Re: The Brithenig Page

[John Schilke <schilkej@ohsu.EDU>]

Greetings all!
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
> same.
	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!  
Carry on!!!

> 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.
> 
> Ray.
		But I hope we don't take ourselves TOO seriously; this is 
good fun.
	Good wishes to all for 1998!
		John