The Big Questions…Explored

The Big Questions…Explored

First in the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Explored, where we discuss “salvation” with a fundamentalist Protestant.

Comments invited. 

Comments (194)

  • Vianney Reply

    There has always been a bit of confusion regarding Holy Days of Obligation and I once came across an online discussion about the subject. Someone posted a copy of a parish newsletter from a church that had both forms of the Mass. I can’t remember what the Feast was but it had “Day of Devotion (Ordinary Rite), Holy Day of Obligation (Extraordinary Rite).” The person who posted it said that when he asked the priest why this was, he was told that in the rules regarding the “Extraordinary Rite” (I hate that term!) it says that congregations and communities who use that rite must follow the traditional Holy Days. Someone else said that Archbishop Lefebvre always followed the rule that if a Holy Day was abolished before the council it stayed abolished, but if it was abolished after the council he continued to observe it. The NO is observing Corpus Christi this Sunday while the Tridentine Rite will be celebrating the second Sunday after Pentecost, and this is one of the problems with following the local Bishop. If we follow him on Holy Days of Obligation do we follow him on all feasts? After all, the NO use a new calendar where feasts are often totally different from those used in the Tridentine Rite.

    June 21, 2019 at 11:12 am
    • Petrus Reply


      I don’t think it’s a case of following the bishop in terms of the calender, it’s more in terms of the obligation.

      June 21, 2019 at 11:20 am
    • Athanasius Reply


      My understanding is completely the opposite, which is to say we are instructed by Rome that those using the so-called “Extraordinary Rite” (I, too, hate that term and refuse to use it) must abide by the same rules regarding holy days of obligation. I can’t see Rome allowing Traditional Catholics to undermine Bishop’s Conferences by ignoring their calander changes.

      Archbishop Lefebvre was very, very careful to obey all directives from post-Vatican II Rome and national bishop’s conferences that did not endanger faith. Hence, he accepted the 1962 Missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII and adopted it as the standard for his seminaries. He would never have declared Holy Days of obligation to be still valid when Rome and the bishops had declared otherwise, for that would have been a schismatic act that his enemies would have been very quick to highlight. I don’t know who told you that story but it is utterly false.

