Ship of Fools: Nancy Reagan funeral service

Thread: Nancy Reagan funeral service Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030460

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Available here.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Um .... discuss!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Well there's Hillary's bizarre affirmation of her "advocacy" for AIDs. Appreciate that she rolled it back later, and appreciate it's a funeral so you want to say something nice, but what the heck [Confused]

Why would you bring up something so patently false-- thereby causing a whole slew of discussions about how BAD the Reagan policies were and how it lead to so many deaths??? Why even mention it??? Couldn't you find something else nice to say about her? Her sense of style-- her oatmeal raisin cookies didn't suck-- something???

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That's exactly what I said, cliffdweller. The only way to give a speech honoring either one of the Reagans is to avoid the topic of AIDS altogether.

The one good thing about Hilary's gaffe is that it drove someone to unearth that godawful footage of Reagan's press secretary openly ridiculing victims of "the gay plague." I say this because a few message board discussions I have had elsewhere left me with the impression that younger generation Republicans have been fed some revisionist narrative that Reagan wasn't as slow to act on AIDS as liberals claim he was. And good heavens, it had nothing to do with bigotry!

This is probably a good thing, but many young people can't seem get their mind around how ugly people were about AIDS. (I base this on conversations I had with younger students at the Liberal Arts university I attended, as an older "returning"student.)

[ 12. March 2016, 17:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Using the same logic demonstrated on this thread, it's a shame that the driving habits of Ms. Kopechne's chauffer weren't discussed when that SOB kicked the bucket.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?

Oh, good Lord! I was hoping people would comment on the ceremony, how the priest was vested, the readings, the prayers, the music, the eulogies, the sermon, etc.

Regardless of what we may personally feel about Mrs. Reagan or her husband, or her husband's presidency (personally I don't see what people gush on about), I didn't start the thread so that people could opine about their deeds or misdeeds.

I'm sorry I started it, really. Perhaps a kindly host will close it.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Why was the priest from Washington National Cathedral when the service was in California? Is that a normal thing?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?
Oh, good Lord! I was hoping people would comment on the ceremony, how the priest was vested, the readings, the prayers, the music, the eulogies, the sermon, etc.

As in is this a tat queen fest regardless of the opressive and highly dangerous politics?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Is this a tat queen fest regardless of the opressive and highly dangerous politics?

Yes, dear, that's exactly what it is. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.* The funeral commends her soul to God. God, not we, will judge her soul and that of her husband. If you want to discuss the oppressive and highly dangerous politics, do so over after-service coffee.

_______________

* About the dead [speak] nothing but good.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Why was the priest from Washington National Cathedral when the service was in California? Is that a normal thing?

The only explanation I can find is here:

quote:
As the presiding minister at Mrs. Reagan’s funeral, Father Kenworthy brings a National Cathedral tie to the Reagans. President Reagan’s state funeral in 2004 was at the cathedral, after a family service at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

It is certainly not uncommon for a priest who is a friend of the family to be invited to conduct the funeral. When my father dies, I will invite the priest who was his pastor back in the day, and who is now serving in retirement as a college chaplain, to officiate. Provided my father doesn't outlive us all, that is, and at the rate he is going . . . .

I don't know if Father Kenworthy was a friend of the Reagans.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?

Or indeed, of that of the Spencer woman taken in adultery.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I thought it was bizarre that an Episcopal priest officiated at the funeral. Firstly, it is well known that the Reagans were Presbyterian, not Episcopalian. The reason why President Reagan had an Episcopal funeral is that for some bizarre reason Protestant presidents must have their memorial service at Washington National Cathedral.

As well, TEC these days is frankly not known for its support of Republican politics, especially not the Church in the Northeast. TEC might historically have been considered the GOP in prayer, but that was a long, long time ago, when the GOP had a noticeable liberal wing in the northeast.

Regarding the ceremony, I only caught glimpses of it, such as Diane Sawyer reading the Gospel, which I noticed to my dismay, she first gave a short personal story before reading the lesson. A big No-No in my books, if you are asked to read the lesson, you read the Lesson, you do not give a commentary and you certainly do not give an anedotal story. I also am not a fan of multiple euologies at a funeral service because it turns the liturgy into a celebration fest about the deceased and not primarily a worship service of almighty God.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

The choice of an Episcopal priest does seem odd since Nancy and her husband made utter fools of themselves in an Episcopal church.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?
Or indeed, of that of the Spencer woman taken in adultery.

