[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Brithenig Page
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Raymond A. Brown wrote:
> >capitulated to Roman suzerainty in 1100. There went any chance for
> >substantive development of catholic doctrine and polity, particulary
> >regarding (1) the exclusivity of Christ in the economy of salvation and
> >(2) the role of women in the Church. I had been hoping for some
> >real development here, but ah well.
> I think one needs to be careful with religion. I know from bitter
> experience how easy it is to offend. I don't know (indeed, have no wish to
> know) the religious or other affiliations of list members; but I do know
> that there is at least one committed, practicing Catholic amongst them so
> that terms like 'capitulation' & 'Roman suzerainty' are not helpful.
Perhaps it would be well for me to acknowledge this and to
mention that I am a practising Eastern Orthodox. I do not take any
offense at the ideas expressed with Brithenig and its development in
Kemr, but rather find them quite interesting, especially since pre-Schism
ideas seem at times to surface.
> I think Andrew's account is the most plausible. In the upheavals following
> Saxon invasions, the Celts were severed somewhat from the mainstream
> western Church. When things settled & churches we more in communication
> again then, as we know from 'real' history, there was a desire for
> uniformity. It affected _practice_, i.e. the Celts were still using a
> pre-Nicene method of calculating Easter, not doctrine which was much the
True, and perhaps this may be very stimulating to the cultural
and religious implications of the Brithenig project, which can be a bit
more than just linguistic. I say 'bravo' to the efforts so far and look
forward to more.
By the way, I find the discussion of the flag highly amusing --
rollicking, in fact. I've nothing to add to the idea to make it rather
geometrical, but do find the image of the "crowded" flag really fun!
> It seems to me very unlikely that any Celtic church would've different
> significantly from the doctrines & practice in the continental western
> Church & in the eastern Churches in this respect. I think it'd be very
> unwise to have the Kembr anticipating by some six centuries the doctrines
> of the later Protestant divines.
I agree absolutely!
> I doubt whether one is tougher or easier than the other. But one will
> certainly cause more offense than the other. If you stay clear of model
> languages as international auxiliaries, then language modelling is not
> likely to upset anyone (IALs, however, always upset at least some other
> rivals), but religion is another matter altogether.
But I hope we don't take ourselves TOO seriously; this is
Good wishes to all for 1998!