      June 21, 2019 at 12:14 pm
  • An Istorian Reply

    Scottish History is not, it seems, a strength of this Scottish blog. But it was indeed Abbot Kennedy of Crosraguel , not “Costello”. who challenged Mr Knox to a disputation. At the time Knox, who had a high if not always justified view of his own gifts, was very much on the losing end of his disputation with Ninian Winzet (later Abbot of Ratisbon), a far racier and more humorous writer. Quintin Kennedy tempted him into another, this time academic, contest where Knox would, yet again, be out of his depth: an intemperate lower-class man, who never completed his doctorate in Divinity up against a cool-headed, aristocratic graduate of both St Andrews and Paris.
    All this is common historical knowledge but the local source the blog recommends, a local historian (James T. Gray, “Maybole, Carrick’s Capital, Facts, Fiction & Folks”, Alloway Publishing, Ayr), is uncomprehending of the academic form of a “disputation” and grossly inaccurate – conflating details of Kennedy’s disputation with another Protestant controversialist, quite apart from Knox. The text of the Kennedy-Knox disputation is actually – in Knox’s version – in the collected edition of his “Works”: the Auchinleck references are to something completely different.
    The key to any disputation was that it is always narrow.We should not believe, as Knox (falsely) claimed, it was about “the Mass” – way too big an issue to be determined in a single academic queston in a single disputation, “defending” a very particular thesis. The issue, which Mr Gray simply could not see, was that the whole three-day event was centred on the technical question of whether, in the Book of Genesis, Melchizedek “offered” bread and wine as a “sacrifice” to God, or simply for Abraham’s men to “feed on”. Knox was reduced to bluster to get out of the question, but his pamphlet (published a year after the event) went unchallenged with Quintin Kennedy’s illness and premature death. That does not make Knox’s report true and Mr Gray thinking Melchizedek was “irrelevant” to the discussion rather than absolutely central is Maybole fiction rather than fact. Knox was, in his own account, clearly on the back foot with Kennedy’s aristocratic hit that “I ought not to mock that which the world so long hath holden, and great princes yet hold, in so great veneration”. Blustering on about popish idolatory cut no ice in an academic disputation, whatever its appeal to the proletarian rabble, for which no town surpassed auld Ayr.
    The lessons of history are that, for a disputation to work, the question disputed needs to be small enough actually to be “determined” (so, e.g., paragraph 32 from the ARCIC II text on Salvation, rather than the entire hoary old Reformation/Counter-Reformation stuff on faith and works). That way neither side needs to worry too much about losing: Melchizedek is not an absolutely central issue and the commentary on a difficult biblical text is extensive but diverse – Kennedy used a “cartload” of books as his authorities. Another lesson from history is that the disputation parties need to be of equal standing: poor old Knox was hopelessly outclassed by an altogether brighter, even sparkling, pair in Winzet and Kennedy. But they were, all three of them, ordained clergy, not laymen floundering about in Divinity without a Divinity degree.
    I don’t know how extensive your readership is but the obvious local expert to comment (but who may be too modest to comment under his own name) is the present Archbishop of Glasgow, who happens to have a doctorate in sixteenth-century theology. And I don’t know if people find history relevant but at least, if it is used, it is a well to get the story straight. You can always read up on The Reasoning that was betwix the Abbot of Crosraguel and John Knox over the Corpus Christi weekend (“days off” obligations, I suppose). For all of you fans of sixteenth-century reasoning who have the collected Works of John Knox on your shelves,the disputation is in volume 6, pages 185-217.

    June 21, 2019 at 12:30 pm
    • Athanasius Reply

      An Istorian

      Thank you for posting that intellectually enlightening and, dare I say, occasionally amusing, comment. Much obliged.

      My one bone of contention with your contribution is the suggestion that the present Archbishop of Glasgow could possibly do better in debate with fundamentalist Protestants than the average layman “floundering about in Divinity without a Divinity degree”. I think being a committed lay Catholic with a even a basic knowledge of the faith would be preferable in such a scenario to a Doctor of Divinity who is indifferent in matters of faith. Still, I agree in general with your observation.

      June 21, 2019 at 2:13 pm
      • An Istorian

        Thank you for the response – newcomers to established blogs are not always welcome.
        Your comments about the archbishop of Glasgow are a bit over my head although I can imagine Edinburgh-Glasgow rivalry is at stake.
        I may be missing the archiepiscopal in-joke but it is difficult to imagine the average layman (or, let us not be sexist, laywoman) doing better than a trained professional, complete with a doctorate in “an historical/dogmatic” approach to sixteenth-century disputations, in any “reasoning betwixt” a parson and a bible-bashing evangelical fundamentalist. And the clergyman has the edge where people respect his cloth.
        The Quintin Kennedy technique was to keep to one single point, so challenging the presbyterians’ favoured “wee cuppies”, with their individual shots of grape-juice, as being unscriptural teetotalism might work. They are wrong-footed on the issue, the Kennedy gambit, since tradition was clearly a communal cup of fermented wine. The gambit will indeed leave the average bible-basher struggling but, if the disputant has wider knowledge, those higher up the candle may themselves struggle to repulse the likely counter-attack on denial of the cup to the laity as being just as unscriptural (different parishes are different on this but some would struggle). Chances are Doctor Tartaglia could get out of that one a whole lot better than Joe (or Jane) Public, if only with an historical argument known only to bygone generations.
        If this is so, do you seriously think the average lay person could out-argue a biblically-based presbyterian on scripture? But back in the real world, disputation is best left to the doctors who know what they are about. And some ancient Roman (whose name escapes now escapes me) advised “ne sutor supra crepidam iudicaret”, let not the cobbler judge above his last.
        So it’s cobblers to Dr Tartaglia.

