1636 The Vatican Sanctions – Snippet 05

1636 The Vatican Sanctions – Snippet 05

Ruy looked narrowly at the crooked man. “And what is your interest in this, that you stand forward to take his part?” Mazzare almost started at the sudden accusation in Ruy’s tone.

So did the man. “My lord, I’m…I’m a father. I have idealistic sons. Fewer now than before, to speak plainly. And I’ve seen where their grand ideas and big mouths can land them, early graves being not uncommon ends. So why should I let some other man’s son share that fate, especially when the son’s father is no longer on this side of the grave to help?”

Ruy was clearly trying to maintain his hard exterior, but his voice belied a softening behind it. “He is the eldest male von Meggen remaining?”

The other looked down, scuffed in the dust. “I was not so bold as to ask it that directly, sir. But it seems so. Family’s fallen on hard times.” He looked up. “Most of the battles of the past ten years were south, in the Valtelline, but they sent us their share of hardship, too. If you take my meaning, my lord.”

Larry took a half step forward. “We take your meaning and appreciate your willingness to help a fellow traveler. Don’t we, Colonel Sanchez?”

Ruy nodded but peered more intently at the tradesman. “What is your business here in Besançon?”

The man hitched around, favoring what seemed to be a bad hip, gestured at his donkey cart and enormous assistant. “Nails and ironmongery, my lord.”

“You will no doubt welcome our inspection of your goods?”

The man looked stunned. “You are more than welcome, my lord.” He bowed out of the way, hastily gestured to his assistant, who fumbled uncertainly in response. “Apologies, sirs; Otto does not always understand what I ask him to do. With your leave, I shall have him open the casks so you may –”

Ruy shook his head sharply; Larry couldn’t be sure if he was annoyed at the turnip-nosed man or at himself. “No need. We thank you for your assistance.” He motioned Ignaz closer. “Young Freiherr von Meggen, you are fortunate in the acquaintances you have made along the road, for without this one’s intercession, your actions might have led you to a bad end.”

Ignaz nodded. “My regrets, sir. I was overcome by my ardor and eagerness to serve my pope.”

Ruy’s left eyebrow raised slightly. “I do not see why that would inspire you to suddenly fly in pursuit of the sedan chairs.” He gestured behind at Bedmar’s entourage.

Von Meggen nodded in the same direction. “I saw that, sir.”

Ruy and Mazzare turned.

The rearmost of the papal sedan chairs, which had been left at the aerodrome for the express purpose of carrying Bedmar through the gates incognito, no longer had its concealing shroud firmly attached to the back. Instead, having slipped, it revealed the crossed keys symbol of the Holy See.

Ruy shared a rueful look with Mazzare, then turned back to Ignaz. “While your enthusiasm to serve your pope is laudable, Herr von Meggen, your impetuosity was nearly your undoing — yours and all your men. You must learn to temper your passions, if you are to become an officer worthy of the position to which you aspire.”

Ignaz almost came to attention. “Yes, sir.”

Ruy nodded, seemed to be trying to suppress a grin as he lifted his chin, spoke so all around him could hear. “And since you have now all been questioned, you may enter Besançon at your leave. Be warned: lodgings are sparse, now. Secure rooms swiftly.”

Ignaz pressed a half step closer. “But Colonel, Your Eminence, there is the matter of presenting ourselves to the Holy Father on the morrow, to swear obedience to his…”

Ruy held up his hand. “I have no authority in these matters, Herr von Meggen.” Then his eyes were suddenly lost in a crush of mischievous crow’s feet: “However, Cardinal Mazzare is one of His Holiness’ closest and most trusted counselors. Surely he will be able to offer you guidance in this matter.” The spry hidalgo moved off to shoo the shabby imitation Swiss Guards out of the line, while gesturing for two militiamen to help Turnip-nose and his sizable assistant Otto move their recalcitrant mule.

Larry stared after him, tamping down uncharitable thoughts that he was ultimately able to constrain to, Thanks a bunch, Ruy.

Ignaz actually had his hands clasped in some mixture of anxiousness and supplication. “We are entirely at your disposal, Your Eminence. We will happily wait upon the Pontiff’s pleasure — in the street, if necessary — so that we might –”

“No, no; that won’t be necessary.” Mazzare thought quickly. “Tomorrow morning, before first mass, come to the square just south of St. John’s cathedral. Your first test will be patience, as I have no idea what the first half of the day will hold, or even if the pope may see you and receive your oaths of service. In the months since the Second Sack of Rome, he has had to take on a new guard, and it may not be immediately convenient to take on more. However, the Holy Father holds his children of the Swiss Cantons particularly dear and would not wish to send you away without a better idea of how your love may best serve Mother Church. So present yourself on the morrow, as I have directed, and we shall proceed from there.”