Thank you all for confirming that the priest was indeed Episcopal. Everything he was doing was Episcopal, but my Mom was all up in arms that is was a non denominational service. I pretty much told her his stole said different.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The choice of an Episcopal priest does seem odd since Nancy and her husband made utter fools of themselves in an Episcopal church.

I was thinking the same thing when I noticed that the celebrant was an Episcopal priest.
[Killing me]

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Does the national Cathedral function as a, well, national cathedral, then? That would make sense. I guess maybe it is a sort of American Westminster Abbey?

I thought the funeral contained too much eulogising. At funerals we are there to pray for the person who has dies, not talk about them. That seems to be what this thread is for, despite the OP's desires.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Does the national Cathedral function as a, well, national cathedral, then? That would make sense. I guess maybe it is a sort of American Westminster Abbey?

That was the idea. The cathedral was founded (and chartered by Congress) to be the national house of prayer and the venue for services with a national scope, including State funerals.

quote:
I thought the funeral contained too much eulogising. At funerals we are there to pray for the person who has dies . . . .

Well, not if they're Presbyterian. [Devil]

Of course, if they're Presbyterian, the funeral shouldn't be about eulogies either. But then the Reagans always did seem a bit fluid in their religious affiliations.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Does the national Cathedral function as a, well, national cathedral, then? That would make sense. I guess maybe it is a sort of American Westminster Abbey?
That was the idea. The cathedral was founded (and chartered by Congress) to be the national house of prayer and the venue for services with a national scope, including State funerals.

That's interesting. I guess the separation of church and state isn't as absolute as one may expect it to be. Does TEC function as a de facto national church?

There is a poem by the incomparable Ogden Nash (which is on the old internet here ) 'The Seven Spiritual Ages of Mrs. Marmaduke Moore' in which the heroine marks here advance in Society by swapping her youthful Methodism for Episcopalianism.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The choice of an Episcopal priest does seem odd since Nancy and her husband made utter fools of themselves in an Episcopal church.

While no fan of the Reagans, I would point out that our recent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, also faux-pas-ed at our late Governor General Roméo LeBlanc's funeral mass, pocketing the Host in the belief that, à la Holiness Churches, all communicants were to consume the bread simultaneously (one can wonder why on earth the Archbishop of Moncton himself communicated a man well known to be an evangelical Protestant, but that's another thread).

Folk raised in liturgical churches (for want of a better term) often have little idea of how foreign our practices are to others, even to those of other Christian traditions. While the Reagans did not handle themselves particularly well in the anecdote Mr Deaver gives us, they likely can legitimately claim that they knew no better.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Too right. The first time I ever encountered a common cup was in my teens at a UCCan congregation I didn't like. It was Wee Cuppies all the way for me.

And I would point out that it is liturgy, just liturgy of a different sort, to partake at the same time instead of using the same vessel.

Mr. Harper's actions were clearly meant without disrespect and were caused by an ill-prepared and absent-minded priest. As I am reminded every day in my job, never assume malice when ignorance and laziness will suffice as an explanation.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Bibaculus wrote:

quote:
That's interesting. I guess the separation of church and state isn't as absolute as one may expect it to be.

Well, is the cathederal run with government funds? If not, then it probably doesn't make much of a difference to non-establishment, except on paper.

You could repeal the congressional charter, but that wouldn't stop the cathederal from existing, nor stop anyone who wanted to from holidng a famous person's memorial there.

[ 13. March 2016, 16:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, is the cathederal run with government funds? If not, then it probably doesn't make much of a difference to non-establishment, except on paper.

No, it is not. The corporation was simply chartered by Congress.

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
That's interesting. I guess the separation of church and state isn't as absolute as one may expect it to be. Does TEC function as a de facto national church?

No. But as Nash's Mrs. Marmaduke Moore realized, historically the Episcopal Church (and to a slightly lesser degree, the Presbyterian Church) have had a political presence (as in members of Congress or occupants of the White House or many Governor's Mansions) and social presence far out of proportion to their presence in the population generally. That has changed to a large extent, but reminders of that historical fact can still be seen.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But as Nash's Mrs. Marmaduke Moore realized, historically the Episcopal Church (and to a slightly lesser degree, the Presbyterian Church) have had a political presence (as in members of Congress or occupants of the White House or many Governor's Mansions) and social presence far out of proportion to their presence in the population generally. That has changed to a large extent, but reminders of that historical fact can still be seen.