        June 24, 2019 at 11:16 am
      • editor

        An Istorian,

        The mistake YOU are making is to think that the answer to the question of Catholicism and salvation is to be found solely in Scripture. It’s not.

        I’m up to my eyes right now so I can’t really read, digest and answer your comment in any detail – I’m already doing two things at once and behind with getting our newsletter to the printers – but I just want to point out that the HUGE mistake “biblically-based Presbyterians” make is to think that Scripture alone will save them. OR that quoting/citing Scripture is the most important thing in any debate on Christianity. It’s not. Even the Devil can quote Scripture.

        That’s all I have time for now but maybe later or tomorrow, I’ll return to this.

        June 24, 2019 at 11:30 am
      • An Istorian


        I am not sure that it is correct to make any comment here on any unique advantages of heterosexual relationships but it sometimes occurs to me that men are given their awful wedded wives to help them understand the opposite species. Not only The Wife herself but that added blessing, Her Mother. Your response inclines me to generalise a proposition that it is a particularly female gift to be able to pick men up before they actually fall. I can also hear an echo of one unregenerate old chauvinist who once taught me, who used to explain that the reason women got fewer first-class degrees was because they often started writing their answers too soon, without taking the time to think the question through.

        It took you barely ten minutes to decide that
        “The mistake YOU are making is to think that the answer to the question of Catholicism and salvation is to be found solely in Scripture. It’s not.”

        It always means trouble when the female of the species starts talking in capital letters. But you try to pick me (or is it ME?) up too soon. I know from experience that it can be difficult for ladies to absorb words before replying to them but if one takes the time to read what was actually written, I said no such thing. And I did in fact mention how the evidence of tradition could be used to discomfit presbyterians’ own little unacknowledged but unscriptural quirks.

        The point is not especially subtle. The context was a discussion with Athanasius about Quintin Kennedy’s sixteenth-century disputation with John Knox on the question of whether, in the Book of Genesis, Melchizedek “offered” bread and wine as a “sacrifice”, or simply for the army “feed upon”. All I suggested was that I imagined a bishop who had a doctorate in sixteenth-century Eucharistic theology would have a better chance in a modern disputation on a specifically biblical point with one of our Presbyterian brethren than would a lay person.

        The general issue is apologetics: the starting point, as Quintin Kennedy very well understood, for nudging a disputant forward has to be something the other side will accept and the discourse has to begin with the methodology the other side uses. If they reject all that is not scriptural, fine, accepting for the sake of argument that that is so, where then is the scriptural warrant for wee individual cuppies let alone for grape juice? Quintin Kennedy would have skewered them on following a Gospel According to the Band of Hope. I think this sort of thing is a field for the experts, such as the Abbot of Crosraguel, who have the training and experience to handle it – there really is no point challenging a Presbyterian if the upshot is to turn them atheist and it really is best to leave the enterprise to the judgement of those who have the pastoral experience, and the actual commission, to tackle it. What I might think on tradition is completely irrelevant: the issue is for some competent apologist to confront the sola scriptura brigade with scripture. The rest of us do best to simply watch Mr Knox, opinionated but never quite the sharpest tool in the box, losing yet another disputation.

        That, Dear Editor, and taking the time to read before responding.

        Dangerous thing the “send” button.

        June 24, 2019 at 11:49 pm
      • editor

        An Istorian,

        Please don’t think I’m avoiding answering your comments – I’m not. But just as I clicked the button to send our July newsletter to the printers very late this morning, I received a succession of texts with which I had to deal and then I remembered it’s bin day and well – the time races by, life is short, and I will need to organise some lunch and who knows what next. However, I’ve time for a quick few words with thee, not least because…

        I’m almost certain that you have been here before… with your “Mrs” and your wee dog… ? An avid Anglican/Episcopalian (“Pixie”?) Or am I confusing you with someone else? I doubt it, since your modus operandi rings a bell… loud and clear! If I AM wrong, however, I know you’ll be on here in jig time to correct me. So, allow me to apologise right now, just in case.

