Te Deum than Haydn? I could listen to it every day (and go through phases when I do). I'm also very fond of his Piano Concerto No. 1 in D, Hob. XVIII, No. 2. -- very cheerful, pretty music.
Posted by: ScurvyOaks at October 29, 2007 03:56 PM (s7sYI)
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a report calling on parents to be extra observant for babies under a year to look for possible signs of autism.
“Red Flags” that are absolute indications for immediate evaluation include: no babbling or pointing or other gesture by 12 months; no single words by 16 months; no two-word spontaneous phrases by 24 months; and loss of language or social skills at any age. Early intervention can make a huge difference in the child’s prognosis. “Autism doesn’t go away, but therapy can help the child cope in regular environments,” said Chris Plauche Johnson, MD, MEd, FAAP, and co-author of the reports. “It helps children want to learn and communicate.”
Educational strategies and associated therapies, which are the cornerstones of treatment for ASDs, are reviewed in the second AAP clinical report, “Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Early intervention is crucial for effective treatment. The report strongly advises intervention as soon as an ASD diagnosis is seriously considered rather than deferring until a definitive diagnosis is made. The child should be actively engaged in intensive intervention at least 25 hours per week, 12 months per year with a low student-to-teacher ratio allowing for sufficient one-on-one time. Parents should also be included.
I share this as a parent of a child with autism.
Let me say upfront that I have no idea what causes autism. I have no evidence that other treatments work (and have reason to be skeptical of several). All I can say is that from my personal experience early detection and treatment may in fact be making a crucial difference in my son's development.
Autism is not a disease that can be "cured". It's a neurological condition that, with certain interventions, may become less severe. To make it more complicated, autistic disorders fall along a wide spectrum of conditions. So even if a child doesn't exhibit "classic" symptoms, he or she may still fall somewhere along that spectrum. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who wonder if the current level of attention that this is getting is "overblown".
It is not. I urge any and all parents of newborns to learn as much as they can about autism and watch your little ones closely. Better to safe than to lose precious time. My four year old was completely without speech (outside of babbling) up until about six months ago. Now he repeats anything you say and is actually beginning to use some speech in a functional manner. We are very encouraged and guardedly optimistic. His eye contact and interaction have greatly improved. He is engaged much of the time.
And he has been receiving treatment since before he turned two.
Some will argue that the kind of treatment recommended by the link in the blockquote doesn't necessarily work, rather that for certain kids autism just kind of "gets better" over time with or without it. I work closely with Kevin's therapists and my wife and I engage in many of the techniques at home. I personally believe it is making a difference. We are also very lucky to live in a school district that has been very supportive (though we always have to advocate for the services he has receives) and have access to excellent therapists outside of school. It also helps that we had an evaluation from the University of Connecticut which is doing a study on autism among siblings.
Bottom line: if you suspect at all that your child may be on the autistic spectrum the sooner you act on it the better. I'm not trying to scare people, but I can't stress this enough. You don't get this critical time back once it's gone.
Or is anybody else out there hoping that the Colts lay down a righteous beatdown on cheatin' Bill Belichick and his pack of thugs?
I saw the highlight real of the Redskins game---is it really necessary to coach like you're Steve Spurrier at Florida running up the score on Vanderbilt to impress the BCS computers? Umm, no. That's just being a dick.
Juicing shrinks the testicles. I wonder if Belichick's style of cheating has the same effect, because it sure would explain a lot.
1
I don't know, Brags. I missed the game -- it was trolley museum Pumpkim Ride day -- but this sounds a bit like the chattering classes had nothing to talk about during a boring game. I do think that it might be a bit counter-productive for the Pats in the end since other teams will be gunning that much harder. But think how the season started - the 'shocked. shocked!' reactions from the other teams when they found out that NE was taping just as the other teams apparently do. NE is out to prove that whatever they did (and presumably don't do now) had no impact whatsoever. They want to show that they will pound on anyone without some A/V guy's crummy tape. So let's see how the Pats do against the Colts, who have certainly played better teams than the Pats so far this year and still have put up really impressive numbers.
Posted by: tdp at October 29, 2007 10:45 AM (7CsBg)
2
I stopped actively watching the game when the 'Skins were down 38-0. At that point it was a no hoper and there was no need to continue the pounding. I'm with ya, Steve.
I appreciate the never say die spirit of keeping the play consistent for the whole game, but seriously there needs to be some mercy rule. That was demoralizing to watch and the Redskins aren't as bad a team as they looked yesterday.
Posted by: jen at October 29, 2007 10:48 AM (NcuXj)
3
Just two points. First - maybe pro sports should go the way of youth sports and quit keeping score. Then at the end of the season everyone would get a trophy (Just think how much better the Rockies would feel today) Second - Pro sports is also there to put on a show for the fans. It would be pretty boring to watch a game with no scoring after someone opens up a 10 or 20 point lead.
Posted by: CM at October 29, 2007 10:54 AM (KHkZT)
4
Hey, the NFL is the grown-up league. Ass-kicking is part and parcel. All I'm saying is that they're going to be some serious Rue-age around Patland when things go south. In the meantime, they've become the Dallas Cowboys as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 29, 2007 11:28 AM (ozFcL)
5
Grin. I hope they send Payton and the rest of the Colts running to their daddy Roger Goodell, complaining about how the Pats were tackling them and calling them mean names thereby forcing the NFL to enact a "no one can touch Payton Manning or any of his receivers" rule (again).
Belichick pulled his starting QB in the 4th quarter. Should they just spot the skins 21 points at the start of the game?
BTW The Colts are averaging nearly identical margins of victory...
And just to add my Sawx whahoo, here's this.
Posted by: LB Buddy at October 29, 2007 01:22 PM (0M6oQ)
6
I'm guessing that Joe Gibbs wronged/slighted Belichick at some point in the past, back in the days when Belichick was fetching Ted Marchibroda's coffee.
Probably something minor that Gibbs no longer even remembers.
But Belichick does.
Posted by: The Colossus at October 29, 2007 03:26 PM (QBuXz)
7
What kind of world do we live in where both the Pats and the Red Sox are dominant, arrogant and the darlings of the East Coast media? A horrible, horrible planet, that's what.
Posted by: vaildog at October 29, 2007 04:55 PM (otsZj)
More than a year after the Khaki-clad naturalist died from a stingray’s barb that pierced his heart, American-born Terri Irwin told Australian TV she had always tried to deflect her 44-year old husband’s darker moments.
She said: “He wasn’t morbid about it, or awful about it, he was open and earnest about it. We’ve got to accomplish everything we can.
“Steve had a real sixth sense about so many things. He had an odd connection with wildlife.
"He was extraordinarily intuitive with people. I found it all very, I don’t know if ’eerie’ is the word, but remarkable, certainly.”
Look, I certainly feel bad for the guy and his family, but I'm not sure anybody actually needs a "sixth sense", much less an "eerie" or "remarkable" one to piece together the notion that spending your life pulling high-profile stunts with extremely dangerous wild animals is a good way to cut that life short prematurely. I think the words I'd be looking for here are something closer to "basic logic."
...is the title of a new book, featured in this ABC "LiveLeak" video segment:
Raising daughters in the 21st century must be a nachtmare. I have three boys myself, so I have no idea. Is the pressure to "skank-out" your daughter really that powerful? Or are some parents just that stoopid?
Heartfelt Yips! from Robbo: Well I dunno about some places, but in my neck of the woods it's definitely the latter. Stoopid, lazy or so absorbed with their baby-boomer quest to relive their own hedonistic yoot that they see no problem in hustling the girls along for the ride.
We've never yet had any trouble in preventing the Llama-ettes from turning into mini-skanks. Nor, so far as I can tell, have they become social pariahs because of it. (And before you start filling the Tasty Bits (TM) Mail Sack with snarky "Just you wait till their teens" comments, remember that we're talking about the under-10 crowd here.)
1
You wouldn't believe what I saw a first grader wearing for the school Halloween party. Hello prostitot!
Posted by: GroovyVic at October 29, 2007 10:28 AM (DVkb2)
2
One of my partners at the civilian job has two teenage daughters--one is in her second year of college and the other is a high school senior. His approach when his daughters wanted to wear something which showed too much skin was to tell them: "If you are showing, the boys will be looking and not just the hunks your age and a few years older--the wrinkled perverts will be leering as well." Worked every time.
Posted by: LMC at October 29, 2007 12:12 PM (3oGF5)
3
I believe this conversation has been going on since the beginning of history...
Posted by: LB Buddy at October 30, 2007 10:05 AM (shM5P)
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner wins election as Argentina's new president. Congratulations!
I'm willing to bet that about 99% of the guys out there (self included) haven't the remotest idea what Cristina's platform is. Nor do they especially care.
Pondering on my initial reaction, it occured to me that if Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham had even a scintilla of babeness in her, she'd probably win our election in a walkover.
Confess, you know it's true.
My "coverage" for the LLamas has been sparse, as I've been battling back from the wicked version of the bronchitis going around. Not enough energy to blog and watch. But oh my goodness, I can't believe they did it.
And tonight's winning shot? The MAN who won it all for the Sawx with a clutch homer in the eighth?
Bobby Freakin Kielty.
