tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post7080608065094894571..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: When bishops roarFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40142336728042773072009-11-19T00:36:02.583-05:002009-11-19T00:36:02.583-05:00Yes, but the kooks in EOC are rare too.Yes, but the kooks in EOC are rare too.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59296046666007707962009-11-18T09:09:33.540-05:002009-11-18T09:09:33.540-05:00Those RCs who make such extreme assertions are, th...Those RCs who make such extreme assertions are, thank God, somewhat rare today, but they do exist. I have met and been ranted at by more than one. Fr. Feeney's movement, incidentally, still continues, alive and well, though small, in two divisions: one still outside the official church and unrelenting in all its distinctives (and much visited by New England "Traditionalists"), and the other reconciled to the RCC but still pretty extreme, and making a spin on "non salus extra" that is just short of what was condemned in the 50s.<br /><br />Though they do exist, Fr. Wells is quite correct in asserting that the equally heretical opposite error of universalism is so common among RCs as to be almost standard.poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8736195967472504002009-11-18T08:45:43.818-05:002009-11-18T08:45:43.818-05:00"What about Romans who still insist that all ..."What about Romans who still insist that all non-Roman Catholics will go to Hell? "<br /><br /><br />STILL??? I havent heard of any of those being around anymore. Wasn't that settled when Fr Feeny was excommunicated?<br /><br />The RC's of my acquaintance tend strongly toward quasi-universalism, with an overly generous interpretation of "Baptism by desire."<br /><br />Again I point out the mistake of comparing a past error in one quarter with a present error somewhere else.<br />Or should I bring up Archbishop Laud's use of torture on the Puritans?<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56899786366253670472009-11-18T00:49:13.005-05:002009-11-18T00:49:13.005-05:00Alan asked, "[W]hile I agree the '79 [...Alan asked, "[W]hile I agree the '79 ['BCP'] is defective and thus the form and possibly the intention of the clergy, your answer seems to allow for the intention of St Alban but not some one in our age."<br /><br />I think Alan's confusion on these points springs from mixing together two different meanings of the word "intention".<br /><br />In the case of "Baptism of Intention", as applied to martyrs, the "intention" referred to is that of the subject of the baptism, in this case the martyr. The idea is that the person concerned intended to be baptized, or accepted the Faith in a manner that equated to an intention to be baptizned, and was only prevented from fulfilling that intention by his or her intervening death -- a death which, in fact, testified to that very Faith.<br /><br />That rule was valid in St. Alban's time and it remains valid in our own. In fact, we seem to be in the midst of an upsurge of martyrdoms, in South America, in Africa, and most certainly in the Mideast.<br /><br />When we speak of the normal and usual administration of any Sacrament, however, the "Sacramental Intention" of which we are speaking is that of the celebrant of the Sacrament, not of its recipient. Further, we look to that celebrant's objective intention, not his subjective state. The principal evidence of that objective intention -- "to do what the Church has always done in this Sacrament" -- rests in the wording of the rite used.<br /><br />That is why the questionable wording of the 1979 Baptismal and Confirmation Rites calls into question the "Sacramental Intention" with which they are administered and, therefore, the ultimate validity of the Sacraments that are purportedly confected according to those rites.<br /><br />Ordination presents precisely this same problem -- the '79 Rite is objectively intended to effect the ordination of women as well as men -- and that is indisputably NOT something the Church has always done. <br /><br />This combox won't give me enough room to explain why, but a related vice would infect any ordination performed by an ECUSA bishop after 1976, even if the 1928 Rite were used by him/her/it.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50453195270671185562009-11-17T23:41:17.348-05:002009-11-17T23:41:17.348-05:00By the way, I do not agree that the American Epicl...By the way, I do not agree that the American Epiclesis is weak. It is perfectly in accord with Cranmer and Hooker, and that makes it soundly Catholic. I will explain more in a coming essay.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62548609033613440732009-11-17T23:34:32.910-05:002009-11-17T23:34:32.910-05:00Fr. Wells wrote:
Yes. Equally offensive, equally ...Fr. Wells wrote:<br /><br /><i>Yes. Equally offensive, equally incorrect. But what about the EO canard, "The Pope was the first Protestant." Chew on that one. Or the lovely suggestion from some extreme sectors of Russian orthodoxy, that non-orthodox Christians are simply "devil-worshippers." (I was told that by a WR ROCOR priest.)</i><br /><br />What about Protestants and Greek Orthodox monks who call the Pope the Antichrist? What about Romans who still insist that all non-Roman Catholics will go to Hell? We could make mention of what the kooks and screwballs in every corner of the Church say, including some fussy, ignorant and effeminate Anglo-Catholics who make all High-Church Anglicans look bad. We all have our lunatics, and they do not speak for their respective traditions, just for the kook brigade.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86522233263580289832009-11-17T23:29:03.822-05:002009-11-17T23:29:03.822-05:00Alan:
By all means, be persistent in asking quest...Alan:<br /><br />By all means, be persistent in asking questions. I wish more people would ask real questions. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>Because that book is poor because the Celebrant is unworthy are you saying the means of Grace is defeated by men? </i><br /><br />First of all, these are two different matters. The poor '79 book is so very poor in the Confirmation Rite that it contains no Form that states Intention. Therefore, it betrays a lack of Intention having suddenly been adopted by a church that already corrupted the Sacramental Intention of Holy Orders three years earlier. How important is Form stating Intention? Let me ask you this: Were you to witness a supposed baptism in which the motions were carried out, but you never heard the words, "I baptize thee [or "you"] in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost [or "Spirit"]," would you not insist that something was wrong? If a priest went through all the motions at the altar, but did not say "This is My Body...This is My Blood," how comfortable would you be going forward to receive? On the other hand, if later it was discovered that a priest who did all things properly had been living in adultery secretly, would you therefore the sacraments that had been administered? <br /><br />These are not the same issue then. To the issue of unworthy ministers, our Article XXVI speaks in terms that are perfectly consistent with what the Church taught in the most ancient times in accordance with Scripture.<br /><br />"XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.<br />ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.<br /> Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed."<br /><br />These issues are separate.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31553629609155081282009-11-17T22:14:01.847-05:002009-11-17T22:14:01.847-05:00Fr's Hart and Hollister,
Thanks simple answer...Fr's Hart and Hollister,<br /><br />Thanks simple answers are sometimes the best. Intention is cited here on behalf of Alban and while I agree the 79 is defective and thus the form and possibly the intention of the clergy, your answer seems to allow for the intention of St Alban but not some one in our age. If St Vincent got it right then what applies then applies always for all- shouldn't it? Because that book is poor because the Celebrant is unworthy are you saying the means of Grace is defeated by men? Does that mean as LKW points to as our "weak" Epiclesis and alleged weakness in the Ordinal are Anglican sacraments are to be questioned? <br /><br />I am being persistent not because I do not believe you but because if you are correct we all should be able to articulate the reasons why.<br /><br />AlanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2938962665073960682009-11-17T11:58:22.646-05:002009-11-17T11:58:22.646-05:00Ed Pacht wrote, "'[C]onverting to Holy Or...Ed Pacht wrote, "'[C]onverting to Holy Orthodoxy' strikes my ear as badly as 'converting to the Catholic Church'. Both are wildly prejudicial."<br /><br />I lived for more than a decade in Northeast Ohio, where a century ago large numbers of immigrants came from Eastern Europe to work in the mines and mills. As a result, I was surrounded by parishes and people from most varieties of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. <br /><br />So, especially when I was out and about wearing clericals, I was often asked, by one group, if I were "a Catholic priest" and, by the other, if I were "Orthodox". So I found myself frequently explaining Continuing Anglicanism.<br /><br />I always told the Romans that we are Catholic, but not Papal, and the Easterners that we are orthodox in all meaningful respects although we are not in formal communion with SCOBA.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41250337224410330062009-11-17T11:47:30.208-05:002009-11-17T11:47:30.208-05:00Alan wrote, "I am not defending the '79 [...Alan wrote, "I am not defending the '79 ['BCP'] but your point on intention seems mechanical. I would think the same argument would apply to baptism--intention, form etc."<br /><br />It does. Those who left the Episcopal Church in 1977 were concerned with a number of problems in the then-proposed new Prayer Book, of which one was the amiguity in its new baptismal rite.<br /><br />And we have seen that ambiguity bear fruit, as PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC "baptizes" into a "baptismal coventant" that does not eschew the world, the flesh, and the devil, but does adopt the worship of the United Nations and all its works.<br /><br />"Baptism by blood" is a concept that has ever only applied to martyrs, not to the generality of the Church's membership, who have had the opportunity to receive valid baptisms in the normal form.<br /><br />So it is, indeed, wise pastoral practice to rebabtize sub conditionae those who were "baptized" with that '79 rite.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26820325930914740822009-11-17T09:06:41.247-05:002009-11-17T09:06:41.247-05:00"That said, "converting to Holy Orthodox..."That said, "converting to Holy Orthodoxy" strikes my ear as badly as "converting to the Catholic Church". Both are wildly prejudicial."<br /><br />Yes. Equally offensive, equally incorrect. But what about the EO canard, "The Pope was the first Protestant." Chew on that one. Or the lovely suggestion from some extreme sectors of Russian orthodoxy, that non-orthodox Christians are simply "devil-worshippers." (I was told that by a WR ROCOR priest.) <br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64600376838861199072009-11-17T08:12:46.004-05:002009-11-17T08:12:46.004-05:00While I do prefer, when I can, to refer to the &qu...While I do prefer, when I can, to refer to the "Eastern" church, since small "o" "Orthodox" is a surprisingly nonspecific term (witness the Anglicans who ordain women so denominating themselves) I don't have a problem with letting the East refer to itself as big "O" "Orthodox". I don't refer to myself that way. However, I do refer to myself as "Catholic" with both kinds of "C", a usage enshrined in the Creeds, the BCP in general, and in classic Anglican divines. Thus it is that, though I do not correct "them" in their usage, I do not adopt Rome's use of "Catholic" as referring to them alone.<br /><br />That said, "converting to Holy Orthodoxy" strikes my ear as badly as "converting to the Catholic Church". Both are wildly prejudicial.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20508974158524514142009-11-17T07:45:47.348-05:002009-11-17T07:45:47.348-05:00"The difference is that "Catholic" ..."The difference is that "Catholic" appears in the Creeds as a name for our Church and our Faith. Using "Orthodox" as a name instead of a descriptive word is simply not in the Tradition."<br /><br />So are you saying that when the EO's refer to themselves as "The Orthodox Church," it is without prejudice against the rest of us? That would hardly work with their customary language about "converting to Holy Orthodoxy," etc.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46514340456910443482009-11-17T02:01:26.006-05:002009-11-17T02:01:26.006-05:00So how do you treat St Alban under this teaching? ...<i>So how do you treat St Alban under this teaching? His was a "baptism in blood"- how do establish intent differently? Can one be a Saint if never confirmed?</i><br /><br />Baptism in Blood (martyrdom before baptism) or baptism by desire, are what they are because in these cases the Church has no opportunity to administer the sacraments. When we do, we must do right; what we cannot do should cause no despair. Perhaps, also, these links may help answer the question.<br /><br />http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/02/grace-of-sacraments.html<br /><br />http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/06/grace-and-sacarments-part-iv.html<br /><br />The second has additional links to the first three parts.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37611457131795173092009-11-16T23:38:39.903-05:002009-11-16T23:38:39.903-05:00The difference is that "Catholic" appear...The difference is that "Catholic" appears in the Creeds as a name for our Church and our Faith. Using "Orthodox" as a <i>name</i> instead of a descriptive word is simply not in the Tradition. (Of course the real name of the EO churches includes the word "Catholic").Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3409563496071803112009-11-16T23:35:31.056-05:002009-11-16T23:35:31.056-05:00"lacking necessary Form to state Intention.&q..."lacking necessary Form to state Intention."<br /><br />I am not defending the 79' but your point on intention seems mechanical.<br /><br />I would think the same argument would apply to baptism- intention, form etc.<br />So how do you treat St Alban under this teaching? His was a "baptism in blood"- how do establish intent differently? Can one be a Saint if never confirmed? <br />AlanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19608128259531770212009-11-16T18:02:17.399-05:002009-11-16T18:02:17.399-05:00I will reiterate that I have no particular animus ...I will reiterate that I have no particular animus toward EO. Any even-handed approach to both EO and to RCism is all I ask for. But for starters: we regularly protest against the habit of using the word "Catholic" as if it were the exclusive property of the branch of Christendom belonging to the Papal obedience. Should we not mount the very same protest against the habit of allowing the Eastern Church to commandeer the term "Orthodox." Surely, we are orthodox Christians, with Filioque, leavened bread, Gregorian kalendar, papal Easter, weak Epiclesis, married bishops, and all. We do not need to accomodate ourselves to any other Church to qualify as truly Orthodox Christians.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64188954992994893882009-11-16T17:00:45.934-05:002009-11-16T17:00:45.934-05:00I think what is relevant is that Bishop Grafton ha...I think what is relevant is that Bishop Grafton had a positive view of Orthodoxy because of his association in those days with men like St. Tikhon. Therefore, a recap of his writings will reflect that view. Having had my own debates with members of the EO Church, I have no illusions about them. I see their strengths and weaknesses, as I see the strengths and weaknesses of Rome.<br /><br />I see our strengths and weaknesses too, but am glad to live with them in order to be in a genuinely Anglican portion of the O,H,C&A Church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21464805657571063772009-11-16T15:20:40.910-05:002009-11-16T15:20:40.910-05:00Fr. Wells asked, "How does that deplorable ev...Fr. Wells asked, "How does that deplorable event [Deerfield Beach] differ in principle from the rebaptisms and re-confirmations and even re-marriages which regularly take place EO?"<br /><br />My take on it is that it does not. Because we accept "chrismation" as the equivalent of Confirmation, for anyone who has been validly confirmed to accept chrismation, even though that is presented as merely a sign of membership (like multiplicitous Baptist baptisms), I fail to see how that does not present a real and very worrying prospect of sacrilege.<br /><br />It is all so neatly summarized by Fr. Hart's wonderful observation about "the Two One-True-Churches". That immense, and indefensible, self-satisfaction, both Roman and Constantinopolitan (but in the case of Deerfield Beach, also Matabelean and Torontan), is a principal one of those divisive "additions to the Apostolic Faith" to which I referred in an earlier comment.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+<br />"hogread"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85795704740570268392009-11-16T15:12:49.698-05:002009-11-16T15:12:49.698-05:00Fr. Wells asked, "What is or are the agenda i...Fr. Wells asked, "What is or are the agenda in this twofold preoccupation with the badness of the RCC and the goodness of EO?"<br /><br />Like everyone else here, I can only answer for myself. That answer is that to me, the Roman Catholic Communion is, in most respects, no worse than any other, and the Eastern Orthodox Communion is, likewise in most respects, no better than any other.<br /><br />Both share the supreme virtue of being surviving portions of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that the Creeds describe and that was, at least in theory, a visible unity prior to 1054.<br /><br />Both also suffer from the vice of having added beliefs and practices to the corpus of what that one, undivided Church believed and did. Their respective additions are different, but, at bottom, neither set is really more defensible than the other.<br /><br />Nevertheless, each is actually a Catholic Church and therefore, in our eyes, a sister body. That neither of them happens to share that view does not alter the facts.<br /><br />It is precisely their respective additions to the essentials of the faith that now serve to divide us from them, but that does not prevent us from hoping those barriers will be removed at some future time. Note, I said "removed", not "ignored"....<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61254455982309935242009-11-16T09:15:53.068-05:002009-11-16T09:15:53.068-05:00Fr Wells scrobe:
"Again, I ask in all candou...Fr Wells scrobe:<br /><br />"Again, I ask in all candour, what is the underlying agenda in this romantic fixation on EO?"<br /><br />It would seem to me that Fr wells has a less-than-romantic fixation with dissing Orthodoxy.Albion Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14423168351697120421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17850455175140597662009-11-16T08:03:37.307-05:002009-11-16T08:03:37.307-05:00When Canon Hollister wrote:
"... for the pra...When Canon Hollister wrote:<br /><br />"... for the practices he cites are precisely why most of us will never convert to Eastern Orthodoxy any more than we will convert to Romanism,"<br /><br />I heaved a great sigh of relief. <br /><br />What is or are the agenda in this twofold preoccupation with the badness of the RCC and the goodness of EO? <br /><br />I have already once suffered the trauma of abandonment by a bishop who decided that EO was preferable to Anglicanism and was willing to walk out on his diocese to pursue his dream.<br /><br />Various commenters here have shown how chaotic and incoherent EO is. <br /><br />Fr Hart writes:<br />"I doubt very seriously that the view expressed in 1948, and quoted here, was made by a party that had any real grasp of the meaning of the Articles."<br /><br />Surely true, but utterly beside the point. When has ANY EO spokesman ever praised the Articles, commended the theology of Whitgift, Jewel and Hooker, or acknowledged the theology of the Homilies? We recently observed how ACNA smiled obsequiously when Metropolitan Jonah denounced classical Anglicanism under the code-word of Calvinism. Somebody needs to say "Enough, already," and tell EO to back off. We all need to resist the blandishments of EO as firmly as we stand up to Anglicanibus coetis.<br /><br />Fr John does not shrink from applying the term "blasphemy" to the unfortunate Deerfield Beach ceremony. How does that deplorable event differ in principle from the rebaptisms and re-confirmations and even re-marriages which regularly take place EO? While EO "seems to say" this or that at one time or another, can anyone cite a single instance in which EO has acknowledged a specific ordination or confirmation as fully and truly valid?<br />Their occasional permissions for their people in isolated circumstances to receive Holy Communion at Anglican is not evience of anything. I encourage my people, when out of town or on military deployment, to attend any Christian worship they can find. This hardly means I have signed off on anyone's "validity."<br /><br />Again, I ask in all candour, what is the underlying agenda in this romantic fixation on EO?<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56573343874523600932009-11-16T00:26:07.798-05:002009-11-16T00:26:07.798-05:00Joe Oliveri has pointed to an Orthodox conference ...Joe Oliveri has pointed to an Orthodox conference in 1948 and its apparent condemnation of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Frankly, the same Orthodox churches that allowed their people to receive Anglican sacraments continued to do so right up until 1976; so, this conference seems not to have been fully authoritative. Also, the Orthodox who recognized Anglican Orders officially, beginning in 1922, seem not to have read the Articles in the same way as people at that 1948 conference.<br /><br />I doubt very seriously that the view expressed in 1948, and quoted here, was made by a party that had any real grasp of the meaning of the Articles. When I consider the ignorance that so many Anglicans have expressed about the 39 Articles, especially the ignorance of extremists on both sides of the High Church/Low Church divide (Anglo-Papalists and Reasserters), I see that continuing to recommend E.J. Bicknell's book, and continuing to write about Anglican formularies, is work that does not let up. I shudder to think just how poorly the 1948 Orthodox conference members understood Article XXV especially. I must assume that they did not have a clue.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86168288608196331752009-11-15T19:36:18.883-05:002009-11-15T19:36:18.883-05:00Joe Olivieri, writing as "Leo XIII", sai...Joe Olivieri, writing as "Leo XIII", said "When any non-Orthodox Christian, converts to Orthodoxy ... he is [usually] rebaptized and rechrismated ... and priests, having undergone a period of instruction, are reordained."<br /><br />This, he said, makes it hypocritical for us to criticize the "Apostolic Constitution" on that same ground.<br /><br />Well, for most of us it isn't hypocritical, it is merely being consistent, for the practices he cites are precisely why most of us will never convert to Eastern Orthodoxy any more than we will convert to Romanism.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70142476966616220842009-11-15T19:24:52.156-05:002009-11-15T19:24:52.156-05:00Fr. Hart wrote, "That [1979 Confirmation] Rit...Fr. Hart wrote, "That [1979 Confirmation] Rite was deliberately meant to 'change the theology of the Church' according to one of its designers (boasting to my brother at Trinity seminary circa 1984)."<br /><br />I wonder if that was the same member of the Standing Liturgical Commission who later stated, in print, that of course the Commission lied when General Convention delegates asked if the proposed new texts effected any change in PECUSA's theology and the Commission members assured them that no such changes were being made.<br /><br />Had the Commission told the General Convention the truth, then the Convention would not have voted to approved the revisions, he explained.<br /><br />Apparently the changes were not just to PECUSA's sacramental theology but also to its moral theology, so that now its ends justify its means, whatever those means may be....<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.com