Jump to content

thesmellypocket

Member
  • Content Count

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

517 Legendary

6 Followers

About thesmellypocket

  • Rank
    Shop Owner
  • Birthday 09/15/1869

Contact Methods

  • Minecraft Username
    thesmellypocket

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England

Character Profile

  • Character Name
    Br. Philip Pius Coppinger
  • Character Race
    Heartlander

Recent Profile Visitors

3,010 profile views
  1. ‘God can save the sinners we are, but not the Saints we pretend to be.’-Father Humbert, O.S.J. (Pictured: Saint Kristoff hears Confessions.) Friends. Are you tired of noblemen who care more about flaunting their vanity than saving their souls? Are you tired of Bishops who care more about political gain than Charity for the faithful? Do you think that the salvation of a single precious soul is more important than all the elections and senatorial debates in the world? Then you may be the kind of man at home at the Oratory. The Oratory, based in Helena, is a house of priests and novices, living in a monastic manner but under no monastic vows, bound together by pure, voluntary love, and existing solely for the servitude of ordinary people. Through preaching, prayer and penance, the threefold outpourings of Divine Love, we hope to reform morals, en-kindle pure love and bring hope to the masses. We are at war; every man, woman and child is a combatant. And it’s not any Wood Elf who is our enemy in this particular war. It is Iblees. Therefore, let us go forth, like knights of old, armed with prayer and humility, and together purge iniquity from within ourselves! Rule of the Oratory ‘For truly, the world was corrupted. But lo, God is merciful.’ -Gospel 5:10-11. (Pictured: Saint Jude in meditation.) The Oratory has no formalised rule, since there are no vows beyond those of a religious priest. However, these principles exist: I.The first duty and call of the Oratorian is the salvation of souls. II.The Oratorian shall wear the simple cassock. Between them, there shall be an equality of dress, and he shall prefer this plain and glorious vestment, to any earthly gown or crown. III.The Oratorian is called to refuse any office beyond that of priest. Only on the special and continued insistence of the High Pontiff himself, can the Oratorian become a Cardinal, much less a Bishop. IV.The bond of the Oratory is Charity. There is no vow of obedience to the Provost, but love alone holds the fathers and brothers together. If you do not see God in the beggar, you will not see Him at the Altar. V.The Oratory is bound to his location. The Oratory are not a religious Order with different branches in different cities, but live in their place, and are independent, being THE Oratory. Oratorians can and are even encouraged to venture out in need, but always remain based in the house. VI.Oratorians are encouraged to live out a modest lifestyle, and live frugally, although there is no Vow of Poverty. There will be no opulence except for Charity to God and man. VII.Oratorians are apolitical. They do not accept political office or vote in elections. If they appear in public meetings, they are there only to offer prayer. Only if the civil authorities oppress the truth Faith can there be direct political action, or if the Pontiff should order such action of the Oratorians. VIII.The Oratorian will not shrink, under pain of death, from uttering his firm conviction that the Canonist Faith is the true Faith: the same Faith as of Horen, Owyn, Siegmund and Godfrey. All other religions are either honestly searching for truth but partially in error, or totally false and disordered. He is therefore prepared for martyrdom. IX.Finally, the Oratorian shall have no trouble calling himself the Slave of God, and belonging entirely to Him through ordination, out of love. Structure ’The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’ -Proverbs 1:2 (Pictured: High Priest Clement blesses new priests.) Provost: The leader of the Oratory, elected every five years by the Fathers. There is no Vow of Obedience to him, but he has the power of expelling unsuitable members from the community. He is a first among equals, not a dictator, relying on love and prayer to advance his ministry and unity. Father: An ordained member, or priest, of the Oratory. He is called to offer the Sacraments regularly, to preach and to pray the Breviary, and to help the Provost train Novices. Novice: A brother who wears the cassock and is undergoing formation for the priesthood. Deacon: A ‘permanent’ brother who wears the cassock and is given licence to preach, but is not ordained. He can be unmarried and live with the Brothers, or be married and live apart, albeit usually nearby. Spirituality and Saints ‘My wealth is the true wealth.’ – Virtue 2:5. (Pictured: Saint Catherine with Alms) Most of our spirituality follows the Judite tradition, holding great reverence for Jude’s writings, as well as those of Father Humbert, O.S.J. That Humbert is known to us simply as ‘our Cardinal’, since his ideal of divine slavery, and his model of monastic life and priesthood, is an example that we hope will bear fruit in us. We celebrate according to the Judite Rite. Others Saints and holy people we revere include: Saint Julia, our parish patron, whom we call Queen of our Hearts and Mother of Mankind. We seek to imitate her ten principal virtues. Saint Kristoff, priest and martyr, in his courage and pastoral care. High Pontiff Blessed Jude I, for his wisdom and scholarly disposition. Venerable Julia of Haense, O.S.C., a fiery nun who spread charity throughout the land. Adela Pieta, O.S.J., the lately dead Abbess, who renounced the wealth of the Empire to become a daughter of God, and was martyred. Apply ((please contact TotusTuus #3901 on discord. -Father Philip, Provost, Cong. Orat.-
  2. ’To Brother Roderick, Thy most excellent Thesis has been, as thou hast clearly shewed, inspired by the spirit of God, through the intercession of that most glorious monastic, Saint Jude. I just wished to heartily commend thy writing of late, which I will put with the other Judite writings, for Judite though you not be, the spirit of Jude liveth and reigneth in thee. Unfortunately commitments to my flock as Bishop, and to my offices in the Church, has kept me from embracing fully the monastic life. Nevertheless, I still wish to found an Oratory in Helena, with priests and brothers living together: monastic in nature and priestly in duty. If thou art interested in such an idea, I have attached a plan for the Oratory, approved by Daniel VI, for thy reading. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AcNieCEvrB7M_tI9dgisqPWSElfMwyn4Lzl6IVhdrn4/edit Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. Cardinal Pruvia.’
  3. Father Humbert, O.S.J. smiles from the seven skies to see the Judites renewed in Haense, and on Mother Adela, whom he remembers as a little girl whom he taught how to pray and Confess.
  4. With the Sede Vacante, Cardinal Philip takes the liberty of accepting the application. It finishes: ‘Report to me at the Basilica in Helena. Your Obedient Servant, Cardinal Philip Pius Coppinger, Prelate of the Priesthood.’
  5. Cardinal Philip Pius Coppinger seems to be deep in internal prayer. He is wearing a simple cassock, with no pretension of status or wealth. The other noticeable thing about him is his youth: he is perhaps only 21. He seems to mutter something about his spiritual mentor, Humbert, and then Saint Julia. At length, he speaks powerfully and with a dogged stoicism, belying his inexperience: 'Are we not going to start with a prayer?!' He insists. 'Saint Julia, pray for us. Grant us, by the mercy of God, thy angelic sweetness, thy blind obedience, thy profound humility, thy ardent charity, and thy divine wisdom. Now, brothers in God. I think the spirit of God must guide us in these proceedings. If God should choose me I know it must be His will: for there can be none as plainly unsuitable as I, who am all too young, all too immoderate, and all too rabblerousing. That being said, there is one among us who is clearly suitable in every respect, and the entreaties I have made to God furthermore confirm it in my heart. That is Cardinal Avalain. His stout service to our beloved Daniel recommends him: and which is more, the love of my spiritual father Humbert makes him of especial regard to me. From the beginning he has been a friend to reformist and moralistic tendancies everywhere, so therefore I have no hesitation whatsoever in casting my vote for him. Whatever God wills, gentlemen.' He resolves with an awesome certainty and a simple nod.
  6. “Mr. Hershire is an excellent man, I will vouch for him,” says the Bishop of Helena, Philip Coppinger.
  7. THE ARCHBISHOPRIC OF KLAGENFURT In 1216, one of the final acts of Pope Innocent III was to authorise the Dominican Order. This was to have vast and unintended consequences for Klagenfurt, which was considered to be one of the mostly bad run and corrupt Archdioceses in Christendom. Whilst the pews grew gradually empty, in heart if not physically, the Archbishop and the great monastics grew fat and rich, barely, if at all, living by their various rules. Learning and literacy were rarely seen in the country, with some key clergymen, it is said, not having enough Latin learning to read the Vulgate Bible. There was even a scandal of sodomy among a priory of monks, who were de-frocked and flogged for their iniquity by the new...Pro-Domincan Archbishop in 1256. Archbishop Dominic Donnaruma, an eccentric and brilliant Italian accounted by many as a Saint, invited the Dominicans over in large numbers. Ungiven to compromise, by fervent and truthful investigation he purged the Archdiocese of corruption, and filled the pews once more. Devotion to the most Holy Rosary exploded. In 1277, the Pope even approved a new Dominican-run university which has since gained a reputation alike to Oxford or Paris. This was a religious revival on a national scale, and it was one man and his favour for a new religious Order that had made it so. About a century later, a new Dominic confronts a different problem. The new Archbishop of the same name as his predecessor knows that the learning of the priests, monks and nuns of the country is very great indeed. Reams of brilliant scholastic treatises flood the shelves, whilst bold new ideas and debates take place at the University of St. Dominic. But popular devotion has grown stagnant. Corruption and hypocrasy once again slowly grips the Church. And now the peace is threatened by an uncertain succession. Dominic knows he must act with a like courage to his namesake. A Klagfurtian at heart, and a choleric not given to compromise, Dominic is driven toward the preservation of peace, the flourishing of learning, and the revival of piety.
