Jump to content
The High Realm of Stormark
Galinn Karisson

Q&A with HH Pope Camillus I (Pt. 2)

Recommended Posts

Due to the success of the first round of Q&A, I have decided to reinstitute this most helpful of resources. You may ask old or new questions (I was unable to obtain the old Q&A's from the ezboard site). So please, I welcome all questions and comments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning To You, Your Holiness,

 

This is a Wonderful Idea !!! . . .

 

Your instituting a Question and Answer Session will be Very Beneficial to all Nations and Citizens who wish to participate!!! . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful morning . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon To You, Your Holiness,

 

I am sure that in due time, someone will think of a question to ask of You . . .

 

Have an absolutely splendiferous afternoon . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning To You, My Gentle Friends,

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that I saw an earlier Post where His Holiness mentioned that indeed His faith was of the Roman Catholic persuasion . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful morning . . . forthwith . . .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majesty,

 

I wondered over the origin of the name "Nidaros". It looks Greek, but I could not see any meaning of the word itself in Greek (but then, my knowledge of Greek is extremely poor). So, please, tell us from where Nidaros' name stems.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon To You, Your Majesty,

 

You have no earthly idea how happy I am to know the origin of the name of Nidaros . . .

 

That is Truly Amazing . . .

 

Thank You So Very Much for Your Gracious Response, Your Majesty . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful afternoon . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nidaros was the old name of Trondheim, Norway, in the middle ages. Nidaros was Northern Europe's most important Christian pilgrimage site during this time, the pilgrims' goal being the Nidaros Cathedral, established as the seat of the archdiocese in 1152 by Nicholas Breakspeare, who later became the only English pope as Adrian IV. The town owed its name to the location at the mouth of the Nidelva river (os = river mouth).

 

Nidaros is also the name of the Medieval Catholic Metropolitan Archdiocese of Norway, which had suffragans in present-day Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Shetland Islands, Scotland and the Isle of Man.

 

After the Catholic Archdiocese was abolished at the Protestant Reformation in 1537, a Lutheran superintendanture, now diocese, with the name of Nidaros was erected in its place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Evening To You, Your Majesty,

 

That detailed explanation is Truly Fascinating!!! . . .

 

Thank You for sharing it with us . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful evening . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems I have my work cut out for me. Thank you for your help Dame Ragnhild, and Your Majesty. I would like to confirm both that I am Roman Catholic, and the name of Nidaros does indeed come from Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim. Good questions! Keep them coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternon To You, Your Holiness,

 

You are Indeed Most Welcome . . .

 

And Most Deserving, As Well . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful afternoon . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Holiness, what is the Church's stance on homosexuality?

 

(I do not mean to spark debate here, I just wish to hear an answer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning To You, Minister Brunnketilsson,

 

Speaking purely from a personal standpoint, from what I have experienced and read, Sir, I would be willing to volunteer the point of view that the Church would not favour the persuasion of homosexuality . . .

 

I would be Honoured if His Holiness would also share His Point of View on this most Delicate Subject . . .

 

Haave a most thoughtful morning . . . forthwith . . .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minister Brunnketilsson,

 

It's a good question. Well, this is the way I interpret the question of homosexuality. There are three parts to this questions: first, a question of nature, second, a question of morality, and third, a question of rights. First, there is the natural question. I believe that homosexuality itself is un-natural, in that same sexes were not meant to bred among the same sex. The second question is morality. Most people justify this by using the Bible, an admirable thing. However, many passages pointed to were not spoken by God, or Christ;they were written by man (Leviticus and St. Paul). Christ in fact never said a word on homosexuality! Yes the Bible is revealed by God, yet it is man's interpritation of the Lord's teachings. Thus, morally, I have said, it's not right, but its not wrong either. Finally, there is a question of rights, both in the Church and in law. I do not believe that any human should be descriminated by because of what they do in bed. Thus, I will not deny any person participation in the Church, so long as they have not committed an offensive act toward the Church.

 

This may be confusing, and it may make people angry, but it is what I believe, and it is what the Church takes as its belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning To You, Your Holiness,

 

I Commend You Highly for Your Magnificent Answer to such a Complex Issue . . .

 

Homosexuality is Indeed a Most Difficult Issue to Comprehend and to Deal With, I must admit . . .

 

Those in the Church, regardless of the Faith, have an especially complicated Stand in this Issue as well . . .

 

So many sides of this Complex Matter must be taken into Consideration, and every twist and turn must be explored . . .

 

All persons should be treated equal in their rights, that is definitely something that is most important . . .

 

Your Most Wise Counsel in this Complex Issue is Truly a Valuable Asset to All Nations and All Citizens . . .

 

We are Deeply Indebted to You for Your Venerable Opinions and Gracious Style of Ruling both the Hoourable Church of Stormark, and the Kingdom of Nidaros . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful morning . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know any practicing catholics, so have not had chance to ask their opinion on this.......

 

people often say, when saying that christianity is wrong, "Jesus was no christian! he was a Jew!".

 

Archbishop Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris, one of those who was noted as a possible choice for Pope during the last elections, is of Jewish birth and this did get people talking about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

 

My interpretation of what is written on this in the Bible is that Christ's death "fullfiled" the Mosaic Law, and thus those practicing Judaism would, if they understood the purpose and meaning of the Law, would not change religion, but simply take it to it's next stage. Indeed, the 1st century Christians seemed to act as if that was the case.

 

But what is the Catholic view point on this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, both good and meaningful questions.

 

First, the "swinging" question. To keep it simple, it is wrong to swing. Why? Because one main tenet of Catholic, and hense UCS, teaching is that marriage confines the act of sexual intercourse only to the two participants in the specific marriage (i.e. only between John and Jane Doe). The concept of swinging is to have sex with another spouse's partner. Thus, not only would this be an afront to Church law, but also it would break the adultery commandment, another UCS founding tenet. Thus, Swinging, as i would interpret it, is not permissible at all to either the UCS or RCC (Roman Catholic Church).

 

The second question, as to the role of Christ, is one of my favorite to discuss. I have often grappled with the question of Christ, and the reaction to him, as well as his place in Judeo-Christianity. It is a very complex issue, one which I could not easily answer. But, i would raher give you my opinion of Christ, and the Church, rather than what i could cut and paste. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish messiah, as proclaimed in Mosaic, and Hebrew Law. Now, yes he did not fulfill the "moshiach" view of the king/general/prophet savior, but he seems to fulfill so much of the other teachings of the savior, that it makes sense to me. Now, I think you make a good point that Christ's position should not have changed the faith and religion of Judaism itself; but there is something more to it. I believe that many of the teachings of Christ and the spread of the message was such that it could not stay within the realm of Judaism and still function fully. I believe that Christianity split from Judaism out of the necessity to fully develop the entire belief around Jesus. To put it more simply, I think that Christianity evolved out of a process of figuring out what had just happened in the aftermath of the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Thus, I believe that it was just a matter of too much conflict of belief being held back by a thin wall of Judaic thinking and law.

 

Ya, that was confusing, and I might have to re-evaluate things as I move on through my spiritual course, but as a human, I just wrote down what made sense to me at this moment. I hope i was able to answer your questions in some form. Thank you for your intrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning To You, Your Holiness,

 

Thank You So Very Much for Your Powerful Answers to those Complex Issues . . .

 

Your Thoughtful Insights are Most Graciously and Generously Shared with us . . .

 

We are all Truly Grateful for Your Masterful and Infinite Wisdom . . .

 

Stormark is Indeed Most Honoured to have the Esteemed Benefit of Your Wise Counsel . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful morning . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, both good and meaningful questions.

 

First, the "swinging" question. To keep it simple, it is wrong to swing. Why? Because one main tenet of Catholic, and hense UCS, teaching is that marriage confines the act of sexual intercourse only to the two participants in the specific marriage (i.e. only between John and Jane Doe). The concept of swinging is to have sex with another spouse's partner. Thus, not only would this be an afront to Church law, but also it would break the adultery commandment, another UCS founding tenet. Thus, Swinging, as i would interpret it, is not permissible at all to either the UCS or RCC (Roman Catholic Church).

 

The second question, as to the role of Christ, is one of my favorite to discuss. I have often grappled with the question of Christ, and the reaction to him, as well as his place in Judeo-Christianity. It is a very complex issue, one which I could not easily answer. But, i would raher give you my opinion of Christ, and the Church, rather than what i could cut and paste. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish messiah, as proclaimed in Mosaic, and Hebrew Law. Now, yes he did not fulfill the "moshiach" view of the king/general/prophet savior, but he seems to fulfill so much of the other teachings of the savior, that it makes sense to me. Now, I think you make a good point that Christ's position should not have changed the faith and religion of Judaism itself; but there is something more to it. I believe that many of the teachings of Christ and the spread of the message was such that it could not stay within the realm of Judaism and still function fully. I believe that Christianity split from Judaism out of the necessity to fully develop the entire belief around Jesus. To put it more simply, I think that Christianity evolved out of a process of figuring out what had just happened in the aftermath of the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Thus, I believe that it was just a matter of too much conflict of belief being held back by a thin wall of Judaic thinking and law.

 

Ya, that was confusing, and I might have to re-evaluate things as I move on through my spiritual course, but as a human, I just wrote down what made sense to me at this moment. I hope i was able to answer your questions in some form. Thank you for your intrest.

Now, yes he did not fulfill the "moshiach" view of the king/general/prophet savior,

Sorry, I meant to say that I see it that Jesus fulfills the purpose of the law....that is, the Mosaic Covenent's purpose was to 1) guide and preserve the people and 2) to point to the Messiah.

Thus, I believe that it was just a matter of too much conflict of belief being held back by a thin wall of Judaic thinking and law.

see, I am thinking that, once Christ had fullfilled the Law, and became it's successor, the law had done it's job and was no longer the active contract between God and Man, and thus, as I interpret this, those under the Law, if they understood the purpose of the law, should have stopped following the letter of the law, as per the decision of the aposles in Jerusalem.

 

Hebrew 8-10 seems to be saying that the sacrifices that the law requirered before people could come to God were replaced by a single sacrifice (that of Jesus) and thus to continue the sacrifices would be to claim that the Lord's blood is not good enough to cover for sin...

 

then again, I prefer theological reasons for a church doing something, rather then convinience reasons! that is one thing I like Pope Benedict for...though I am not a Catholic myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Evening To You, Lord Hallvanger,

 

You Are Indeed Most Profound!!! . . .

 

Have a most thoughtful evening . . . forthwith . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Hallvanger,

 

I must say, indeed, that i find you view of Christ as a very interesting one. I must say that I will have to research this issue a bit deeper in the future. I would like to praise you for bringin up this issue in a thoughtful, and logical manner. I would hope you could continue giving some of you intellectual ability to this Church, when you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×