I remember when The Power of Their Glory came out -- it pointed out the large number of Episcopalians in positions of power. A lot has changed since 1978 when it was published. We now have no Episcopalians on the Supreme Court (all Roman Catholic or Jewish), the last Episcopal President was George H.W.Bush, I don't think any of the current candidates are, and I doubt that there are large numbers of Episcopalians in Congress.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry, but why does anyone care about Nancy Reagan's funeral?
Oh, good Lord! I was hoping people would comment on the ceremony, how the priest was vested, the readings, the prayers, the music, the eulogies, the sermon, etc.

Regardless of what we may personally feel about Mrs. Reagan or her husband, or her husband's presidency (personally I don't see what people gush on about), I didn't start the thread so that people could opine about their deeds or misdeeds.

I'm sorry I started it, really. Perhaps a kindly host will close it.

I appreciate the thread didn't turn out the way you anticipated, but that happens on the Ship. And honestly, the most noteworthy thing about the ceremony was in fact, Hillary's unfortunate remarks. You can't open a thread on such an event and expect us not to comment on the elephant in the room. Again, it might have been better had Hillary found something else she could reasonably commend Mrs. Reagan for, but once the gaffe was made, you can't really expect folks not to notice.
(Cynics/ conspiracy theorists might even ponder if the gaffe was intentional-- as it certainly did spotlight Reagan's miserable record on AIDs without actually having to attack the man at his widow's funeral. Quite clever if that was the case.)

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
I thought the funeral contained too much eulogising. At funerals we are there to pray for the person who has dies . . . .
Well, not if they're Presbyterian.

Of course, if they're Presbyterian, the funeral shouldn't be about eulogies either. But then the Reagans always did seem a bit fluid in their religious affiliations.

We Presbyterians do in fact have eulogies-- but yes, no praying for the person who died, only for the grieving family & friends.

And yes, the Reagans were famously "fluid" in their religious adherence. The pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian where they maintained their membership once remarked (in answer to a question): "Yes, the Reagans are quite regular in their attendance. They attend every election year."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(Also, a well- crafted OP, may have given us an idea of what specifically about the service one wanted to discuss.)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Given how active the thread is, I'm not inclined to close it. Maybe a starting point could be:

How should a First Lady (or, indeed, First Husband should one ever emerge) be commemorated?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
I thought the funeral contained too much eulogising. At funerals we are there to pray for the person who has dies . . . .
Well, not if they're Presbyterian.

Of course, if they're Presbyterian, the funeral shouldn't be about eulogies either. But then the Reagans always did seem a bit fluid in their religious affiliations.
We Presbyterians do in fact have eulogies-- but yes, no praying for the person who died, only for the grieving family & friends.

Well, two things:

I didn't say Presbyterians don't have eulogies. I said that the funeral shouldn't be about eulogies, meaning they shouldn't appear to be "what we're there for." (I said this in response to Bibaculus's statement that "we're there" to pray for the deceased.)

That said, I'm aware that eulogies have taken hold among Presbyterians, though I think this may be more noticeable in some regions than in others. My youth was spent in the old "Southern church" (the old PCUS), where eulogies were not considered proper for a funeral. My adulthood has been in the PC(USA), but still in the American South, where that perspective largely carried over. It is really only in the last 10–15 years that I have seen eulogies pop up from time to time. A sermon or homily that mentions (but doesn't focus on) things that will be remembered about the deceased I am used to. Prayers that do likewise are certainly common. But true eulogies, not so much until relatively recently.

I know many Presbyterians—mainly ministers or older, lifelong Presbyterians—who really aren't comfortable with this development. (And I've assured my family that I will haunt them all if there's a eulogy at my funeral. [Two face]

)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

fair 'nuff.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Given how active the thread is, I'm not inclined to close it. Maybe a starting point could be:

How should a First Lady (or, indeed, First Husband should one ever emerge) be commemorated?

Sir Denis Thatcher had a private funeral in the chapel at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. His ashes, and those of Lady Thatcher, are interred there. He also had a memorial service at Westminster Abbey.

Maybe that would be appropriate for a First Lady - a private funeral, followed by a memorial service at the National Cathedral.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Given how active the thread is, I'm not inclined to close it. Maybe a starting point could be:

How should a First Lady (or, indeed, First Husband should one ever emerge) be commemorated?
Sir Denis Thatcher had a private funeral in the chapel at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. His ashes, and those of Lady Thatcher, are interred there. He also had a memorial service at Westminster Abbey.

Maybe that would be appropriate for a First Lady - a private funeral, followed by a memorial service at the National Cathedral.

Coming, as noted, from the Reformed tradition, I'm of the opinion that memorial services are for the living-- specifically for those closest to the deceased. It is a time for the community to come around them in love and support.

Given that people grieve very differently, I'm not inclined to be very rigid in terms of what memorial services look like, even for a public figure. Yes, if the person themselves is a significant political leader there needs to be some sort of public acknowledgment. But other than that, I think it's up to the next of kin. Big service or small, public or private, graveside or chapel, military or not-- I've officiated at all these, and each made sense at the time for the particular family members and the way they grieved. The only time it gets dicey is when you have disagreements among the family members about what the service should be like. Here's where it's nice if there's some sort of advance directive from the deceased, but that's pretty rare in my experience.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Cliffdweller wrote:

quote:
I appreciate the thread didn't turn out the way you anticipated, but that happens on the Ship. And honestly, the most noteworthy thing about the ceremony was in fact, Hillary's unfortunate remarks. You can't open a thread on such an event and expect us not to comment on the elephant in the room. Again, it might have been better had Hillary found something else she could reasonably commend Mrs. Reagan for, but once the gaffe was made, you can't really expect folks not to notice.
(Cynics/ conspiracy theorists might even ponder if the gaffe was intentional-- as it certainly did spotlight Reagan's miserable record on AIDs without actually having to attack the man at his widow's funeral. Quite clever if that was the case.)

About the only public-policy thing she could have truthfully praised Mrs. R for is the War On Drugs, which I suspect is now a somewhat tarnished cause, even if no one is gonna come right out and say it. I read somewhere that both Trump and Clinton favour allowing the legalization of marijuana in various states to stand, to give just one example of how the conversation has shifted since the egg-in-the-pan era.

And that's an interesting conspiracy theory, and quite plauible within the boundaries of what gets done in politics. But I think it would be more likely if someone more directly associated with the Reagans was running for the GOP nomination.

[ 14. March 2016, 16:25: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Can we please refrain from political comments in this thread? I believe that the moderator has implied as much, but apparently some have chosen to toss that aside. I myself would never even consider using the occasion of someone's passing--including political leaders whom I find to be repulsive--to make comments such as what I have read here. Even some who have asked questions because they are unfamiliar with the American civil and ecclesiastical scene have sometimes done so in a less-than-courteous fashion, e.g., asking about what they term "bizarre" features of the funeral and its clergy, instead of phrasing it in a way that indicates their lack of familiarity and therefore understanding.

We can do better here. [Ultra confused]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Perhaps the thread should be moved to Purgatory. It doesn't seem to have drawn much interest in talking about the rudimentary aspects of the service-- there's not a whole lot to comment on there. Meanwhile, the elephant in the room really is Hillary's remarks which is understandably drawing the most interest.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Too right. The first time I ever encountered a common cup was in my teens at a UCCan congregation I didn't like. It was Wee Cuppies all the way for me.

And I would point out that it is liturgy, just liturgy of a different sort, to partake at the same time instead of using the same vessel.

Mr. Harper's actions were clearly meant without disrespect and were caused by an ill-prepared and absent-minded priest. As I am reminded every day in my job, never assume malice when ignorance and laziness will suffice as an explanation.

I am clearly guilty of that of which I complained! Yes, liturgy we're not used to is still liturgy.

Mr LeBlanc's son, the current Government House Leader, made a statement to the effect that the family was grateful for Mr Harper's presence, which they took as a sign of respect. Msgr Richard of Moncton retired three years later.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Too right. The first time I ever encountered a common cup was in my teens at a UCCan congregation I didn't like. It was Wee Cuppies all the way for me.

And I would point out that it is liturgy, just liturgy of a different sort, to partake at the same time instead of using the same vessel.

Mr. Harper's actions were clearly meant without disrespect and were caused by an ill-prepared and absent-minded priest. As I am reminded every day in my job, never assume malice when ignorance and laziness will suffice as an explanation.
I am clearly guilty of that of which I complained! Yes, liturgy we're not used to is still liturgy.

Mr LeBlanc's son, the current Government House Leader, made a statement to the effect that the family was grateful for Mr Harper's presence, which they took as a sign of respect. Msgr Richard of Moncton retired three years later.

Funerals and weddings are often the only time - apart from contrived services for Christian Unity Week - that many of us who would pride ourselves on our knowledge of liturgy actually encounter any liturgy other than that of our own tradition. Years back I went to the Armenian liturgy, and while I could recognise the basic elements of the Eucharist, it was so odd to me, and I didn't really know what to do, when to stand and sit, etc, that I probably made a right fool of myself.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Years back I went to the Armenian liturgy, and while I could recognise the basic elements of the Eucharist, it was so odd to me, and I didn't really know what to do, when to stand and sit, etc, that I probably made a right fool of myself.

While I've never been to an Armenian liturgy, my general experience of 'Eastern' Christian ritual is that there's less of a cultural expectation of everyone doing the same thing at the same time together (as compared with, at least my pocket of, our 'Western' tradition). So long as you're praying, they tend to be less fussed about how you're doing that. Liturgical unity and diversity are both embodied signs of our unity in diversity in Christ, and that balance can be expressed in different ways.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
While I've never been to an Armenian liturgy, my general experience of 'Eastern' Christian ritual is that there's less of a cultural expectation of everyone doing the same thing at the same time together (as compared with, at least my pocket of, our 'Western' tradition). So long as you're praying, they tend to be less fussed about how you're doing that. Liturgical unity and diversity are both embodied signs of our unity in diversity in Christ, and that balance can be expressed in different ways.

I know what you mean about Eastern liturgy. I have been to it quite a lot. people wander about lighting candles and venerating ikons. But this was not like that. It was at the Armenian Church in Kensington, which is tiny. Pictures here give some indication. It was packed with people, as it was the main Sunday liturgy. It was unlike anything I have ever known. At various points we were expected to interact with people around us, but quite how I didn't really know. And it ended with everyone standing up and singing what sounded like (and may have been) a National Anthem.

The only comparable experience (for lostness on my part) was when I attended the Hindu Temple in Neasden.

[fixed code -- ABR]

[ 15. March 2016, 14:28: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Is there any relationship between Mrs.Reagan's funeral service and the Armenian Liturgy ?
I do not think so and if there is any,please advise me.]
With regard to this funeral service,like many others I found it very odd that an Episcopal priest officiated whereas the departed lady was a Presbyterian.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Is there any relationship between Mrs.Reagan's funeral service and the Armenian Liturgy ?
I do not think so and if there is any,please advise me.]
With regard to this funeral service,like many others I found it very odd that an Episcopal priest officiated whereas the departed lady was a Presbyterian.

The digressive aspect of Ecclesiantics is legendary. TEC clergy have a peculiar role as taking care of religious stuff for Important People. They were the default non-RC non-working-class clergy until the 1960s & 1970s, as evinced by many films of the period ("Father of the Bride" and "The Bishop's Wife," among others).

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Complaining about tangets. In Eccles?!? [Help]

I mean, really, the sheer cheek of it.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Is there any relationship between Mrs.Reagan's funeral service and the Armenian Liturgy ?
I do not think so and if there is any,please advise me.]
With regard to this funeral service,like many others I found it very odd that an Episcopal priest officiated whereas the departed lady was a Presbyterian.
The digressive aspect of Ecclesiantics is legendary. TEC clergy have a peculiar role as taking care of religious stuff for Important People. They were the default non-RC non-working-class clergy until the 1960s & 1970s, as evinced by many films of the period ("Father of the Bride" and "The Bishop's Wife," among others).

The default vestments for a Protestant-but-denominationally-unspecified Christian wedding celebrant in any Hollywood production are still cassock, surplice, and stole.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Complaining about tangets. In Eccles?!?

I mean, really, the sheer cheek of it.

I didn't feel it was my place to comment on that but [Big Grin]

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Is there any relationship between Mrs.Reagan's funeral service and the Armenian Liturgy ?
I do not think so and if there is any,please advise me.]
With regard to this funeral service,like many others I found it very odd that an Episcopal priest officiated whereas the departed lady was a Presbyterian.

The relationship is in the context in which it was introduced.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I usually hang out in Purgatory, so I'm not sure of the expectations on this board. Is it typical for there to be such narrow parameters on where a discussion will go and such condemnation when it veers off?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Hosting

Please remember, Cliffweller, (and anyone else tempted to meander into junior hosting roles) that discussions of ship or board policy, while not discouraged because we mere mortals love intelligent guidance) belong in The Styx

/Hosting

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Hosting

Looks like I killed this. [Hot and Hormonal]

Meh. Lent is meant to be purgatorial.

Deader than a thing that's dead.

/Hosting

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0