The only thing to do is to paint it red:
Question for the ages: which ballet move IS Manny doing here? Looks like a grand jete to me:
Other things we learned:
1. Pabelbon is freakin' nuts:
2. Curt Schilling is one tough hombre:
Not long ago I was fool enough to idly speculate within earshot of the Missus that some Pergo on the floor of the little study in our basement, formerly known as Robbo's Fortress of Solitude, might look nice. (The current flooring consists of some hideous vinyl tiling which is supposed to resemble brick. It doesn't come close.)
I've just now learned that my Thanksgiving vacation is going to be quite a bit different than I had imagined it would be.......
1
You should know by now that is is not safe to think such things in her presence let alone speak them.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 28, 2007 07:00 PM (Z3kjO)
2
Basement? You should be aware that if there is the slightest possibility of moisture getting in under the flooring then no wood laminate product is suitable for that area.
Spills on top, mopped up quickly: not a problem.
Soak the substrate from underneath: big problem.
Posted by: Any A. Mouse at October 29, 2007 10:48 AM (mg2Fq)
3
Thankee, Mouse. That would be a useful out except that I'm honor-bound to admit that it is an extremely dry area. Our house sits on a hilside and this room is on the lee side. Never seen a hint of moisture in it all these years.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at October 29, 2007 11:42 AM (0JsTF)
We took the Llama-ettes to Boo at the Zoo downtown last evening. Apparently, this is a big deal among the denizens of Your Nation's Capital, although I myself had never heard of it before.
Initially, I was quite crabby at the prospect of having to drive there late on a Saturday afternoon. Apart from the traffic, driving in Dee Cee is always a nuisance because, despite the best efforts of Monsieur L'Enfant, the fact of the matter is that one simply cannot go in a straight line from Point A to Point B, especially when Point A lies on the far side of the Potomac. Instead, one usually has to tack, like a ship beating into the wind, until one eventually arrives at one's destination. Fortunately, however, I know a few back roads that cut several successive loops off the trip, and we arrived at the zoo with a minimum amount of fuss.
The Boo proved to be a series of booths set up about the zoo grounds, most of them handing out treats of one sort or another, while a few gamely tried to engage the kiddies' interest in some animal-related demonstration or other. A few (although not many) of the animals were still viewable, at least until it got dark. We were fortunate enough, for instance, to get a good look at the pandas. They're usually hidden in the high grass of their outdoor habitat, but this time they were inside the glass-fronted panda house. One was zonked out, but we watched for a while as the other gobbled up his bamboo din-dins. We also saw the hippo stolidly shovelling in hay, plus a beautiful snowy leopard stalking about its pen with that crabby look inherent to all felines.
The thing that surprised me most was the number of adults dressed up in costume - at least half of them by my estimate. (My own costume, had anybody asked, was that of a slightly bored and harassed father, but I think it was probably too subtle for most people.) This is one of those things about which I have an iron rule, which is that once you're out of school, you've no business dressing up for Halloween. And the more effort put into the costume, the lamer it is. I saw a couple of Mr. & Mrs. Incredibles (none of them were), some D&D types who looked like they had wandered over from the Maryland Renaissance Festival, and perhaps the cutesiest (and I don't mean that kindly), a couple dressed up as Thing 1 and Thing 2 pushing a stroller with a brand new infant who could not possibly have known where he was or what was going on. As for the kids, there were many, many Harry Potter characters and a lot ot Star Wars figures as well. Also a liberal helping of what I consider to be correct costumes - witches, vampires and other denizens of the macabre. (One kid had the heads of Dubya and Cheney perched on his shoulders. I'm not exactly sure what was the point of the exercise.) The folks manning the various boothes were costumed as well. My favorite was a long-legged young lady who seemed to be dressed as Pippi Longstockings' extremely slutty sister. Not sure if the sponsors of that particular booth necessarily would have approved.
Although we started off fairly able to move about, the place became absolutely mobbed after dark. I fail to see why anybody would consider it "fun" to meander about at glacial speed, devoting all of one's time and energy to not losing track of one's family in the squash. We dutifully plodded around as the Llama-ettes hoovered their way down the booths, but after the five year old managed to get lost in the small mammals house and only reappeared several minutes later in tears, we decided we'd had enough.
I was actually in pretty good spirits on the way home, so I was rayther surprised that the Missus graded my performance on the trip as a "C". She claimed I had been sulking, a charge that I denied vigorously. It was true that I had not looked forward to going (indeed, I had been holding the threat of cancelling over the heads of the Llama-ettes all day like a Sword of Damocles), but once we made it there without any trouble, I perked up considerably. I also pointed out that she was just as tired of it all by the end as I was. This morning, after thinking it over, she bumped me up to a "B", with which I am quite content. (The fact that I'm posting about it now probably means that she'll fail me altoghether, however.)
