For John, BLUF: Maybe we should all send copies of the Apostles Creed to their Lordships, the Editors of The New York Times. Nothing to see here; just move along.
While a lot of Roman Catholics get confused by the terms Resurrection, Ascension and Assumption, one would expect the nation's Newspaper of Record to get these kinds of things straight. Apparently not. per the Daily Caller the NYT identified the Church of the Holy Seplucher as the place where Jesus is buried. Not according to your average Christian. They believe He rose from the dead, and thus is no longer buried, there or anywhere. You may not believe it, but it is culturally insensitive to suggest that Christians believe he is still buried.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
Edited to correct typos. (Ironic, huh).
"Is", or "was"?
You're usually better than knee-jerkedly re-broadcasting somebody else's ignorant bashing of yet some other body's ignorance.
From the present version of the NYT:
"Nearby, the vast Church of the Holy Sepulcher marking the site where many Christians believe that Jesus was buried, usually packed with pilgrims, was echoing and empty."
I do believe their wording is accurate according to your characterization of what "most Christians believe..." I also believe that not every writer for every publication in this country is required to be a card-carrying, catechism certified member of the Catholic (or other Christian) church. Sometimes people type too quickly, sometimes they don't know some things, and sometimes rapid reading by editors miss subtleties of a few letters here and there.
I don't know about you, but the "buried" part was pretty prominent in my catechisms. (Or maybe Martin Luther has me brainwashed from beyond his grave?) Certain Muslims like to make international cases out of what they perceive to be slights to the prophet Mohammed. This all seems to me like certain Christians feeling like they're falling behind in that regard, and trying to catch up.
Doesn't, to me, reflect well on the religion. Or, put another way--which cheek are all the critics turning when they get all holier-than-thou on this one?
The thing is, their Lordships at the Old Gray Lady changed it in the middle of the night without a correction announcement.
And, Father Martin Luther did have a handle, but unless you are Misery Synod or Little Norwegian you probably were a little too "liberal" in your fetching up. :-)
Regards -- Cliff
Ah, I am falling behind.
I think my indication that Christians, or at least R/Cs sometimes get confused on terminology indicates that I see the need for humor and humility. And, I have not called for any jihad against the MSM, artists or Muslims, so I am trying to stay on the low end of the spectrum. It is just that I expect more of the nation's "Paper of Record".
Regards &mdash Cliff
All fair enough, and I hear you about the bad journalistic form on the un-indicated correction. But, geez, (if that's not too profane), it's not like it was intentional, or left to stand even a few hours.
In the interest of full disclosure, my indoctrination was straight LCA, (both at home and at vacation bible school while staying with the grandparents every summer), and it was pretty much by the book, and by the book I mean that our liturgy and the Roman Catholic liturgy were identical in 99% of the words and the music to the point where I could easily sing along whenever I got dragged to Mass with friends by their Irish Catholic parents who could not let a weekend go, (basically we didn't ring any bells, or let the confirmed skip out on the blood part, but everything would have been exactly as you might have been raised), just like my parents couldn't let one go for us, either, though the LCA has now merged and taken a lot of the starch out of their dogma as well as gone all touchy-feely on the liturgy, so maybe I'm just an anachronism and a little bit behind the times.
Post a Comment