Category: Community Church Blog

Community Church Blog

Historic Houses of England have put together a historic timeline of English houses throughout the ages take a look below and get to know the history of British architecture

Tudor – 1485 – 1603

tudor house

The Tudor house was defined by its Tudor arch and oriel windows. The Tudor period was the first period to move away from the medieval style houses and was more like a timber framed country house. Today Tudor houses are all listed building and highly sought after due to there location and the amount of space and history involved. Tudor houses are an expensive housing option so be prepared for the financial layout and upkeep costs. If that doesn’t put you off then buying a Tudor house could be a great investment and opportunity to keep English heritage alive.

Elizabethan – 1550 -1625

elizabethan house

Elizabethan houses can be recognised by their large vertical timber frames that are often supported by diagonal beams. The Elizabethan style houses were similar to medieval style houses. These houses were built sturdy to last through the age. The houses were built by the middle class are are today listed building.

Jacobean – 1603 – 1625

Jacobean house

The Jacobean style gets its name from King James 1 of England who reigned at the time. The Jacobean style in England follows the Elizabethan style and is the second phase of Renaissance architecture. May Jacobean houses were very large both inside and out with large rooms for family living.  Common features included columns and pilasters, arches and archades. These features were to create a sense of grandeur. There are many Jacobean style houses on the market today if your lucky enough to be able to afford one.

Stuart – 1603 – 1714

stuart house

One of the most common period property types for country houses. This period house boasted elegant exteriors with sash windows, high ceiling and spacious rooms. The outside was commonly bare brick and flat fronted.

English Baroque – 1702 – 1714

During this period houses were decorated with arches, columns and sculptures and took many features and characteristics from the continent. The interiors were very exuberant with artwork and ornaments in all rooms main rooms

Palladian – 1715 -1770

palladian house

The Palladian era started in 1715 and these types of houses are characterised by symmetry and classic forms, more plain than other eras however on the inside houses were lavish and often had elaborate decorations

Georgian – 1714 – 1837

georgian house

The Georgian house was styled with rigid symmetry, the most common Georgian house was built with brick with window decorative headers and hip roofs. The Georgian house period started and got its name due to the 4 successive kings being named George.

Regency – 1811 – 1820

regency house

The Regency housing style was common among the upper and middle classes from 1811 to 1820 the houses were typically built in brick and then covered in painted plaster. The plaster was carefully moulded to produce elegant decorative touches to give the exterior of the house more elegance.

Victorian – 1837 – 1910

victorian house

Very common even today especially in London. A Victorian house in general refers to any house build during the reign of Queen Victoria. The main features of a Victoria house are roofs made of slate with sash windows and patters in the brick work that are made using different colour bricks. Stained Glass windows and doors were also a common feature as were bay windows

Edwardian – 1901 -1910

edwardian house

Edwardian architecture got its name during the reign of King Edward from 1901 – 1910. These types of houses were generally built in a straight line with red brick. Edwardian houses typically had wooden frame porches and wide hallways. The rooms inside were wider and brighter moving away from the older style houses that were more gothic. Parquet wood floors and simple internal decoration was common also.

Self-Regulation and the Catholic Church

Is it possible to have honest to goodness self-regulation in the Catholic Church and what about that whole Enron thing?

Authorities within the Church made it their responsibility to self-regulate sexual offenders during the latter half of the 20th Century. However, the self-regulation that occurred was not looked favorably upon in that it often brushed matters under the carpet by relocating offenders and/or not reporting molestation to authorities outside of the Church. So, in essence, self-regulation in this case failed-at least initially. That’s not to say that self-regulation cannot be beneficial or yield better outcomes. The key is having those involved in the regulation be upstanding figures that require clergy to uphold civil and moral laws. A no-tolerance policy must be instated in order to protect youths within the Church as well as sustain the Church for centuries to come.

The victims of the crimes did not readily report the incidents of molestation typically around the time that they happened. Oftentimes, reporting did not occur till years later when the victims were much older and/or no longer practicing Catholics. So, it is difficult to say what type of strategy could have been best employed early on. Now, however, knowing the prevalence of sex crimes against children, law enforcement agencies can strengthen their efforts to make sure this doesn’t continue to happen. Still, this has to be done in assistance with vigilant parents, guardians, educators and other members of the Church. For example, if abuse is suspected, everyone should be aware that they are mandated reporters and law enforcement agencies must take all concerns and complaints seriously even if it is against a supposed reputable church official.

Internal investigations are crucial when any type of crime occurs. That is not to say, however, that external investigations shouldn’t take place. They should and they must to ensure that all avenues are covered, angles reviewed and rights protected.

Anderson Accounting Firm (think Enron) is another example of corrupt and criminal activity that should have been reported. Although, the greatest difference between the Church scandal and Anderson was the religious factor, the two had plenty else in common. Both organizations held a position of trust and both were highlighted scandals in the 1990’s and early 21st Century. Perhaps Anderson shocked the public the most (similar to the Church) because they were a company that audited other companies and should not have been involved in fraud of any sort. Anderson was a financial regulator of sorts and the Church was a moral regulator, but the two organizations needed regulation themselves. It goes to show that no one or no company is perfect, and every agency needs a little checking in on.

Could Anderson have been handled differently by law enforcement agencies? Again, this is a case of only if reports were made. However, it can be expected that in the future companies like this won’t be free from regulation in that they have demonstrated they cannot be responsible enough to always act appropriately, even if they can make a case for lacking mens rea. In conclusion, the victims of Anderson could have best been served by a stronger case against the company. Given that the case was overturned, a precedent could not be established to protect future victims in similar situations. This is probably the most disheartening thing that can happen to victims of any crime.

Da Vinci Code: False Portrayal of Jesus Christ

Da Vinci Code, is a controversial issue nowadays. It is a direct attack amp; slap on the face to Christian believers. The novel written by Dan Brown is very alarming.Dan Brown’s Da Vinci code will be shown in theatres this May, released by Sony pictures amp; starred by Tom Hanks.

It leads some believers of Christ into confusion. The potrayal of Jesus Christ in this piece is fictional. It also implies that the catholic church has been covering and hiding the truth about Jesus Christ.

The as summarized goes something like this: A symbologist was called to analyze Da Vinci’s Masterpieces. In unlocking the code, he was lead to series of mysteries amp; secret that has been hidden for eons. Dan Brown’s work depicted that the Catholic Church will do everything to cover up the factual truth about Jesus Christ.

The Christian Community is being mislead amp; gives them false ideas amp; negative thinking that the messiah we are long worshipping as God is not a God but human,He died amp; was not resurrected, was married to Mary Magdalene amp; the two had a child.

The novel fact page includes the following:

The bible was established by a pagan Roman Emperor, Mary Magdalene instead of Peter was the one who brought up the early church, The Catholic Church will do everything to murder all descendants of Christ, They will also keep on with conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus. The gospel has been edited, the bible was not heaven sent. Mary Magdalene is to be worshipped as a goddess and that there is still a secret group called Priory of Sion who acknowledge Mary Madalene as goddess. These are some of the nerve wrecking facts that were stated in the novel.

Da Vinci was also pictured as the leader amp; promoter of the conspiracy, keepin the secret about Christ. The novel indicated that Leonardo has placed some symbols amp; codes to his artworks. One of these works is the Popular “The last Supper Painting” which was described that seated at the right hand of Jesus was Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown’s imagination is nothing but baseless. The one he was describing as Mary Magdalene is in fact the youngest disciple of Christ ,John. Leonardo Da Vinci was said to be a part of a congregation called Opus Dei.

As a Christian i really find the novel uncanny. Not only does it contain baseless amp; false information about Jesus it also suggest a strong idea that the Christian faith is worthless. Human knowledge is limited, hence they cannot provide valid amp; strong evidence about Jesus as being married to Mary Magdalene. If they really do have a daughter what’s her name? If they got married where did it took place? Where was Mary Magdalene’s first church? There are so many things that are contradicting in Dan’s Brown Da Vinci Code. As for me my faith is strong amp; i stand firm in what i believe. That Jesus is the Son of God, amp; the true Messiah.

Charity Vs. Marxism: Rush Limbaugh’s Criticism of Pope Francis Raises Debate

COMMENTARY | Was Pope Francis preaching the works of Karl Marx or old-fashioned charity in his 50,000-word Evangelii Gaudium? The new Pope, a noted populist from Argentina, has routinely made waves for his humble style and enthusiasm for meeting with common people. While he has yet to thrill more liberal Catholics by announcing new revelations regarding the role or status of women or homosexuals in the Church, he has appealed to many by reinvigorating the call for traditional economic liberalism. According to CNN, the Pope’s call for more social welfare in the global economy has provoked the ire of a potent foe: Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh, perhaps America’s most widely-known conservative commentator, has blasted the Pope’s negative critiques of modern capitalism as de-facto support of Marxism. Controversially, he is labeling the head of the Roman Catholic Church a Communist, claiming that Pope Francis’ commentary would have been unthinkable years ago when John Paul II, a Pole renowned for standing up to the communist Soviet Union, was pontiff. Of course, many supporters of Pope Francis are pushing back, angry at Limbaugh for equating charity, social consciousness, and a disdain for rampant greed with hardline communism.

So, is Pope Francis really a card-carrying Communist? Hardly

Disdain for modern capitalism, which is driven by corporations and stock markets, hardly rises to support for communism. The Pope has not advocated for any abolishment of private property or personal rights. He has not criticized entrepreneurship. He has not said that everyone should only be allotted an equal share. The value of competition and innovation has not been challenged. Adam Smith would be far from rankled.

Rather, the Pope dislikes the modern drive to maximize profits by reducing costs, typically by minimizing worker compensation. Corporations have an incentive to do this in order to elevate stock prices, benefiting shareholders and corporate officers at the expense of the workers whose compensation has been cut. “We’re making healthy profits!” is what the CEO trumpets, neglecting to mention that the healthy profit margins are due to low costs rather than increasing revenues.

The Pope values the capitalist pillar of innovation, not that of cost-cutting

Limbaugh waxes eloquent on how only the private sector, not government, can lift the poor out of poverty by providing jobs. Well, why aren’t private sector employers hiring? The Pope rightly mocks the notion of trickle-down economics, pointing out that the poor are not benefiting from today’s record stock values. Despite record stock prices, corporations are not hiring more people. They argue against tax increases by saying those tax increases will hurt job creation…but when taxes are lowered they don’t hire anyway! Tax cuts intended to boost hiring are therefore wasted and misused by wealthy employers.

No, charity is not communism and the Pope has many valid points in his critique of modern capitalism. Rush needs to take a few Economics classes. I teach it six periods a day at a high school in America’s most conservative city – he would fit right in!

Catholicism: How Catholic Voters Should Make Election Decisions

We go to a lot of trouble in this country to preserve the separation of church and state. However, citizens who are Roman Catholic often have some extra-heavy-duty decisions to make, according to Archbishop George H. Niederauer, writing in Catholic Digest.

While Roman Catholic beliefs never seem to perfectly fit with the platforms of either the Democratic or the Republican Party, Niederauer stresses that the Catholic Church teaches that citizens should take an active part in public life. He adds that education, public safety, law enforcement, health care and many other essential issues depend on the direct participation of Americans in the political process.

American Catholics seem to have a lot of questions as the 2008 Presidential election quickly approaches. Beyond the current economic and employment problems, they want to know if they’re permitted to vote for a candidate who holds a position in opposition to a Catholic moral teaching. Issues at the top of this list include abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research.

Many Catholics are scratching their heads about what to do when neither candidate appears to hold a position totally consistent with the Church’s teachings. To help answer these concerns, Niederaurer explains that the United States Catholic bishops published a document called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which formed the basis of his article.

In regard to the tradition of separation of church and state, the Archbishop explains that the U.S. has a long history of religious and civil leaders working together to solve issues such as slavery and the civil rights movement. Current issues include homelessness and hunger.

Niederaurer states that the Catholic Church bases its teaching on political issues on the Gospel, which shows readers what is true and good in the sight of God. He adds that connected to these truths is respect for the dignity of each individual, adding that it is the bedrock of Catholic moral and social teaching. Catholics, he stresses, are called to promote the well-being of everyone, especially the weak and vulnerable who have no voice.

Is the role of Church leaders to tell parishioners how to vote? Catholic leaders should instead teach Roman Catholics the importance of an informed conscience, the Archbishop states, so that they can make the best choices on the ballot. He adds that conscience is not a way to rationalize a particular behavior or something we want to do. Rather, it’s the voice of God in the human heart, telling us what the trust is and calling us to do the right thing and avoid evil.

Conscience requires each person to make serious attempts to form sound moral judgments based on the truths of the Catholic faith. In short, Catholics have a lifelong obligation to form their consciences within the framework of human reason and the Church’s teachings.

So what’s a Catholic voter to do when a candidate expresses a position directly in opposition to the Church’s teaching? Niederaurer explains that according to “Faithful Citizenship,” there could be times when a voter rejects the unacceptable position and decides to vote for the candidate anyway. However, this decision should be based on morally grave rationale.

The worst dilemma a Catholic voter faces is when each person on the ballot expresses one or more positions opposed to Church moral teaching. According to the U.S. bishops, the voter may take the very unusual step of not voting for anyone. Another alternative is to decide, after detailed deliberation, to vote for the individual who seems less likely to advance the position in question and who will also further other valid human concerns.