J
JMJ4
Guest
Deacon Latif -
Thank you for the book recommendations on Martin Luther. I really appreciate it!
Thank you for the book recommendations on Martin Luther. I really appreciate it!
- Status
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
Dear JonNC:
Honestly, I want to review it before commenting in any substantive way. It’s been a while since I read through it. I’m not even at home right now. I will try to get back with you on this, however. Thanks for asking.
Not a problem. I’m still curious as to Jerry’s statements about the LCMS view of Justification. I hope he will elaborate, or at least provide a link. His brief description seems such an anti-Lutheran view of Justification.
Blessings to you and Jerry both,
Jon
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Latif and Jon,
I’ll try to find a link for you two (and other interested C.A. Forum readers) where the pros and cons of the Synodical Conference U.O.J. (“universal objective justification”) and S.J. (“subjective justification”) teaching are debated clearly. It was this horrid doctrinal paradigm that alienated me, once for all, from Lutheranism. At 66 years old now, I just cannot bring myself to pinch my nose shut from this malodourous, sickening doctrinal rot and to get involved in arguing about it again. Catholics should be aware that supposedly conservative Lutherans accept such rubbish and, wrongly so, in the name of the blessed Lutheran Confessions!.
Pax, Jerry Parker
I’ll try to find a link for you two (and other interested C.A. Forum readers) where the pros and cons of the Synodical Conference U.O.J. (“universal objective justification”) and S.J. (“subjective justification”) teaching are debated clearly. It was this horrid doctrinal paradigm that alienated me, once for all, from Lutheranism. At 66 years old now, I just cannot bring myself to pinch my nose shut from this malodourous, sickening doctrinal rot and to get involved in arguing about it again. Catholics should be aware that supposedly conservative Lutherans accept such rubbish and, wrongly so, in the name of the blessed Lutheran Confessions!.
Pax, Jerry Parker
D
Deacon_Latif
Guest
I for one accept the truth of this doctrine, properly understood anyway. It is also more than bizarre that you have reconciled in your mind the Lutheran Confessions (you call them the “blessed Lutheran Confessions”) and the RC position on Justification. They are not identical. One day they may be reconciled through patient and studious dialog, but that has not happened yet.
Jerry,
You seem very alienated and even angry, and yet describe the Lutheran Confessions as “blessed”. What has made you leave Lutheranism altogether, instead of moving to a different Lutheran synod. Obviously, you feel this paradigm does not properly reflect Lutheranism, and from your brief description I don’t either. Was there not another Lutheran synod available to you, or was this such an event that you felt moved to either EOC or CC? (PLease understand that I am not condemning your decision, or trying to talk you out of it. Where the HS leads us is where the HS leads us.)
Jon
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Deacon,
It does little good to go from one Lutheran synod to another. They are all, in North America, deeply flawed, by liberalism and outright apostasy on the one hand and by rank and weird soteriological heresy on the other. There are a handful of Independent Lutheran congregations that hold to the truth, but their number is very tiny.
As for my reference to the “blessed” Lutheran Confessions, this is due to their overall catholicity. Yeah, they do go off the deep end denouncing the Papacy, and there are some “bones to pick” with Roman Catholicism here and there, but they are of a minor nature. As for the doctrine of the Holy Ministry, Lutherans can justify everything from episcopacy (even with the “Apostolic succession”) to connexionalism to outright congregationalism. Prostestantism would be in far worse condition if the timing of the Lutheran Book of Concord had not built a partial bulwark against the worst errors. North American Lutherans have minimised much of the Catholic teaching of the Confessions due to the surrounding influence of the Protestant non-Lutheran denominations and of the sects. Some of the strongest and most coherent defenses of Catholic theological positions can be found in the Lutheran Confessions, especially in the Formula of Concord.
That is enough for now.
Pax, Jerry Parker
It does little good to go from one Lutheran synod to another. They are all, in North America, deeply flawed, by liberalism and outright apostasy on the one hand and by rank and weird soteriological heresy on the other. There are a handful of Independent Lutheran congregations that hold to the truth, but their number is very tiny.
As for my reference to the “blessed” Lutheran Confessions, this is due to their overall catholicity. Yeah, they do go off the deep end denouncing the Papacy, and there are some “bones to pick” with Roman Catholicism here and there, but they are of a minor nature. As for the doctrine of the Holy Ministry, Lutherans can justify everything from episcopacy (even with the “Apostolic succession”) to connexionalism to outright congregationalism. Prostestantism would be in far worse condition if the timing of the Lutheran Book of Concord had not built a partial bulwark against the worst errors. North American Lutherans have minimised much of the Catholic teaching of the Confessions due to the surrounding influence of the Protestant non-Lutheran denominations and of the sects. Some of the strongest and most coherent defenses of Catholic theological positions can be found in the Lutheran Confessions, especially in the Formula of Concord.
That is enough for now.
Pax, Jerry Parker
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jon N.C.,
The WWW is replete with pablum defending the American pseudo-Lutheran error of “universal objective justification” (more commonly denominated more briefly as “objective justification”) and of its corrollary “subjective justification”, the distinctive teaching of the denominations which formerly constituted the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, especially the wealthy and media-savvy L.C.M.S. (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod). Larry Darby is a Lutheran layman who has published some book-length studies on the subject of U.O.J./S.J., but although Darby’s writings are quite learned, they are, in the end, rather obtuse and ill-focussed; Darby unsuccessfully and rather quixotically strives both to refute U.O.J./S.J. while attempting to salvage the soteriological speculations of U.O.J./S.J. found in the writings of Franz August Otto Pieper, the L.C.M.S. dogmatician who most notably developped the teaching of this false doctrine which his L.C.M.S. predecessor, George Stoeckhardt, had formulated and propounded prior to Pieper’s better known and more influential doctrinal writings.
The best resources on this subject which counter the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm are the printed ones, especially those by Independent Lutheran pastors, David Hartman (whose writings have appeared in numerous, rather limitedly distributed brochures) and, more learnedly, Gregory L. Jackson, who has published in more permanent form, including his excellent monograph, Thy Strong Word: the Efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (Martin Chemnitz Press, 2000, 643 p., ISBN 0-9649354-4-9), which is an exposition of truly Confessional Lutheran doctrine and a firm refutation of the many aberrent doctrinal, exegetical, and liturgical trends in North American Lutheranism. Jackson, very adroitly skilled in computer technology, fortunately has a WWW presence. There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed (ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com);
click on the link, then type, in the blog’s search feature, the words “objective justification”.
Jackson, as usual, uses far more quotes than really are necessary to support his arguments and he also tends to be rather distractingly discursive, but the reader who bears with his deeply scholarly writing, whether in print or computer-readable form, can learn much about the problems of modern-day Lutheranism, including U.O.J./S.J., and about genuine Lutheran teaching as the magisterial Lutheran Reformers formulated it. I reviewed G.L. Jackson’s book cited above, Thy Strong Word, for Amazon.com, and it is available from the American Amazon WWW site. At the time of reviewing that book, I still consciously identified myself as an Independent Lutheran layman, so what I wrote for Amazon is rather different than what I would have to say now that I have arrived at more Catholic conviction, but yet I continue to defend most of what Jackson writes in this work and I still commend it to the curious reader, the more so as the book is available to a greater extent than most other writings which refute systematically the erroneous teaching of U.O.J./S.J.
Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter!
Pax, Jerry Parker
*You had written: ** * I’m still curious as to Jerry’s statements about the LCMS view of Justification. I hope [that] he will elaborate, or at least provide a link.
You and some of this C.A. Forum wish to know more about the quasi-Lutheran soteriological paradigm called “universal objective justification”/“subjective justification” (U.O.J. and S.J.). I’ll refer you to other sources to do the job. I just do not have the time and energy to unravel for you in my own words the tiresomely complex matter of U.O.J. and S.J. as the L.C.M.S., W.E.L.S., and other Lutheran groups teach this noxious heresy.The WWW is replete with pablum defending the American pseudo-Lutheran error of “universal objective justification” (more commonly denominated more briefly as “objective justification”) and of its corrollary “subjective justification”, the distinctive teaching of the denominations which formerly constituted the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, especially the wealthy and media-savvy L.C.M.S. (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod). Larry Darby is a Lutheran layman who has published some book-length studies on the subject of U.O.J./S.J., but although Darby’s writings are quite learned, they are, in the end, rather obtuse and ill-focussed; Darby unsuccessfully and rather quixotically strives both to refute U.O.J./S.J. while attempting to salvage the soteriological speculations of U.O.J./S.J. found in the writings of Franz August Otto Pieper, the L.C.M.S. dogmatician who most notably developped the teaching of this false doctrine which his L.C.M.S. predecessor, George Stoeckhardt, had formulated and propounded prior to Pieper’s better known and more influential doctrinal writings.
The best resources on this subject which counter the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm are the printed ones, especially those by Independent Lutheran pastors, David Hartman (whose writings have appeared in numerous, rather limitedly distributed brochures) and, more learnedly, Gregory L. Jackson, who has published in more permanent form, including his excellent monograph, Thy Strong Word: the Efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (Martin Chemnitz Press, 2000, 643 p., ISBN 0-9649354-4-9), which is an exposition of truly Confessional Lutheran doctrine and a firm refutation of the many aberrent doctrinal, exegetical, and liturgical trends in North American Lutheranism. Jackson, very adroitly skilled in computer technology, fortunately has a WWW presence. There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed (ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com);
click on the link, then type, in the blog’s search feature, the words “objective justification”.Jackson, as usual, uses far more quotes than really are necessary to support his arguments and he also tends to be rather distractingly discursive, but the reader who bears with his deeply scholarly writing, whether in print or computer-readable form, can learn much about the problems of modern-day Lutheranism, including U.O.J./S.J., and about genuine Lutheran teaching as the magisterial Lutheran Reformers formulated it. I reviewed G.L. Jackson’s book cited above, Thy Strong Word, for Amazon.com, and it is available from the American Amazon WWW site. At the time of reviewing that book, I still consciously identified myself as an Independent Lutheran layman, so what I wrote for Amazon is rather different than what I would have to say now that I have arrived at more Catholic conviction, but yet I continue to defend most of what Jackson writes in this work and I still commend it to the curious reader, the more so as the book is available to a greater extent than most other writings which refute systematically the erroneous teaching of U.O.J./S.J.
Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter!
Pax, Jerry Parker
Thanks, Jerry, for the info and links. I wish you His blessings in your move to the Catholic Church.Jon N.C.,
*You had written: ** * I’m still curious as to Jerry’s statements about the LCMS view of Justification. I hope [that] he will elaborate, or at least provide a link.
You and some of this C.A. Forum wish to know more about the quasi-Lutheran soteriological paradigm called “universal objective justification”/“subjective justification” (U.O.J. and S.J.). I’ll refer you to other sources to do the job. I just do not have the time and energy to unravel for you in my own words the tiresomely complex matter of U.O.J. and S.J. as the L.C.M.S., W.E.L.S., and other Lutheran groups teach this noxious heresy.
The WWW is replete with pablum defending the American pseudo-Lutheran error of “universal objective justification” (more commonly denominated more briefly as “objective justification”) and of its corrollary “subjective justification”, the distinctive teaching of the denominations which formerly constituted the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, especially the wealthy and media-savvy L.C.M.S. (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod). Larry Darby is a Lutheran layman who has published some book-length studies on the subject of U.O.J./S.J., but although Darby’s writings are quite learned, they are, in the end, rather obtuse and ill-focussed; Darby unsuccessfully and rather quixotically strives both to refute U.O.J./S.J. while attempting to salvage the soteriological speculations of U.O.J./S.J. found in the writings of Franz August Otto Pieper, the L.C.M.S. dogmatician who most notably developped the teaching of this false doctrine which his L.C.M.S. predecessor, George Stoeckhardt, had formulated and propounded prior to Pieper’s better known and more influential doctrinal writings.
The best resources on this subject which counter the U.O.J./S.J. paradigm are the printed ones, especially those by Independent Lutheran pastors, David Hartman (whose writings have appeared in numerous, rather limitedly distributed brochures) and, more learnedly, Gregory L. Jackson, who has published in more permanent form, including his excellent monograph, Thy Strong Word: the Efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (Martin Chemnitz Press, 2000, 643 p., ISBN 0-9649354-4-9), which is an exposition of truly Confessional Lutheran doctrine and a firm refutation of the many aberrent doctrinal, exegetical, and liturgical trends in North American Lutheranism. Jackson, very adroitly skilled in computer technology, fortunately has a WWW presence. There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed (ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com);
Jackson, as usual, uses far more quotes than really are necessary to support his arguments and he also tends to be rather distractingly discursive, but the reader who bears with his deeply scholarly writing, whether in print or computer-readable form, can learn much about the problems of modern-day Lutheranism, including U.O.J./S.J., and about genuine Lutheran teaching as the magisterial Lutheran Reformers formulated it. I reviewed G.L. Jackson’s book cited above, Thy Strong Word, for Amazon.com, and it is available from the American Amazon WWW site. At the time of reviewing that book, I still consciously identified myself as an Independent Lutheran layman, so what I wrote for Amazon is rather different than what I would have to say now that I have arrived at more Catholic conviction, but yet I continue to defend most of what Jackson writes in this work and I still commend it to the curious reader, the more so as the book is available to a greater extent than most other writings which refute systematically the erroneous teaching of U.O.J./S.J.
Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter!
Pax, Jerry Parker
Jon
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jon N.C.,
Also – I do not have to put up with hyper-Protestant, odiously innovative idiocies like U.O.J. heresy!
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** Thanks, Jerry, for the info and links. I wish you His blessings in your move to the Catholic Church.
You are welcome! The only thing that is holding up my reception to the Church is the sheer immobility of the wilting diocese here in Rouyn-Noranda. The Church has fallen on hard times here in Québec, the clergy mostly are aged, and there just is not the sheer oomph to make the effort to evangelise, even when a convert such as I is “ready for the picking”. This diocese is notable mostly for its inertia and highly geriatric character. However, I am getting old, too (at 66) and “the old are invisible”, as they say, so there it is hard to get anyone’s attention to set up a confession to receive me into the Church, the more since this diocese’s parishes, and the catehedral, too, have ceased the regular practice of the “sacrament of reconciliation” as I guess that it is now called. So, I attend mass silently and participate in it without receiving our Lord’s Body. I am patient —.Also – I do not have to put up with hyper-Protestant, odiously innovative idiocies like U.O.J. heresy!
Pax, Jerry Parker
O
Oldtimer_7
Guest
I have not had a chance to check in for a while, as family matters, teaching, and missionary work have kept me on the road. I am delighted read such well-informed, searching dialog as I have seen in the last few pages. To my Catholic brothers and sisters, a question asked out of ignorance is quickly discernible from a rhetorical one. There is no shame in asking such questions, and I am glad to see them answered so gracefully and ably.
My own small contribution to the conversation is to note the historical events that set up the atmosphere that Luther and the Pope were operating in. The Western church had seen about eight centuries of retreat and loss to Islam. It had seen the loss of the African church, and then the Byzantine one as the influence of Islam spread even into parts of southern Europe.
Sicily, Sardinia, and even part of Calabria were in the hands of Muslims, as was all of Spain and part of southern France. The Dalmatian coast was in Muslim hands. The Muslim foe had been turned from the gates of Vienna only by the disease that ravaged its camps, not by the strength of Christian arms. It is no wonder that Rome had a siege mentality. In this atmosphere, there was no room for compromise, not time for learned discussion. It was a time of standing with or fighting against.
At the beginning of the 16th century, the tide had only begun to turn, with the defeat of the Muslim principalities in Spain. This is usually the most dangerous time for alliances, at the beginning of success. This is the time when those who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in battle begin to fight among themselves, the diplomatic skills having atrophied but the militant ones built up.
My own small contribution to the conversation is to note the historical events that set up the atmosphere that Luther and the Pope were operating in. The Western church had seen about eight centuries of retreat and loss to Islam. It had seen the loss of the African church, and then the Byzantine one as the influence of Islam spread even into parts of southern Europe.
Sicily, Sardinia, and even part of Calabria were in the hands of Muslims, as was all of Spain and part of southern France. The Dalmatian coast was in Muslim hands. The Muslim foe had been turned from the gates of Vienna only by the disease that ravaged its camps, not by the strength of Christian arms. It is no wonder that Rome had a siege mentality. In this atmosphere, there was no room for compromise, not time for learned discussion. It was a time of standing with or fighting against.
At the beginning of the 16th century, the tide had only begun to turn, with the defeat of the Muslim principalities in Spain. This is usually the most dangerous time for alliances, at the beginning of success. This is the time when those who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in battle begin to fight among themselves, the diplomatic skills having atrophied but the militant ones built up.
Hi Jerry,Jon N.C.,
There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed (ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com);
Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter!
Pax, Jerry Parker
The url seems to be a faulty link. Could you check and repost it, please?
Thanks,
Jon
M
Maria65
Guest
I have a question that has bothered me for many years.
In the Paul McCartney song “Let 'Em In,” why is Martin Luther one of the people knocking at the door?
Could the sound possibly be, rather than knocking, the sound of hammering his 95 theses to it?
In the Paul McCartney song “Let 'Em In,” why is Martin Luther one of the people knocking at the door?
Could the sound possibly be, rather than knocking, the sound of hammering his 95 theses to it?
I
IowaJay
Guest
I remember that song, but did not know that was one of the lyrics!
M
Maria65
Guest
Seriously, I am not making this up:
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Jon N.C.,
**We had written: **
***Jerry Parker: *** *There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed ([WRONG:] ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com); click on the link, then type, in the blog’s search feature, the words “objective justification”.
Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter*!
It is so easy, for cyber-challenged non-sophisticates like myself, to assume, when typing out an U.R.L., that about any link has the WWW in it. Good luck connecting and investigating for yourself what the L.C.M.S. means by “Justification by Faith”, which is not that classic Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine as found, among other Reformation sources, in the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord, but rather this sect’s own perverse doctrine of “universal objective justification” (U.O.J., or simply O.J. for “objective justification”) and the corrollary, “subjective justification” (S.J.). Simply click on the corrected U.R.L. and, on the blog’s search device, type in “objective justification”.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**We had written: **
***Jerry Parker: *** *There is information on the subject of U.O.J./S.J. on his WWW resource, Ichabod: the Glory Has Departed ([WRONG:] ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com);
click on the link, then type, in the blog’s search feature, the words “objective justification”.Good luck to those who really do care to investigate this thorny and convoluted matter*!
***Jon N.C.: *** The url seems to be a faulty link. Could you check and repost it, please? Thanks
Sorry about that goof! The U.R.L. as I had given it is, indeed, wrong. There is no “www” in the link, which, thus, would be in correct form: ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com.It is so easy, for cyber-challenged non-sophisticates like myself, to assume, when typing out an U.R.L., that about any link has the WWW in it. Good luck connecting and investigating for yourself what the L.C.M.S. means by “Justification by Faith”, which is not that classic Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine as found, among other Reformation sources, in the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord, but rather this sect’s own perverse doctrine of “universal objective justification” (U.O.J., or simply O.J. for “objective justification”) and the corrollary, “subjective justification” (S.J.). Simply click on the corrected U.R.L. and, on the blog’s search device, type in “objective justification”.
Pax, Jerry Parker
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
I am not sure why you would not want the source of your morale direction to get involved with morale issues? Would you want them to let intrinsic evil rule without any objection? Would you concern yourself if your state decided that you must live by Sharia law, or would you want your Church to fight back? Would you allow your religious freedoms to be sacrificed for a religion that would NOT give you the same freedoms?
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
With his beliefs on the immaculate conception, Confession, perpetual virginity, Contraception and other non LCMS beliefs do you think that if Martin Luther lived today he would be a Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Orthodox?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
While Luther did hold to those views, he never advocated that they be considered *de fide *revealed dogma that Christians are required to believe in order to be in union with the visible church. There are Lutherans today who hold to some of the Marian doctrines like perpetual virginity.
Confession and absolution is still a Lutheran practice, and is in our list of creedal documents.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Triune Unity and New Catholic Jeff,
*You wrote: *** * New Catholic Jeff: With his beliefs on the immaculate conception, Confession, perpetual virginity, Contraception and other non LCMS beliefs do you think that if Martin Luther lived today he would be a Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Orthodox?
Triune Unity: While Luther did hold to those views, he never advocated that they be considered de fide revealed dogma that Christians are required to believe in order to be in union with the visible church. There are Lutherans today who hold to some of the Marian doctrines like perpetual virginity.
Triune Unity: It is a moot point, in some ways, whether or not Dr. Martin Luther would have held the cited Marian doctrines (or pious opinions); I think that he should have held to them were he around today, but Luther had doctrinal concerns that were more central. What Dr. Martin Luther absolutely and adamantly would have rejected is the L.C.M.S. (and other former Synodical Conference) teaching of “Universal Objective Justification” (U.O.J., or “Objective Justification”, O.J.), with its corollary, “Subjective Justification”, which he would have rejected flat-out and in great wrath. Luther’s central teaching was the essentially Augustinian one of “Justification by Faith Alone through Grace Alone”, not some paltry construction like U.O.J.! Dr. Luther taught what the New Testament essentially teaches (although Catholic doctrine, which is superior still, differs from it and only somewhat, at that), being what the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord codified. (If needed to understand this crucial matter, see my links and references in earlier messages.)
Pax, Jerry Parker*
*You wrote: *** * New Catholic Jeff: With his beliefs on the immaculate conception, Confession, perpetual virginity, Contraception and other non LCMS beliefs do you think that if Martin Luther lived today he would be a Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Orthodox?
Triune Unity: While Luther did hold to those views, he never advocated that they be considered de fide revealed dogma that Christians are required to believe in order to be in union with the visible church. There are Lutherans today who hold to some of the Marian doctrines like perpetual virginity.
- Confession and absolution is still a Lutheran practice, and is in our list of creedal documents.*
Triune Unity: It is a moot point, in some ways, whether or not Dr. Martin Luther would have held the cited Marian doctrines (or pious opinions); I think that he should have held to them were he around today, but Luther had doctrinal concerns that were more central. What Dr. Martin Luther absolutely and adamantly would have rejected is the L.C.M.S. (and other former Synodical Conference) teaching of “Universal Objective Justification” (U.O.J., or “Objective Justification”, O.J.), with its corollary, “Subjective Justification”, which he would have rejected flat-out and in great wrath. Luther’s central teaching was the essentially Augustinian one of “Justification by Faith Alone through Grace Alone”, not some paltry construction like U.O.J.! Dr. Luther taught what the New Testament essentially teaches (although Catholic doctrine, which is superior still, differs from it and only somewhat, at that), being what the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord codified. (If needed to understand this crucial matter, see my links and references in earlier messages.)
Pax, Jerry Parker*
- Status