On Thought for the Day today, the Pill's editor managed to resist attacking the Church. But she did say something that sounded heretical, at least to my (totally unprejudiced, of course) ears.
She said words to the effect that: 'as the secrecy is stripped away, just as the burial clothes were stripped from the body of Jesus'...
The burial clothes 'stripped' from the body of Our Lord? Is she implying some agency other than His own?
I'm probably being unfair, and she was merely pleased with her rhetorical flair, but it sounded distinctly dodgy to me. And for someone who is meant to be a professional communicator of the Faith (isn't that, at least in theory, the role of Editor of the Pill?) it was, to say the least, careless. But was it indicative of a mind that finally doesn't accept the Gospel accounts and the reality of the Resurrection? Reader: you may be the judge of that...
And of course, she scattered the Holy Name around as though she were distributing fair trade coffee beans to the deserving poor.... But that is only to be expected, these days, I suppose: nobody (except real stick-in-the-muds) says 'Our Lord' any more.
4 hours ago
.jpg)
2 comments:
I must be a stick in the mud -having been taught reverence for the Holy Name. Also I recall being taught the difference between our Lord's ascension (ie. by His own power) into Heaven and our Lady's assumption (her being taken up -or assumed- by God) into Heaven.
No, we're all supposed to say "the Lord" in good Protestant fashion. Funnily enough, no one says "the Lady". "The Assumption of the Lady" or "the Lady's Immaculate Conception" are never heard because they sound daft. Mind you, that may also have something to do with the fact that those who say "the Lord" instead of "Our Lord" don't believe in the other half of those phrases! And "Praise Our Lord!" sounds plain wrong because it's forcibly joining two very different theological views together as one (or ecumenism, as it's called).
Post a Comment