www.byzcath.org
Archbishop of Canterbury tells Pope: no turning back on women priests.

Quote
The Archbishop of Canterbury has mounted a direct challenge to the Roman Catholic Church's stance against the ordination of women priests.

In a speech in Rome today, he made clear there could be no turning back of the clock on women priests to appease the Pope, the Catholic Church or malcontents in the Church of England

The rest can be found

Here [timesonline.co.uk]


And I guess he doesn't want to appease the Orthodox either...
I think that Pope Benedict's Apostolic Constitution facilitating the conversion of Anglican to Catholicism is true ecumenism. While dialogue with those who support women's ordination is pointless.
The interesting point is that Dr. Williams seems to have missed a major point about women's ordination. Pope John Paul II of blessed memory settled the question for the Catholic Church in 1994 with a very authoritative document that Catholics are supposed to hold as part of the Faith. So for him to make a statement like the one reported should also make it clear to all involved that there is not and never will be any communion in matters of the Faith and there will never be any sacramental sharing of any kind. I wonder if this registered in his mind while he was preparing his remarks or has done so since.

BOB
The Archbishop is clearly out of touch with what being a Catholic Christian is.

I thank God I crossed the Tiber (via Constantinople). Lets pray for the Anglican Church and those who defend Apostolic Practice with in and that they will take the Pope up on his offer.

Actually I am afraid that judging by some of the Archbishop's actions and statements he is out of touch with what being a Christian is, never mind a Catholic or Orthodox.
Deacon Borislav,

I remind you, again, that the appropriate titles of clergy - including those of non-Apostolic Churches - are used in posting at this forum. You may properly refer to the Archbishop of Canterbury as such or as Dr Williams. You may not apply quotation marks to his title to denigrate him or his office. He holds that office in the church to which he belongs, whether you consider it appropriate or not - neither the Orthodox nor Catholic Churches hold an exclusive right to the use of hierarchical titles.

Many years,

Neil
"Dr. Williams" is a perfectly acceptable form of address, widely used within Anglican circles. Chill. Or I will take to calling the Archbishop of Canterbury "His Lordship".
I've never heard an Archbishop of Canterbury address as Dr Williams directly, only referred to as Dr Williams in the media. Archbishops like Dukes are formally addressed as Your Grace in England.

This Archbishop seems to be making it very clear where his Church is heading. For once someone in that camp is making it clear just what they stand for. This is clarification of their position is very helpful in any further dialogue between them and any number of other Churches,
What strikes me as odd is the report that the Archbishop will preside at Vespers. Sounds like an RC Vespers because 1. called "Vespers" (not "Evensong") and 2 in a church called "the Oratory of St Francis Xavier" (also pretty "Roman" {as the Anglicans would say}). I know Orthodox Hierarchs who have "presided", but strikes me as odd that an Anglican cleric would (I know it's not a sacramental service, but still....). Could a United Church or Baptist cleric "preside"?

The other thing I found REALLY interesting are the comments! Kinda contextualizes our conversations.
Presiding is no big deal in current Latin practice. The confusion can come in when one refers to the pirest at the Liturgy as the "presider" rather than the "priest celebrant" or "priest." I've presided at para-liturgical services in my parish over many years, including Stations of the Cross and Eucharistic Services, so being a presider at any meeting of the Christian community other than the Liturgy is no big deal.

There's a bit of the struggle within the Catholic Church showing here. There are those who think we should recognize all the Anglicans without much more ado, thus opening the door to all the things they are doing--women's ordination, et al. There are those who still insist on Pope Leo's determination of Anglican Orders and who oppose the former approach. Giving Archbishop Williams the role of presider can be seen as advancing the one group's idea and also as being of little import to the other. In any event, it's a courtesy in this ecumenical age.

BOB
Yes, I see what you mean.

Thirty years ago, I would have been much more comfortable (if not enthusiastic) for an Anglican bishop to "preside" (in the old-fashioned sense) at a non-sacramental Divine Service.

Given recent events in the Anglican Communion, I am personally less comfortable in my own mind to include them in the "family" of "Apostolic" or (as they would say "catholic") churches. Now I would tend to group them in with such as the United Church (who have no problem with abortion or same-gender unions and ordinations {indeed they are quite enthusiastic about it}) and other so called "main-line" Protestant ecclesial communities of that ilk.

So it would strike me as odd to see a United Church minister or even the Moderator himself (or herself) presiding at a Latin Church Vespers.

Having said that, I'm not a member of the Latin Church, so in a sense, it's their affair (and non of my business - so far as it goes).
It is neither discourteous nor un-heard of to refer to either a Catholic Bishop or an Anglican Bishop as "Dr. Broderick" or whatever his name may be. (Dr. Broderick was titular Bishop of Juniopolis and former auxiliary of Havana, in case anyone is wondering).

Fr. Serge
Herbigny:

I guess it's because of the liturgical similarity. A minister from a less liturgical tradition would probably not want to preside anyway. But anyone can put on an alb, cincture, and cope for Vespers. The only difference is having a stole underneath, so it's no big deal.

BOB
Quote
There's a bit of the struggle within the Catholic Church showing here. There are those who think we should recognize all the Anglicans without much more ado, thus opening the door to all the things they are doing--women's ordination, et al. There are those who still insist on Pope Leo's determination of Anglican Orders and who oppose the former approach. Giving Archbishop Williams the role of presider can be seen as advancing the one group's idea and also as being of little import to the other. In any event, it's a courtesy in this ecumenical age.

Who thinks we should recognize the Anglicans' ordination of women? That is directly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

And for those who "still" consider Pope Leo's bull authoritative and binding - that would be the entire Church, including the Pope himself, who within the last couple of decades emphatically reiterated that the bull is, of course, binding.

The fact that some people can't take such plain statements at face value continues to shock and baffle me.

Alexis
Anyway, I for one am glad that Dr. Williams spoke out so forcefully in favor of women's ordination - since it makes it totally clear, to me at least, that the only way we should be dealing with these people is to set out on a mission of converting as many of them as we possibly can to the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as the Church has maintained ever since the Church of England came into being.

I think the Anglican Provision does just that.

Really, it makes total sense for Dr. Williams to forcefully defend women's ordination now. That Communion is no longer fooling anyone with half a brain that they're an Apostolic Christian community, so the only people he has to appease are those who favor ordination of women in the first place. Cut your losses and shore up those whom you still have. Wise policy to me.

I love the last little bit about Cardinal Kasper's staff being "dismayed" at Anglicanorum Coetibus. I bet! LOL. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall.

Alexis
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Anyway, I for one am glad that Dr. Williams spoke out so forcefully in favor of women's ordination - since it makes it totally clear, to me at least, that the only way we should be dealing with these people is to set out on a mission of converting as many of them as we possibly can to the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as the Church has maintained ever since the Church of England came into being.

I think the Anglican Provision does just that.

Really, it makes total sense for Dr. Williams to forcefully defend women's ordination now. That Communion is no longer fooling anyone with half a brain that they're an Apostolic Christian community, so the only people he has to appease are those who favor ordination of women in the first place. Cut your losses and shore up those whom you still have. Wise policy to me.

I love the last little bit about Cardinal Kasper's staff being "dismayed" at Anglicanorum Coetibus. I bet! LOL. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall.

Alexis

Good post. I agree with that 100%
Very well put Alexis. We now know where we stand and they stand.

cool
Quote
The fact that some people can't take such plain statements at face value continues to shock and baffle me.

Alexis


And me. It's just too bad we're separated by age and distance. I'm sure you'd have the same gray hair and high blood pressure I've had over the years hearing some priests actually speak against Pope Leo's Bull from the pulpit. (One time I got so far out of joint that the pastor of our parish pulled me aside and actually begged me not to write to Rome after an assistant's sermon on the subject. He said that the man had attended a seminary where the whole curriculum was elective and he came to the parish with little theology and little idea of liturgical celebration. But the poor man is now dead--the assistant; kidney failure--and his faux pas are over, too.)

Maybe we ought to follow the lead of the Moscow Patriarchate. When the first women were ordained in the Episcopal Church in the United States--1974 and officially after 1976--the MP politely told the Anglicans that with that sort of development any future talks about any sort of unity in faith and sacraments was no longer possible. And, if I remember correctly, they also said that future ecumenical talks would not have unity as a final goal. It's one thing to have serious theological dialogue when one has the goal of eventual communion, but it's quite another when it becomes increasingly clear that this is no longer possible under any circumstances.

In Christ,
BOB
Those who want priestesses can have them.

Those who want the Church of Christ, likewise, can have it.

Some of us left those ships on the bottom of the ocean while the captains were yelling, "Bail faster."

Been there. Done that.

I'd rather be in a Church that saves me than be a part of a church I have to save. That is why I am Orthodox.
Originally Posted by StuartK
"Dr. Williams" is a perfectly acceptable form of address, widely used within Anglican circles. Chill. Or I will take to calling the Archbishop of Canterbury "His Lordship".

Originally Posted by Fr Serge Keleher
It is neither discourteous nor un-heard of to refer to either a Catholic Bishop or an Anglican Bishop as "Dr. Broderick" or whatever his name may be. (Dr. Broderick was titular Bishop of Juniopolis and former auxiliary of Havana, in case anyone is wondering).

I recommend a careful re-reading of my post to Deacon Borislav, which will show that I indicated to him that 'Dr Williams' was a perfectly acceptable style by which to address the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Stuart,

I'm neither awed nor cowed by your arrogance, pomposity, or pedantry - don't you presume to tell me to 'chill'. If you find my style of moderation to be contrary to your perception of how dialogue should occur, then I recommend that you not dialogue with me.

Neil
Talk of such things, I remember a classmate - from Germany, I think - in graduate school who invariably referred to the Latin Archbishop of Toronto as "My Lord Toronto".

In Ireland a simple bishop is often addressed as "Your Lordship" - inaccurately, since in Ireland the bishops are not members of a non-existent "House of Lords".

The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, is indeed a member of the English House of Lords, and may properly be addressed as "My Lord Archbishop". Knowing Dr. Williams, he is unlikely to encourage such a form of address.

None of which is of any vital importance.

Fr. Serge
I am a little hot headed, and many of you know this very well.

I tend to over react to such things. The statement by Dr. Williams was just a bit shocking. He wants all of us to "reconsider" our view of female bishops. Next he will ask that we soften our position on homosexual clergy. Maybe we should all also re-examine our view of the scriptures, after all according to Dr. Williams much of the Nativity story is just a fairytale. Maybe we should also add Rev. Martin Lurther King to the calendar of our saints? Finally the good archbishop may ask us to rethink our position on letting practicing Muslims hold clerical positions in the Church of Christ. After all this has also been allowed by the Anglican communion.


Anyway, please pray for me because this type of stuff drives me absolutely crazy.


No doubt he will suggest all of those things. After all that is where he is coming from. The Pope will of course reject them. Sleep well tonight. The Archbishop will of course have a lovely stay in Rome and will hopefully have safe trip home.

cool
Quote
Maybe we should all also re-examine our view of the scriptures, after all according to Dr. Williams much of the Nativity story is just a fairytale.

Though a disaster as a prelate, Dr. Williams is a powerful and perceptive theologian (which ought to prove, once and for all, that academic qualifications and pastoral qualifications are two different things). Your characterization of his position on the Nativity of Christ is, at its very best, a gross distortion and caricature.
Actually the use of the word Church is incorrect, it should be anglican communion. They are not a Church.
Stephnos I
Quote
Actually the use of the word Church is incorrect, it should be anglican communion. They are not a Church.
Stephnos I


Father Stephanos:

With all due respect, we need to remember the rules of charity apply to organizations as well as to individuals holding offices within said organizations. While Catholics and Orthodox may disagree over whether the Anglicans form a Church or merely a Communion or an ecclesial community, we refer to them as they refer to them out of respect for their humanity and their consciences. Whether we believe they are wrong, we can always refer to them and speak to them in Christian charity.

I try to remember that all charity arises from and is the Person of Christ. And since we are all called to be plunged into Him by Baptism, we ought to remember that we arise from the font having Him and the charity arising from Him now a part of the new man we have become.

BOB
Originally Posted by theophan
I guess it's because of the liturgical similarity. A minister from a less liturgical tradition would probably not want to preside anyway. But anyone can put on an alb, cincture, and cope for Vespers. The only difference is having a stole underneath, so it's no big deal.

BOB

In Lutheran liturgical practice a stole is worn at Matins and Vespers ONLY when there is to be a Sermon, and it is worn only by the one preaching.

Within the Society of the Holy Trinity [societyholytrinity.org]the usual practice is to vest in cassock, surplice, and tippet for the Offices; a stole instead of tippet if preaching, a cope if the Office is being celebrated with greater solemnity.
Originally Posted by StuartK
Your characterization of his position on the Nativity of Christ is, at its very best, a gross distortion and caricature.


I think not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573213/Archbishop-says-nativity-a-legend.html

"The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.

Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."

The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.

He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

I suggest you do your research before accusing anyone of a "gross distortion".

Oh and as of "gross distortion" of British law... I seem to recall the good archbishop welcoming Sharia law in England...


Like Deacon Borislav, I remember well the Archbishop's dismissal of much related to the Nativity as it is depicted in the Gospels. As one with a special devotion to Sainted Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar (and the lesser known visitors referred to in other traditions - as many as 12 Magi in some), it stuck with me at the time particularly because he brought into question the reality of the Magi.

Many years,

Neil
As I also remember, and his Lordship's call for allowing Sharia a few months ago. He might head the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, but his leadership is seeing them fragment, and not doing much good for the Christians still in the CoE or Anglican Communion.
Originally Posted by Deacon Borislav
Originally Posted by StuartK
Your characterization of his position on the Nativity of Christ is, at its very best, a gross distortion and caricature.


I think not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573213/Archbishop-says-nativity-a-legend.html

"The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.

Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."

The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.

He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

I suggest you do your research before accusing anyone of a "gross distortion".

Oh and as of "gross distortion" of British law... I seem to recall the good archbishop welcoming Sharia law in England...

Well, I hate to disappoint His Eminence, however, my husband just got back from a pilgrimage to Mt. Athos and guess what one of the sacred things he got to venerate was?!?--the actual holy gifts given to the baby Jesus by the wise men: gold, myrrh and frankincense...kept in Jerusalem until they were told by the Panaghia to someone to be taken to Mt. Athos many centuries later....

As for snow being present on that night, he is probably correct, but not necessarily. My mom was on pilgrimage in Jerusalem (six miles from Bethlehem) ten years ago in January and they had a rare snow storm.

How does he know that there were no asses (donkeys) or oxen in the 'stable' - (he is actually wrong; because they actually stayed in a cave, as depicted in Byzantine iconography). Donkeys are quite prevalent in those parts of the world.



Alice
I have learned that it is best not to rely on reporters to get any particular technical issue right, including any pertaining to religion. The article was in fact a gross oversimplification of what Dr. Williams said. But oversimplifications allow for sensationalistic headlines, and those are what sells papers. Newspapers want to sell papers, not tell the truth. Always keep that in mind.
Stuart, His Lordship explicitly stated that he felt Muslims in the UK should be permitted to use sharia courts in lieu of civil ones. Saw it in a single unedited clip.
Yes, but what has that to do with his views on the Nativity Story? On the other hand, it just confirms my belief that academics, on the whole, make lousy pastors. Too airy-fairy, head-in-the-clouds to understand the difference between theory and reality.

By the way, in New York, Orthodox Jews have their own tribunals to adjudicate community disputes involving property, contracts, and even divorce. The caveat is both parties have to consent to use the tribunals, and the rulings of the tribunals cannot contradict or supersede state and Federal law. There is no possibility of something like a woman being stoned for adultery, or a person being killed for apostasy, which is not only likely, but inevitable under Sharia. Dr. Williams really needs to stick to his knitting, which is theology.
Quote
How does he know that there were no asses (donkeys) or oxen in the 'stable' - (he is actually wrong; because they actually stayed in a cave, as depicted in Byzantine iconography). Donkeys are quite prevalent in those parts of the world.

Just to be clear, the Gospel does not use a word that means either cave or stable, but rather a more generic dwelling. In all likelihood, Joseph and Mary were put up in a private home, possibly belonging to someone in Joseph's very extended family. In first century Judea, the first floor of a house was often turned over to the livestock, while the family dwelt on the second floor (and may have spent a lot of time on the roof during the warmer seasons). With Bethlehem filled to the brim, the livestock would have been turned out, and the first floor turned over to guests--a very low rent B&B.
Originally Posted by StuartK
Yes, but what has that to do with his views on the Nativity Story?
That he's got some dangerous views of the world, views based in liberal secular humanism, rather than Christianity.
You mean he's a clueless academic drone who should never have been put into a position of pastoral responsibility. I think I said that at the beginning. That doesn't mean he's not a brilliant scholar and a powerful theologian, whether you accept all of his theories or not.

In the same vein, I think Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, is perhaps the most important theologian examining the history of the early Church. His work is absolutely astounding and soundly orthodox (small o, though in many ways he anticipates the positions of Big-O Orthodoxy), but when it comes to his pronouncements on current affairs and his view of the modern world, he's a perambulating disaster. So I will continue to read his books on the life of Christ, on the origins of the Church, and on the theology of St. Paul, and just ignore the blather he spouts on economics, international relations and inter-religious relations. He's another example of a brilliant scholar who was perfectly good as a canon theologian but who was promoted past his competency when made bishop (Hmm. Why do they call that the "Peter Principle"?).
Yes he is brilliant, and he is very philosophical. I think that such philosophical analyses, however, confuses people about the/their Christian faith rather than enhances it.

I have heard from friends in England that the Resurrection is denied in some Anglican circles as yet another myth.

It seems that every single aspect of faith and every age old tradition is being dissected and branded a 'myth', so why don't they just dissolve the church completely then and be done with it?!? Why can't they leave well enough alone? smirk

Wright for one has been in the forefront of defending the historical reality of the Resurrection from academic challenges by the likes of the Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar, and he does so in a way that is both subtle and convincing.

I have no problem with the concept of myth, properly understood. Tolkien is alleged to have converted C.S. Lewis comparing Christianity to the pagan myths that Lewis so admired. Christianity, Tolkien explained, "is a myth that happens to be true".

If we understand that a myth is a story that embodies and reveals a profound truth, then yes, Christianity is a myth. But, insofar as the events in the myth actually occurred, it is a myth that happens to be true.

We run into difficulties because too many people understand the word myth to mean a legend or a fairy tale, something profoundly un-true, but that is a misreading. Moreover, even the pagan myths and legends have a foundation of truth. The ancients believed the stories of the Trojan War were quite literally "history". More enlightened scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries rejected them as mere legend--myths in the popular sense of the word. But then Heinrich Schliemann began digging in the mound of Hissarlik in Turkey, and lo! there was Troy. Subsequent excavation there, in Greece and of the Hittite centers of Asia Minor have shown just how much of Homer is based on solid fact.

Similarly, biblical archaeology continually reveals just how authentic the accounts of the Old and New Testament are--which is not to say that every last jot and tittle has to be read in a severely literalist way. But it does demonstrate, to my satisfaction, anyway, that Christians have nothing to fear either from history or archaeology, both of which are valuable handmaidens of theology. Ours is a faith based on truth: "If Christ is not risen from the dead, then you are still in your sins", and so it is in our interest to seek to discover and understand the truth that is integral to our "myth".

On the other hand, it is precisely those who do not believe who reject the historical evidence and insist on reading Scripture in the most simplistic, literalistic manner, a mirror image of the very type of fundamentalism they despise.
Stuart:

a caveat on biblical archaeology... biblical literalists.

THe problem is when people can not accept that Genesis 1-4 are mythic, and large parts of Genesis are legendary in nature. (EG: The Great Flood might not have been the whole world, just what is now the black sea.) Or that Myth and Legend need not be literal truth to teach Truth.

The biblical literalist expects that, since we found Moses mentioned in the tomb complex of Ramses, we should also find the universe to be 6000 years old, and that the whole world was submerged for 40 days 5500 years ago, and somewhere there is a walled off garden that you'll be killed if you enter the gate.

I've met more biblical literalists amongst fundamentalist christianity than I care to think about. I've also met them amongst moderate muslims. And the groups that are staunchest about biblical literalism also indoctrinate their children from an early age to both reject science and to literally believe every word of the bible as literal truth.

(Try teaching about the dinosaurs or evolution with a mixture of Jehovah's Witness, hardline Baptists, and muslims as students... that accounted for 1/3 of the class... I pointed out "You are not required to believe a word of it. You are required by state law to know the material, and be able to answer questions on the material.")
Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, a product of a reaction among many 19th century American Protestants to the logical positivism that had taken hold in academic circles and was infiltrating the mainline denominations.

But it is quite remarkable that as early as the third century, Christian exegetes such as Origen already recognized that many parts of the Bible could not be read in a strictly literal manner, that the Bible was frequently dominated by metaphors or rhetorical language that demanded a more imaginative interpretation. To the extent that scientific knowledge was limited then as compared to now means that some things we think are ridiculous taken on their face were accepted then--such as the age of the earth. But others were not; the ancients knew the earth was a sphere, and that the stars and planets were celestial objects many miles distant. Being immersed in the epic tradition of Homer, they understood how to read the epic stories of Genesis and Exodus, as well as the stories of the Kings and Chronicles. Being heirs to the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, they understood Revelations as an extended allegory, not a cook book for determining the end times.

But their key insight was that Scripture could only be read properly within the context of the Church, and the Church alone could provide the keys to determining which passages were literal, which were metaphorical, which were prophetic, which were historical, and which were allegorical.
Originally Posted by StuartK
Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, a product of a reaction among many 19th century American Protestants to the logical positivism that had taken hold in academic circles and was infiltrating the mainline denominations.

But it is quite remarkable that as early as the third century, Christian exegetes such as Origen already recognized that many parts of the Bible could not be read in a strictly literal manner, that the Bible was frequently dominated by metaphors or rhetorical language that demanded a more imaginative interpretation. To the extent that scientific knowledge was limited then as compared to now means that some things we think are ridiculous taken on their face were accepted then--such as the age of the earth. But others were not; the ancients knew the earth was a sphere, and that the stars and planets were celestial objects many miles distant. Being immersed in the epic tradition of Homer, they understood how to read the epic stories of Genesis and Exodus, as well as the stories of the Kings and Chronicles. Being heirs to the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, they understood Revelations as an extended allegory, not a cook book for determining the end times.

But their key insight was that Scripture could only be read properly within the context of the Church, and the Church alone could provide the keys to determining which passages were literal, which were metaphorical, which were prophetic, which were historical, and which were allegorical.

I hate "me too" posts, but again, well said, Stuart.
Amen Alice Amen!
Stephanos I
I attended the Protestant Thanksgiving Servic this evening which a friend had said was going to be Ecumenical.
I should have not even bothered, it did one thing though confirmed my deciscion years ago to leave the Protestant assembly.
© The Byzantine Forum