Ignaz’s face had cycled through crestfallen frowns and almost trembling smiles of hope while Larry had spoken. He ended on the latter. “Yes, Your Eminence. Your words shall be our law.” With a swift nod, he bowed himself back and in the direction of his men.

Who were being impeded by a thin fringe of militia and Burgundians, backed by the sergeant of the regulars. Larry looked for Ruy: he had joined Sharon over by the Russians in an attempt to forge enough of a conversational link to explain the misunderstanding and calm them. A few gusty laughs from the horsemen told Mazzare that Ruy was succeeding in his soldier-to-soldier communicative efforts. Larry turned toward the militiamen. “Stand aside, my sons: these Swiss are our friends and devoted to the pope.”

The besontsin guards eyed them darkly. The Burgundian sergeant looked like he was ready to spit. If a cardinal hadn’t been standing in front of them, Larry had no doubt he would have. “You mean these Protestants?”

Larry felt a flash of anger ring his neck where his collar touched it. “These men have professed themselves as Catholics. But all you need to know is that these Swiss pikemen have been cleared to pass.”

One of the besontsins sneered. “More like Swiss pikeboys.”

Larry saw Ignaz von Meggen turn, red-faced, with his hand moving toward his sword.

A very loud, authoritative voice froze him in mid motion, startled the militia and Burgundians into something approaching attention: “Where did you get the gear?” It was Owen Roe O’Neill, who had just wound his way across the line of commoners, one of his men, Oliver Fitzgerald, in tow. He nodded at the sword that Ignaz had been about to draw.

The young Swiss sounded defiant and pained, all at once. “Our dead fathers and brothers.”

“And how did they die, again?”

“Most of them…defending the pope during the sack of Rome, last year.”

Owen Roe didn’t change the position of his head, but his eyes flicked over to stare at the Burgundians. “So you’d be eager to skewer the sons of men who fought and died for the pope?”

“They did it for coin, Colonel. Might have claimed a different faith to get it, too. Lots of those Alpine valleys are pretty poor.”

Before von Meggen could offer a retort, Owen shook his head. “Not what I heard about the mess in Rome, last year. And I heard it from one who was there, who saw the Pontifical Guard die, almost to a man.”

“Oh,” drawled the Burgundian sergeant, almost dismissively, “and who would that be?”

O’Neill’s eyes were untroubled, but started forward quickly. “You’ll be watching your tongue, lad. Or I’ll be having it out of your head.”

The sergeant looked away. When he spoke, his voice was no longer that of a man barely concealing contempt, but beating a hasty retreat to save what face he could. “I’d still know who saw this sacrifice of the Pontifical Guard.”

A familiar voice came from behind Larry. “Why, that would be my own undeserving self, Sergeant.” Ruy concluded on a smile, then glanced at O’Neill. They exchanged knowing looks.

And suddenly Mazzare understood: this too had been a contingency, had been a planned response to a possible discipline problem among the local troops. Which meant that O’Neill’s very loud voice had been a signal, that this countermove against insolence from the Burgundians and besontsins — neither of whom liked being outplaced (and obviously outclassed) by Sanchez’s and O’Neill’s men — was yet another contingency that they had put in place.

Ruy had fixed the Burgundian sergeant with an intent stare. “In my experience, coin alone does not buy loyalty unto oblivion. Honor, love, integrity: those are the virtues that compel men to serve unto their own death. They are also virtues that Our Savior extolled.”

Sharon had arrived to stand alongside her husband. She looked down the line, chin in the air. “I see we have some genuine Protestants back there. Famous ones, too.” She smiled and waved several modestly-dressed gentlemen forward. “Reverends, I’m sorry I didn’t see you waiting in the main line. I wonder: could we trouble you to shift over into the line for arriving dignitaries?”

Two middle-aged men did as Sharon asked, each followed by an assistant.

Mazzare saw their faces, started, leaned toward Sharon. “Are those –?”

“Not a word yet, Father,” Sharon whispered out of the side of her mouth. As the newly detached group came forward, she raised her voice so all could hear. “Reverends, I wonder if I could trouble you to share your names and credentials?”

“Certainly,” replied the older one. “I am Johann Gerhard, Senior Professor of Theology at Jena and not entirely unknown to Cardinal Mazzare, I think!”

He and Larry exchanged smiles.

“And my shy English friend here has less confidence in his French, but he is –”

“– but he is quite capable of speaking for himself, Johann!” The younger man turned to Sharon, made a deep bow, and, in Oxbridge English, announced, “The Reverend John Dury, Ambassador Nichols. A disciple of Calvin. My credentials are — dubious, Madame.”

Larry smiled “A unifier of faiths is frequently an itinerant: hard to come by a title that way. But we know your work, Reverend, and are glad you consented to come.”

“So,” Sharon concluded, turning to the Burgundian sergeant with a smile that was anything but one of gladness. “Since you seem determined to ascertain the religion of the people who want to enter Besançon, here are a half dozen Lutherans and Calvinists who also happen to be our guests. Are you going to detain and question them?”

The Burgundian sergeant stammered but ultimately fell quiet.

Owen Roe O’Neill came level with the soldier and patted that worthy on the shoulder. “A wise reply. Now, find such militiamen as can be trusted to help all these men to find lodgings.”

 

This entry was posted in 1632Snippet, Snippets. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to 1636 The Vatican Sanctions – Snippet 05

  1. Bjorn Hasseler says:

    …and we have a Calvinist.

  2. Tweeky says:

    I wonder if Turnip Nose and Otto are connected in some way to Pedro Dollor?

  3. Lyttenburgh says:

    “I am Johann Gerhard, Senior Professor of Theology at Jena and not entirely unknown to Cardinal Mazzare, I think!”

    […]

    “The Reverend John Dury, Ambassador Nichols. A disciple of Calvin.”

    You know, I get, why these characters are here – but only plot-wise. They are here primarily to show us that not all Muslims Calvinists are terrorists like Osama ben Laden Michel Ducos and his gang or fanatics, and that Lutherans are totally not anti-Semitic like Luther. That’s why they are here in the first introductory scene.

    At the same time – if these two (and any others who’d join them in the future) fine members of the Reformed Church won’t use it as a platform to address all grievances past and present, to lambast, criticize, diss and poke in the eye the Church of Rome – that would be beyond anyone’s belief.

    Because Urban totally deserves that, by calling this… “ecumenical” council or something, while still not clearing up his own house. He’d be presenting his points (whatever they are) from the positions of weakness, as an exile. All non-Catholics attending would have a field day with that. As they should.

    • Bret Hooper says:

      “As they should.”

      Why exactly should they be so crass as to reply to Urban’s olive branch with renewed hostility and belligerence? Yes, the Catholic Church has some history to be ashamed of, AS DO MOST PROTESTANT CHURCHES as well. But both Catholics and Protestants also have much history to be proud of, as do Agnostics, Atheists, Bahais, Buddhists, Confucians, Hindus, Humanists, Islamics, Jews, Shintoists, Taoists, Unitarian-Universalists, Zoroastrians, and any others I may have missed mentioning. The great majority of each of the above are good people, albeit none are perfect, and a small minority of each are bad.

      While a person is alive (as was Urban VIII at that time) more success in overcoming his or her faults will come from praising the good things s/he has done than by concentrating on the things s/he has done that were wrong.

      • Bret Hooper says:

        “Because Urban totally deserves that, . . . while still not clearing up his own house.”

        Wait until Urban becomes a perfect human being before giving him any credit for doing anything right! Don’t encourage him to do better unless and until such encouragement is no longer needed!

        (Be prepared for a very long wait.)

        • Lyttenburgh says:

          “Wait until Urban becomes a perfect human being before giving him any credit for doing anything right! Don’t encourage him to do better unless and until such encouragement is no longer needed!”

          Nah. Ecumenism is next to useless even today. The only utility to have it is to chip away the well meaning doubter and compromisers from other denominations, who’d join the more prominent and powerful one “partner” in said process. Like the RCC.

          • Bret Hooper says:

            “Ecumenism is next to useless even today. The only utility to have it is to chip away the well meaning doubter and compromisers from other denominations, who’d join the more prominent and powerful one “partner” in said process. Like the RCC.”

