Thursday, August 16, 2007

Theological Healing



Commonly accepted conventional wisdom tells us that in order to have peace we ought to speak only of events or the weather or popular gossip about well known individuals. However, one subject sure to create strife, if not acrimony and hostility, is theology. And, like many other things that everybody knows, this is simply false. This blog has demonstrated that the Continuing Church is divided over many things, but not theology. Furthermore, a good look at what we have discussed here proves two things: 1) our divisions are not theological, and 2) only by theological discussion do we have the hope of restoring unity among our jurisdictions in this Anglican diaspora.

In recent months we have mentioned specific historical events and the names of specific bishops and archbishops, and have addressed the disagreements between jurisdictions as they are rooted in past events. My own contributions have included criticism and have called into question the motives behind new twists and turns in Continuing Church relations. One result was an exchange of comments that put me at odds with an ACC priest, Rev. Canon John Hollister. But, then a funny thing happened.

In the threads of comments after the two articles I posted about marriage and annulments, a very useful exchange of thought followed in which I came to realize that I enjoyed reading the erudite and sound comments of Fr. Hollister. Furthermore, when Fr. Edwards joined in, we could see the complementary thinking between this priest recently joined to the ACA, Fr. Hollister of the ACC, and me- the provocateur.

Why not? We are all Traditional Anglicans who embrace the Catholic Faith of our Church tradition, and who find our common ground in what we believe. The Continuing Church has been riddled with divisions for thirty years, almost never based on principle or doctrine, and, more often than not, based on the failure of those who hold the same doctrine to get along with each other. Those who worship with the same liturgy, and the consequential effect of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi on our minds and hearts, have been divided by engaging in everything from turf wars to simple indifference. Sometimes the divisions seem to have some element of principle, even of theological substance. Yet, they have not been laid on the table and discussed as subjects of theology, but, instead, all too often as matters of jurisdiction.

And yet, finding common ground in theology is the way to heal the divisions, inasmuch as we are all traditional Anglicans. This is what has been going on between the four of us who contribute to this blog. We represent three separate jurisdictions between us, but have been posting together from a common theological foundation. Albion approached us with this idea, initially, because we were wearing ourselves out writing apologetic comments on Fr. Al Kimmel’s Pontifications blog, defending our Anglican beliefs and orders against the usual RC attacks (especially novel Newmanian theories). We were tired of repeating the same answers (usually met with everything from repetition to Bulverism), and decided to make our own points and let others disagree with us in their own comments. We stood together in our theology, and so have had no strife among ourselves.

This blog is still committed to the healing of the sad divisions among Continuing Churchmen of orthodox faith. We have a common basis for our belief, a well developed Catholic and Evangelical Faith unique to Anglicanism for its clarity and balance. In addition to theology, the Anglican mind has resources of philosophy and critical thinking, and a boldness of erudition that stands as judge of the errors of passing ages, weighing in the balance popularly conceived prejudices of the zeitgeist against right reason, and finding them wanting. This we do rooted and grounded in the Catholic Tradition, enlightened by the English rediscovery of the riches of Patristic writings, and rooted in theology.

This blog offers the only remedy for Continuing Church divisions, namely theological healing.

35 comments:

Warwickensis said...

Thank you Father.

What I see, standing in some sense on the outside, of Continuing Anglicans is a body of people separated by distance and circumstance all of whom have been betrayed by theological corruption. I too suffer from this betrayal.

The consequence is that we are all in pain and have a tendency to be brittle and defensive which makes forging relationships even among the similarly betrayed difficult.

We do agree theologically - we have the Canon and regulation of the Holy Catholic Church. The trouble is that we have a tendency to live that theology with a bias towards the head, and we must take care to keep the heart in our theology too.

"Let us love one another."

Easy to say, and easy to theologise and perform etymological analyses of the Greek without actually doing the loving.

We must grow together. It will take time, but our love for each other will draw us and soften the brittleness. I pray for this for the Continuum. It will succeed because she belongs to God, but she will suffer and continue to do so.

May I ask the members of the Continuum Panel what constitutes a good methodology for Mission for the Continuing Churches? The C of E seems to be spending much of its energy investigating the "mission-shaped church" whatever that means.
How does the Continuum seek to reach out to the people?

Ohio Anglican said...

I just finished reading a wonderful book today on outreach, that gives an historically successful model.

The book is called "The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West........Again" by George G. Hunter III. ISBN 978-0-687-08585-9. The author is Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

The book contrasts Roman style outreach with the more successful outreach of the Celtic Church under St. Patrick, St. Columba, etc. It presents a good working model for continuing Anglicans to use today.

The side benefit of the book is seeing just how much the influence of the ancient Celtic Church is still alive and well in traditional Anglicanism, and in the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER itself.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The question was asked:
May I ask the members of the Continuum Panel what constitutes a good methodology for Mission for the Continuing Churches? The C of E seems to be spending much of its energy investigating the "mission-shaped church" whatever that means.
How does the Continuum seek to reach out to the people?


I can only assume that the question refers to the Continuum of Anglican churches rather than to this blog. Methods must be developed on a local level, as the Body of Christ evangelizes. What we can and must address together ends up as yet another theological issue. Whatever we do, our message must be what St. Paul called "the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes." That is, the Gospel. The Epistle for this coming Sunday, the opening of I Cor. 15, tells us what the Gospel is.

I hope for more answers than mine.

Also, Ohio Anglican wrote:
The side benefit of the book is seeing just how much the influence of the ancient Celtic Church is still alive and well in traditional Anglicanism, and in the classic BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER itself.


The Book of Common Prayer is based on the English prayer tradition, which has in it the older Celtic British prayer tradition. At the center of the village was the monastary, and the life of the village grew out from it in layers. Therefore, the BCP is truly Benedictine, made practical for all sorts and conditions of men.

Ohio Anglican said...

There are many different methods and types of evangelism. Each continuing parish, it seems to me, would want to choose the type that best served their available resources.

The common basics are that Christ ended his Parable of the Good Samaritan be admonishing us to do the same as the Good Samaritan. Outreach to the poor, the sick, etc. in itself can be a form of evangelism for bringing souls to Christ; IF we make sure the Gospel message is part of every act of kindness/assistance.

To me, the second basic is that the Great Commission was issued to all the disciples of Christ; NOT just paid clergy. As a faithful disciple of Christ, it is the duty of every Christian to do acts of charity and try to bring lost souls to the church.

Once the laity and the vocational religious bring them to the church, the clergy can preach to them and give them the benefits of sacramental grace.

The Celtic model, which was very effective was: 1. bring them into the fellowship/friendship of the church/monastery; 2. engage them in conversations about the faith; 3. allow them to choose to follow Christ in Baptism to become a Disciple.

The current model (that is not as effective) used by most modern evangelicals/fundamentalists is: 1. present the Gospel; 2. try to pressure the people into a choice for Christ (which may or may not involve Baptism with some of these sects); 3. only admit them into the fellowship/friendship of the church AFTER they've made a choice.

The Celtic model was and is still an effective model for outreach/evangelism.

As St. Benedict taught, and it was also of utmost importance to the Celtic Church, HOSPITALITY is all important. Guests and visitors must be received into the fellowship with genuine hospitality or all efforts will fail.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

poetreader said...

1. Participating in this blog has, in itself, taught me a great deal about what is essential unity and what, specifically this Anglican thing is. The four of us come from wildly different backgrounds, are of strikingly different temperament, differ on many issues, and are juridictionally separated... And yet it becomes quite obvious that we have come, by various routes, to strikingly similar theological stance. I do believe, as I always have, that discussion of theology is basically unitive when hearts are drawn toward each other, but that theological argument that attempts merely to prove the other guy wrong, is fundamentally disruptive and alienating. May we continue to practice the former.

2. I'm convinced that the very first principle of evangelism is found in "being", rather than in strategizing. That is, if we are seen to have profited by what we believe in the growth of both agape and philos in our congregations, if we show ourselves to be a welcoming destination for sinners, if we treat one another and those outside with true respect and concern, then unbelievers may give our claims a listen. If we do not evidence these things, then what is there about us to catch their interest? In short, if we are what we claim to be, our efforts, even though they be clumsy indeed, will bear fruit. If we are not, no amount of skillful planning will suffice to spread the Gospel of Christ.

ed

Anonymous said...

What, exactly, do you mean by "novel Newmanian nonsense"? Is this comment indicative of the same apparent presumptuousness which led you to claim in an earlier post that you had definitively "dealt" with Newman here before? If only Rome had the benefit of your superior wisdom....

Anonymous said...

I meant to add in the previous post that I'm assuming you have also vanquished Knox, Benson, and other such luminous converts. If only they were all around to respond to your devastating critiques.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The purpose of this article is to discuss the common ground of theology among orthodox Catholic Anglicans. A conversation about Newman's arguments would not serve that end. I am not impressed by his arguments, and consider it novel indeed for any Catholic to stand against the Vincentian Canon. This he had to do simply to advance his own particular, hitherto unknown, theory of Doctrinal Development, which is not the official teaching of Rome, and was, in fact, met with rejection by the Magisterium.

Ed wrote:
I do believe, as I always have, that discussion of theology is basically unitive when hearts are drawn toward each other, but that theological argument that attempts merely to prove the other guy wrong, is fundamentally disruptive and alienating. May we continue to practice the former.

This is why I want to concentrate, for our purposes, on the theology held by orthodox traditional, Catholic Anglicans. The fact is, in such a circle, we find agreement. What then remains as a source of disunity? Personalities? Grudges?- all things that start to seem very small in light of the wonderful things we agree on.

Ohio Anglican said...

Let us not forget, however, to share that orthodox, traditional Anglican faith that we share with those around us in our communities.

"Practicing" that wonderful faith, without sharing that faith with others, truly ISN'T practicing that orthodox, traditional Anglican faith. Christ died for all of us, and as His disciples we have a duty to help bring the lost to the church where they, too, may become disciples.

I wasn't recently horrified to read an account (I hope the account was wrong)of a continuing bishop who said he wasn't concerned that we were small, that the most important thing is that we KEEP our faith. Christ did not give us the faith to keep it, he gave it to us to share it.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Ohio Anglican said...

The Rev. Fr. John Wesley said: "Do all the good you can, in all the ways that you can, to all the souls that you can, in every place that you can, with all the zeal you can, as long as ever you can."

This is certainly an important part of outreach and evangelism: 1.Christ commanded us to do this in the Parable of the Good Samaritan; 2. Living a life that exhibits good, kindly deeds, and living a life of hospitality will validate out testimony, or our witness for Christ. (Talking about Christ, but yet having a life that reveals unkind deeds, unkind words, harboring jealousy, etc., actually can damage the cause of Christ more than help it).

We are all human and make our mistakes and blunders, but if people see all overall picture of someone who tries to do good, it will validate the witness they give for Christ.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Cardinal Newman's Anonymous defender wrote a comment that was simply ad hominem. If he wishes to write a substantive defense of Newman's anti-Anglican apologetics, he is free to do so. He must not expect, however, to find us awe struck or speechless (or even mildly shaken). We ask, however, for a name- a "handle"- so that we may keep some track of what is coming from specific individuals.

It seems that this thread has become a discussion more about evangelism than anything else. So be it. Perhaps our common theological ground (as traditional Anglicans) is best understood in light of knowing our essential message to the world. I remain convinced that we must discuss the beliefs we have in common, because many other things take on their true insignificance when they run up against the truth and godly priorities.

Ohio Anglican said...

Amen, Father Hart. The best thing we can possibly do is discuss and build upon those beliefs we share in common in the Continuum.

Then the natural progression from that point is evangelism - ie. how are going to spread that common message that we share in the Continuum to the world.

Another thought is that the Continuum might discuss how to begin effective evagelism with each other. Perhaps we could have missionary conferences together to discuss how to bring souls to Christ in a common cause. I believe working together on such a project would help our differences melt away and be forgotten as well.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Anonymous said...

I'm Newman's anonymous defender. I just have one final comment for you Hart, before I move on to more worthwhile pursuits. I have found much irony in reading your intellectually arrogant posts over the last several weeks. And the irony originates in your public attacks on Morrison. I'm certain he's deserving of at least some of your criticisms. But I also happen to know that the two of you are far more alike than either would want to admit. Actually, most of you "continuing Anglicans" are very much alike and I'm enjoying watching as you punch more holes in the sinking ship you're all on.

Albion Land said...

Dear Anonymous Newman Defender,

I am the altogether unanonymous owner of this blog. My name is Albion Land.

Contrary to the rules of etiquette practiced here, you consistently refuse to identify yourself. That is your choice. And it is my choice not to publish any further of your comments until you choose a name. Any name. The simple reason for this rule is to avoid confusion of sources. Common sense and good manners.

That said, from your last comment, it would appear that we might not be hearing from you further in any event. I wish you Godspeed. You have reminded me of my need to be humble, kind and gentle.

R. Toad said...

Aaah! The glory of anonymity! It grants one the permission to be churlish.
I am unsure how the expositions of genuinely bad behavior on the part of Bp. Morrison-expositions that needed to be aired to prevent a replay of the detestable treatment visited upon Fr. Hart and his family-play into issues relating to Newman. As a fan of Cardinal Newman and one of a "Romish" bent, I easily understood the purpose of the discussion.
I think that the late Cardinal also would have appreciated it and probably would have a few things to say germane to the topic of theological healing, although he likely would have engaged on the issue of "Newmanianian nonsense" (a bit of unnecessary hyperbole there, don't you think?). I would posit he'd also have a few words to a purported Christian, Catholic or otherwise, whose apologetic appears to consist largely of sneering.
I note that the writer has nothing to offer on topic itself, and that is telling. Perhaps he or she simply finds themselves irritated aat the prospect that a meaningful discussion is being had here, and that many of us can now even dine together without our tasters present.
Diatribe aside, "anonymous" has hit on the key point when he or she says "'continuing Anglicans'" are very much alike". Yes, we are. The mystery is why we cant get our collective act together and tell those of our respective "front offices" who have been impeding the cause of unity (in the mode of +Morrison, inter alia) to get off of the ecclesiastical pot and take care of the real business at hand. It would make for some lively diocesan synods, eh?

Yr. Obed. Serv.,

R. Toad, DD, LSMFT
(And yes, pally, that's a pseudonym-it's more creative than simple anonymity)

Albion Land said...

Nice to hear from you, Toady.

Hop on in any time.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I used the "Newmanian nonsense" line because I am rather tired of converts to Roman Catholicism pulling quotations from his writings as if his opinion settles things once and for all. Furthermore, they seem never to notice that, with all respect due the man for his sanctity, his opinions actually were novel, and they are not the official teaching of Rome, and never have been. Furthermore, we are quite capable of defending our position; notice that many of us, aware of his arguments, have not become Roman Catholics ourselves- i.e. we do not find his ideas convincing, and we don't jump in the Tiber simply because of what he thought. Furthermore, the nonsense of which I spoke is not his, but that of these converts.

Like most Catholic Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics to use the phrase), I respect Newman, but disagree with his particular theory of Doctrinal Development, his rejection of quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus and his Anglican Difficulties. I happen to be Anglican due to my conviction that it is the best way.

Sandra McColl said...

'Newmanesque', surely?

Carlos said...

Are there any Continuing Jurisdictions that use the BCP or have all Anglo-Catholic Churches in the Continuim decided to use the Missal for Holy Communion?

Also, why was the BCP rejected for use as a Communion Rite? I have a hunch but I'd much prefer someone in the Continium to explain it. Thanks!

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I am not aware of it being rejected as a Communion Rite. Many Continuing Churches use it in its straightforward plainness. Most use the Missal; but the Missal simply restores a few usages to the BCP, rather than cutting them.

The move of the Gloria in Excelsis to the front of the service, however, is fairly uniform to us all, as it should be.

poetreader said...

Actually, the 1928 BCP just as it stands is fully authorized, and is used with precision in many parishes. At my parish, our Sunday Mass is almost letter perfect BCP, with the Gloria still at the end, with the Commandments once a month, and with the long exhortation several times a year as directed. I know of a number of parishes in the ACA, and even in the ACC whose Sunday practice is like ours. We do add 'The Lord be with you' a couple of times, as well as the Peace (not passed in the congregation) the Agnus Dei, and "Behold the Lamb of God. Other than that it is pure BCP. The Anglican Missal being also authorized, we use it in its fullness on weekdays. As Father Hart noted, even the Missal use is effectually a Prayer Book celebration with a few additions. I'm not sure where the idea that the BCP is rejected came from.

ed

Ohio Anglican said...

In certain regions of the country, in the ACC, use of the 1928 BCP "as is" is the norm, not the exception.

I also know of some ACC parishes that offer both a Missal Mass and a 1928 BCP Communion service each Sunday. In many of those cases, the 1928 BCP service is by far the best attended.

Most ACC parishes preceed Communion with Morning Prayer/Evening Prayer from the 1928 BCP, as well they should. The Rubrics make it pretty clear that preceeding communion with MP/EP should be the normal schedule.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Carlos said...

Thanks! I attended a low mass at an APA parish a few weeks ago and the pastor there said it was essentially the tridentine rite in vernacular, and having never seen this before (either as a Roman Catholic or Anglican) it was rather confusing to follow, especially with no prayer book to follow. I've been on several online discussions with Anglo-Catholics from other parishes and juridictions around the country and it seemed as though the Missal was favored over the BCP as it was deemed "Protestant" and sorely lacking. So I assumed by these posters perhaps that was true.

Thank you all for the clarification!

Ohio Anglican said...

In my opinion, anyone who calls the 1928 BCP "Protestant", hasn't truly read the Rubrics in the 1928 BCP.

If you carefully read the Rubrics, especially sections on Holy Days to be observed, fasting days, etc., I don't see how anyone could view the 1928 BCP as "Protestant".

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Carlos said...

Ohio Anglican,

While I think both protestants and catholics had a hand in the BCP 1928 communion rite, I think its a beautifully and simply written rite that is as Catholic as any. It also closely resembles the Mass of Pope Pius which (I could be wrong) the Vatican based it upon (the BCP).

I just found the "Mass" from the Missal to be less interactive with the congregation. I felt as though I was watching something (much like an Orthodox Liturgy) as oppossed to being a part of the Liturgy.

Ohio Anglican said...

Carlos:

I agree. The Morning/Evening Prayer services and the Holy Communion service encourage active participation from the worshipers. The congregation plays an active part. This is the mark of effective worship, when all are engaged and share in the prayers. We learn to pray by praying. The 1928 BCP services to us how to pray by allowing all to participate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a "prayerbook catholic". I am not ashamed to call myself a "prayerbook catholic". The wisdom of the A.C.C. is that it allows parishes to be 1928 BCP parishes, Missal parishes, and some that offer services of each on Sunday. All are a valid expression of being a catholic in the Anglican expression.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

poetreader said...

Odd.
One of the stregths of the Missal Mass as opposed to BCP, to my own mind, has been that it is more interactive than the straight BCP rite. I've long felt that Cranmer's chief failing was in adopting the mistaken view that the Liturgy is something primarily done by the clergy. That had become the standard way of looing at the Mass, whereas the form of the Mass is decidedly corporate. Thus there are fewer responses in the BCP than there are in the Tridentine Mass or in the Missals that incorporate parts of it. The BCP Communion service, thus, is designed as a far more clerical service than is the historic Mass. The Calvinist 'reformers' went a step further so that the service they came to prefer is, aside from hymns, a monologue by the minister. Catholic worship is, by its nature, highly interactive. Each form, however, has a bit of a learning curve before the laity are taking their proper part.

ed

Ohio Anglican said...

Ed:

I think it depends on how the 1928 BCP Communion service is used. In many parishes the people join in praying outloud "The Prayer of Humble Access", the "Thanksgiving Prayer after Communion", etc. There is no service in the world more participation friendly than Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer. Any truly traditional parish will preceed Communion with MP/EP as the Rubrics suggest.

The words of Cranmer are dignified and beautiful.

Some of the "stuff" added in the Missals is sing-songy and rather annoying - some of the Graduals, especially, where they read verse after verse of boring, overly poetic hymns. It's hard to ignore the snooze factor that comes over the congregation during some of it.

The only thing the Missal truly does is add length to the service. To me, a better way to add length, and enrich with more scripture is to preceed Holy Communion with MP or EP as the Rubrics suggest. A congregation can never have enough practice at praying. MP/EP are also an excellent way to utilize Lay Readers, members of the "religious", a Deacon, etc. as Officiants.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

Fr Samuel Edwards said...

Ohio Anglican writes, "Some of the "stuff" added in the Missals is sing-songy and rather annoying - some of the Graduals, especially, where they read verse after verse of boring, overly poetic hymns. It's hard to ignore the snooze factor that comes over the congregation during some of it."

I'm not sure what is meant here unless o.a. has written "gradual" when he means "sequence." The graduals typically are made up of one to rarely more than three verses from the psalms or other scripture. However, the sequence hymns might fit the bill of description: There aren't many of them (Requiem Mass, Easter, Whitsunday come to mind, and I don't think there are many more) and they are translations of Latin metrical hymns. I would say (but it's just me, and I do like to chant) that they would be far more tolerable to the congregation if they were sung (perhaps with congregational or choral participation) than simply recited.

Fr Samuel Edwards

Ohio Anglican said...

Fr. Edwards:

I said the wrong thing. I meant the Sequence, just as you said.

Sometimes, they do make for conversation at coffee hour: concerning how annoying and silly some of them are.

I would always prefer the 1928 BCP service "as is".

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

poetreader said...

Ohio Anglican, You wrote.

I think it depends on how the 1928 BCP Communion service is used. In many parishes the people join in praying outloud "The Prayer of Humble Access", the "Thanksgiving Prayer after Communion", etc.

I might note that neither of the unison recitations you mention is permitted by the rubric. Though I like both usages very much, and advocate them, it is still true that doing so is a departure from the service as written. There are those who are adamant that both prayers belong to the priest alone and take umbrage at the unison use. Rubrically, they are correct. The very fact that the service is thus improved by departing from the rubric illustrates my point.

ed

Ohio Anglican said...

Ed:

You are correct of course. According to the Rubrics, they are for the priest alone.

However, the words certainly lend themselves to recitation by: "We do not presume to come to this Thy table, O Lord......" Indeed, the service is improved by having all recite these two prayers.

Actually though, many people who are devout Anglicans read all of the prayers with the Celebrant. They don't do it loudly, but if you watch their mouths moving, they do it. You can hear them slightly. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that if they are devout and pray all the prayers.

If a priest would object to that, to me, at least, that would be the worst kind of clericalism. If a priest objected to that, I would seriously have to ask myself if the priest were praying the prayers truly and humbly on behalf of the people; or if they were a priest only to put on some sort of performance?

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

poetreader said...

Brian,

Nevertheless, though the changes you prefer are (to my mind) worthy ones, and I would defend their use, they are changes, and your advocacy is not for strict use of the BCP, but for a subtly revised BCP, revised in the historic way in which liturgies have been revised, through the preferences of a living and worshiping people.

ed

Ohio Anglican said...

I truly don't see the people joining vocally in saying a prayer as revision. As I said, the people join in many of the prayers vocally. All join hopefully in reading them - whether silently or vocally.

As I said, I believe it would be the worst kind of clericalism for a priest to tell people they couldn't pray.

Brian McKee, nO/C.G.S.

theoldleopard said...

Beloved in Christ,

"Theological Healing" implies Understanding, Acceptance and Forgiveness. The Continuum has suffered too much, since 1976, to ever accept the theological changes
of The Episcopal Church. Yes, we may forgive them - we may even understand them - and the obvious direction in which they seem to be heading, but we will never accept
them and the damage that they have done to thousands of faithful Episcopalians. The die is cast. If traditional episcopal faith and practice are to be found, it will be within the Continuum, even though split and split again. The 'old ones' from the Congress of St. Louis days will be gone and forgotten, while the new generation of TEC drop-outs will be the new traditional church - likely under the leadership of the
Southern Cone and African bishops.

So be it !

Blessings,

theoldleopard