Old Catholics

[Lukeptak]

Old Catholics (as in the Union of Ultrecht of Old Cathlolic Churches) claim to have apostolic succession and valid sacrements, but are near opposite on most if not all of the “controversial” Roman Catholic dogma. They ordain women priests, condone birth control, have married clergy, and many other things. I was wondering: do their priests and bishops ACTUALLY have apostolic succession and valid sacriments? What does the vatican think?

 

[1edyson]

not sure, but they’re just another non- Catholic Christian denomination. It is one thing to claim to have apostolic succession, its another thing to posses it. There are Anglican priests that have proof positive apostolic succession from my understanding.

 

[Leopard]

Old Catholics (as in the Union of Ultrecht of Old Cathlolic Churches) claim to have apostolic succession and valid sacrements, but are near opposite on most if not all of the “controversial” Roman Catholic dogma. They ordain women priests, condone birth control, have married clergy, and many other things. I was wondering: do their priests and bishops ACTUALLY have apostolic succession and valid sacriments? What does the vatican think?

At the very least their female clergy would not, as they would not be valid matter for Holy Orders.

 

[Wampa]

Just a quick clarification that married clergy is a matter of discipline, not dogma.

Carry on with the topic at hand!

 

[GKC]

Old Catholics (as in the Union of Ultrecht of Old Cathlolic Churches) claim to have apostolic succession and valid sacrements, but are near opposite on most if not all of the “controversial” Roman Catholic dogma. They ordain women priests, condone birth control, have married clergy, and many other things. I was wondering: do their priests and bishops ACTUALLY have apostolic succession and valid sacriments? What does the vatican think?

Old Catholics/Utrecht did not originally attempt to ordain females, but have started doing so, recently. Historically, until that point, the RCC considered their orders valid but illicit, as is the case with the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) still.

Anglicans and Old Catholics/PNCC, began joint consecrations of bishops, in 1932 (OCs) and 1946 (PNCC), thus infusing these valid but (in Rome’s eyes) illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism. It is difficult to find an Anglican cleric untouched by the Dutch, by now.

Nevertheless, Rome has made no pronouncement on the results of such lines, as to the validity of Anglican orders. Only two Anglican clerics who have crossed the River, and then been priested, have been ordained sub conditione, and it is likely that the OC or PNCC lines might have playe a part in those two. Generally, Anglicans in such a circumstance are ordained absolutely.

GKC

 

[resultb]

it’s a useful informations.

 

[IAGladfelter]

Old Catholics/Utrecht did not originally attempt to ordain females, but have started doing so, recently. Historically, until that point, the RCC considered their orders valid but illicit, as is the case with the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) still.

Anglicans and Old Catholics/PNCC, began joint consecrations of bishops, in 1932 (OCs) and 1946 (PNCC), thus infusing these valid but (in Rome’s eyes) illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism. It is difficult to find an Anglican cleric untouched by the Dutch, by now.

Nevertheless, Rome has made no pronouncement on the results of such lines, as to the validity of Anglican orders. Only two Anglican clerics who have crossed the River, and then been priested, have been ordained sub conditione, and it is likely that the OC or PNCC lines might have playe a part in those two. Generally, Anglicans in such a circumstance are ordained absolutely.

GKC

This seems to be something of a gray area in Roman Catholic theology. Unlike the the Eastern Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Churches (the Copts, et. al.,) the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrech Union (the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands et al,) and since the 1920 Lambeth Conference, the Churches of the Anglican Communion, all of which, following the Donatist-influenced Cyprian criteria for the validity of ordinations, consider the Orders and Sacraments of schismatics (and heretics) to be absolutely invalid, the Roman Catholic Church follows the more mechanistic Augustinian criteria laid out in St. Augustine’s works, On Baptism, Against the Donatists and On The Correction of the Donatists, in which an ordination is technically valid if certain criteria of form, matter, and intent and was performed by a bishop (or bishops for the ordination of a bishop in a lineage of the historical apostolic succession,) will stop short of declaring the ordination by a bishop / bishops who hold lineages ruled to be technically valid by various Popes to be technically invalid. Instead, they will say that a given Churches ordinations are “illicit but valid” or, at best, “irregular but valid.”

One Anglican author made an interesting point. ( Badertscher, The Measure of a Bishop anglicanhistory.org/essays/badertscher/chapter5.pdf ) He contrasts “formal validity” with “material validity.” “Material validity,” deals with the actual, technical validity per se, while “formal validity” is in his words, “political and jurisdictional,” and pertains to the right to exercise the priestly / sacerdotal functions of the order into which a man is ordained. So in this case, the orders and sacraments of someone who is ordained properly, in form and intent, as a priest / bishop, may be in technically valid orders but not have the jurisdictional right to exercise them. That strikes me as something like a man having a valid M.D, degree, and is licensed as a physician and surgeon in, say the State of New York, moving to California and opening a medical practice there without a California medical license. A validly, properly trained physician? Yep. Able to practice in some jurisdiction, yep, but not legally able to practice in a State without an agreement of reciprocity with the State in which he is licensed. But in an extreme legitimate emergency, if he used his skills as a physician in a State other than the one in which he was licensed, and saved someone’s life, there would, in that instance, be no problem.

It does seem to me, from my perspective at least, that this issue might under reconsideration/re-evaluation in at least some sectors of the Catholic Church, (trying to work out some accommodation with the Greeks and Russians may play into this, who knows?). There does seem to be at least some in the Catholic Church, especially among the more conservative elements, which seem to be wanting to move away from the historic Catholic (strict Augustinian) position to one that is for all intents and purposes the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox (I know some Catholic clerics who personally seem agree with the Eastern Orthodox position) but at this point, that is their own opinions, not officially those of the Catholic Church at least right now, which still stops just short of a blanket denial of the technical, “material validity” of Independent/Old Catholic orders while denying their “functional validity” (the “right to practice” in the absence of a “license,”) denying them the ability to function in their order without at least conditional re-ordination after a formal opinion of the technical, “material validity” of their individual lineages by the Vatican to verify that they have technically valid Old Catholic lineage(s) to deternime whether ordination or conditional (sub conditione) re-ordination is appropriate.

Also it seems that in recent years, some Catholic theologians / ecclesiologists seem to think that the Augustinian criteria if applied strictly, may be mechanical and simplistic and need to be modified somewhat, perhaps reflecting concerns over the proliferation of Independent Cathollic Churches which, individually, may be quite small, but collectively are beginning to have a significant number of members.

If I am “off-base” here, please comment.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[GKC]

This is a gray area for the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrech Union (the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands), the Eastern Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Churches (the Copts, et. al.,) and since the 1920 Lambeth Conference, the Churches of the Anglican Communion, which, following the Donatist-influenced Cyprian criteria for the validity of ordinations, consider the Orders and Sacraments of schizmatics (and heretics) to be absolutely invalid, the Roman Catholic Church follows the more mechanistic Augustinian criteria laid out in St. Augustine’s works, “On Baptism, Against the Donatists” and “On The Correction of the Donatists,” in which an ordination is technically valid if certain criteria of form, matter, and intent and was performed by a bishop (or bishops for the ordination of a bishop in a lineage of the historical apostolic succession,) will stop short of declaring the ordination by a bishop / bishops who hold lineages ruled to be technically valid by various Popes to be technically invalid. Instead, they will say that a given Churches ordinations are “illicit but valid” or, at best, “irregular but valid.”

One Anglican author made an interesting point. ( Badertscher, The Measure of a Bishop anglicanhistory.org/essays/badertscher/chapter5.pdf ) He contrasts “formal validity” with “material validity.” “Material validity,” deals with the actual, technical validity per se, while “formal validity” is in his words, “political and jurisdictional,” and pertains to the right to exercise the priestly / sacerdotal functions of the order into which a man is ordained. So in this case, the orders and sacraments of someone who is ordained properly, in form and intent, as a priest / bishop, may be in technically valid orders but not have the jurisdictional right to exercise them. That strikes me as something like a man having a valid M.D, degree, and is licensed as a physician and surgeon in, say the State of New York, moving to California and opening a medical practice there without a California medical license. A validly, properly trained physician? Yep. Able to practice in some jurisdiction, yep, but not legally able to practice in a State without an agreement of reciprocity with the State in which he is licensed. But in an extreme legitimate emergency, if he used his skills as a physician in a State other than the one in which he was licensed, and saved someone’s life, there would, in that instance, be no problem.

It does seem to me, from my perspective at least, that this issue might under reconsideration/re-evaluation in at least some sectors of the Catholic Church, (trying to work out some accommodation with the Greeks and Russians may play into this, who knows?). There does seem to be at least some in the Catholic Church, especially among the more conservative elements, which seem to be wanting to move away from the historic Catholic (strict Augustinian) position to one that is for all intents and purposes the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox (I know some Catholic clerics who personally seem agree with the Eastern Orthodox position) but at this point, that is their own opinions, not officially those of the Catholic Church at least right now, which still stops just short of a blanket denial of the technical, “material validity” of Independent/Old Catholic orders while denying their “functional validity,” their ability to function in their order without at least conditional re-ordination after a formal opinion of the technical validity of their individual lineages by the Vatican to verify that they have technically valid Old Catholic lineage(s).

Also it seems that in recent years, some Catholic theologians / ecclesiologists seem to think that the Augustianian criteria if applied strictly, may be mechanical and simplistic and need to be modified somewhat, perhaps reflecting concerns over the proliferation of Independent Cathollic Churches which, individually, may be quite small, but collectively are beginning to have a significant number of members.

If I am “off-base” here, please comment.

Blessings,
Irl

As far as I know, you are correct. It seems to me that what you refer to is the concept of of valid, though illicit orders, valid in the Augustinian sense, but without authority to exercise their office. That would be the case for OC/PNCC, and (logically) for Anglicans possessing these episcopal lines, in the eyes of Rome. See Ott, p. 458.

OTOH, I have a friend, who is the best informed layman on the sad subject of
Apostolicae Curae I know of, who thinks a re-look, at least at some of the traditional Anglicans, might be in order, for a number of technical reasons, not least of which is the Dutch touch.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Anglicans and Old Catholics/PNCC, began joint consecrations of bishops, in 1932 (OCs) and 1946 (PNCC), thus infusing these valid but (in Rome’s eyes) illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism. It is difficult to find an Anglican cleric untouched by the Dutch, by now.

I agree with everything you stated as factually correct. I just wish to make some general comments…

It just seem seems like this whole issue of validity and licity in Episcopal orders outside of one’s communion is verging on magic. Like some holy relay race, they have taken the touch and passed it on.

This pre-occupation with ‘lines’ is, in my opinion, misplaced. It has opened a Pandora’s box. The Vatican has made a mistake here and in so doing it encouraged the vagante industry. I think some inside the Curia must realize that, this may be what IAGladfelter was referring to when he stated below…

There does seem to be at least some in the Catholic Church, especially among the more conservative elements, which seem to be wanting to move away from the historic Catholic (strict Augustinian) position to one that is for all intents and purposes the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox (I know some Catholic clerics who personally seem agree with the Eastern Orthodox position) but at this point, that is their own opinions…

Christ made His disciples into Apostles to be teachers of the world. What they teach is most important, it must come from Christ through the Apostles and it must thereby be true.

If the teachers are out of communion by reason of disagreement they are essentially irrelevant. Who can know what they teach? They cannot be our teachers if they teach differently.

Now I am in favor of reconciliation as much as anyone, and wish there were some way to encourage harmony between the confessions, but the speculation about possible validity of Episcopacy outside the communion among men who quite clearly do not agree in beliefs is not helpful at all.
*
Michael*

 

[IowaJay]

Blessings,
Irl

Irl - good to see you! I miss your presence on the alpb forum.

Are you hoping that your church will be a part of the possible prelature status mentioned with regard to the Traditional Anglican Communion?

 

[GKC]

I agree with everything you stated as factually correct. I just wish to make some general comments…

It just seem seems like this whole issue of validity and licity in Episcopal orders outside of one’s communion is verging on magic. Like some holy relay race, they have taken the touch and passed it on.

This pre-occupation with ‘lines’ is, in my opinion, misplaced. It has opened a Pandora’s box. The Vatican has made a mistake here and in so doing it encouraged the vagante industry. I think some inside the Curia must realize that, this may be what IAGladfelter was referring to when he stated below… Christ made His disciples into Apostles to be teachers of the world. What they teach is most important, it must come from Christ through the Apostles and it must thereby be true.

If the teachers are out of communion by reason of disagreement they are essentially irrelevant. Who can know what they teach? They cannot be our teachers if they teach differently.

Now I am in favor of reconciliation as much as anyone, and wish there were some way to encourage harmony between the confessions, but the speculation about possible validity of Episcopacy outside the communion among men who quite clearly do not agree in beliefs is not helpful at all.
*
Michael*

Helpful it may or it may not be, but, AFAIK, it is Rome’s Augustinian viewpoint. As an Anglican, I got my own issues with how Rome reads the lines, myself.

But none of the jurisdictions under discussion would be vagante, in the sense that Brandreth or Anson use the term.

GKC

 

[IAGladfelter]

Irl - good to see you! I miss your presence on the alpb forum.

Are you hoping that your church will be a part of the possible prelature status mentioned with regard to the Traditional Anglican Communion?

Hi, Jay: I am following TAC’s progress closely, but no, although we are looking at creating an entirely new entity under new canons, as a separate personal prelacy or priestly society (like the former Brazilian province of the SSPX which is back in the Catholic Church as the SSPX; or like the Priestly Society of St. Peter.) Their large size is actually a problem, as is the insistence of many in TAC to continuing to teach Anglican theology rather than Catholic theology and continue to use the Book of Common Prayer modified only by a prayer for the Pope, among other issues, their petition seems to be in some trouble.

Since there is no problem with our orders (most recently described by a senior Catholic Archbishop as"irregular but valid",) there are no issues over theology, polity, etc. any more, our married bishops are willing to return as monsignori, our clergy and postulants are required to sign the Mandatum, we worship using the rites of the Catholic Church and teach from the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than from Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms and the other documents of the Book of Concord, have proven our ability to screen out possible “Protestant Trojan Horses,” and while we now have a decent-sized membership but are still small enough to be “manageable,” I have been told that we may actually be in better shape than TAC; but who knows? Our initial petition is being staffed/vetted now, will be going to Rome by the end of the first week of May at the latest.

Remember what Machiavelli wrote about those who try to initiate a “new order of things:” They have enemies in those who profit from the old order and only lukewarm friends from those who profit from the new order. We are hopeful, of course, but anything can happen. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Peace and blessings to you and yours,
Irl

 

[cspb56]

GKC,

I am a Roman catholic and been a musician and liturgist in the church for 30 years. Recently I took a position as the musican for the episcopal church in the town I live in. The truth be told I find very little difference in most of the theology. After having done a great deal of reading on the subject of “valid ordination” I’ve come to the conclusion that we have a valid but not licit issue as a result of the “Dutch Touch” (I love that term) as you call it. Numerous catholic theolgians are calling for Rome to review this as their claim is the Leo’s invalidation was flawed when it was promulgated and with changes in the rite and the Dutch Touch validity is not longer a question. The talks I’ve had with the rector have also lead to my feeling on validity. From other things you’ve written in previous threads I think I’m on track. Would you agree? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I am a Roman catholic and been a musician and liturgist in the church for 30 years. Recently I took a position as the musican for the episcopal church in the town I live in. The truth be told I find very little difference in most of the theology. After having done a great deal of reading on the subject of “valid ordination” I’ve come to the conclusion that we have a valid but not licit issue as a result of the “Dutch Touch” (I love that term) as you call it. Numerous catholic theolgians are calling for Rome to review this as their claim is the Leo’s invalidation was flawed when it was promulgated and with changes in the rite and the Dutch Touch validity is not longer a question. The talks I’ve had with the rector have also lead to my feeling on validity. From other things you’ve written in previous threads I think I’m on track. Would you agree? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Greetings.

The issue of Anglican orders, as seen and pronounced upon by the RCC, specifically in Apostolicae Curae, is a complex one, and could be approached from a number of directions. Looking at the point of Dutch touch (and PNCC), suggesting an infusion of valid episcopal lines, along with a comparison of the existing Anglican ordinal, with both the Pontificale Romanum of the 16th century, and the revised Pontificale, post 1968, might possibly suggest a re-evaluation might be in order. The current Pontificale comes off looking a little slack, on the points of form, as well as intent, as compared with the 1662 Ordinal, in fact. But the words that appeared in the conclusion of the Bull, over Leo’s signature (the whole mainly the work of Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val) would appear to shut the door on any such second look, for any reason. And, frankly, the contemporary official Anglican Communion presents little to induce such a look at all.

Logically, and considering only those orthodox and traditionalist Anglicans who have also maintained the proper matter for the sacrament, I would think that such a re-look was warranted. I know very knowledgeable RCs who agree. But the call is not mine, or theirs.

Apostolicae Curae itself is a sad story of intertwined theology, politics and personalities, which I think can be faulted on its own merits. But that is even less likely to occur. So, it is the position of the RCC, and as such should be affirmed by all RCs. Anglicans, as I often say, have a different view of it.

Bottom line: I agree with you. But it won’t happen.

And our music director, after playing the 1030 Mass for us, hotfoots it 3 miles away to St. Joseph’s, to play for the RC Mass there.

Nice talking with you.

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

GKC,

I am a Roman catholic and been a musician and liturgist in the church for 30 years. Recently I took a position as the musican for the episcopal church in the town I live in. The truth be told I find very little difference in most of the theology. After having done a great deal of reading on the subject of “valid ordination” I’ve come to the conclusion that we have a valid but not licit issue as a result of the “Dutch Touch” (I love that term) as you call it. Numerous catholic theolgians are calling for Rome to review this as their claim is the Leo’s invalidation was flawed when it was promulgated and with changes in the rite and the Dutch Touch validity is not longer a question. The talks I’ve had with the rector have also lead to my feeling on validity. From other things you’ve written in previous threads I think I’m on track. Would you agree? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I know you are not asking for my opinion, so I will make this one last post on the subject and back away. It still seems like magic to me.

Everyone is fishing around technicalities. It’s just not important what lines of succession are when communion is broken. I know that this may sound hurtful to some, but it’s not intended to be.

To me, Leo’s invalidation was not important. He should not have even commented on Anglican orders. All he need have said was “they are not in communion, we don’t know anything about them anymore”. Likewise, the Anglican’s should not even care what Rome thinks. If they are convinced what they teach is Truth they do not need validation from anyone, they should stand proudly just as they are. If they are posturing for some kind of recognition from outside (by carefully pre-arranging who the co-consecrators must be), and if they let someone outside set their standards…they have already debased their own claims to legitimacy. That’s a bad position to be in.

Now it is like there is a game being played, with lines of succession running through people who clearly have little to no orthodoxy in their teachings, and they can “pass” this on to anyone. I am sure that John Shelby Spong has impeccable “lines”, and V. Gene Robinson as well. I think it is an offense to think that an institution of the church could exist outside the church in the person of any one in the right place at the right time. That why it looks like magic. It is a contradiction to the entire concept of what an episcopos is supposed to be in Christianity.

 

[GKC]

I know you are not asking for my opinion, so I will make this one last post on the subject and back away. It still seems like magic to me.

Everyone is fishing around technicalities. It’s just not important what lines of succession are when communion is broken. I know that this may sound hurtful to some, but it’s not intended to be.

To me, Leo’s invalidation was not important. He should not have even commented on Anglican orders. All he need have said was “they are not in communion, we don’t know anything about them anymore”. Likewise, the Anglican’s should not even care what Rome thinks. If they are convinced what they teach is Truth they do not need validation from anyone, they should stand proudly just as they are. If they are posturing for some kind of recognition from outside (by carefully pre-arranging who the co-consecrators must be), and if they let someone outside set their standards…they have already debased their own claims to legitimacy. That’s a bad position to be in.

Now it is like there is a game being played, with lines of succession running through people who clearly have little to no orthodoxy in their teachings, and they can “pass” this on to anyone. I am sure that John Shelby Spong has impeccable “lines”, and V. Gene Robinson as well. I think it is an offense to think that an institution of the church could exist outside the church in the person of any one in the right place at the right time. That why it looks like magic. It is a contradiction to the entire concept of what an episcopos is supposed to be in Christianity.

As I often say, Anglicans have a different view of the issue, generally. And so, for most, the point is not what Rome thinks, especially not when we are kneeling at the rail. And it was not what Rome thought, when the OCs and the Anglican Communion first entered into formal communion.

But when we think about John 17:21, it raises an occasional eyebrow.

If you have an issue with what the RCC holds on the subject, and the logic and consequences that follow, your proper avenue for comment, it would seem to me, would be to your own episcopi, As for me, I have an historical interest in what has been taught, by whom, and why. And I discuss what I know.

GKC

 

[cspb56]

Thanks GKC for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The general disunity within christianity is sad indeed. I have this vision of God at the last judgement saying to us “You tried but just didn’t get it, come and be one now”

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The general disunity within christianity is sad indeed. I have this vision of God at the last judgement saying to us “You tried but just didn’t get it, come and be one now”

You are very welcome, and thank you.

GKC

 

[IAGladfelter]

GKC,

I am a Roman catholic and been a musician and liturgist in the church for 30 years. Recently I took a position as the musican for the episcopal church in the town I live in. The truth be told I find very little difference in most of the theology. After having done a great deal of reading on the subject of “valid ordination” I’ve come to the conclusion that we have a valid but not licit issue as a result of the “Dutch Touch” (I love that term) as you call it. Numerous catholic theolgians are calling for Rome to review this as their claim is the Leo’s invalidation was flawed when it was promulgated and with changes in the rite and the Dutch Touch validity is not longer a question. The talks I’ve had with the rector have also lead to my feeling on validity. From other things you’ve written in previous threads I think I’m on track. Would you agree? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

From my perspective it seems that some theologians would love to find some way of moving to a position on the technical validity of ordinations that would be essentially the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox and this that would be one way to do it.

IMHO, the approach you mention some theologians as advocating is a “slipprey slope,” because the SSPX clergy I know (including their head in the U.S. whose HQ is not far from where I live,) are now saying that Roman Catholic ordinations must be using the Tridentine Latin Ordinal or they are not valid. Invalidating Dutch Old Catholic Ordinations on the basis of the rationale you mentioned would seem to open the door for some (like the SSPX) - and others - applying that same criteria to them. Arguably it would be best “not to go down that path.”

Perhaps the “800 pound gorilla in the room” is that Rome’s present (Augustinian) position is based on the contents of documents included in the Sacred (rather than the Ordinary) Magesterium which is by definition infallible. The Greeks and Russians (as well as the Utrech Union - Dutch and others - Old Catholics and Anglicans) are not concerned about that sort of thing. One interesting note which muddies the water as far as the Episcopal Church is concerned, is that the Episcopal Church is in full communion with the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands and through them, with the Utrech Union itself ( anglicansonline.org/communion/infull.html .)

Another point is that acceptance by the Vatican of the technical (material) validity of an Episcopalian or Old/Independent Catholic priest’s orders followed by a conditional (sub conditione) re-ordination, may get him into the Catholic Church as a priest but does not necessarily mean that he will be welcomed with open arms . . . sometimes it is quite the contrary, as was the experience of Fr. John Jay Hughes as told in his biography, “No Ordinary Fool,” Tate Publishing, Mustang, OK, 2008. In his case Rome’s ruling that his ordinations were valid (he had the “Dutch Touch” and the PNCC lineage as well,) actually angered his bishop at that time (though there was nothing he could do about it.) Though Fr. Hughes was conditionally re-ordained, it was a very, very long time before he was given a significant job in the Church. Titles? Yes. Nice ones. But with little if any real duties, or assigned to failing parishes.

But there are other theologians in the Catholic Church who take the opposite opinion to those of the ones you mention in your comments, and think the Church should be far more welcoming than it is today, and base that on an imperative to re-unite the Church as per “Ut Unum Sint.” Some of them are important Church officials.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

You are very welcome, and thank you.

GKC

I keep remembering this quote from Greek Orthodox Bishop, theologian, and Oxford Don Kallistos (Timothy) Ware: “We know where the Church is. We do not know where the Church is not!”

Blessings,
Irl