Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[guanophore]

Normally I’d answer all these responses to my responses to the responses of my responses Guanophore. Honestly, my Giants just got trampled by the Phillies. I’m too angry and too tired of the Giants brand of torture baseball to even think clearly. I’m intellectually and emotionally spent, man. I’ll get back to ya when I actually can form a coherent thought. Couple teaching 28 sixth graders day in day out with coming home and watching the Giants torture you to the brink, you have nothing left in the tank…

Later…

I just want to take a time out to say God Bless you for taking on those sixth graders. They get harder every year (a reflection of the culture of death in which we live). There is a school where I work, and they youngsters were bragging yesterday about making their science teacher quit by being “mean” to her. They have no idea how much they set themselves back by indulging this petty desire for power at the expense of their education.

Just one teacher can change a students attitude about their education, and I pray God uses you mightily in this way. May the fruit of the spirit that grows in you by virtue of your clinging to the True Vine become delicious food to them, and draw them into seeking more of it’s Divine sweetness.

 

[guanophore]

AND I got warned about being off topic!!  LOL!!

Yeah, I was just noticing that we have pretty much been off topic since the thread started.

I have read 2 things that cause me to take notice:

Infallibility evolved because of the need to protect the Church from heresies.
Doctrines were developed to save the church from heresies.

What heresies existed that caused the Mary Dogmas to be developed?

All the Marian doctrines are corrollaries of doctrines developed on the nature of Christ. This includes the idea of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. A primary factor in the choosing of the term “Theotokos” were the Gnostic and Arian heresies, which corrupted the Divine Revelation of both the humanity and the divinity of Christ, respectively.

Another that caused me to take notice:

Infallibility protects the church from making error.

How does the above statement fit in with the error of buying indulgences with money? Someone said it was an abuse - Is an abuse not an error?

Infalliblity is a negative charism, which means that it functions preventatively, not proactively. The Church cannot teach error because her Head is Christ, and she is ensould by the HS. It is the divine elements of the Church that prevent her from error, not the human.

It is theologically impossible to “sell” an indulgence (that concept is WAY off topic so I won’t elaborate). The gross abuse of selling them, or even appearing to do so is not a teaching or practice of the church. When people do such things, they have departed from the One Faith.

All the abuses that occur are errors, but the Church does not teach these things. They are corruptions.

Part of the rule of infallibility

His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

The above allows the Pope to teaching something that was never taught officially or previously.

I am not sure what was meant here by “officially”. There have been elements of the faith (such as Theotokos, hypostatic union, Trinity, the canon of Scripture) that were infallibly proclaimed (dogmatized) but that does not mean they were not previously or “officially” taught. These truths were part of the Divine Deposit of Faith from the beginning.

**Infallible statements:**

Immaculate Conception of Mary 1854
Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

Papal Infallibility 1870 - I would think this would have to be declared an infallible statement at some point otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Yes, I agree.

Might be an infallible act:
Canonizing a saint

Is the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ considered an infallible statement? If not why? A Catholic must believe that Mary was born immaculately but not that Christ has 2 natures? Or is it because we can read in Scripture that in fact Christ had 2 natures so an infallible statement is not needed?

The reason proclamations are made is because when people read the Scripture, they don’t always understand it according to what the Apostles believed and taught. Yes, it seems clear to us when reading Scripture that Christ had two natures, but it is because we have already accepted the infallible Apostolic Teaching on this point.

Catholics accept the immaculate conception becuase we understand the greeting of Gabriel to express honor to one who was already completely filled with grace before his arrival.

Yes, the hypostatic union is part of Sacred Tradition, the Word of God, alive and active in the Church, guiding the Church into all Truth. It is part of the Divine Revelation deposted “once for all” to the saints.

I see  alot of discussion on Vatican II whether it is infallible or not?   Why is there an issue with it?

The councils themselves are not infallible. The decisions they make, under the guidance of the HS may be. When the council determines “it seemed right to the HS and to us”, then it is infallible.

 

[guanophore]

Well this is the problem with impeccability vs. infallibility arguments that I see Catholics use in defending the papacy. Since one can always argue, "hey, the pope's not impeccable, he's infallible only when teaching moral dogma from the Chair," then that gives him a license to do just about whatever he wants.

No, there is no license whatsoever in the Catholic faith. On the contrary, the Catholic faith teaches that freedom is is the ability to follow the commandments of God in perfect obedience. When the Pope does not do this, he has departed from the Catholic faith. There have been corrupt popes who misunderstood their authority and freedom as license, and misused it. In doing so, they engage in mortal sin. They will not just give an account for their own evil deeds, but will also have to answer for all the souls for which they were given charge who may have been led astray by their actions.

  He doesn't have to behave or even be a good example or stand as a role model.

Let us examine this statement as it applies to all Christians. Do you think this is valid? Judging from what I have read in your posts, I don’t think you believe this about the Christian walk. It seems clear to me that you believe all Christians have an obligation to walk in obedience to His commandments, and that they are not burdensome to us.

Now it is true that God can work good even through a bad example. We see an illustration of this so well in Peter. One moment, God is telling him that he has received a driect revelation from the father, and Jesus grafts him into HImself next to the Cornerstone, and in the next minute He is rebuking Peter as “satan” (adversary). Clearly Christ worked great miracles through Peter after this error in judgment (one of those fallible decisions by a Pope you were asking about in the OP).

 All he has to do is let the Holy Spirit work through his "office" and he can be corrupt, manipulative in political affairs, have kids with mistresses, lie, cheat, and steal if he wishes.

Honestly, I don’t think such a person, living in a state of mortal sin, can or does “let the HS work through” him, or even his office. I think it is more a case of the HS working in spite of him to guard the Church. This is why I say that people who reject the notion of infalliblity really believe that the sins of men are stronger than the power of God. If God cannot work through this kind of weakness in men, how strong can He really be?

There’s no higher earthly office to do anything about it. So the office gets reduced to mere technicalities and legalisms, not substantive leadership.

I agree that a characterologically deficient leader does prevent substantive leadership. I think this is true in all offices. I note that Presidents and other political leaders of deep spirituality (Ghandi, for example) and godly character make better leaders. I don’t think this reduces the office, just what benefit can come out of the person occupying it. However, I have to say, that since the days of Nixon, the Presidency has lost some ground as far as the confidence of the American people are concerned.

 John Paul II's come around once in a while and seem to be the WHOLE package. The man was a living saint. Amazing man.  But we also have had the Borgia types, Medici popes, Honorius the heretic, and all sorts of interesting chaps.  When they behave badly, corrupt the faith, etc. it's chalked up to "impeccability, remember? They're not impeccable!"  And even when they do teach a heresy like Honorius did in letters and with legates they pull out the "impeccability vs. infallibility" argument again, which doesn't apply there...

Why would it not? Don’t you think a person can fall short by letter as much as he can in person? If Peter had written Jesus a letter trying to pursuade him not to go to Jerusalem, would that be any different?

I just don’t see the Holy Spirit in such a legalistic, loop-holish way?

Clearly you do not. In fact, it is difficult for me to understand what you even mean by “legalistic loop-holish way”. To me, this demonstrates the almighty power of God working through, in, and around the fallible nature of humans to produce a divine result.
I often think of the angel blocking the donkey’s path, and God finally having to speak to the prophet out of the mouth of the donkey. From my point of view, God is not hindered by pigheadedness, meanness, or any other sin.

 

[guanophore]

And again, there is no list of infallible statements. Nobody can agree on them, not even popes, which gives me pause to ask why there is a charism that is so touted, so central, so important, so discussed, and yet not even understood by the folks that teach it and there is no real hard way to know when it has been proclaimed?:confused:

It relates back to the authority that Jesus gave to the Church. If God is not able to preserve His Word infallibly in the Church, then He is deficient, and HIs promises to lead the Church into all Truth are null and void.

Sometimes it sounds like it has to have anathemas and be official pronouncements along with cardinals and other times it could be an encyclical like Humanae Vitae and other times it’s NOT an encyclical. Moving goal posts. Drives me crazy.

I guess it is hard for me to grasp this because I don’t experience the goal posts as “moving”. To me, there is One Faith, One Church, and One Divine Deposit. The Church is given custody and commission to teach and preach it. I see the Church as incarnate, like Christ. It has the same kind of hypostatic union, where both human and divine elements are fused together. Since the core of the Church is Divine, she cannot err. When the fallible humans who are attached to her err, they fall away from the faith to some degree.

 

[ron77nyc]

The councils themselves are not infallible. The decisions they make, under the guidance of the HS may be. When the council determines “it seemed right to the HS and to us”, then it is infallible.

Are you saying this is an infallible statement?

Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Much-appreciated, guanophore. It’s getting more like “Lock-Up” than sixth grade. The other grade 6 teacher a week ago had a kid bring in a bag of marijuana!! The police came, big fiasco. Then there was a kid, a girl, passing around a list in the library in that same teacher’s class and the list said "who would you like to

a) kill
b) rape
c) %*@#

in this class?

Then a boy in his class brought hardcore pornography and was sending porn links to classmates.

I thought I had a rough group till I heard all that! My class has a few fights here and there but compared them…nothing!

It’s a tough job but I see it as a vocation. I interject a lot of faith, theology, philosophy, and morality into my daily routine as we’re allowed and encouraged to teach religion in the grade six California standards. I really take a lot of depth with the Church, Christianity, etc. We are even allowed to teach about the bishops, martyrs, apostolic succession, saints, parables, Jesus, sacraments, etc. because our social studies book examines all that briefly and its a standard. I take it to a higher level with power points, videos, and so the kids receive the best witness to Christ and morality that they’ll ever get in a public setting if they’re in my class!

The other teacher SKIPS Israel and the Jews, skips king David, Moses, and Jewish history…I teach it for weeks and weeks! LOL…

I have Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, and all sorts of kids tell me they learned more in my three weeks about the old testament than they did in five years of catechism or bible study! And I show them a 300-slide power point on ancient christianity, inside the catacombs, stories about Polycarp (also in our california social studies book), we talk about the Passion, what incarnation means, examine the Eucharist and the theories about it, Fathers, etc.

I joke with the kids, that my class is “the closest thing to free private school!” there is!

thanks again for the kind words, guanophore

I just want to take a time out to say God Bless you for taking on those sixth graders. They get harder every year (a reflection of the culture of death in which we live). There is a school where I work, and they youngsters were bragging yesterday about making their science teacher quit by being “mean” to her. They have no idea how much they set themselves back by indulging this petty desire for power at the expense of their education.

Just one teacher can change a students attitude about their education, and I pray God uses you mightily in this way. May the fruit of the spirit that grows in you by virtue of your clinging to the True Vine become delicious food to them, and draw them into seeking more of it’s Divine sweetness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not going to answer each one of these points, guanophore, as I have neither the will, time, or desire to debate into infinity. But I will sum things up like this with with some brevity:

I am not saying there is license to do carte blanche. I am saying that Catholics disagree as to what is infallible. I’m not sure why you equate my statement that there is disagreement about infallible proclamations to mean that I think Catholics are of a rebellious mind to do whatever they want? You’re arguing against a point I’m not making? I’m merely saying that there is widespread disagreement as to what is and is not infallible and de fide. I think that’s a fair statement. And I think the parameters are vague as to when popes have been speaking ex cathedra. Take Lumen Gentium. It says in Lumen Gentium 25 This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra. I’ve heard very intelligent Catholics in this forum say, “well heck, Lumen Gentium isn’t infallible so you don’t have to worry about that.” :banghead::hypno:

So Lumen Gentium tells me I must submit my brains and will to the pope even when he’s NOT teaching ex cathedra yet other times the Church says we must only submit to him when he IS speaking ex cathedra and yet Lumen Gentium is NOT infallible according to some so I can ignore its admonition that I must follow the pope all the time because the document telling me that is fallible LOL…

:hypno::whacky:

Some Catholics think Lumen Gentium is hardcore infallible. Some say it’s not. Some say Humanae Vitae is. Some say no. Some say that Pope John Paul II closed the door to women’s ordination with the encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. And yet many say O.S. is not infallible either?

And when it comes to Honorius, it’s not just the letters to Sergius, but the sending a legate to support Monothelitism that is trouble to many, including me. Letters are letters, surely not ex cathedra. But sending legates is different and makes for a more solid argument that he tried to teach from the Chair.

Gotta run. Short for time.

No, there is no license whatsoever in the Catholic faith. On the contrary, the Catholic faith teaches that freedom is is the ability to follow the commandments of God in perfect obedience. When the Pope does not do this, he has departed from the Catholic faith. There have been corrupt popes who misunderstood their authority and freedom as license, and misused it. In doing so, they engage in mortal sin. They will not just give an account for their own evil deeds, but will also have to answer for all the souls for which they were given charge who may have been led astray by their actions.

Let us examine this statement as it applies to all Christians. Do you think this is valid? Judging from what I have read in your posts, I don’t think you believe this about the Christian walk. It seems clear to me that you believe all Christians have an obligation to walk in obedience to His commandments, and that they are not burdensome to us.

Now it is true that God can work good even through a bad example. We see an illustration of this so well in Peter. One moment, God is telling him that he has received a driect revelation from the father, and Jesus grafts him into HImself next to the Cornerstone, and in the next minute He is rebuking Peter as “satan” (adversary). Clearly Christ worked great miracles through Peter after this error in judgment (one of those fallible decisions by a Pope you were asking about in the OP).

Honestly, I don’t think such a person, living in a state of mortal sin, can or does “let the HS work through” him, or even his office. I think it is more a case of the HS working in spite of him to guard the Church. This is why I say that people who reject the notion of infalliblity really believe that the sins of men are stronger than the power of God. If God cannot work through this kind of weakness in men, how strong can He really be?

I agree that a characterologically deficient leader does prevent substantive leadership. I think this is true in all offices. I note that Presidents and other political leaders of deep spirituality (Ghandi, for example) and godly character make better leaders. I don’t think this reduces the office, just what benefit can come out of the person occupying it. However, I have to say, that since the days of Nixon, the Presidency has lost some ground as far as the confidence of the American people are concerned.

Why would it not? Don’t you think a person can fall short by letter as much as he can in person? If Peter had written Jesus a letter trying to pursuade him not to go to Jerusalem, would that be any different?

Clearly you do not. In fact, it is difficult for me to understand what you even mean by “legalistic loop-holish way”. To me, this demonstrates the almighty power of God working through, in, and around the fallible nature of humans to produce a divine result.
I often think of the angel blocking the donkey’s path, and God finally having to speak to the prophet out of the mouth of the donkey. From my point of view, God is not hindered by pigheadedness, meanness, or any other sin.

 

[The_Sentry]

It’s a tough job but I see it as a vocation. I interject a lot of faith, theology, philosophy, and morality into my daily routine as we’re allowed and encouraged to teach religion in the grade six California standards. I really take a lot of depth with the Church, Christianity, etc. We are even allowed to teach about the bishops, martyrs, apostolic succession, saints, parables, Jesus, sacraments, etc. because our social studies book examines all that briefly and its a standard. I take it to a higher level with power points, videos, and so the kids receive the best witness to Christ and morality that they’ll ever get in a public setting if they’re in my class!

The other teacher SKIPS Israel and the Jews, skips king David, Moses, and Jewish history…I teach it for weeks and weeks! LOL…

I have Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, and all sorts of kids tell me they learned more in my three weeks about the old testament than they did in five years of catechism or bible study! And I show them a 300-slide power point on ancient christianity, inside the catacombs, stories about Polycarp (also in our california social studies book), we talk about the Passion, what incarnation means, examine the Eucharist and the theories about it, Fathers, etc.

I joke with the kids, that my class is “the closest thing to free private school!” there is!

thanks again for the kind words, guanophore

This is wonderful. Thank you for such a service to youth who desperately need it!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks so much, Sentry!

This is wonderful. Thank you for such a service to youth who desperately need it!

 

[GKC]

Thanks so much, Sentry!

I salute you, too. That’s impressive.

You don’t throw in anything about DUNE, do you?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nope. Too deep. I DO throw in a heavy dose of Lord of the Rings and Hobbit references, buhlee-dat! I have several shelves of perma-bound class sets of books of various titles. I asked my principal, a total snobola, if I could have a class set of The Hobbit. I was summarily rejected. No surprise…

If my kids could grasp Dune, shoot, I’d really be in business!

We did get a report recently at our staff meeting show our net gains and losses as teachers in comparison to the fifth grade teachers below us. It shows child by child the net achievement or failure and it attaches the teacher to it. My kids had huge growth and achievement whereas my kooky cohorts got slammed. The guy I work with, who I think is nuts, after 27 years, his kids were in the negative for three years straight! The new chick I work with went down 33 points in her achievement. Mine went up bigtime.

So I’m doing something right. But man is it draining. It’s my vocation. Gurney, apostle to the gentile hormonal sixth graders. Instead of Paul saying “I have been ship-wrecked, stoned, beaten, rejected,” etc. I can say, “I have had divorced parents yell F-you! at me at a conference, a principal harrass me, born again evangelical parents turn me in for teaching pangaea, a mom whose kid in my class had severe mental problems accused me of threatening him when I was out of school at home sick that day (!! ), I’ve worked with nut-jobs, and had people yell “get a real job!” when we were picketing.” That’s my opening epistle!

I salute you, too. That’s impressive.

You don’t throw in anything about DUNE, do you?

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nope. Too deep. I DO throw in a heavy dose of Lord of the Rings and Hobbit references, buhlee-dat! I have several shelves of perma-bound class sets of books of various titles. I asked my principal, a total snobola, if I could have a class set of The Hobbit. I was summarily rejected. No surprise…

If my kids could grasp Dune, shoot, I’d really be in business!

We did get a report recently at our staff meeting show our net gains and losses as teachers in comparison to the fifth grade teachers below us. It shows child by child the net achievement or failure and it attaches the teacher to it. My kids had huge growth and achievement whereas my kooky cohorts got slammed. The guy I work with, who I think is nuts, after 27 years, his kids were in the negative for three years straight! The new chick I work with went down 33 points in her achievement. Mine went up bigtime.

So I’m doing something right. But man is it draining. It’s my vocation. Gurney, apostle to the gentile hormonal sixth graders. Instead of Paul saying “I have been ship-wrecked, stoned, beaten, rejected,” etc. I can say, “I have had divorced parents yell F-you! at me at a conference, a principal harrass me, born again evangelical parents turn me in for teaching pangaea, a mom whose kid in my class had severe mental problems accused me of threatening him when I was out of school at home sick that day (!! ), I’ve worked with nut-jobs, and had people yell “get a real job!” when we were picketing.” That’s my opening epistle!

You are doing something right, all right. You’re teaching. What you describe drove my daughter out of teaching high school Latin, in 5 years.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But now she’s in the military, an even more honorable vocation and service as an American. I deeply admire military folks having a dad and two grandpas in Vietnam and WWII respectively. Nothing more admirable.

Teaching is much like being a correctional officer now. It’s also politically-correct to the nth degree. If I told you guys half the stuff we’re not allowed to say, you’d laugh your head off. In the past two years now we’ve been told that we can’t call a substitute teacher a “sub” or a “substitute.” They are to be called “guest teachers.” And when we’re working with our colleagues at “grade level meetings” (which we’ve always called them), it’s inappropriate to refer to them as such. We must call them PLC’s (Professional Learning Communities) GAG!

We can’t call it Christmas Vacation. It’s to be called Winter Recess. I refuse to play ball and call it Christmas. My kids love it. I refuse to call it Spring Break. I say “Holy Week.” The kids love it. Halloween not harvest. I call a spade a spade. We’re told never to say “kid” but “child.” We are FORBIDDEN from saying things like “Billy didn’t progress this trimester.” We have to say, “progress was slow and steady” which is bascially a lie. Even if a student scores at “retardation” level on the IQ tests for special ed, the resource teacher is told NEVER to say “retarded” but rather “slowed” or below the norm, etc.

You are doing something right, all right. You’re teaching. What you describe drove my daughter out of teaching high school Latin, in 5 years.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But now she’s in the military, an even more honorable vocation and service as an American. I deeply admire military folks having a dad and two grandpas in Vietnam and WWII respectively. Nothing more admirable.

Teaching is much like being a correctional officer now. It’s also politically-correct to the nth degree. If I told you guys half the stuff we’re not allowed to say, you’d laugh your head off. In the past two years now we’ve been told that we can’t call a substitute teacher a “sub” or a “substitute.” They are to be called “guest teachers.” And when we’re working with our colleagues at “grade level meetings” (which we’ve always called them), it’s inappropriate to refer to them as such. We must call them PLC’s (Professional Learning Communities) GAG!

We can’t call it Christmas Vacation. It’s to be called Winter Recess. I refuse to play ball and call it Christmas. My kids love it. I refuse to call it Spring Break. I say “Holy Week.” The kids love it. Halloween not harvest. I call a spade a spade. We’re told never to say “kid” but “child.” We are FORBIDDEN from saying things like “Billy didn’t progress this trimester.” We have to say, “progress was slow and steady” which is bascially a lie. Even if a student scores at “retardation” level on the IQ tests for special ed, the resource teacher is told NEVER to say “retarded” but rather “slowed” or below the norm, etc.

Keep throwing grit in the gears.

Fight the System.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never thought I’d hear GKC quote a rap from a group of gangster rappers

“Fight, fight, fight the power!”—Public Enemy

I do throw a LOT of grit in the gears, trust me. I’m a polarizing figure. 99% of the parents and kids adore me, but shoot man that 1% that loathes me has a lot of strength!

My Anglican rector was talking about public education and public sector and what you can’t get away with. I told him that I believed in the Immaculate Conception of the BVM. He said, “well I bet you wouldn’t have her image in your classroom!” I said, “I sure do!” and he said, “yeah, but I bet you can’t see it.” I replied, “I have a huge calendar with her on every page!” LOL I have gigantic San Francisco Giants pennants, posters, and decorations all over my classroom. My principal is a DODGERS fan! When she comes in my room, it’s like holy water and garlic to a vampire, man! phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhsssssss

Keep throwing grit in the gears.

Fight the System.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I never thought I’d hear GKC quote a rap from a group of gangster rappers

“Fight, fight, fight the power!”—Public Enemy

I do throw a LOT of grit in the gears, trust me. I’m a polarizing figure. 99% of the parents and kids adore me, but shoot man that 1% that loathes me has a lot of strength!

My Anglican rector was talking about public education and public sector and what you can’t get away with. I told him that I believed in the Immaculate Conception of the BVM. He said, “well I bet you wouldn’t have her image in your classroom!” I said, “I sure do!” and he said, “yeah, but I bet you can’t see it.” I replied, “I have a huge calendar with her on every page!” LOL I have gigantic San Francisco Giants pennants, posters, and decorations all over my classroom. My principal is a DODGERS fan! When she comes in my room, it’s like holy water and garlic to a vampire, man! phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhsssssss

I’m a constant source of amazement.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Quite the opposite! Total predictability!

I’m a constant source of amazement.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Quite the opposite! Total predictability!

Oh, yeah?

What will I post next?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unless it’s history–I won’t answer it
Enola Gay good, civil war bad
I won’t give opinions or “go there” unless it’s historical or related to Hank
Sci fi conventions, comic book cons
Too tired to reply to that!
History is complicated
Motley crew
Don’t try to characterize or figure out anglicans
I don’t watch TV
Diana Rigg’s the greatest
I don’t like sci fi or horror TV shows
Atonement? no thanks, 39 Articles? Let me at her!
Bill Buckley rules
Don’t trust the government
Aircraft expert
vast libraries
Exceptionally reluctant to weigh in on opinions about many Catholic issues
A-bombs
Quick to defend Hammer studios but doesn’t remember hardly any of their movies
Not a Dune fan at all (mortal sin and a half!)
Not evangelical but won’t affirm “particulars” to become Catholic
Options other than anglo-catholicism?----stay home

That’s all I can predict for now?

Oh, yeah?

What will I post next?

GKC

 

[Petergee]

Actually, many more Americans started out as indentured servants than as freemen like the Puritans, and many of those were ransomed from debtors prisons. (Then of course there was that enormous kidnapped population.)

Some say the loss of the north American colonies was one more good reason to start moving people to Australia.

And there were actually MORE British convicts sent to the Thirteen Colonies which became the USA, than the number of British convicts later sent to Australia.