            Albeit I have read that the RCC holds that anyone who has been baptized a Catholic is Catholic for life, I know of several who consider themselves ex-Catholics. Two examples: One girl I went to high school with converted from Catholic to Methodist, and married a Catholic boy only after at he, at her behest, converted to Methodist. At Balticon last May I met an author, some of whose stories I have read and enjoyed and you probably have too, who is an ex-Catholic. I have also met some who have converted to Catholicism, for example Dorothy Day.

            The point is that while no church or other religious organization is 100% good or 100% bad, ecumenism, which involves getting acquainted with people of other religions and experiencing their friendship and good will, is a powerful discourager of bigotry. How can I hate Catholics or Jews or Protestants or . . . when I have come to know and love so many of them? I shouldn’t and I can’t.

            LOVE WORKS BETTER.

            • Lyttenburgh says:

              “The point is that while no church or other religious organization is 100% good or 100% bad, ecumenism, which involves getting acquainted with people of other religions and experiencing their friendship and good will…”

              Full stop here. This is not what ecumenism is. That is:

              Ecumenism, from the Greek word “oikoumene,” meaning “the whole inhabited world,” is the promotion of cooperation and unity among Christians. The Ecumenical movement today has been brought about by the conviction that a divided Christianity is a scandal to the world.

              Underlying the Catholic Church’s pursuit of ecumenism is its recognition that elements of sanctification and truth are found in other churches (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium).

              It can be said that the Ecumenicity of the Church is another way of expressing her radical catholicity or universality (See Guidelines for Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue 1967).

              Since the 1960’s, following Vatican II, breakthrough agreements have been reached between Catholics and other communions including statements on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry.

              The USCCB’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs participates in more than a dozen ongoing ecumenical dialogues and consultations

              Being “good” or “bad” has no place here – only being “right” or wrong. As long as RCC holds that it is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there are no others that hold that title – there is nothing really to talk about, besides their conversion. End of story.

              ” How can I hate Catholics or Jews or Protestants or . . . when I have come to know and love so many of them? I shouldn’t and I can’t.

              LOVE WORKS BETTER.”

              No one asks you yo hate, Bret. Love is, indeed, the only thing that’s required from you.

              But let me ask you sometheing – do you believe that your Faith (denomination/Church/Creed/Whatever) is the right one? But to say that “we’re the ones who have it exactly right” logically implies that other Christians are at least somewhat wrong in their theology. So they are at least somewhat heretical, because that’s what “heresy” means (holding false theological beliefs).

              And if the others are wrong, to various degrees (some more than others), then those who believe themselves to be in the right should be trying to persuade them of this, so that they can realize it and come to the fullness of the Faith.

              If you trly love other people of different creeds, then precisely because you love them you must tell them the truth: They are currently in heresy and/or schism, and this is dangerous to one’s soul, so they should return to the [Right Church].

              • Bret Hooper says:

                Back in 1953, I joined the Universalist Church because of two clauses in the Washington Declaration, which they were using as a declaration of faith:
                “[We believe in] the authority of truth known or to be known.” which is to say that we hold no ‘sacred truth’ doctrine not subject to abandonment in the event that it is proven to be false, and
                the ‘liberty clause,’ “Neither this nor any form of words shall be imposed as a creedal test.” which supports the right and duty of everyone to examine issues of faith and decide for him- or herself what to believe.

                Since the 1961 merger of the Universalist Church of America with the American Unitarian Association I have remained a UU because I value my right to do my own thinking, and to change my opinion if and when the evidence requires it.

                One of my opinions is that you are entitled to those same rights, so I have no right, much less duty, to tell you what you must believe.

              • Bret Hooper says:

                I strongly doubt that anyone, including me, is correct in all her or his beliefs. If I am correct in my belief that my church is the right one for me, it does not logically follow that my church is the right one for everyone.

              • Lyttenburgh says:

                “…“Neither this nor any form of words shall be imposed as a creedal test.” which supports the right and duty of everyone to examine issues of faith and decide for him- or herself what to believe.”

                Huh… An excuse to profess agnosticism while still having a luxury to call oneself a Christian and hope for salvation… This makes one feel good, salves one’s conscience… but completely misses the point of what it mean to be a Christian. A typical thing in the most of more recent Protestant denominations, who, understandably, lack both the apostolic succession and viable, defensible doctrine.

                Have you asked yourself – what’s the source of your Faith? What do you really believe in? For the down-timer heroes of the novel, be they Pope Urban VIII, Cardinal Bedmar or Ruy Sanchez, there is already known answer. Their counterparts from other creeds – likewise. 2+2 = 4, that’s simple. You do not have to listen to “other opinions”, that might tell you that, in fact, it equals “3.99999999999” or “-17”, or “59/93” – because none of them, no matter how close, is “4”. This basic axiomatic formulas like 2+2=4 are the bedrock of other calculations upon which the grand whole is dependant. The grand whole in the theological case means the Life Eternal for everyone.

                “I strongly doubt that anyone, including me, is correct in all her or his beliefs. If I am correct in my belief that my church is the right one for me, it does not logically follow that my church is the right one for everyone.”

                Who talks about *you*? You are just one of the many – the real question is whether you believe your church is correct in it’s doctrine. Does it not offer the universal true recipe for Salvation then? If you really believe your denomination to be the true Church then you should be trying to convert all others to it, lest you are showing that you do not in fact love other people like a Christian and do not wish for them to be saved.

                Or are you ding it not because you really Believe, but out of habit? Because it’s a Right Thing To Do? You just go on with the rituals which mean nothing to you, because That’s The Way?

              • Bret Hooper says:

                “An excuse to profess agnosticism while still having a luxury to call oneself a Christian . . .”

                I need no such: I have never called myself a Christian, nor wanted to, for the simple reason that I have never been and could never be Christian. Albeit I consider the Jewish prophet Yeshua bar Miriam (Jesus) a man worthy of a lot of respect, I cannot believe that he was God incarnate because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that all supposed gods are solely products of human imagination. Preponderance of evidence is not rigorous proof, so I am technically an agnostic, but for all prectical purposes an atheist. Raphael LaTaster to the contrary notwithstanding, I remain convinced that Jesus actually existed, and therefore he was not a god.

              • Lyttenburgh says:

                “I need no such: I have never called myself a Christian, nor wanted to, for the simple reason that I have never been and could never be Christian”.

                The last thing is unlikely. Everyone can become one.

                “Albeit I consider the Jewish prophet Yeshua bar Miriam (Jesus) a man worthy of a lot of respect, I cannot believe that he was God incarnate because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that all supposed gods are solely products of human imagination.”

                So you are materialist?

                “Preponderance of evidence is not rigorous proof, so I am technically an agnostic, but for all prectical purposes an atheist. Raphael LaTaster to the contrary notwithstanding, I remain convinced that Jesus actually existed, and therefore he was not a god.”

                So you actually have no idea how would a religious people (especially – the religious people of the past) think and view the world? Also – you admit that you have no idea how the “ecumenism” actually works, right?

                That’s what I tried to do – to present you and everyone else with quandaries that ought to be tackled at this “ecumenical colloquium”. Long story short – nothing good.

      • Lyttenburgh says:

        “Why exactly should they be so crass as to reply to Urban’s olive branch with renewed hostility and belligerence?”

        I’m sorry – are you aware of the little something know as Religious Wars? About all ink and blood wasted in it? Do you think things like that could be easily forgotten and the entire colloquy will turn into one jolly family?

        And what does this “olive branch” really mean? Will the Pope of Rome renounce his superiority in the spiritual matters and modify the Catholic doctrine to accommodate other denominations attending? If not – this is not really a “peace”.

        “But both Catholics and Protestants also have much history to be proud of, as do Agnostics, Atheists, Bahais, Buddhists, Confucians, Hindus, Humanists, Islamics, Jews, Shintoists, Taoists, Unitarian-Universalists, Zoroastrians, and any others I may have missed mentioning.”

        Don’t bother mentioning them. You know what makes a Believer? A belief in Truth of one’s faith. You can’t really compromise that. This being 17th c. and everything – not killing people of other denomination (let alone – of other faith) would be an improvement. But to simply shut up and not to gloat over the fact, How Mighty Have Fallen? No, just no!

        • Bret Hooper says:

          “You know what makes a Believer? A belief in Truth of one’s faith.”

          Granted, some Believers are Fanatics. Fanatics in general seem to take it for granted that their interpretation of their faith is God’s interpretation, and therefore infallible. Often Fanatics seem to believe they are called to do God’s work. (I have on occasion asked someone who claimed to be ‘doing God’s work’ why? Is God out sick this week? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of why God isn’t doing His job, so a human has to do it for Him.)

          But there are Believers who are not Fanatics. There may have been a larger percentage of Fanatics in the 1630s than today, but the Fanatics did not constitute 100% of Believers then. Even as early as 1210-1226, the Roman Catholic Francis of Assisi was clearly a true Believer, but not a Fanatic.

          It seems to me much more likely that those Protestants who came to the meeting would have been the ones smart enough to be seeking peace and better understanding between Catholics and Protestants.

          • Lyttenburgh says:

            “Granted, some Believers are Fanatics. Fanatics in general seem to take it for granted that their interpretation of their faith is God’s interpretation, and therefore infallible. “

            How can one be a Beliver and do not belive that one’s interpretation based on the Doctrine is not the right one? Even as of today, different denominations believe in different things. And all of them they can’t be right. Therefore one of them must be right, and ALL OTHERS must be wrong. So yes, either you are heretical or “they” are heretical. One or the other.

            But one thing that is definitely not possible would be for everyone to be equally right.

            • Bret Hooper says:

              “And all of them they can’t be right. Therefore one of them must be right, and ALL OTHERS must be wrong.

              No, it does NOT follow that because all of them they can’t be right. Therefore one of them must be right Maybe all of them are at least partly wrong!

              • Lyttenburgh says:

                “No, it does NOT follow that because all of them they can’t be right. Therefore one of them must be right Maybe all of them are at least partly wrong!”

                Are you saying that there is no True Faith then? Is this some sort of weird Gnosticism-Atheism mix? How can you follow a creed which you do not believe to be a True One?

              • Lyttenburgh says:

                “Maybe all of them are at least partly wrong!”

                Maybe because of this approach people tend to view Unitarian Universalists as not even a Protesntant denomination but, instead, a club for people who are “spiritual but not religious” ™? Hence the “universalist” part.

              • Bret Hooper says:

                “. . . people tend to view Unitarian Universalists as not even a Protesntant denomination but, instead, a club for people who are “spiritual but not religious” ™?”

                Probably for some of us; for others (including me) religious but not spiritual.

                “Hence the “universalist” part.”

                “Universalist” originated with the belief in universal salvation, that no one was condemned to eternal torture, but rather, would eventually be saved. and “Unitarian” with the belief that “God is one,” not three-in-one, back when the Unitarian and Universalist churches were Christian denominations.

              • Lyttenburgh says:

                “and “Unitarian” with the belief that “God is one,” not three-in-one, back when the Unitarian and Universalist churches were Christian denominations.”

                Oh. So you deny the Trinity? This alone should have disqualified your denomination from being Christian in the first place.

                And the idea that “anyone will be saved – eventually” is a lukewarm placebo, that provides an awful lot of justification for all sorts of crap.

        • Bret Hooper says:

          “I’m sorry – are you aware of the little something know [sic] as Religious Wars? About all ink and blood wasted in it?”

          Yes, I have read about the “Religious Wars” and I have read that they were really territorial wars with religion falsely claimed as justification. Occasionally, perhaps, some (maybe ½ or ¼ of 1%) of the wealth taken from the conquered territory was given to a church as a fig leaf for the naked greed of the conqueror.

          And God wants you to send me most of your money.

    • dave o says:

      troll confuses opinion and fact again. Try waiting until these guys opinions are expressed before you put words in their mouths

      • Lyttenburgh says:

        “troll confuses opinion and fact again. “

        Where am I doing that, o wise dave o? :) Also – you keep calling me “troll”, and yet I’m not calling you back thousand and one names that you truly deserve for you ignorance and/or cowardice.

        “Try waiting until these guys opinions are expressed before you put words in their mouths”

        Where am I doing that? Here’s what I said:

        “At the same time – if these two (and any others who’d join them in the future) fine members of the Reformed Church won’t use it as a platform to address all grievances past and present, to lambast, criticize, diss and poke in the eye the Church of Rome – that would be beyond anyone’s belief. “

        I’m just hoping they would act realistically – not betting on that. Looks like it’s you who are putting your own thoughts into mine mind! :)

    • Bjorn Hasseler says:

      If I may, only Dury is a member of the Reformed church. Gerhard is not. ‘Reformed’ refers only to Calvinism, not to Lutheranism or the other branches of the Reformation.

      • Lyttenburgh says:

        Yes, he is. I made a mess when I wrote “if these two (and any others who’d join them in the future) fine members of the Reformed Church….”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *