Thursday, September 04, 2008

rev'd up said...

On another blog the man who calls himself rev'd up has decided to attack The Continuum. He says we do not post his comments because we hate him, and so I decided to post the entire remark here.

The phonies at "Continuum" hate my guts and won't post my comments, so don't be alarmed when I offer high approval for what you have written (though I'm not a fan of Neusner, maybe you aren't either, but if an enemy can make your point...). The "Continuum" boys are venomous Donatists who recoil from demonstrable catholic traditions choosing rather the traditions of select men. They love to play it fast, lose and neo-novus ordo. Provincialists all.

So, now he's had his say.

Whereas we have never banned anyone from commenting, we reject comments that attack individuals, or that express bigotry.


poetreader said...

I'm going to comment once on this man and not again. I deleted a recent comment by him. Why? Not because he disagreed with me/us, but because his consistency in spewing toxic venom is not appropriate in any forum claiming to be Christian. What was posted here is typical. I don't hate his guts. He'll consider me arrogant in saying so, but I pray for his salvation. While I cannot judge his spirit, I can judge his actions,which certainly appear to evidence the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21, and not to reveal the fruit of the spirit in vv. 22-23. May God have mercy on him and bring him to repentance.


Anonymous said...

I'm hoping that rev'd up will drop by and explain what "neo-novus ordo" means. Isn't that a contradiction?

(Or have I simply missed the Continuum's Latin-language New Order cover band?)

Anonymous said...

Was out over the holiday and can't find the post about 'right reason' as the correct way to interpret Scripture...I said according to whom or what? Who decides what right reason is? You said B16 had used the same term and I guess you wanted to infer that you mean it as he means it. I said that Scripture is only correctly interpreted via the CC.

B16's idea of 'right reason' must be different than yours in that he will be able to show Scriptural support of the papacy, indulgences, etc....this tells me that your idea of 'right reason' is nothing more than your own personal interpretation of it and what you deem 'right'.

In sum, a major problem in Christianity is the idea that Scripture can be read apart from the CC's interpretation of it. Again, your continuum has no 'buck stops here' mechanism to deal with these issues and that is why your ecclesiastical community and others are in constant schism. This is true of valid churches in orthodoxy as well.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Diane, whether you like it or not, our use of Right Reason is no different from B16's use of it. It is a very old term. My post about it showed that it was not about interpretation of Scripture, for which we have Tradition, but rather the wisdom of our fathers in establishing polity and godly customs in order to carry out the Lord's commands, such as "do this in remembrance of me." It was continuation of these customs that caused the Church of England to be accused by Puritans of "papism" or being too much like the Church of Rome.

and that is why your ecclesiastical community and others are in constant schism

We are in no more schism than any church that others imitate. By the way, have you ever heard the outright hostility that is often expressed between Eastern Rite churches and the Latin church? I have.

Anonymous said...

Diane, everything you write I have read or heard many times, and generally more eloquently put. I fully imagine that both the blog owners and many of the regular comment contributors have heard it and read it even more often.

I take it upon myself to take over the party for a moment and ask Albion and Ed and Fr Hart and Fr Kirby and Canon Hollister and Canon Tallis and Fr Wells and An Anglican Cleric and Michael (you there, Michael? Haven't heard for a while) and 1928 and ACC Musician and all my virtual friends, some of whom I agree with more often than not, some of whom I probably disagree with more often than not, with whom I've sparred and laughed and from whom I've learned to join me in a polite little chorus:

We've heard it all before.
We weren't impressed then.
You won't convince us now.

Albion Land said...


Can you hum a few bars?

Albion Land said...

For the record and the benefit of newer readers, The Continuum does not ban anyone from commenting. However, we reserve the right to reject comments that are in violation of what I call the Galatians Five Rule, to which poetreader alluded in his comment above.

Rev'd Up has been an occasional commenter on this blog for about a year, generally appearing with brief spurts of activity after relatively long periods of silence. We do not know who he or she is, but I can say that, more often than not, the Galations Five Rule is regularly violated by this person.

And I can assure Rev'd Up, as I have in the past, that whenever he or she wishes to conduct him/herself like a Christian gentleman/gentlewoman, his/her comments will be welcome.

In the meantime, I join with poetreader in praying that peace might come to a troubled soul.

Anonymous said...

Albion: I just did, but I don't expect you heard me.

poetreader said...

Ah, but I did -- in two different settings.


Alice C. Linsley said...

This person's style and tone remind me of the young man I tried to engage here at The Continuum about 2 years ago on the issue of WO. His approach was ad hominem and sounded like this Rev'd Up. Albion had to take that situation in hand because the fellow was not willing to address issues. Is this the same man?

Anonymous said...

Spooky. I only sang it once.

Anonymous said...

My thanks for not allowing unkind
comments to be published.

Its always possible to disagree agreeably. Disagreeing agreeably makes life much more enjoyable. It
also sets a good example for those
many people who read, but never comment on, this Blog.

1928 BCP Supporter

Anonymous said...

was one Penitential?


poetreader said...

We have no way of knowing who this man is, as he chooses to unleash his fury from behind an alias where he cannot be seen or touched.


Anonymous said...

I, on the other hand, am completely on display. I dread to think what that does for (or against) my career in the world.

No, not penitential, but simple. Thought I'd better nut out and learn the simple tone before working up a solemn one.

John A. Hollister said...

I heartily second Sandra McNichol's chorus; if I could sing I would be trilling it now (I went to a high school where chorals singing was required for the whole school and where I was the only student banned from singing during compulsory chorus....)

Diane wrote, "In sum, a major problem in Christianity is the idea that Scripture can be read apart from the CC's interpretation of it."

We would all agree with Diane if by "CC" she means "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" to which we give our allegeance when we recite any one of the three historic Creeds. However, if she is committing the modern error by which "Catholic Church" is thought to be a trade name for the Church of Rome, then of course we cannot go along with her.

That sort of formulation is disproved by the simple expedient of looking at The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church, which in English many of us are accustomed to refer to as "the Eastern Orthodox". It has just as strong an historic claiim to be the continuation of the Universal Church of the Apostles as does the Church of Rome, yet it has never granted the decision-makers within the City of Rome a veto over the Church's beliefs and practices.

Where the EOs don't do it, that is always presumptive evidence that the One Church didn't do it, either. That goes for principles of Biblical interpretation just as much as it does in other areas of the Church's life.

John A. Hollister+