        Which brings me to your latest “correction” of my far too quick keyboard fingers…

        My humdrum humble apologies for defaming you at any level (ARE there levels of defamation, one wonders…)

        Sorry, too, about the occasional use of capital letters to emphasise a word but I don’t have time to forever go through the WordPress motions to create bold or italics. I do prefer that myself and so I do use the system as much as possible.

        Finally, for now, just a quick word about the interesting notion that being in possession of a Degree or a Doctorate in any particular subject makes one the best person to debate on that topic.

        Well, Archbishop Tartaglia’s Doctorate on the Council of Trent’s teaching on the Eucharist, hasn’t prevented him permitting the scandalous abuse of Communion in the hand across the archdiocese. Nor did it give him pause for thought when, as Bishop of Paisley, he permitted his priests to allow Eucharistic Services in place of Mass – and who knows how far widespread this abuse is here in Glasgow today, under his alleged stewardship.

        Having degrees and doctorates is all very well but is no guarantee of either orthodoxy or a Catholic sense. I have a couple of degrees myself but my knowledge of my Catholic religion isn’t helped by either of them. They just help fool some of the people a lot of the time. I remember a school chaplain shaking his head in amazement during a conversation in the staff room on some issue of Catholic orthodoxy, saying that he really didn’t think – having a Degree in Theology – that I would “think like that”. If he only knew how the pupils thought: “How come Father Ray can afford such expensive trainers, Miss?” Apologies for meandering but I’m putting off the moment when I need to tackle some housework. As I say, life is short…

        Finally (again 😀 ) the first apostles and the first Christians – indeed, Christians right up to and beyond the time when printing presses made it possible (if not necessarily affordable for all) to own a bible, never mind obtain a Degree in Divinity or Sacred Scripture – were able to discuss with non-believers and encourage converts. Just ask St Paul how he managed to “debate” with those Gentiles. I believe his phone number is 0000000000 (same – as it happens – as the pay of the regular bloggers here…)

        If I’ve left unanswered, any important point(s) raised by you, please remind me. Catholic Truth at your service!

        June 25, 2019 at 12:18 pm
      • An Istorian

        No apology needed – some people type first, “send” next and think later.

        Your little riddles are beyond discovery but, in any case, the usual custom in blogging is not to try to work out who a blogger is in real life or on sites. If my e-mail address is visible to you, then you will know my university but it is a fairly big one and you may well have other members on the same server. An interest in liturgical history is not that uncommon and the Henry Bradshaw harbours a multitude of like-minded sinners, so the field of possible entities is wide. But as to identities, do remember prospective bloggers coming from mainstream institutions, or whose employers monitor social media use, would worry about the extremist company they might be seen keeping on a marginal blog. A recent gratuitous and wrong-headed rant against the harmless Quintin Kennedy is a doubtless sincere but disturbingly vehement indication of the rash company about in these parts. No one expects the Scottish Inquisition!

        As to your point, an academic theologian, all that Tartaglia (the modern one, not his slightly more famous namesake) could learn from history is that, as at Trent, views are divided. What then was an out-voted minority position has since become a majority. The Kennedy-Knox debate also got into “scandalous” abuse – mice getting into the tabernacle or pyx – but in that case, as ever, allegations of abuse can be a handy cover to mask what is substantially a policy disagreement. If you and the archbishop disagree on policy, for the time being he gets to decide, so perhaps you need to get the movement for the ordination of women fired up for you to be allowed your turn to decide (could be fun). In the meantime, he has to make the best of whatever manpower (or personpower) he can muster: he has ordained at least one married priest but the option is very limited. But all the academic stuff can contribute is that there have, for a very long time, been different points of view and very different modes of administration. As it happens another PhD, an Episcopalian priest in Edinburgh, has studied all the available evidence for older Scottish liturgical tradition, and it is pretty well the same story, considerable diversity of custom. I don’t really see that you can object to doctoral qualifications: they teach people to use evidence, formulate arguments and give them a deeper perspective on an issue. It is not without its irony that you are repeating an argument Mr Knox deployed against Dr Kennedy, albeit to a different purpose.

        Since you offer, does the blog do translations? “In jig time”?

        June 27, 2019 at 12:24 am
      • editor

        An Istorian,

        “Riddles”? Sorry, but if anyone writes in riddles it’s your good self.

        I’m not interested in your real identity except insofar as when you appeared here before, writing in similar vague style, wild assertions, no documentary evidence to support any of them, I remember having to put you in moderation because none of us could keep up with the volume of your contributions. Consider this as “history” repeating itself because I’ve now got a day ahead of me with lots of complications in a couple of areas, including “car trouble”.

        The fact that you clearly do not understand the nature of Catholicism, OR the Council of Trent, and that you think eucharistic discipline is a mere matter of “policy” divorced from theology, means that, really, you would be better finding an Anglican blog where your unsubstantiated claims against Catholicism would be welcome. Or stick to attending meetings of the Henry Bradshaw Society – should be fun.

        No, we don’t do “translations”, in jig or any other time. It takes us all of our time to translate YOUR meanderings and, speaking for myself, I’m not even going to try. You see, if you are aiming to convince us all of your highbrow academic ability, you are not succeeding. That you manifestly do not understand the nature of the Catholic Church and all that goes with it, means that we cannot really have a genuine conversation with you. Your rude (in every sense of the word) response to our comments means that you are flouting our House Rules, and that thus you are adding to my moderation workload, so you are never going to win the Catholic Truth Blogger of the Year award.

        PS as you may have gathered, your “university credentials” don’t impress me. One bit. Racing out now, so apologies if I’ve left anything unanswered in your lengthy comments. It’s what they call these days “too bad.”

        June 27, 2019 at 9:26 am
      • Athanasius

        An Istorian

        I will assume by the construction of the two comments you have made thus far that you are something of an intellectual yourself. If so then I can understand perfectly the logic of your argument. It is surely much safer for a trained Catholic Biblical scholar, Patristics expert, theologian, etc. to debate with a Protestant of similar years of study and experience under his belt. That would normally mean an Archbishop Tartaglia or similarly trained cleric, though the history of the Church does not generally reveal such public debates involving even Catholic clergy Vs. Protestant fundamentalists, so the question really is academic.

        What I would say to you, however, is that there is an equally, if not more, important qualification required by those who would debate with Protestants, which is that they must hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire. In this respect, sad to say, the Traditional Catholic laity are eminently more qualified than Archbishop Tartaglia or any of his post-Vatican II clerical confreres, who conceded the victory to Protestantism when they adopted the Conciliar Reform.

        The new vernacular Mass of 1969, for example,is largely based on Luther’s reformed meal service. Additionally, Communion in the hand to standing communicants can be traced back in its present form to Reformation Protestantism, as can Communion under both kinds. There are many other examples but I’m sure you catch my drift.

        Ecumenism, previously condemned by the Catholic Church as a heresy, is the new doctrine promoted by Catholic prelates and clerics in our time, suppressing, as it does, the age-old infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ (outside the Church no salvation). Hence, Archbishop Tartaglia and his like could never convince any Protestant of his/her errors because by his own ecumenical mindset he no longer believes in that fundamental truth of the faith which declares that those who die separated from the Church, unless by invincible ignorance, will be lost. In other words, one cannot enter into debate with a fundamentalist Protestant if one already sympathises with his/her erroneous belief that Protestants do not necessarily have to convert to the Catholic religion to be saved. So yes, qualifications are very necessary in such a debate, but very much like a gun without bullets if the supernatural Catholic Faith is compromised or absent in the Catholic protagonist. In fine, if the Catholic protagonist is a Modernist then the game,as they say, is a bogey before it even begins!

        I hope you’ll stick around and comment on other threads.

        June 24, 2019 at 12:44 pm
      • An Istorian


        I will be frank and say I have a problem with people being rude about vicars. The Vicar of Dibley may be an utter twit but it is not my place to say so to the world and his wife and it is sadly disrespectful of properly constituted authority.

        To quote a text familiar to Abbot Kennedy and Mary, Queen of Scots: my deutie is … to submitte myselfe to all my gouernours, teachers, spirituall pastours and maisters … to ordre myselfe lowlye and reuerentelye to al my betters ….

        It really is a tad disrespectful to assert that the “Traditional Catholic laity” are eminently more qualified (in respect of disputations with Protestants) than Archbishop Tartaglia or any of his “post-Vatican II clerical confreres”. The exaggerated notion may be sincerely held, and the Vicar of Dibley may ideed be an idiot but it really is not the sort of thing to broadcast about the local spiritual pastors – a newcomer might be forgiven for thinking they had stumbled, elsewhere on this blog, into some meeting of the Loyal Orange Grand Lodge, abusing popish prelates up hill and down dale, with a big thump of a big drum, curse-the-pope! A bit of reverence for their right and most reverendships?

        You raise a host of other issues but it would be sensible to explore only one of them by way of reply – Abbot Kennedy’s lesson is to have a focus and let the Presbyterians over-reach themselves. But it is getting late …

        June 25, 2019 at 12:02 am
      • Athanasius

        An Istorian

        First off, your use of the word “vicars” confirms that you are not a Catholic. We Catholics do not refer to our priests as vicars, that’s an Anglican term. Catholic priests are ordained clergy, Anglican vicars are not (see Leo XIII).

        Now, the very simple and obvious response to your Abbot Kennedy quote is this: Offending men (even lofty clerics) is preferable to offending God when it comes to upholding divinely revealed truths.

        Abbot Kennedy, as you doubtless know already, was an apostate Catholic, a religious who abandoned the true religion and then broke his vow of chastity to God by getting married. Hardly a man of integrity and virtue, then, which raises the question: Why would you quote such a man as though he were a Christian sage? It says more about you, I’m afraid, than about anyone here. That’s the danger of the intellectual who does not hold the supernatural Catholic Faith. You have just proved my point.

        June 25, 2019 at 1:28 pm
      • Athanasius

        An Istorian

        Please ignore completely the final paragraph of my latest response as I confess to having confused Abbot Kennedy with someone else. Abbot Kennedy was NOT an apostate, as I stated, nor did he break his vow of chastity. Must be much more careful in future and not rely on memory!!!

        The first part of my response to you remains unchanged.

        June 25, 2019 at 1:38 pm
      • An Istorian

        Dear, dear, dear. Not just rude to vicars but deciding who is, and who is not, a Catholic.

        It takes no special grasp of genuine Scottish tradition to know that, whatever you say ought to be the terminology, 89 per of Scottish parishes actually had “vicars” in 1560, a number of them under Quintin Kennedy. The mere fact that the Church of England still retains traditional terminology does not make words un-Catholic – even Alice could work that one out. But, whatever you think of the status of her orders, the Vicar of Dibley is not a real person: Geraldine often explained such things for Alice.

        The gratuitous diatribe against poor old Abbot Quintin, which I read before I saw your second thoughts, was a poor display (but reveals much). In any case the merits of an argument can surely be judged indecently of the disputant’s morals and an ad hominem dig at anyone citing a writer is best avoided. The blog might provide a “retract” button for vehement messages from people too quick on the “send”.

        Another small, Geraldine to Alice, point (obvious to those who know the tradition if not “Traditionalists”) is that Kennedy’s actual “vows” were not celibacy, or chastity as you somewhat quaintly put it, but “de stabilitate sua et conversatione morum suorum et obedientia”. Knowing basic Benedictine forms really should not be beyond self-proclaimed “Traditionalists”.
        Finally, for the sake of completeness, the quotation was not Kennedy but something he, probably, and Queen Mary, certainly, knew. Kennedy himself spoke Scots, which annoyed Knox (who had, notoriously, eradicated his mother-tongue) and the text quoted is (obviously) English, not Scots, so not Kennedy.
        It must be some sort of record to manage quite so many errors in a short text but I do struggle to understand how a “Traditionalist” can be so careless of actual tradition.

        I will try to get back to on a point you raised but the world of “Traditionalist” theory is proving murkier than I imagined – and the blog seems to make messages disappear before they eventually emerge from the ether.

        June 27, 2019 at 12:10 am
      • Athanasius

        An Istorian

        When you first commented on the blog I thought your post was quite reasonable, something that could be discussed seriously. Since then, however, your contributions have become more and more eccentric and troll-like. So if it’s all the same to you I will refrain from further exchanges, if only to preserve charity.

        June 27, 2019 at 1:19 am
  • Hope Reply

    If Vianneys post is correct was the Archbishop wrong/challenging/and open to accusations of a schismatic mindset for continuing to observe the traditional days of obligation somehow i dont think so.

    June 21, 2019 at 1:13 pm
    • Athanasius Reply


      Please understand clearly that there is a difference between continuing to observe traditional feasts (a very good practice indeed) and insisting that they are still obligatory even after the bishops have transferred them to the nearest Sunday. We are speaking here only of the obligation, which the bishops have the authority to change.

      June 21, 2019 at 2:23 pm
  • Hope Reply

    Do you know for a fact and most definitely that the story relayed by vianney is utter rubbish.

    June 21, 2019 at 1:24 pm
    • Athanasius Reply


      Yes, I do know for sure. You may rest assured that the Archbishop would not countenance anyhting which would convey even the slightest hint of schism. He was the most obedient of the Church’s sons, refusing obedience only in matters that were clearly and demonstrably dangerous to the Faith. Holy Days of obligation being transferred to Sundays does not fit into that category.

      June 21, 2019 at 2:17 pm
      • Hope

        It was you who went on about saying you can’t say it’s a holy day off obligation when it’s not.Nowhere in my post did I make mention of anything like that.I simply said people especially the elderly will continue with what they were taught.But thanks for reinforcing my point above about jumping in and reading into things that are not there.

        June 21, 2019 at 6:45 pm
      • Athanasius


        I don’t think you can be that stupid so I’ll assume you’re looking for trouble. Enough has been said about this and even Petrus has clarified for you, so just leave it at that and move on.

        June 21, 2019 at 7:49 pm
      • Hope

        Your reply is offensive and incredibly rude if not personal.It is not i who is stupid and looking for trouble it is your verbal aggression that needs looked at.Must be only you who has the right to blog and are never wrong.Please consider your own advice and leave well alone as I think it was very clear from my last post that I had concluded my replies to you until that is your rudeness.No need to reply.

        June 21, 2019 at 8:04 pm
      • editor


        I was just thinking that maybe you and I ought to sign up for an anger management course, when I saw this…–anger-management-aunty-acid.jpg

        June 21, 2019 at 8:11 pm
      • Hope


        June 21, 2019 at 10:29 pm
      • editor


        I’ve been away in Aberdeen and living in garages awaiting verdicts on my broken down car these past two days, so forgive me for taking so long to respond to your many comments. Better late than never as the saying goes.

        And, just to make you smile…

        June 21, 2019 at 8:06 pm
      • Athanasius


        If I were to follow any recipe the finished product would look like something out of science fiction, so I don’t go there. No, I let others do the recipes and I polish off the goodies.

        June 21, 2019 at 8:30 pm
  • Athanasius Reply


    Just reviewing the number of exchanges on this subject, I think we have gone well beyond what is edifying for the readership. My suggestion, then, is that we drop the subject and let those who have followed the comments reach their own conclusions. I note that most of the usual contributors dropped out some time ago, a clear sign that they are not interested in lengthy debates of this nature. So we move on, yes?

    June 22, 2019 at 12:20 am

Join the discussion...

%d bloggers like this: