Wednesday, January 26, 2011

on boyfriends...

... I have a female friend whom I love dearly but I swear she makes me so mad some times I could just shake her. She's a wonderful woman but she clearly lacks understanding the differences between a boyfriend and a husband.

You can't really blame her I suppose. Couples shack up and live as husband and wife all the time. To a woman with no basic understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage it is hard to draw the line between the two relationships.

I wish I knew when and how being some one's boyfriend became a bigger deal than the exclusive and committed stage of courtship. A boyfriend does not have the right to make demands on a woman reserved for that of husbands. He has no right to place expectations on her time, her money, her property or possessions and most certainly, her body.

I know women who say they will do anything for their boyfriends. They love them after all. But I believe such affections and declarations should be reserved solely for a husband. Just being a mere boyfriend, in my opinion, doesn't warrant a total lack of reservation. Why give everything away, emotionally and physically, to a boyfriend? Boyfriends come and go.


Babs said...

Amen! Tell it, sister!

gretchen said...

Must be a day for relationship rants:

TCN said...

Love? That's not love. Love is when you tell the guy to be a man, not a sheep, and either decide to commit or just go away. A woman who will "do anything" for her boyfriend needs help from her girlfriends to learn to stand up strong. Any man who doesn't like that in a woman is not really worth having.

And yes, I found this out the hard way. I have now been happily married for 13 years.

David L Alexander said...

Much of this revolves around how you define a "boyfriend." If dating is merely an end in itself, and you wouldn't think of marrying the guy, or just don't think about it at all, no, he wouldn't have a claim on much of anything. But as a party to courtship, there is an understanding of exclusivity of affection, as the future of both parties together is considered. No, you don't have to give away the store (or your virtue), but he's not just a guy who buys you dinner either.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

Chris Stefanick has a great rant on the way modern love songs set up dysfunctional expectations: to paraphrase, "if it isn't codependence, enmeshment or promiscuity, it isn't love".

Just one thing: "A boyfriend does not have the right to make demands on a woman reserved for that of husbands. He has no right to place expectations on her time, her money, her property or possessions and most certainly, her body." I'll be happy to concede that—I'll even stand with you on the rooftop and shout it at the top of my lungs, which can be very loud indeed—if you'll grant the same is true of girlfriends. I've had two or three girlfriends who have gotten miffed because I've occasionally needed time away from them to work or sleep, or that I didn't have an extra $100 sitting on my dresser.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Things were so much easier when your parents took care of all these things

Diamond1 said...

Kat I like where you are coming from.

Agnes B Bullock said...

Why are you still single? I wish one of my brothers was available for you, or even better, that my husband had a brother for you!

Stick to your guns- I did and it took almsot ten years, but it was worth it!

Cruise the Groove. said...

If you have not done so already,
you could gently tell your friend that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the co-creation of children to be saved and go to heaven.
This can really only be accomplished if man and wife are living together in the married state, since the "boyfriend/girlfriend" state no matter how much feeling there is, is not stable for the spiritual growth of children.
Feelings change, and boyfriend girlfriend can leave each other and devastate the children, whereas marriage is a life long commitment and is much more stable for the child.
What The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on "Pre-Marital Sex:", and this applies to everyone Catholic or non,
"2353. "Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young."

Rick said...

A woman said to me once, "That's why there is Confession." I stopped seeing her after that line. (And I didn't touch her either.)

Why they do that? Maybe love, lust, desperation, fear of the future, temptation, lack of faith?

joan said...

Thinking of you.

doughboy said...

anthony: tell it, brother.

s-p said...

God bless you.

Anna said...

I love the last few sentences-- so true.

Interestingly, essentially the same topic (on chastity, both physical and emotional, during dating) came up during my (Hillsdale College) class on the Christian Humanism of John Paul II today. We're reading Love and Responsibility. Amazing how priests can read women like a book.

Keystone said...

There has long been a push for equality among the genders. Prior to that, men were generally famous for the chase, conquest, and adios.

Today, women are every bit the equal to such men.

I was embarrassed this year to see my University construct two new high rise dorms on campus, allowing 6 people to share a suite, with 2 per bedroom, and 1 shared bathroom. All coed.
No one can go through four years of such temptation, amidst stress of college life, and not succumb to some degree. Culturally, it is lethal; spiritually immoral.

But looking in good light, there is discernment as a reward.

Either gender that has failed to discipline themselves with the integrity that sex is within a marriage, never any other form, is literally signalling to you, that they have the same credentials to cheat during marriage, for it is okay to have sex before marriage; or "between" marriages....the largest offenders, as they divorced a spouse, but have yet to realize the license for sex is also now divorce material.
This is MOST difficult, if you were cheated on in marriage.
Your sex life is kaput with the decree, and that was never discussed by attornies at all.

No matter who you are, if you participate in sex, you will recall that person, always.
They become part of any eventual marriage.

Once, a Christian woman confided to me she was upset and angry at herself. It seems she found a man who wanted to marry her and did.
He believed there should be no sex outside of marriage and was a virgin, late in life, when he married her.

But in college, she had sex with one man. She hates that now, hates him, and hates herself.
Her husband is aware, and they discussed it obviously.

But in her mind, she debased her marriage failing to establish what her husband did.
Sex will come along one day, and seal the marriage. Remember the proper order.

A growing problem is the divorced life, and the children seeing a series of partners come and go.
Few dads are around more than every other weekend, and that comes to about 26 X 2 or roughly, 52 days a year, with perhaps a couple weeks in summer.
There is no father figure to growing boys and girls.

When these girls hit college, I kid you not, they are the worst age group to fend off for a "father" aged guy. They do not date their peer group, they want the dad they never had.
These are among the hardest "NO", for they have had a lifetime of non-nuclear family life; no role model to follow, and generally a mom, who was married, and divorced the man, but not her sex life.

The kids watched that, learned it, and consider this normal.

The college girls to late 20's are very forward. It is most difficult to set a standard for them, when they have violated it multiple times already, casually.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

---Romans 12:1-2

Bookmark that page and memorize it.
Oh, and live it too.
Your cause is Christ.
Nothing else.

Lazy Disciple said...

Dear Crescat,

Your point about boyfriends is spot-on, and very timely.

I recently saw a Remembrance Day photo of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, visiting with the bereaved family of fallen soldiers, sailors and Marines - as well as at least one girlfriend of a fallen Marine.

I could only imagine Prince Philip asking, point blank: girlfriend? Who the bloody hell is a girlfriend?

Having said this, I am quite sure that the problem with your friend - the problem in general - is not a lack of basic understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage.

Marriage is not a sacrament by nature: it is a sacrament by the grace of God, who elevates marriage to the dignity of a sacrament whenever two baptized persons have a valid marriage contract between them.

Marriage is a natural social institution - and there is absolutely no difference in the nature of the union of two Christians and the union of two Hindus.

As societies knew long before Christ came to save and cause His Gospel to be preached, marriage (both the institution itself, and general respect for the institution) is essential to good social order.


Gail F said...

A few years ago a fireman died in our city. He was the first fireman who had died in the line of duty for many years. Of course people were eager to honor him and his life, but guess what... he wasn't married. So instead his live-in "girlfriend" (the mother of his two children) was honored at all the ceremonies. I did not know what to make of this. Of course I felt very sorry for this woman and especially for their children. You certainly couldn't ignore them and their grief. But his GIRLFRIEND? They had never gotten around to getting married, for whatever reason, and now she is not a widow. I find this so very sad and our cultural expectations today so very confusing.

Gail F said...

Second comment: Years ago I used to listen to Dr. Laura on the radio. A woman called in because she was insulted that at a company function she was not included with the wives, even though she lived with her boyfriend. Dr. Laura kept saying "You are not his wife, girlfriends come and go," but she insisted on having all the respect and all the perks (if I recall, this had something to do with a trip for top sales people and her boyfriend only got a trip for one) because she lived in the house. That made a big impression on me.

Apostolate of the Laity said...

Straight talking.

I think girlfriends go along this path as they believe that by doing so they will hold onto their boyfriend, and make it more likely that he will ask to marry her.

The Crescat said...

Apostolate, and I have learned that the exact happens, from personal experience. Men will go on years ... YEARS... happy and content not to disrupt the status quo by something as silly as a proposal. Women, it seems, are willing to wait forever.

Cruise the Groove. said...

I proposed to my then future wife three months after we met,married 10 months later.
We have been married for almost 7 years.
My Dad proposed to my Mom 5 months after they met, married 7 months later, have been married for 45 years.
We both took proposal for the Sacrament very seriously.
In both our cases we absolutely made sure our spouse was Catholic and practicing, willing to raise children in the Faith.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

@ GailF: Your second comment really cuts to the core of the issue: There is no way the girlfriend would have insisted on having the perks and bennies of marriage had she not internalized a de-valuation of marriage as an unnecessary formality. Even common-law marriages require that the man and woman hold each other out as spouses, which requires an implicit understanding of a difference between "wife" and "live-in sex partner". As a culture, we're losing the sense of that difference.

@ Keystone: "There has long been a push for equality among the genders. Prior to that, men were generally famous for the chase, conquest, and adios.

"Today, women are every bit the equal to such men."

Free to be just as stupid and irresponsible as men. What a plus.

Keystone said...

@Anthony S. "Tony" Layne

I like my comments to simply speak for themself. I have no problem letting other comments do the same.

But you have chosen to take my words, and make them say what YOU choose for their meaning.

At no time in my comment did I see "What a plus" as a result of our cultural shift.

I presume that beam or speck is in your eye. If you choose to agree or disagree with me, that is fair game.

But to quote me, and then add your interpretation to what I say, is completely inaccurate to me.

As a single parent to daughters, I am keenly aware of this particular issue, and the ramifications of any error on my part as dad.
They will be brined in our culture. My time to get it right is small and swift.

But I try.

On one hot, sweltering day, I asked one daughter to please get me a glass of cold water.
She did.
And just before handing it to me, she sneaked a quick sip for herself from the opposite side of the glass, smiled, and handed it to me.

I took the glass and sipped myself.
I told my daughter that nothing is refreshing as a cold glass of water on a hot day when you are thirsty. She smiled anew.

I then spit in the glass of water, and asked: "Want another sip?"
"EEEE---WWWWW", she screamed back.

So I spit in it again and asked again, if she now wanted a sip.
"Dad, you are so gross", she replied.

And so I explained to her how much we BOTH enjoyed the water when it was pure, uncontaminated, refreshing.

But with a mere spit, it became wholly unacceptable to her (and me).
With the second spit, it became worse than unacceptable, it became nauseous and unfit.

I then told her that one day, she will seek a spouse. Would she prefer one who is pure and refreshing all her life?
Or, would she settle for someone who has been spit in, by others...
maybe more than once?

She got that point, but I had another to add.

"Honey, will you be able to be a refreshing vessel to your spouse, or will you serve yourself as previously spit upon"

Her contemplative silence that this purity thing is a two way street, ended my short homily.

On this comment, as my prior, I would hope the message be read in full, not selectively distorted.
I appreciate that.

Therese Z said...


As powerful as your story is, I shudder to think of it lodging in the heart and ego of your daughter. Let's say she falls away from faith and becomes unchaste, or just makes a desire-fueled mistake?

Now she knows you think of her as spit upon. No matter how she goes to Confession, returns to faith, recommits herself to chastity before marriage, that will ring in her head.

Trust me: I'm a daughter and a daddy's girl, that would have not been good for me to remember in my dad's voice.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

@ Keystone: My apologies. My comment was intended to be an ironic aside, not a distortion of anything that followed. The onus isn't on you for misconstruing me but on me for making an ill-considered comment.

The fact of the matter is, the way our culture treats sex today is stupid and irresponsible; it degrades both men and women by treating them as tools for one's own pleasure while denying both the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. Had second-wave feminists paid attention to their own arguments about male objectification of women, they would have demanded that men hold themselves to higher standards and eliminate the dual standard that allowed the "chase, conquest and adios" mentality to flourish. As for female empowerment, there's considerable power in the word "NO", but that doesn't excuse men from restraining themselves so as not to put women in that position.

We both agree: men should not sully women by using them as sexual tools, and women should not allow themselves to be sullied in such a manner. Your story of how you illustrated that to your daughter is not only apt but charming, and I applaud you for coming up with such a delightful way to make your point.

Keystone said...

Therese Z

I have eight sisters. And I have mentioned daughters too. So, I am familiar with the life of growing gals.

In this day and age, despite equality in many areas, dads do not get full custody of children, especially if they are girls.

I do not wear that as a badge, I state it as axiomatic that the relationship to their dad is extremely noticeable. Their peers gravitate to our house; they do not meander, largely because of the atmosphere at home.

It is a rare day when I do not make a short homily as the one above. Indeed, my daughter has snuggled and said to me:
"OOOH dad, I just love your analogies", albeit that was not this particular analogy.

While I appreciate your insight as a woman, daughter, and commenter here, I have to tell you I have been surrounded by gals all my life, and am leading my daughters into their future.

The Catholic Church used to run a program called Rainbows For All God's Children, a grief recovery for children of death, divorce, or parent loss (jail).

It was so effective in helping children, that the schools asked to have the program. But God is not allowed in school, so the program became simply Rainbows Inc.

In the church version, God is in the mix each week.
In school version, no God.
We did the church version for two 13 week sessions, as I found them powerful and effective tools.

But I believe we need to put back into the system, as we receive. So I trained to be a Facilitator in the church version and served hundreds of kids in all grades for several years.

I have heard the lament of children who can not see a parent in jail, kids who think it is their fault (all of them), and one case of sex abuse. After a few years, I felt I had "paid back" and desired to move on, as the continuation of waves of regret from people's past was now holding my family future back, like a 45 rpm with a skip in it, playing the same part over and over.

In all those grades, K through 12th, few children understood forgiveness. And few trained facilitators could get it across.
So they put the entire group together for one night to hear about forgiveness.

I was always asked to teach this to the entire assembly; the only sole gathering of all ages in the 13 weeks.
I used two analogies to teach the children,.... and their parents at the back of the room, about forgiveness.
My children were with me weekly for the sessions and aways heard what I said.

While your point is well taken, and a pause for reflection to all fathers, I suspect that my daughter's memories of what dad said on forgiveness trump the discussion above.

But I appreciate your insight.
Many father's are not in my shoes, and see their children perhaps 60 days a year out of 365.
Perhaps in their case, your words would have great beneficial effect.

While the post "On Boyfriends" is concerned with purity (or the lack of it), a comment by me on forgiveness analogies is not in order. Words on purity, being a two way street, are in order.

By speaking the truth in love, instead of remaining silent on the topic, as many dads do when daughters need input, my children are equipped to make their own decisions.

And if you are young enough to remember the "Little House on the Prairie" series on daughters often call me "Pa Engles".
THAT, I wear with a badge. :)

Keystone said...

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne

I am grateful for your kind words.
No harm, no foul, the game of life goes on.

The written word is sometimes difficult as we all filter it in our readings, by the experiences of our own lives.
Hence, the conceptions on any given comment are equal to the number of readers. It is difficult.

Thank you again for ironing out wrinkles. That is always a good way to have smooth relationships, eh?

And your kind words allow me to return to Therese Z here anew.
She had an observation on Confession, and I thought it relevant to point out (and failed to do so) that in our discussions on Confession of Sins, we are forgiven when we confess.

I have told my girls that we sometimes have no trouble forgiving, but we DO have trouble ACCEPTING forgiveness.

To that, I added that if God forgives us our sins (and we all sin daily), if we choose to NOT forgive ourselves, then we are holding ourself to a higher standard of forgiveness than God holds us to.

That means, we consider ourselves better than God's judgment, and that is called unhealthy and false pride.

Therese Z was kind enough to set up a hypothetical case to base her concern.

There is no hypothetical; my daughters, like all people, will sin every day of their life.

In this boyfriend business, coupled with feminism of recent decades, the Law of Unintended Consequences is at play.

What was intended for good, equality, fair pay at work, and the like, has brought unintended mom's at home when the kids come in the door from school, the ever growing day care before school, family change due to new roles.

Much good has come with the advancement of equality (it would tick me off for my girls to be paid 80 cents on the dollar for the same job as the guy next to her), or not be advanced in her career as that job is "for men".

But in rising to the level of men, I would have to say that women have, in general, lowered themselves to make that rise.

And, as old school as I am on many issues, I have to say that it is not the culture that has led any astray, it is the failure of our churches to incorporate Jesus Christ as the only cause worth living for.
All other causes are meaningless.
Christ is the only cause.

To that, I will add, one daughter has watched me outline my Bible on the date, the speaker, and message scrawled in the outline. The bindings are shot.

She approached me one day and said
"Dad, when you die.....
can I please have your Bible?"

I told her yes, but I prefer it to be among wedding gifts instead. :)

Have a great weekend Tony, Therese and all.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

@ Keystone: Thanks for the warmth of your forgiveness.

I was reluctant to comment on Therese Z's concern because I have no direct experience of fatherhood myself. And she does bring up a valid concern.

But, from my seat in the bleachers (as it were), you can fear making a mistake in one direction so much that you end up making it in another direction entirely. O that children would come with individually-tailored instruction manuals! It's a good thing to do the research, to talk with other parents, and to discuss things with your pastor ... but in the end, the best you can do is make your choices in truth and love and with plenty of prayer, and hope that any mistakes you make—for you will make mistakes—won't prove to be too bad.

God bless you both.

Piotrek said...

"There has long been a push for equality among the genders"

You mean among masculine, feminine, and neuter genders? :-)

I'm sure you meant "between the sexes" unless you're pushing for equality between the words "sex" and "gender".

end {GRAMMAR NAZI} (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Keystone said...

The Human Resources Department insisted the Application be filled.

The line came to
and the applicant answered truthfully, and penned in,
"Of course!"

You will find when I write a phrase like
"There has long been a push for equality among the genders",
well, the words I choose are the words I both prefer, and intend.

It would be just as wrong for me to say you do not mean you are a nazi. Our words convey what we choose.

I would suggest you look "Gender" in Wikipedia, and udate those grammar skills of note. I would link, but there is no reason to bore everyone to tears here on grammar. Google away.

The thrust of all concerned with the post 'On Boyfriends" is Jesus Christ in our lives, not grammar skills (which Sister Ursula rulered into me).

Using your standards, the title must be changed to "On Masculines".
I doubt that was The Crescat's intent, eh?

People view comments through the prisms of their life experiences.
I suspect all who read "On boyfriends" have had the experience in obtaining one, or being one, and losing them too.
There is no lukewarm or neuter ground in this topic....provided that has not been your experience, eh?

An eloquent Christian discourse is able to edify the Body of Christ, as we all add our experiences on a given topic.
Typos, dangling participles, mispplaced modifiers, or even tense are mundane, provided intent is clear in conveying one's message.

There is a lot of assuming in that first sentence of mine. Kindly accept it as it is stated.
And if in any comment, my particles dangle, well, I confess it has been a while since I did a Venn Diagram. Dangles happen!

{Sidebar to Tony.... I reread your comment and I wanted to bring to your attention you DO have a father relationship.
One, with your father on Earth; and a second, with your Father in Heaven. I do believe as you that Therese makes a compelling comment.
Fortunately, I am confident it does not apply to my daughter, but quite the contrary was invaluable input to her. We discussed it on other occasions, and she told friends of the incident; an indication of merit to me, or silence would follow.
But the comment may be of great value to other dads in communicating with their daughter.]

To reiterate that all comments are viewed through our personal prisms of life experience, I note the contrast of Therese' view, with Tony's here:
"Your story of how you illustrated that to your daughter is not only apt but charming, and I applaud you for coming up with such a delightful way to make your point."

Same story; opposite conclusions.
And both, diametric conclusions, were nuggets of gold to me.}

Piotrek said...

You're welcome.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

@ Keystone: "Sidebar to Tony.... I reread your comment and I wanted to bring to your attention you DO have a father relationship.
One, with your father on Earth; and a second, with your Father in Heaven."

Yikes! What was it Hamlet said to Horatio? "We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us." I suppose I should have said, "I'm not a father myself." Thanks for the correction! :^)=)

Keystone said...

Piotrek said...
You're welcome.

Thank you Piotrek.
I agree! The Crescat has always made me feel welcome here.

I have approached some of her recommended Blogs on the sidebar and found such variance from the truth, that it darn near burned my motherboard here.

I have long had concern on one of my most feared Bible sections.
It is end times.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly,
‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ "
---Matthew 7:21-23

Look closely. These are not pagans or unbelievers.
They are calling him Lord.
That is what "believers" call Him.
Christ responds "I NEVER knew you" and slams the Gate of Heaven shut on them.

These are people who went through their lives, believing they were saved and believe in Jesus Christ.
Yet, He clearly is not saying I can't recall you, He says "I NEVER knew you".
What a shock that will be.

I never met such a person and could not fathom what it would take to be one of these "believer/ not really" folks.

Then, I read Abbey Roads and The Tenth Crusade, and a few other blogs, and for the first time in my life, I met commentors that "believe they are saved and serve the Lord", while clearly, He never knew them. I shuddered for the revelation he exposed to me.

Do you have a cause?
Is it grammar? Abortion? Purity? Obedience? Serving the poor?
No doubt, whatever your cause, it is probably good.
But what about Christ?

Christ is our cause!

With Christ as our cause, we enter the Gates of Heaven and hear..."I know you, come in". Let us speak of the causes you did as a result of having me as your cause.

In all my life, I have never met such a "believer" as those who will be tossed away....until this year online.

The Crescat is not writing on boyfriends and keeping purity in relationships, and establishing marriage as a central and integral part of the deal, she is writing that CHRIST is her CAUSE, and due to that, the matter on boyfriends is an easy decision, even if lonely at times. So too, with all other issues. They come subordinate to Christ as our cause.

One priest actually wrote "the resurrection is nothing".
The only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but that statement comes as close to that precipice of blasphemy, I have ever seen written or said.

This is a safe area to learn truth.
Indeed, I feel very welcome in these quarters.

Keystone said...


I am more of a King Lear fan myself. Near the end Act, the King has died.
Tribute will be paid in eulogy.
Shakespeare eloquently writes:

"Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say".

The best blog comments veer toward that dictum from King Lear, eh?

Piotrek said...

Truly, I'm at a loss. :(

Keystone said...

Piotrek said...
Truly, I'm at a loss. :(

You have addressed me personally three times now.

Given the graciousness of The Crescat, as we are BOTH visitors to her "Living" Room here, I will take advantage of her hospitality anew.

It is my preference to stay on topic. However, I sense from your direct comments to me, an ever growing awareness, of connection of your soul to the living Jesus Christ.

As ships passing in the night, I wish to toss out three life preservers, to you, or anyone who is at a loss.

1) You present yourself as a man.
Make Christ your cause FIRST, and you will have The Light of the World within you, beckoning those who are able to recognize Him.
These are incredibly valuable women, and just as rare these days.

2) You are in excellent company!
The Apostle Paul wrote:
"But whatever were gains to me I now consider LOSS for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a LOSS because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things."
---Philippians 3:7-8

Since Paul was at a loss, and you find yourself in that flotsam and jetsam too, emulate what St. Paul has written here, and the eternal Life preserver is yours too, as it was for him.

3) Your first address to me was as a grammartician. Your last address to me begins with the word "Truly".

Again, you are in good company, and I smiled as I read the line.
"Truly" is a derivative of the Aramaic language. This is the language --- of all languages created fron days of the Tower of Babel---that Jesus Christ chose to speak personally, as he walked in the dimension of time, that humans experience.

Scriptures often quote Him saying to individuals, and to crowds:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you (or thee)"

This is the Christ who proclaimed "I Am the Way; the Light; the Truth".

In Aramaic, the Lord began his sentences proclaiming Himself.
"Verily" grammatically speaking, means the same as Piotrek has used to start his sentence to me.
It means "Truly".

Those are the only three life preservers I can toss to you Piotrek, in your loss. Grab 'em!

Another man failed to do so.
He faced Jesus Christ eyeball to eyeball, looking at the one who proclaimed "I Am the Way, the Light, and the Truth".....
and that man replied "What is truth?". He was staring truth in the face, as close as you can get, and failed to recognize Him.
His name was Pilate.

You are never at a loss when your first cause is....Christ!
I pray your loss....become gain, as it did for St. Paul.

God be with ye.

The Crescat said...

Goodness I step away for a few days ...