  8. Brother Philip Pius Coppinger, the scholarly Acolyte, nerds out over this most excellent work. ‘Deo gratias! God save the Auditor!’ He then pens a quick note to the Auditor’s Office: ‘Your Excellency, May the Grace of our Lord God be with thee always. I wished to congratulate both thyself and the High Pontiff on the conclusion of this Horenian effort. I was wondering if some provision could be made for Deacons. I know permanent Deacons has never really ‘took off’ as a concept in the Church before, but, due to the general absence of clergy in many areas, certainly in those I minister to, I am afeared they may be necessary; that there be permanent Deacons with right to marry, instead of having the Vow of Celibacy – only Obedience would be necessary. I am thankful, however, that the abominable practice of married priests is now once-and-for-all irreversibly banished from Holy Mother Church. Thy Humble Servant, Philip Pius Coppinger, Seminarian.’
  9. On True Liturgical MUSIC A CALL FOR SOLEMNITY; A REBUKE OF CERTAIN INNOVATIONS I.A Word on Other Traditions (Akritians, Ruskans, etc.) A short note is necessary before I proceed. When I refer to the music of the Liturgy, I am referring to the main Pontifical Rites of the Church, and not to that of Ruskan Orthodoxy, or the Liturgy in Akritian and other languages. I recognise that these have their own solemnity and beauty, and do not mean to denigrate them when I speak of Chant and Polyphony as the one benefitting music for the Sacred Liturgy. This will concern itself solely with the main Liturgy in Flexio and Common. II.On the Two Permissible Forms Tradition, both of the High Pontiffs and of the Saints, has handed down to us two main forms of liturgical music, which I call the Two Permissible Forms: namely, Chant and Polyphony. Chant, also known as Judite Chant (Although it did not originate with Saint Jude, it has been his followers that have perfected the art) or Plainsong, is simple, solemn and beautiful. It remains the main form of Liturgical music, and I would say it may even date back to the time of the Prophet Owyn, if not the Prophet Siegmund. The rich variety of Chants which have been composed to match dozens of Psalms and antiphons, make it a deep liturgical treasure. It can be called truly, easy to learn and hard to master, in that there have been masterful specialists of Chant that have explored its true form in an ever more sharp manner, but that most Chants can be picked up and sung by ordinary people. They require no specialist roles, except a Cantor. This makes them exceedingly simple, and yet at once profoundly beautiful. They are thus fit for the Sacred Liturgy, since they show that seriousness that would befit the Altar of God and public Liturgical celebration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JN9Sdv_uXQ [!]Attached is the Plainsong notation for ‘Vidi Aquam’, ‘composed by unknown, but this refined by Father Humbert, O.S.J.’ Now the second form is Polyphony; that is to say music textured with two or more lines of simultaneous but different music. A range of liturgical pieces have been masterfully composed into Polyphony, which seems to vary more, and be more glorious, than Chant. It also often requires a professional choir, or a very good amateur one, since the specialist roles and complex layers make it much harder to sing than Chant; indeed, whilst Chant is usually sung without an organ, Polyphonic music almost demands one be played. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yT0kLA6DHA[!]Attached is the musical notation for a composition of the ‘Kyrie.’ This is ‘composed by Father Humbert, O.S.J.’ Now the advantage of Chant is comprehensibility: some have felt Polyphony to obscure hard to follow in terms of words, thus obscuring the meaning of the hymn. Which is more, they say that such innovation is impious, but that we should rather keep to the traditions of our forefathers. But I would count it as perfectly valid, owing to its sheer glory, and the fact that it is more than fitting for Sacred Liturgy, not being the music of the common world. So long as Polyphony is composed and sung well, it can be so glorious as to out-shine Chant entirely, owing to the range of tones and complexity which Plainsong cannot hope to match. III.Rejection of Certain Innovations Having upheld these two, I will not falter in proclaiming those common instruments of the day utterly bankrupt when used in the Liturgy. I will not cease from condemning the use of lutes, guitars, pianos, lyras and other common and base instruments in churches. These would make the music of the Church worldly music, when in fact I should think that we should make the music other-worldly; we are talking of the Altar of God, and only the utmost solemnity and seriousness is permissible. If we allow popular music to enter into the Liturgy, we swiftly become a laughing stock, subject to the whims of the general public, and lifts not the heart of man to God, but brings it down to the level of the world. Therefore, if any man should enter these instruments onto the Church, let him be thrown into the sea, let his damnable guitars be cast into the fire, and let his pianos be crushed into dust. And of his flutes and lutes and whatsoever else I will not even begin!
  10. Second Epistle to the Qalasheen, Concerning the Scrolls I.Introduction. Continuing to Wish Blessings and Friendship. Outlining Qalasheen Objections. To our Qalasheen brethren in blessed Horen the Prophet, greetings. Over this past month, I have considered the response to my first Epistle, and have further endeavoured to learn your country’s language. I wish to make clear that I have nothing but good intentions toward your people, for which I continue to pray for the exaltation and health thereof. My wish is that, with a firm conviction as to the truth of the Canonist Faith, out of love I may correct error. For nations are not built on opinions, neither mosques nor cathedrals: but on conviction alone can greatness be built. And on my conviction I have resolved to live and die. It seems the objections to my first thesis of late, overwhelmingly come in two forms. I)The first is to say that the Canonist doctrine has ‘changed’, whereas those of the Rashiduns has not; that the Canonist doctrine has been corrupted, whilst the Rashidun doctrine remains pure. But I will presently refute this argument. II)The second is the more serious argument; namely that which dealt more squarely with my original point. I pointed out that, in the Scrolls given to us by the Prophets, the Prophetic authority and origin of the Church is clearly shewed. Suspicions have arisen that the Church somehow altered or changed these documents, which will be clearly refuted in this latest Epistle, which should clear the air, and therefore show the authenticity and truth of Canonist claims to legitimacy. These arguments, therefore, will I tend to refute in this Epistle, which should calm any fears that I have fabricated in the slightest, but have shewed only the authentic documents, which shew clearly that the Prophets which the Rashidun accept instituted the Church by Divine commandment. II.On The Unchanging Development of Doctrine. Firstly, to this argument that the Canonist Church has changed in her essential beliefs, and that the Rashiduns have remained the same. Now, firstly, I must mention that my original argument was mistook. I wrote: ‘I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, with the whole of human history as my witness, that never has there been an institution governed with so much rampant folly, so much wanton extravagance, and so much thoughtless malice as the Church of the Canon. And yet, for all that, she has survived countless wars, schisms and heresies: for all of, and, in spite of, all the olds, God truly has NOT repented: He has, in the end, always preserved His Church and her divine office. ‘ This was taken as an admission that the Church’s essential doctrine has been corrupted; which I do not hold. Rather, I hold that often-times her ministers have failed, but that the doctrine has never been corrupted, owing to the fact that God has preserved it from His own glory. I will show now that the essential doctrine of the Canonist Church has remained unchanged and pure, and that only the way it is expressed, or rather, the fullness of its detail, has changed. You will see, rather, that without the authority of the Church, that truth is never firmly established, and that the Rashidun doctrine has often-times varied from era to era for reasons I will explain. Take, for instance, on the veneration of Saints. I will show three historical documents to show that the essential doctrine on this matter has been preserved over centuries, despite all the corrupted folly which has often governed the Church. This manuscript, written in 1424, or perhaps even earlier, is the exact same as the next one, written some time in the second half of the same century. Now, the next manuscript is written several centuries later, sometime in the 16th century, or perhaps the early 17th, yet the words remain the same. Now, this last document I will show is the current Catechism, promulgated in His Holiness’, Daniel VI’s, last Pontificate. It will become abundantly clear and historically certain that at no time has the essential Canonist Faith changed; it has the same traits as it did when it was founded by the Prophets, and the Faith we believe in now is the same Faith that the Exalted Prophets founded. Now, the historians among you will note that 1424 is within the lifetime of Exalted Siegmund. So we are looking at a document that could only have been produced with Prophetic approval. The fact that this document continues to be valid, and has never been contradicted by later dogma clearly proves that the Church of the Canon has not wavered by the divine doctrines and authority given to her by the Prophets. Now, this first document of 1424 says on the Creator: ‘The most fundamental concept of the True Faith is a rigorous monotheism, called the Doctrine of One. The Creator is architect of the universe and progenitor of humankind. He is unique and inherently one, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.’ (https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/86410-the-faith-in-a-simplistic-view-just-to-give-a-small-idea/?tab=comments#comment-753624) Now notice how the substance has remained entirely the same, despite at least a century of distance: ‘The most fundamental concept of the True Faith is a rigorous monotheism, called the Doctrine of One. The Creator is architect of the universe and progenitor of humankind. He is unique and inherently one, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.’ (https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/151145-dogma-and-principles-of-the-church/?tab=comments#comment-1427870 see section: The Dogmatic Tenants) Compare this to the current doctrine, seen in the Catechism: ‘God, sometimes called “the Creator,” “Godani,” or “the Lord,” is the single omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. It is He who drives the motion of all things, and who is the source of all goodness and righteousness. He spoke the Holy Scrolls to the Exalted, and He rewards virtuous mortals in the Seven Skies. God has no aspects, no internal divisions, and no physical form.’ (https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/183892-the-catechism-of-the-canonist-church/?tab=comments#comment-1719098) Do you see how the deposit of Faith has been guarded by God? Surely, the way it is expressed here is slightly different: because it is written for the evangelisation and education of peoples, whereas the previous documents are written to outline Dogma in its purity. The essential doctrines of omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence have remained unchanged: and this can be seen with any doctrine of the Church. I dare you to show me any dogmatic pronouncements of the Church that contradicts a previous one. Before you should rush to the printing press, I should mention that I mean Dogma, not Practice. The Church has changed in practice but never in Dogma. For example, she has at some periods permitted married priests, but now does not. But never has there been any dogma prohibiting married priests: instead, the Dogma of the Church has remained silent on this, and the Pontiffs have ruled against them for practical and disciplinary reasons. The essential beliefs: on what the Church is, where she comes from, and what she believes, has remained pure over centuries, and these historical documents bear witness on this doctrine of Monotheism alone. Therefore any accusation that the Canonist doctrine is always changing and that the Rashidun doctrine has remained pure is entirely false. Now, it is the Rashidun doctrine that has changed over centuries: namely because you have no set doctrine. Of course, you have the authority of the Prophets, as we do, and you have your own alleged Prophet, who is supposed by you to have given a final revelation. Yet do you have set doctrine? No, not without religious authority. To the Qali, the only judge in religious matters is personal conscience and his own interpretation of the revelation, making his religion dangerously vulnerable to modernism and doctrinal relativism. I have heard, in my discourse with the Qalsheen, that some believe in the veneration of the Prophets and Saints, and asking them to pray for us, whilst others do not. Well, I would say this. Some have called the veneration of Saints idolatry. So the question is this: either the veneration of Saints is a noble and just practise as our Faith maintains, or it is foul idolatry and deeply sinful behaviour that must be rooted out at all costs. Some Qalsheen are of the first opinion, but a great many of the second. Yet only one can be true; some Caliphs, it must be so, have believed one, whilst some the other. You are not, then, truly a single Faith, but you have as many personal Faiths as you do adherents, for without an infallible judge to render in religious matters, you quickly fall into the clear error of Iconoclasm in many cases, or, as I say, doctrinal relativism. I hope this will satisfy any qualms, and prove that our Faith has remained pure despite all the turmoil of modern and past times. III.On the Infallibility of Scripture. With the doctrinal integrity of the Church upheld, I do not think it a stretch to say that the Divine Revelation of the Prophets has also remained pure in the hands of the Pontiffs. For you alleged that although these texts that I shew clearly prove the authority of the Church, they are as yet clearly altered, and that Church no longer resembles that which was founded by the Prophets, thus spawning the need for another Revelation. This latter point I have already refuted by showing the unchanging character of doctrine. It will be sufficient to say that I have already shown documents from Siegmund’s own time, which could only have been printed and promoted publicly, let alone preserved, with the Prophet’s approval. This clearly shows his backing of the Church, and that he supported each and every doctrine thereof. Now, as a printer and historian by background, I must say that modifications made to texts centuries after the fact are very obvious and cannot possibly be concealed. Therefore, if the Church has at any time altered the Scrolls, then the additions or subtractions are so meaninglessly minor as to not alter in any way the essential meaning of the text. The whole reason the Church has insisted that the Scrolls remain in Flexio is that they be preserved without modification or bias. The Scrolls were given to us in Flexio, and such is the commitment of the Church to textual purity that she will not consent to these Scrolls being in any other language, except that in which we received them. Yet surely it is in our interest that these Scrolls be more widely known and printed? For they confirm the Church’s authority, by making it clear that Owyn and Siegmund founded them. Yet they have remained in the original language, because God would rather preserve the purity of His word, then gain the greater advantage for His Church. Consider your own argument. The historical record literally proves, without a doubt, that Siegmund at least proclaimed, by the earlier dogmas, the Canonist faith to possess only the fullness of truth. Yet you expect us to believe that, for some reason, the Church usurped the authority of the Prophets, and altered their works to make it seem as if they had Divine approval? Despite raising Canonism as the official Faith of the Empire in the 15th century, that the Prophets have been corrupted in their works by power-hungry men? The historical record flatly contradicts every claim you make. The historical record shows the unchanging Dogma of the Church, and that this Dogma was supported and proclaimed by the Prophets as the only true religion. -May the Divine Assistance Remain Always with You- Br. Philip Pius Coppinger. -Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam-
  11. “Show me where the Scroll of Silence, which I quoted here, has changed. The whole reason it is written in Flexio is that it not be subject to change, but be preserved in the original language and text.”
  12. “You are the one claiming that the Prophets are mistaken, not me. I am claiming that they were speaking truth when they vested authority in the Supreme Pontiff. You are claiming that they were lying. You are claiming that the Scrolls, the Word of God, is lying. Not me. Your error is selecting only those parts of Scripture that appeal to YOU, and rejecting those parts that would not do so, and cloaking this by saying that these parts, which you reject, are corruption. (Which you have, I should mention, not in the least demonstrated.)”
  13. “I have accepted that certain prelates of the Church have often-times fallen into corruption, but the Church has never erred in matters of Faith, when she has been speaking with the authority of the Magisterium.” “Godfrey himself accepted that he was only a man: it was his humility that led God to invest him in the Prophethood. Truly, I have not seen a greater prideful arrogance than that which you speak now. Does God make mistakes in whom he picks? Godfrey says that he is a weak, frail and sinful man, but ‘I hath passed on what I have received.’” (Proverbs 1:4) “Would God vest a message in a Prophet for it to be corrupted? The word of God has NOT been corrupted, but was passed on, inviolate. And God, through these Prophets, vested authority in the High Pontiff; he, together with the Church Councils,can alone pronounce in matters of Faith. The Prophets did not give us the Scrolls of themselves, rather, God gave us the Scrolls through them, therefore by ascribing corruption to them, you ascribe corruption to God.” “Which is more, were it merely one Prophet, and were they the lying vipers you would portray them as, but the Prophets and the Saints are in agreement on this matter.” “Show me the error the Prophets made in establishing the priesthood. It did not serve their own interests to humble themselves and go to Confession in ash and sackcloth, and to rely on priests in religious matters. The Qalasheen use this as an excuse to accept only those parts of Revelation that are convenient to them, but pridefully reject those parts that would uphold the authority of the Canon, and force the Caliphs to give up their false power.”
  14. “I would humbly entreat thee, sir, to consult the laws of logic. For two contradictory things cannot be true; there cannot be two true Faiths. Let us take this in simple, logical steps. Firstly, dost thou accept the Prophets Horen, Owyn, Godfrey and Siegmund?”
×
×
  • Create New...