Daniel S. Hamilton—Catholic Anglicanism: What Is It?
Now hosts of such hypothesis, treated as certainties by some, have invaded or seek to invade the Anglo-Catholic synthesis: remarriage after divorce, contraception, abortion, intercommoning all around even with the unbaptized, a slippery understanding (the Porvoo Agreement) of apostolic ministerial succession; the priestly/episcopal ordination of women, same-sex blessings and more. Of course, Anglo-Catholicism was never completely uniform, especially when it came to Rome; but there was always an identifiable corpus and its exponents looked if not always leaned in a Roman direction.
So now we come to the contemporary “Catholic Anglicanism” espoused by The Living Church. What is it? What should it be? And where does it stand on these great issues confronting the Church? Once Lord Halifax (1839-1934), the life-long promoter of reunion, was asked what, in addition, he would be believing were he in communion with the See of Rome. He replied (I am paraphrasing), Nothing.
Catholic Anglicanism must mean the faith of the universal Church, East and West, and include the Roman primacy. It must support and promote all that the great Anglo-Catholic leaders collectively stood for and be looking, as they did and ARCIC II does in its recent statements, to reconciliation with the See of Rome.
1. BCP28 wrote:
To which three bishops was the writer referring?
I tend to call myself “high church” to differentiate between myself and the more extreme Roman practices one will find in Baltimore. Our Anglo-Catholic parishes are more Roman than most RC ones…
Still, I support WO and contraception, which makes me wonder if I can claim the catholic label at all.
October 30, 6:42 pm | [comment link]
2. William Tighe wrote:
No, you can’t.
October 30, 9:30 pm | [comment link]
3. William Tighe wrote:
But you could claim the term “Modernist” or “Liberal Protestant” if you like.
October 30, 9:31 pm | [comment link]
4. Philip Snyder wrote:
One must make a distinction between “High Church” and “high ceremonial.” High Church refers to the theology behind the ceremonial. It is a concentration on the sacraments (all 7 of them!) and holding the Tradition of the Church in high regard. It is impossible to be “High Church” and declare that “God is doing a new thing” in morality or in praxis. A high church person will desire a reunion with Rome, but only when Rome returns to the Traditions of the Church.
High ceremonial, on the other hand, is the outward liturgics using splendid vestments, incense, bells, and dressing assisting priests up in dalmatics. High ceremonial used to imply High Churchmanship, but now it is nothing but a pretty dance. It is possible to be High Church and low ceremonial and Low Church and high ceremonial.
October 30, 10:09 pm | [comment link]
5. BCP28 wrote:
For those who may have forgotten:
I am opposed to the “new thing.” The issues I mentioned that trouble me are hardly new. And I support reunion with Rome, but I am not convinced that WO flies in the face of catholic teaching.
Whether or not “high church” constitutes 7 sacraments or not is debateable in my mind, unless you are willing to consider Archbishop Laud low church.
October 30, 10:19 pm | [comment link]
6. William Tighe wrote:
“And I support reunion with Rome, but I am not convinced
that WO flies in the face of catholic teaching.”
Such an oxymoronic sentence I never did see.
“And I support reunion with Rome ...”
but I am not convinced that WO flies in the face of catholic teaching.”
Well, Rome is convinced otherwise. You will recall that Pope John Paul II in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* in 1994 wrote “we declare that the Church has not the capability to confer Orders on women” and than the then Cardinal Ratzinger observed that OS had effectively declared the teaching against WO “irreformable” (unchangeable) as an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. I reckon that you’ll have to change to accomodate Rome, since Rome won’ change to accomodate you.
Ditto for contraception, too.
October 30, 10:47 pm | [comment link]
7. driver8 wrote:
The question is improperly formed. He should be asking, “Catholic Anglicanism: what was it?”
October 30, 11:41 pm | [comment link]
8. dpeirce wrote:
It must be really hard to confront a Church which maintains its beliefs as unchangeable as is the Word of God. Eternal God, eternal Word, eternal Teachings. The Roman Catholic Church does not, and hopefully will never, change its teachings to accomodate the momentary desires of men. Praise God!
BCP28, has it ever occurred to you that contraception (the desire for sex free of consequence) was the initial camel’s nose pushed under the edge of TEC’s tent? The camel is entirely inside that tent now and short of a miracle will never leave it.
In faith, Dave
October 30, 11:52 pm | [comment link]
9. BCP28 wrote:
I do not define catholicism by the pronouncements of the Pope, as much as I repsect him, and indeed, take him seriously. My specific concern about WO mirrors Ratzinger’s, but I am not as convinced as he as to whether or not the church can confer orders on women.
The patristic tradition on contraception is something that, of course, most Anglicans are completely ignorant of. At the same time, are you willing to tell various EO theologians who have advocated liberalization that they have lost any claim to catholic teaching also?
October 30, 11:57 pm | [comment link]
10. William Tighe wrote:
“At the same time, are you willing to tell various EO theologians who have advocated liberalization that they have lost any claim to catholic teaching also?”
Certainly, since a merely historical investigation shows that in that respect they are are revisionistic as the advocates of WO or SS; anf, for that matter, so was the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The true voice of Orthodox Tradition on the matter of contraception was voiced by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in the letter that he sent to Pope Paul VI on August 9, 1968, less than two weeks after the pope had issued his anti-contraception encyclical *Humanae Vitae,* in which the patriarch congratulated hos “venerable brother” for having so nobly and vigorously defended what the Patriarch termed the “common teaching” of both churches. If modern Orthodox theologians are falling away from that “common traching,” too bad for them, for they’re starting down the facilis descensus Averni so well trodden by the Anglicans in recent decades.
October 31, 12:03 am | [comment link]
11. Words Matter wrote:
BCP28 - this was rather thoroughly discussed here in the past few days. There’s a lot of garbage and diversions to wade through, but you might find some of the comments helpful. Best wishes.
October 31, 12:44 am | [comment link]
12. Words Matter wrote:
ooops… “this” being women’s ordination and the problems of innovation and tradition. We never get into contraception.
October 31, 12:46 am | [comment link]
13. AngCatOne wrote:
Prof. Tighe, perhaps you have heard that the Church History position at Nashotah is now open. Perhaps you should send in your CV and try straightening that place out. The alumni would thank you.
October 31, 2:17 am | [comment link]
14. Katherine wrote:
BCP 28, when not only Rome but all of the Orthodox jurisdictions ordain only men and consider it impossible to ordain women, then we must acknowledge that the catholic, as in universal and ancient, position is against it.
October 31, 7:34 am | [comment link]
15. David Keller wrote:
What about indulgences, burning withces at the stake, popes with mistresses and children, forced baptisms, refusal to let the Bible be translated into English, the Inquisition, celebate priests, et.al. Not all Roman doctrine is sound. And, if I wanted to be an RC I could go down the street and become one.
October 31, 8:57 am | [comment link]
16. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: ““And I support reunion with Rome, but I am not convinced that WO flies in the face of catholic teaching.” Such an oxymoronic sentence I never did see.
Well—only if one equates Rome with “catholicity” which of course if one is a Protestant one does not.
But I see that several other commenters have made the same point.
Along with perhaps David Keller, I am celebrating Reformation Day. ; > )
October 31, 10:14 am | [comment link]
17. David Keller wrote:
Sarah—I am baking my Reformation Day cupcakes, and getting my Reformation Day lemonade ready, as we speak. Vodka will be provide for the lemonade, if desired. Cheers.
October 31, 10:28 am | [comment link]
18. Words Matter wrote:
And a Happy Reformation Day to all my protestant brothers and sisters! If you stop by the house this evening, I have plenty of Reformation candy to hand out, and a special prize for the best Martin Luther costume (he’s my favorite reformer).
Mr. Keller, there really are things that separate us - we are, after all, “separated brethren”. But it helps to discuss them reasonably and accurately. Here’s my take on your list:
indulgences - legitimate doctrinal difference
burning withces at the stake - so should we have hanged them like the Puritans? Anyway, not a doctrine
popes with mistresses and children - protestant ministers don’t fornicate? In any case, not a doctrine
forced baptisms - abuse of power, not a doctrine. Wasn’t there a rather ugly bit about Calvin’s folks drowning anabaptists in Lake Geneva in a mockery of (re)baptism?
refusal to let the Bible be translated into English - historical circumstances, not a doctrine. Actually, the objection was, I think, to bad translations and some English texts of scripture were available.
the Inquisition - abuse of power. see The Black Legend for a bit more depth on the subject. Again, execution of heretics was hardly a Catholic monopoly.
celebate priests - a disciplinie, not doctrine. A discipline, I might add, that works quite well for us. See I Corinthians 7.32-33
Clearly shining a light on the dark spots in a communities history is not very helpful polemically, since the light shines in both directions. I’m actually not here to discuss Catholic matters, but neither am I interested in seeing my mother spit on.
If I were making a list of problematic Catholic doctrines, I would go with:
The Marian dogmas - Immaculate Conception and Assumption, as well as, perhaps Mary’s role in the economy of salvation (which actually relates to the Communion of Saints)
The Communion of Saints
Purgatory and Indulgences (which relate to differences in how we understand justification and salvation in general).
Several aspects of sacramental theology: Holy Orders, Apostolic Succession, the nature of the Real Presence, Confession and Absolution, and so on.
Some others, but you get the idea. Note that all of these doctrines are debated within Anglicanism, quite apart from the Catholic Church. I remember dealing with most, if not all, of them long before I even thought about becoming Catholic.
There is, of course, one other doctrinal matter that’s worth mentioning: authority: scripture and tradition, the role of the magesterium, to include Papal Infallibility. That got a good workout in the other thread, and may, at the end of it all, be the one issue that we must resolve if we are to obey the Lord’s will that we all be one.
October 31, 10:45 am | [comment link]
19. Vincent Lerins wrote:
Why do people feel they must be reunited to Rome? Why go under the tyranny of the papacy again. Does anyone ever learn from history? Are things better being in communion with the bishop of Rome? Will that make your salvation more sure? What about all of the heresy in their church?
Why don’t we work to towards unity with the Eastern churches? Their system is far more biblically sound than the Roman church.
Also, what about end time prophecy about the Roman Church. Some Catholics believe the prophecies of St. Malachi about the last pope, the one following the current pope. Let’s say the prophecy is true. What will unification with Rome mean at that point?
October 31, 11:18 am | [comment link]
20. evan miller wrote:
Which three bishops pronounced “Catholic Anglicanism” dead?
October 31, 12:16 pm | [comment link]
21. Phil wrote:
Evan - I think they were Jim Pike, John Spong, Walter Righter, Bill Swing ... wait, that’s more than three ...
October 31, 12:37 pm | [comment link]
22. justinmartyr wrote:
BCP28, has it ever occurred to you that contraception (the desire for sex free of consequence) was the initial camel’s nose pushed under the edge of TEC’s tent?
How is “natural” family planning not similarly “sex free of consequence”?
October 31, 2:08 pm | [comment link]
23. dpeirce wrote:
#22: The basic difference as I understand it is: Contraception interposes a physical or chemical barrier to prevent pregnancy, while Natural Family Planning relies on cooperation between the spouses and abstinence at appropriate times but there is no physical or chemical barrier. At age 68 I’m not up on the details (don’t need to be :^>), but information on it can be found at http://www.familyministries.org/nfp.htm.
Contraception says to God, “No, I definitely do NOT want the possibility of a child to arise from this sexual union, period”. NFP says something more like, “For reasons that seem good to me, Lord, I don’t want a child from this union; however, you will know beter and so I’m leaving the possibility open”. Contraception divorces sex from the possibility of procreation while NFP does not. There are two Godly purposes to *every* sex act: union between the spouses (man and woman), and possible procreation; without BOTH, the act is a distortion of what God has intended. Contraception prevents the procreative function of sex, and permits casual inconsequential sex between unmarried partners. Therefore, contraception distorts God’s purpose for sex in both ways.
In faith, Dave
October 31, 3:33 pm | [comment link]
24. justinmartyr wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Help me understand, because I am puzzled:
Surely NFP and chemical contraceptives both say: I want sex without conception? The one uses a calendar, the others use latex or chemicals. If having sex while avoiding conception is wrong, surely both methods are evil? The attitude in both cases seems the same—sex without pregnancy. If you’re really into leaving options open to God (and one wonders what man can do that God could overcome anyway?), why not follow the Full Quiver people and trust that God will only get you pregnant when and if he wants you to be?
I find it hard to buy the argument that contraception is bad because it enables sex between unmarried partners. By the same line of reasoning, wouldn’t cars be bad because they help bank robbers make fast getaways?
Also, is chewing gum wrong because you get to chew without digesting the food? Is perfume wrong because you get the smell without the mess of gathering flowers?
October 31, 3:47 pm | [comment link]
25. Charley wrote:
... and if an elephant had wings wouldn’t it just be a big a$$ed bird?
October 31, 4:28 pm | [comment link]
26. Ross wrote:
“Natural family planning” is a way of having sex while avoiding conception, and it has a non-zero failure rate—substantially non-zero, in fact. Various artificial methods of contraception are ways of having sex while avoiding conception, and they also have non-zero failure rates—better than NFP, but still not zero.
Is it the “artificiality” that makes a difference, or is it the magnitude of the failure rate? Is there some percentage beyond which a contraceptive method is too effective and becomes against God’s will?
October 31, 4:36 pm | [comment link]
27. dpeirce wrote:
#24: Surely not! Contraception says, “I WILL NOT have a child here”, while NFP says, “I don’t want one but I will defer to your judgement, Lord”. And NFP doesn’t use the calendar; read about it through the link I provided.
Re contraception enabling casual sex between unmarried people: I was a young boy and man (many years ago, but I was). I was unmarried. I carried a condom in my wallet (we called them rubbers then). I wanted sex, and I didn’t want any accidents. With contraception (the rubber) I could; without it, well, the danger could take all the fun out of it.
Not proud of that, understand. But contraceptives are NOT innocent.
Cars have good and valid uses for nearly all of us, even if not for bank robbers; Likewise for chewing gum and perfume (where did you get these examples from??? ^_^). Condoms have no good use for anyone because in one way or the other they contravene God’s purpose for sex.
#26: Personally, I don’t think it’s the artificiality, it’s the PURPOSE. Contraception is an attempt to DENY God’s freedom to cause a baby in that sexual union; NFP doesn’t seek to deny God’s freedom and, if he chooses to execute it, the way is open for a pregnancy.
In faith, Dave
October 31, 5:24 pm | [comment link]
28. justinmartyr wrote:
“Personally, I don’t think it’s the artificiality, it’s the PURPOSE. Contraception is an attempt to DENY God’s freedom to cause a baby in that sexual union; NFP doesn’t seek to deny God’s freedom and, if he chooses to execute it, the way is open for a pregnancy.”
You’re not being very clear. What makes contraceptives a sin? Is it:
1.) The desire to have sex without conceiving?
Isn’t that the very purpose of NFP? (Your site seems to indicate so.)
2.) Is it that the wrong people (i.e., unmarried people) are using it?
In which case, it’s not using a condom that is wrong, but sex outside of marriage that is wrong?
3.) Is it its success rate?
If contraceptives were only 50% successful, would they then be acceptable than NFP—since at that rate they would “give God more freedom” than NFP does?
Contraception is an attempt to DENY God’s freedom to cause a baby in that sexual union; NFP doesn’t seek to deny God’s freedom and, if he chooses to execute it, the way is open for a pregnancy.
Rather a broad statement to make, don’t you think? I’d think that most Christians who use condoms would be open to God allowing a surprise pregnancy if He so wishes—just as most NFP users would do the same? And that statement about stopping God’s freedom: can that be done?—if God could make a Virgin pregnant, surely a condom wouldn’t get in the way? We know they are notoriously susceptible to accidents anyway.
October 31, 5:46 pm | [comment link]
29. dpeirce wrote:
#28: Again, the sin appears to be in the PURPOSE of contraception: to *DENY* God any option in a particular sex act. Contraception says, “I will PREVENT a conception, period”. NFP says, “I don’t want a child from this union, but I will defer to your judgement, Lord, if you should want to make a child here”.
It’s the difference between *I WON’T*, and I’d rather not but will leave it in your hands. It’s the difference between disobedience and submission.
In faith, Dave
October 31, 5:59 pm | [comment link]
30. Words Matter wrote:
This is NOT my issue (older single male), but if you are going to work it over, you might consider some statistics:
A couple of google hits on “contaception failure rates”:
The first site shows some Natural Family Planning methods slightly more effective than condoms. The pill is more effective, but, of course, you have the associated health risks. The second site puts condoms slightly more effective than NFP. In both cases, the difference is small.
Contraception Failure Rates 1
Contraception Failure Rates 2
October 31, 6:05 pm | [comment link]
31. justinmartyr wrote:
Thank you, we’re now getting down to business.
It’s the difference between *I WON’T*, and I’d rather not but will leave it in your hands. It’s the difference between disobedience and submission.
How is the NFP attitude “I’d rather not” and contraception “I won’t”? Isn’t that an abysmally large and inaccurate value judgment? I can say with 99% certainty that all users of contraception on this site would echo Christ’s statement: deliver me from this, but not my will but yours.
October 31, 6:07 pm | [comment link]
32. justinmartyr wrote:
dpeirce, if intent is the only defense against contraception then the Catholic Church is on shaky ground.
October 31, 6:08 pm | [comment link]
33. BCP28 wrote:
A couple of thoughts:
1. I have known people to concieve using both NFP AND contraceptives, multiple times in the case of the latter. God will do as he wills.
2. Even LCMS allows contraception!
3. My desire, like a lot of catholic-leaning (at least) Anglicans, is for a reformed Papacy. Happy Reformation Day.
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann keinen anderen tun. Gott helfen mir. Amen.
October 31, 6:10 pm | [comment link]
34. dpeirce wrote:
#30, I’m not sure that you were addressing me but, if you were, I would like to ask what effectiveness has to do with the attitude of disobedience as opposed to submission?
#31, I personally can see a vast difference between *I WON’T* and I’d rather not but I will if you want me to.
Contraception is an effort to, as nearly as possible, deny God any choice in whether a child will result from that union. It employs science and quality control, as well as marketing, to make the exclusion of any procreative possibility as foolproof as humanly possible. It is therefore a physical statement of the users’ intent. There’s no obedience in it simply because God COULD overcome it; the person’s attitude is clear. The same applies to “accidents” which sometimes occur even with use of contraceptives.
An “accident” occurring during use of NFP would be assumed to be in fact no accident at all - but rather an expression of God’s desire in the matter.
The two, contraception and NFP, seem greatly different to me.
In faith, Dave
October 31, 6:25 pm | [comment link]
35. Ross wrote:
And to me (and apparently to justinmartyr) it seems like a difference of degree and not kind. The intent is not to conceive; the only difference is the method employed and how effective that method is.
Let me pose a couple of hypotheticals: Suppose that the techniques of NFP became so good that—without ever using artificial methods—a couple using NFP could be 99.999% sure that no baby would result. Is this still “an attitude of submission”?
Alternatively, suppose a couple uses condoms, but in the event that a condom fails they shrug and say, “Well, I guess that’s God’s will, then. Better find a crib.” Are they still saying “I WON’T” to God?
Alternatively again, suppose a couple uses NFP not because they are expressing an “attitude of submission,” but because they really, seriously, do not want a baby but can’t or won’t use any artificial methods? And if the they get pregnant anyway, they wail and bemoan their lot and tear their hair out and curse cruel fate that has visited this unwanted burden upon them? Where do they stand on your scale then?
The first two scenarioes may be reaching, but I don’t think the third one is that uncommon.
October 31, 6:49 pm | [comment link]
36. Words Matter wrote:
#30 was aimed at Ross’ comment on effectiveness; the point was to eliminate “effectiveness” as a discussion factor. That was probably passe by the time I posted, however.
This really isn’t my issue, but if I were going to argue it, I would go back to HUMANAE VITAE; even though most here won’t accept the authority of the author, his arguments are fascinating in the accuracy with which Paul VI predicted the progress of things from an acceptance of artificial contraception. Basically, what he said would happen has happened. “By their fruits”, and all that.” Of course, as with all these sorts of things, a century ago, you would be arguing it: no Christian community accepted artificial contraception.
October 31, 6:52 pm | [comment link]
37. dpeirce wrote:
My apologies, WM, I was confused. And Humanae Vitae IS a wonderful teaching. I wouldn’t be able to do it justice ^_^. But, yes, the Pope and other theologians (not all Catholic… I see glimpses here and on Stand Firm) have pointed out the line of progression from contraception thru abortion and homosexuality to all the *andries aand *isms being advocated now in our society (and Church). And, no, I don’t expect most here to accept that contraception is sin; not any more than 100 years ago the people could have even conceived such a thing as contraception would ever be possible. As they used to say on TV, “We’ve come a long way, baby”!
However, if someone can’t see the difference between *I WON’T* and “I will, Lord, if you want me to”, then I’m not going to be able to craft an explanation he will choose to accept.
In faith, Dave
October 31, 10:39 pm | [comment link]
38. alfonso wrote:
Dave, my wife and I practiced NFP for a good while and were happy with it. I still recommend it.
Please understand that everyone here sees the difference between “I Won’t” and “I will, Lord, if you want.” What you don’t seem to see is your own very artificial concept[ion]: that NFP users supposedly can’t have hearts that say, “I Won’t”; and contraceptive users can’t have sincere hearts that say, “I will, Lord, if you want.”
I buy your conclusion that NFP is good. Your reasoning in the above posts, though, is based on faulty logic.
November 1, 12:21 am | [comment link]
39. dpeirce wrote:
No, by the very nature of contraception a person *can’t* be saying I will, Lord, if you want me to. By the very nature of a condom or the pill as a physical or chemical barrier, the person is saying “I WON’T”. It took me many years to realize that. Like many other things, we try very hard to repackage won’t into will but it remains won’t. The repackaging is our attempt to deceive ourselves that wrong is actually OK. It works for a while.
Been there and did that for a long time, but finally had to accept that contraception is a rebellion and leads to other rebellions.
In faith, Dave
November 1, 12:34 am | [comment link]
40. alfonso wrote:
“It took ... many years….” Bless your heart, Dave in Viva, this sounds more like ossification than inspiration.
I’m OK with “black & white” morality where things are just that, and so spelled out in God’s Word. And I’m OK with the defense of NFP, and with caveats, even the congruence of contraception and rebellion. Moreover, Tradition tends to favor your conclusion more than otherwise and that’s good. But I’m calling “legalism” on your view as presented here. You’ve set forth an argument that is not grounded in Scripture nor Reason and yet are making your pronouncement (I paraphrase: “by their very nature a person is saying “I won’t, God”) binding upon the consciences of others. Not good.
By your measure, your legalism also condemns the woman who understands her own physiology and chooses to breastfeed because she knows such activity induces chemical changes/“barriers” that make conception significantly less likely. Your logic not only goes beyond Scripture, it goes beyond the RCC Magisterium.
November 1, 6:29 am | [comment link]
41. dpeirce wrote:
I might be legalistic (ask my kids :^>), and scripturally ungrounded but…
1) Breast feeding:
God gave the woman breasts to be used for that purpose; any chemical changes resulting from that use come from natural processes within her body, processes that were established in that body by God, so that we can say God himself caused those changes. And we have a lot of medical evidence showing that breast-feeding is better for kids for moms who can manage it. Further, unless she abstains from sex, the way is open for pregnancy. Therefore, she is not acting to contravene God’s will.
2) The nature of contraceptives, and the statement made by those who use them:
You’ve said you are OK with a congruence of contraception and rebellion, but that you don’t agree with me trying to bind someone’s conscience by saying the nature of contraceptives is a statement of rebellion by those who use them. Did I understand correctly?
And, by “binding a conscience” I understand you to mean something like “dictating”, or possibly judgementalism. I apologize for my harshness. However, I understand I have no power to dictate, nor am I saying people who use contraceptives are bound for Hell. Their destinations are for the merciful Jesus to determine. My only power is that of respectful argument among equals.
That said, I look at the nature of contraceptives. Their entire technology and process of manufacture is designed to exclude the possibility of pregnancy as far as it is humanly possible to do so. The person who uses contraceptives is aware of that process and, in fact, *counts* on it, consciously seeking that method which is more effective and convenient. By *counting* on their effectiveness and convenience, the person using contraceptives is making a statement whch is congruent with rebellion.
So, contraception’s entire design is to enable sex without pregnancy. NFP, on the other hand, relies on intelligent *abstinence* to prevent pregnancy. The two therefore are completely different.
Is there some other way to see it?
3) Re scripture grounding, I can give you a list of scriptures I’ve culled from various texts and websites, and a list of websites which can explain the Church’s position on contraception much better than I, if you wish it. Also, while I might have stated things badly, I do believe my argument is well founded in scripture and the Magisterium. If not, I’ll cheerfully retract whatever doesn’t fit.
‘Viva’ means “Long live!”
In faith, Dave
November 1, 2:09 pm | [comment link]