I'm really not on a religious kick today, but it just so happens that my new CD of Claudio Monteverdi's Vespro della Beata Vergine (1610) showed up in the mail and I at once had to give it a try.
I've known Monteverdi's Vespers, at least musickally speaking, since my college days, my first edition being a cassette by somebody or other I cannot now even remember. The current CD in my collection is a performance put on by Sir John Eliot Full of Himself Gardiner, the Monteverdi Choir and the English Baroque Soloists. It was recorded live at the Basilica di San Marco, Venice and is a massive affair featuring a pair of full choirs, lots of horns and much doubling up on the instrumentation. It's certainly not a bad performance, but frankly I find it a bit overdone. One sometimes can't hear the music for the singing, as it were, and the echo gets to be annoying.
Anyhoo, I sought out this new CD specifically to get away from those distractions and I'm happy to report that I am not in the least disappointed. This performance, by The Taverner Consort, Choir and Players under the direction of Andrew Parrott, is much smaller in scope. I won't say it's more intimate, for that implies familiarity, which would be improper IMHO for this sort of musick. Rayther, it is on a scale that lets the heart of the musick really shine through with superb clarity. Indeed, I heard things today that I've never noticed before, despite having been listening to the piece for better than 20 years now. And anybody at all familiar with modern period performances of Renaissance and early Baroque music will understand when I say that my old favorites Emma Kirkby and Evelyn Tubb are among the sopranos, I'm saying that the singing is just heavenly.
The production also differs from my Gardiner performance in that it contains a number of passages of Gregorian Chant (Versiculi, Responsorii, Antiphons, Oratorii and a Conclusio) pertinent to the religious service that folks listening for purely musickal pleasure may find distracting. The performance also features a pair of Sonatas composed by Giovanni Paolo Cima, a contemporary of Monteverdi's. (The program notes do not explain these insertions and I'm too lazy to investigate further at the moment. Monteverdi composed the Vespers for Venice and Cima worked primarily in Milan, so I don't know the immediate connection.) Finally, the CD also contains a collection of Psalm settings (specifically, Psalms 109 through 112 and 116 - the Psalms set in the Vespers are 109, 112, 121, 126 and 147) from Monteverdi's Selva morale e spirituale published in 1641. I haven't listened to these yet. However, Monteverdi's style developed considerably in the thirty or so years between these works, and I'm eager to compare the settings - especially those duplicated by the two pieces.
Overall, an excellent CD that I would highly recommend to anybody in the least interested in 400 year old church music (and ask yourself honestly - who wouldn't be?)
It's the typoGenerator thingy. If you want to know how it works, go over and play with it yourselves. It just struck me that this image - which has an air of mental grafitti about it - is pretty durn a propos for us Llamas.
Yips! to Rachel.
Earlier this week I happened to be rereading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce when a thought wandered into my mind: Lewis never actually became a Roman Catholic himself, yet he is beloved by every Catholic I know (including members of the clergy) and his writings include a great deal which even the strongest advocates of the Church would find unimpeachable. Given this, what would the Church's stance be on the issue of his salvation? Surely it wouldn't automatically say that he was doomed to hell because he could never quite bring himself to swim the Tiber?
I brought this question up at our RCIA meeting this Wednesday. The priest who had the class that night - and who, IMHO, should not have been allowed anywhere near a group like ours, as he had a terrible and unsympathetic manner (but that is a different story)- was set on his own agenda and would not be drawn into the topic. He simply suggested reading the Catechism and noted that Rome had issued some new material relevant to the subject recently.
I also emailed the Colossus with my question, knowing that he is far, far deeper into the intricacies of the Church than I'll ever get and also that his heart is in the right place. He readily obliged me with an answer that I repost here by his permission because I thought it might be of interest to our wider religious-minded audience:
The Church distinguished between the visible church and the invisible church. We see the visible Church, which is, for us, Rome and the churches in communion with her. Christ sees the invisible church, which is everyone whom he sees as being a member of his church – which we don’t, beyond a certain point, presume to judge. To me, I always look at the passage about the exorcist in Mark 9:37-40:
“37 John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. 38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. 39 For he that is not against you, is for you. 40 For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.”
Not only followers of the apostles, but also those who are kind to them. I assume this even includes all manner of righteous pagans, Muslims, Jews, etc.
Rome assumes the churches in communion with her to be effective vehicles of providing the sacraments; it does not claim to know whom Christ has actually saved, except in the cases of the saints, in which Rome invokes its ability to loose and bind. Protestant churches are not assumed to be doing no good; in fact, the recent document which the pope was criticized for states the Catholic view pretty well (Link here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)
“SECOND QUESTION
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
THIRD QUESTION
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
RESPONSE
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
In other words, Rome views the Protestant churches as doing good work and saving souls, even though it does not believe all of the sacraments are entirely valid.
Of course, it cuts both ways. As Matthew 7:21 tells us – “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven . . .”
In addition, the Church recognizes baptism as being the key sacrament for salvation – and it recognizes baptisms of all Christian churches that use a Trinitarian formula. It assumes a Protestant baptism to be valid, as it is a sacrament that does not, strictly speaking, have to be administered by a priest. In fact, the church does not even require the person doing the baptizing to be a Christian, provided his intent is to baptize. I’d be surprised if they baptize you again, because it is generally done only once – if they “rebaptize” you, it is done conditionally, because it assumes your Episcopal baptism was valid. [Robbo here - No, they don't plan to rebaptize me provided I can show proof of my Palie baptism. Mom is sending the certificate.]
It also assumes baptism can be done by water, by blood, or by desire. Only Christ himself knows whom those baptized by desire are.
Of course, there is the doctrine of Ex ecclesia nulla salas – “outside the church, there is no salvation”. This is normally held to mean those outside the invisible church. Those who say it means only the visible church are generally held to be promoting heresy (Feeneyites, as they are known most recently, after a Father Feeney, whom the Vatican excommunicated for promoting that view rather vigorously.)
Critics of Catholicism look at that and say “see, Catholics believe everyone who is not a Catholic is going to hell.” In a sense, it does mean that – but in reality, what it really means is that we do not presume to know all of our members.
I assume many, many Protestants are actually Catholics. They just don’t realize it.
I happen to think this is a beautiful sentiment, although when I asked Coloss if I could post it, he suggested many other Protestants might not feel that way.
I also think this answers my question about Lewis to a great extent. And the truth of the matter is that it gives me quite a bit of comfort when I ponder my own family: Mom, my brother and sister and their families are all stolid, old-fashioned 'Palies, who keep the Commandments, and recite the Lord's Prayer and the Nicene Creed with as much conviction as anybody. So far as he ever gave any hint to anybody about his spiritualism, Dad was certainly headed in that direction in his later years. And of course, I myself have steared the Missus and the Llama-ettes there. While I clearly hear the call to Rome myself, the concept that the Church would, in effect, damn the lot of them because they could not or would not yet hear (or perhaps a better word would be "understand") the same call was beginning to make me feel quite queesy.
I'm curious about what others of you have to say on this issue. BUT let me warn you here and now: I understand that feelings can run very high among some of our readers, both for and against Rome. The purpose of this post is not to inflame those feelings, to debate the merits of the Reformation, or to refight the gorram 30 Years' War. Instead, it is to help me air out my thoughts and enrich my understanding of what is for me a complicated question. Good faith responses - from whatever perspective - will be greatly appreciated. Snarling abuse - from whatever perspective - will be given the boot summarily.
1
I think, ultimately, it boils down to salvation - not what church you attend. In that respect, it's like the invisible church of which Colossus speaks if we understand that church to be composed of those who have salvation. Salvation comes solely through the blood of Jesus Christ (ref. John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.") that was shed as a once for all sacrifice for the sins of the world. Being good, attending church, and receiving the sacraments are outward expressions that hopefully reflect an acceptance of Christ's blood on your behalf. However, you can do all of those things and not have salvation if you have not come to the Father through an acceptance of Christ's blood on your behalf.
Posted by: beth at October 26, 2007 12:25 PM (/mZ91)
2
It may be overly simplistic of me, but I have to think that God will sort it out when the Day of Judgment comes. After all, He's omniscient and we have to put our faith in Him.
When I was having my last chemo treatment, a lady sat down next to me, and a friend she'd brought along to keep her company decided to butt into a conversation I was having with someone else. That lady left and I was stuck having to chat with this friend, while the patient was on the phone with her pastor, telling him her good news, which was that her treatment was working and that her cancer was going into remission. The friend was going on and on about how good the Lord was to give her friend a reprieve. That all of this was because her friend had so much faith in the Lord, that she was devoted to her Bible Study, that she'd helped other people in their church who'd also been diagnosed with cancer, etc. I have to think that the nurses, who were readying her chemo, were a tad annoyed that they weren't getting any credit for this remission, but that's beside the point. In the process of this conversation, the lady had told me that her son-in-law, a doctor, had warned her that her friend probably wasn't going to make it; that her colon cancer was bad because it had made it into her liver, and would probably go into her bones next, and that would be that. Then, in the next breath, she proceeded to tell me that her son-in-law was going to hell because he hadn't accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Like there was a direct correlation between his diagnosis and the condition of his soul in her mind. There wasn't any doubt in her mind about it, and I got the feeling she wasn't too sad about the prospect.
It's always shocking when you come across someone like that. So judgmental, so sure they're following the right path that they have the right to damn someone to hell simply because that person believes differently than they do.
I can't be like that woman. I can't damn someone to hell simply because they don't believe as I do. Like I said up top, God knows what the score is and ultimately He's the decision maker.
Posted by: Kathy at October 26, 2007 12:39 PM (DoFSB)
3
You may consider my Evangelical self a Catholic if it makes you feel better, I like what Colossus says about the church Invisible.
Keep in mind also that Lewis subscribed to the righteous pagan. In The Last Battle one of his Muslim analogues ended up in Heaven, as God counted all his piety and service to His account.
Posted by: Taleena at October 26, 2007 12:46 PM (ZdruO)
4
Alright, I haven't read what everyone has advised on your question Robbo, but the short answer is no.
The Catholic Church does not believe nor does it teach that all protestants are condemned to Hell.
Do some Catholics believe this? Short answer :Yes. But then there are Catholics who believe in birth control, abortion, gay marriage and the dating of attractive animals.
There was once a Catholic priest who taught the heresy that all protestants were condemned. Imagine that? Well, if memory serves, this heretic hailed from Tennessee and his teachings got on like wildfire in Malibu. The Pope at the time (this would be the '20's so do the math) had to write a letter personally addressing this heresy. I have a copy of that letter -it is actually a booklet somewhere in my files. The heretic was defrocked by the Pope too. However his heresy lives on strongly, ironically, more in the Protestant churches than in the Catholic Church.
Perhaps Colossus knows of what I speak and can fill in the gazillion of blanks.
The Truth is everyone is saved through the Catholic Church. The blood of the martyrs has kept the altar and the sacraments safe. People, particularly protestants don't like to hear that but it's true.
Check out Joseph Pearce's book where he makes the case had C.S. Lewis been alive today, he (and D. Sayers as well) would have swum the Tiber. Pearce is an Englishman and a convert.
And God is the final judge as to who gets in to Heaven. Being Catholic doesn't make you a shoe-in, but it does help because actively participating in the sacramental life helps...a lot.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at October 26, 2007 01:28 PM (Ind7f)
5
"We are justified by faith" said Paul, and that's all there is to it: All that maters is that you have a saving faith in Christ. I'm sure there are subjects of the heavenly kingdom in every christian denomination, regardless of their level of doctrinal understanding.
Anyone who claims to know the dispensation of another's soul with God is simply lying. Sure, we can be pretty sure we won't run into Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot in the world to come, but come on: The opinion of one denomination or another in the matter holds not a single drop of water.
Posted by: Hucbald at October 26, 2007 01:43 PM (WuRTe)
Skip down to the section called "Summary of the Catholic Dogma 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus'" for the shorthand view. It accords fairly well with what I am saying, but does not use the terminology of the visible and invisible Church -- oddly enough, though I am a cradle Catholic, the terms "visible and invisible church" are Reformed terminology. Perhaps I am a closet Calvinist? Unlikely -- I am, in term of my theology of predestination, closer to being a Molinist.
I do think the terms are apt, though, in describing those who are, to use the Catholic terminology used by Wikipedia, attached to the church by implicit desire. They are not visibly Catholics, and yet, somehow, they are still Catholics.
I don't know about the '20s, Mrs. P., but in the 1950s it was Father Leonard Feeney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney
It is a recurring heresy in the church and, in my mind, wrongly underestimates both the mercy of Christ and underestimates the power of faith conveyed in Protestantism. The followers of Father Feeney maintain his excommunication was not promulgated properly by Rome; and that the excommunication was removed before his death by Rome anyway. To me, if one is a Catholic arguing the finer points of canon law in a disagreement with Rome, well, discretion might be the better part of valor. I am not so fond of my theological notions that I'd disobey Rome.
Hucbald, there is no finer paean to faith than than Hebrews, Chapter 11. Makes me tear up when I read it.
Posted by: The Colossus at October 26, 2007 03:26 PM (ivbbD)
7
I went through a period where I sampled and studied many religions. I was completely disgusted by a group of Baptists who assured me that every last person in my devout Catholic family was going to burn in hell for not being Baptist.
Posted by: Ted at October 26, 2007 05:57 PM (yRolC)
8
Taking the question from another point of view...
The United Methodist church has various affirmations of faith; usually one is read by the congregation as part of the service. The version of the Apostles Creed refers to "the holy catholic church." Not referring to what I think of as the Catholic church, and what you'd be describing as the visible Catholic church, but all of christendom.
Posted by: owlish at October 26, 2007 06:05 PM (pabzc)
9
See, I knew Colossus would know. Thank you Colossus. It was Father Feeney. The reason I came to know about him was because a protestant friend said that since I was going Catholic I must believe only Catholics went ot Heaven -totally not kidding. I was extremely disturbed, as some might imagine, that someone could sincerly believe I thought such a thing. How perfectly dreadful to be accused of such a wicked thing but I digress. We were in RCIA at the time and I asked our serious Latin Masser priest what to do. He told me about Father Feeney and told me of the papal letter that was written to address Father Feeney's false teaching. I bought the papal letter and read it. Then when the husband's wife called the house looking for a favor, I told him what I had for the two of them to read (he dropped out of the Catholic Church after a failed mariage -his wife who acccused me was his second marriage and I'm quite sure he had told her Catholics believe such lies. He was flabbergasted to say the least to learn I had a papal letter for them...
They've never called back since. I might add this is the Christian couple who inivted Mr. P and I to go "hottubbing" with them...
We never did, naturally...
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at October 26, 2007 06:17 PM (ihfBG)
10
But then there are Catholics who believe in .....dating of attractive animals Mrs. P
Well, now, Mrs. P., we prefer to think of the LLamas as handsome instead of attractive, in a rascally sort of way.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 26, 2007 07:01 PM (c/Lzh)
11
When my Episcopal wife and I were married, we had to obtain a dispensation from the canonical form (we were married in an Episcopal Church, according to 1928 BCP). Other than that, our marriage is regarded by Holy Mother Church as a Christian marriage, and therefore, a sacramental marriage. The Episcopal priest who married us was recognized as Christian minister. Our children are being raised as Catholics.
I occasionally listen to a Christian Radio show, of a Calvinist bent, where I've gathered, a problem with Catholics is they have not accepted Jesus as their personal Savior - which came as news to me (I thought that Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession and Confirmation, had that covered).
Posted by: kmr at October 26, 2007 07:38 PM (Dl7SW)
12
One of the reasons I won't swim/cross the Tiber is because of the bad treatment my family received from my mom's side - the "catholics" (I refuse to use the large "c" in that or calling them christian with the big "C" either. We're all looked down upon and have been told we are going to hell and yet not one in the bunch exhibits the love of Jesus. One aunt calls her grandchildren "bastards" within their hearing. Why? because their parents didn't marry in the RC. What a terrible witness to these children. If just being RC gets your ticket punched while you aren't following Jesus' command to follow His Commanments while someone following Jesus's commands/teachings is excluded because they weren't received/baptised/etc., what would be the point? It has never felt like what Jesus would say much less do - out of character. Peter was corrected by Paul, so infallibility of the Pope...I just don't buy it for myself. I can understand a leader being "tapped into God" so I can see what for me is a stretch. I have met a couple/few sweet people who are Catholic, so I know not everyone is like my relatives.
Step-father-in-law pays $10,000 and his marriage to my husband's divorced mom is accepted in the Catholic Church. Doesn't that make her two sons by her previous marriage bastards? SFIL is not the best example of Christian/Catholic charity either. I'm not slamming Catholics - as I said, "my" examples just haven't been good ones. I recognize that they are sinners just as lowly me is one as well.
I try to leave who gets in up to God, I just hope I make it in the gate and haven't ticked God off somehow!!
I think we've all gotten too wrapped up in the "organizational structure". I've been feeling this way about TEC as well. The Pharisees and Saducees didn't have Jesus' respect either. These are the ones I feel He is referring when He talks about those who call on His name and He says depart from Me, I never knew you. God knows our hearts.
The scripture I would have quoted has already been used. Plus Romans 10:9-13: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Jesus said in John 10, starting at verse 16: I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Also, Jesus says in Matthew 12:46-50 when speaking of His mother and brothers: For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
So the answer to your question...what was it again...oh, yeah! An emphatic NO. I don't feel C.S. Lewis was doomed to hell because he didn't say the right ritual to join the "Catholic" church. He was already a part of Christ's church, just as anyone who chooses to follow Jesus and do His will. Could I be wrong? Yep. BUT, it doesn't flow from what Jesus said throughout the Gospels. As our priest says, go to the Book.
One last thought. Our priest had a new member of the vestry years ago who was just "Average Joe" whom Father said God revealed the following to this man: The Great Comission in Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus says Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
What if Jesus meant for us to go make disciples - not just believers - by baptizing them by immersing them in the Word - the name AND knowledge of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by word and deed, especially us modeling Jesus in our lives. Not just a water baptism. Profound.
Posted by: JB in Florida at October 26, 2007 08:08 PM (S0z6q)
Catholics are often their own worst witnesses, and there are many, many, Catholics in name who do not practice the faith as they ought. One judges by the fruits, to be sure, but it is a big tree and there are many branches, and not all of them are rotten.
Many Catholics may believe that they get a free pass into heaven, but neither the doctrine of the church nor scripture offer a Catholic anything that says this. The sacraments are a means of conveying grace to a soul that is disposed to receive that grace. If I do not love the lord my God with all my heart, and my neighbor as myself, the sacraments, received in bad faith, will avail me as a Catholic nothing.
A corrupt Borgia pope will still quite likely end up in hell, where a righteous Lutheran will end up in Heaven. I do not doubt that in the least.
So why am I a Catholic? I am Catholic because I believe it all adds up. Apostolic succession, the magisterium, Scripture, the church councils, the sacraments, and the Papacy to me are all mutually reinforcing. In knowing my own sinfulness and in looking at the sinfulness of our age, there is none of these I feel that I can safely do without.
And in looking at how the siren lure of modernism has lured a venerable church like TEC onto the rocks, I am drawn to the conclusion that the boat I want to be in is one with a big, ungainly hull and lots of weatherproofing. If it wasn't the barque of Peter, it would be the boat of his brother St. Andrew on the Bosporus. Rage though the modern age will, those churches are, at their hearts, impervious to change.
And I keep looking for that narrow gate.
Posted by: The Colossus at October 26, 2007 10:56 PM (QBuXz)
This is from one of Cardinal Newman's sermons. He was still an Anglican when he wrote it. It is a meditation on the church visible and the church invisible. If I am reading him correctly, he views it as a useful metaphor, but he gives a pretty good critique of the concept. He's covering a lot of the same ground we're discussing here.
I was struck also by how he used another metaphor I used, which was that of the tree and its branches.
I'm wondering if perhaps I read this essay some years ago and it stuck with me, or if it is a case of great minds thinking alike (I say that in jest, because I'm no Newman).
What's spooky to me is that I have been thinking of Cardinal Newman lately because he is under consideration for beatification once again.
Posted by: The Colossus at October 27, 2007 10:14 AM (QBuXz)
15
Colossus, thank you. I quickly read Newman's article and printed it off for further reflection. Please know that I am not judgmental over your or Robert's choices. Obviously I am interested in this whole swimming the Tiber thing or I wouldn't be visiting here. I'm open to hearing more from reasonable people, and more than likely, more informed people. Sometimes it gets a little over my Anglican head, but I'm trying to keep up. I will continue to ponder these things. Blessings. JB
Posted by: JB in Florida at October 27, 2007 09:43 PM (S0z6q)
16
Well done, all around. And Colossus, it is my very fond hope that I am one of those Protestants who is actually Catholic.
Posted by: ScurvyOaks at October 29, 2007 11:34 AM (s7sYI)
17
I’ve been a Baptist for 25 years, and in much of my youth, when Catholicism was discussed at all, the assumption was that it was Catholics who were not going to heaven. I’ve left that viewpoint behind, but I could never swim the Tiber, either. The Cult of Mary and the presumption to speak for God in the elevation of Saints are just beyond my ken - I equate them with the repudiated doctrines around Simony. I have my own assumptions on where those traditions started, but they mostly depend on me ascribing psychological and political motivations to people who lived in a very different world from me, always a dangerous game. I understand why someone would keep those traditions after millennia, but they are an insurmountable barrier to me. I do still hold the opinion that those who started the abiblical traditions in the Catholic Church will have much to answer for in the next life.
Since my youth, I’ve come to take the view of Colossus and Lewis in “The Last Battle”. How dare I presume to know God’s plan? I’ve been shown the Way, and it is for me to follow it as I read it in the Bible, and not worry what anyone else is doing. I’m more likely to be the prodigal son than the faithful son, anyway. Also, I have several people whom I consider to be righteous Pagans as in-laws. My wife is a Chinese Christian, most of her relatives are Buddhists. I agree - it all comes down to salvation. None may come to the Father except through Him, but there does not have to be only one way to Him.
It’s my studied opinion that the people, both Catholic and Protestant, who harp on this, are guilty of what Harper Lee described in “To Kill a Mockingbird” – so busy preparing for the next world, that they forget to live in this one.
Posted by: John at October 29, 2007 08:35 PM (G1l44)
Bobby Freakin Kielty.
The only thing to do is to paint it red:
Question for the ages: which ballet move IS Manny doing here? Looks like a grand jete to me:
Other things we learned:
1. Pabelbon is freakin' nuts:
2. Curt Schilling is one tough hombre:
