Holy Year(s), Holy Door(s), and some musings concerning 1933

I had no recollection of the phrase “holy year” when I came across it yesterday in the pages of a most unlikely source—J. F. Rutherford’s book, Jehovah.

During the last couple of days, I have been researching the use of the nomina sacra found in the early New Testament manuscripts, attempting to understand why early second century Christian scribes adopted their use—not only in the NT manuscripts, but also their Greek copies of the OT—whilst Jewish scribes did not employ them at all. Related to this issue was the use of the Tetragrammaton by Jewish scribes as a substitute for kurios in some copies of the Greek OT they created circa  2nd century B.C. through the 3rd century A.D. (Christian scribes never made use of the Tetragrammaton in any of their copies of the OT).

In this process of trying to understand the differing scribal methods utilized by Christian and Jewish scribes when copying the OT, I began reading a book that I had not read for over four decades—Rutherford’s aforementioned book, Jehovah. Note the following:

The so-called “holy year” has failed to bring the promised peace and prosperity, and that failure should of itself convince the people of good will that God did not authorize the year 1933 to be called a holy year, nor will he hear the prayers of men who try to make it a holy year. Upon earth there is now no peace, and poverty continues to stalk hideously through the land. Jehovah’s witnesses have no controversy with men. Their only purpose is to be obedient to God's commandment to tell the message of truth. (J. F. Rutherford, Jehovah, p. 23 – 1934.)

As mentioned above, I had no recollection of what this 1933 “holy year” entailed. Some online research revealed that the official Vatican website has a page titled, “WHAT IS A HOLY YEAR?” (link). From that contribution we read:

In the Roman Catholic tradition, a Holy Year, or Jubilee is a great religious event. It is a year of forgiveness of sins and also the punishment due to sin, it is a year of reconciliation between adversaries, of conversion and receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and consequently of solidarity, hope, justice, commitment to serve God with joy and in peace with our brothers and sisters. A Jubilee year is above all the year of Christ, who brings life and grace to humanity…

A Jubilee can be "ordinary" if it falls after the set period of years, and "extraordinary" when it is proclaimed for some outstanding event. There have been twenty-five "ordinary" Holy Years so far: the Year 2000 will be the 26th. The custom of calling "extraordinary" Jubilees began in the 16th century and they can vary in length from a few days to a year. There have been two extraordinary jubilees in this century: 1933 proclaimed by Pope Pius XI to mark the 1900th anniversary of Redemption and 1983 proclaimed by Pope John Paul II to mark 1950 years since the Redemption carried out by Christ through his Death and Resurrection in the year 33. In 1987 Pope John Paul II also proclaimed a Marian year.

The mystery of the “Holy Year” was now solved. However, in the same Vatican contribution, I came upon yet another phrase I had no recollection of—“Holy Door”. Note the following:

In 1500 Pope Alexander VI announced that the Doors in the four major basilicas would be opened contemporaneously, and that he himself would open the Holy Door of Saint Peter's.

So, what are these “Doors”; and specifically, “the Holy Door”? The following is from a Wikipedia article:

A Holy Door (Latin: Porta Sancta) is traditionally an entrance portal located within the Papal major basilicas in Rome. The doors are normally sealed by mortar and cement from the inside so that they cannot be opened. They are ceremoniously opened during Jubilee years designated by the Pope, for pilgrims who enter through those doors may piously gain the plenary indulgences attached with the Jubilee year celebrations. (link)

Armed with this new knowledge, two important events during the 1933 “Holy Year” came to mind. The first important event is quite personal, for it was the birth of my father. As for the second event, I can think of no better term to describe it than ‘insidious’, for that was the year Adolf Hitler rose to power, becoming the Chancellor of Germany. I suspect the latter event may have been one of the factors Rutherford had in mind when he penned his assessment of the 1933 “holy year”.

Back to my studies…

Grace and peace,

David

Vatican I and Vatican II – antecedents and “unfinished business”

The genesis of this post took place back on Sept. 2, 2019 when THIS COMMENT was published by Rory. Since then, explorations into the issues of apostasy, doctrinal development—corruption vs. legitimate— the validity of certain councils, and the possibility that we may be living in the generation that will experience the second coming of our Lord, have been discussed in the subsequent threads:

Development of doctrine, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Christianizing of paganism vs. the paganizing of Christianity 

John Henry Newman’s "acceptance of non-Christian religions” 

Accommodation for “the Gospel's sake”—the risk of paganizing Christianity  

The Great Apostasy - A provocative, book length contribution, from a Catholic perspective

Vatican I: a ‘rupture’ in Catholic tradition, or legitimate development of doctrine?

As my personal research into the aforementioned issues continues, I would like to bring to the attention of AF readers some germane, and valuable, contributions that I have recently read:

 First, three books that significantly informed my understanding of the conservative, Catholic viewpoint concerning the issue of infallibility—especially the Papal and Vatican I:

Anti-Janus: an historico-theological criticism of the work entitled "The Pope and the Council" 

The Vatican Council and its Definitions 

The True Story of the Vatican Council 

I would also like to recommend a 2018 dissertation that I read over the last couple days:

Eighteenth-Century Forerunners of Vatican II: Early Modern Catholic Reform and the Synod of Pistoia 

This work is so much more than title suggests, and is a must read (IMO). I hope the following selections provide enough impetus to at least take a look the contribution:

This dissertation sheds further light on the nature of church reform and the roots of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) through a study of eighteenth-century Catholic reformers who anticipated Vatican II. The most striking of these examples is the Synod of Pistoia (1786), the high-water mark of “late Jansenism.” Most of the reforms of the Synod were harshly condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Bull Auctorem fidei (1794), and late Jansenism was totally discredited in the increasingly ultramontane nineteenth-century Catholic Church. Nevertheless, many of the reforms implicit or explicit in the Pistoian agenda – such as an exaltation of the role of bishops, an emphasis on infallibility as a gift to the entire church, religious liberty, a simpler and more comprehensible liturgy that incorporates the vernacular, and the encouragement of lay Bible reading and Christocentric devotions – were officially promulgated at Vatican II. (From the Abstract, n.p.)

…reform occurred at the Council in the form of the development of doctrine. The idea that doctrine could develop was rejected by most early modern Catholic theologians. It was totally antithetical to the Gallican tradition, and the immutability of doctrine was a primary claim wielded in anti-Protestant polemic. Because of the work of Newman and others, the concept of development became the established way of explaining doctrines that were not explicit in scripture or the earliest Christian sources (the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 loom large here). The notion of development itself is embedded in Dei verbum, and defined in §8.

Development, however, is a fundamentally conservative type of reform, like ressourcement and unlike aggiornamento. By its very nature, development brings to light elements implicit in an existing doctrine or idea. The most conservative council fathers at Vatican II recognized at least some form of the development of doctrine. (Pages 32, 33 – bold emphasis mine)

Just as concerns about the “unfinished business” of Vatican I survived long after that Council closed in 1870, so have the concerns described by Routhier endured past the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of Vatican II. There were important moments in this continued debate in the Catholic Church in the postconciliar period, such as the revision of Canon Law in 1983, the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985, and the promulgation of Ut unum sint (1995) and Apostolos suos (1998) by Pope John Paul II. In the papacy of Francis, however, calls for a re-examination of collegiality, often through appeals to “synodality,” are increasing. In light of the collegial deliberations of the Synod on the Family (4–25 October 2015) and the widely diverging reactions to the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia (19 May 2016), the Catholic Church may again be preparing for a major debate surrounding the exercise of the papal primacy in light of episcopal collegiality. (Page 369)

Looking forward to some in depth discourse…

Grace and peace,

David

Vatican I: a ‘rupture’ in Catholic tradition, or legitimate development of doctrine?

The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him—Proverbs 18:17 – NASB.

In the combox of the recent thread, “The Great Apostasy” (link), Tom provided a link to a lengthy essay, “The Vatican Dogma”,  by the Russian Orthodox scholar, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (Seregei Bulgakov's "The Vatican Dogma").

Fr. Bulgakov is certainly a bright, well-read fellow. My first reading of his essay left an impression that his conclusions concerning the Papacy and Papal infallibility—that both are heretical—were quite solid, and perhaps unassailable. However, subsequent research and reflection has significantly altered my first impression—I now believe that both of Fr. Bulgakov conclusions are flawed. My second reading of his essay revealed a serious misunderstanding of the foundational Catholic dogma concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders. From his essay we read:

If it be said that papacy is not a special order but only an office, since the pope is in bishop’s orders, that will be quite in keeping with the view of the universal church before the schism, but it will be contrary to the Vatican doctrine. According to it, there is a special grace (charisma) given to Peter and his successors—veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis—which consti­tutes the order of papacy. Roman Catholic theology has gradually raised St. Peter so high above the other Apostles that he is no longer regarded as one of them but as a prince of Apostles. In addition to the general apostolic charisma he has his own, personal one, similar­ly to the way in which episcopacy includes priesthood. A bishop celebrates the liturgy like a priest, and does not differ from him in this respect, but it does not follow that they are of equal rank. The same considerations apply to the Catholic conception of the pope, for whom a fourth and highest degree of holy orders has been created. True, Catholic literature contains no direct expression of the idea that papacy it the highest of holy orders—that of episcopus episcoporum or episcopus universalis, but this is either evasiveness or inconsistency; the special and exceptional place assigned to the “primate” in Catholic canonical writings can have no other meaning.

But if papacy be understood as a special order of St. Peter (Tu es Petrus is sung when the newly elected pope is carried in procession), the difficulties which have already been mentioned stand out all the more clearly. On the one hand, bearers of lower hierarchical orders cannot ordain to higher orders, so that the consecration of a pope by bishops (cardinals) is canonically and sacramentally unmeaning: the pope ought in his life-time to consecrate his successor. On the other hand, if an order is discontinued because there is no bearer of it, there is a break in the apostolic suc­cession as a whole. The permanent miracle of the existence of a vicarius Christi requires his personal immortality. The dogmatic teaching about the pope must certainly be made less presumptuous and confine itself to regarding the pope as simply a patriarch but that, of course, means the fall of the whole Vatican fortress. In any case, as has been said already, the mere fact of the death of a pope has dogmatic implications which have not yet been satisfactorily dealt with by the Roman theologians.

The above is clearly a flawed understanding of the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders. From the apostolic/New Testament period through Vatican II, the Catholic Church has affirmed ONLY THREE Sacramental, Holy Orders: the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, and the ordo diaconorum. The Petrine office is just that, an office not a higher, fourth Holy Order.

Not long after my second reading of Fr. Bulgakov’s essay, I discovered a definitive critique of it. Back on Jan. 1, 2020 a thread on a forum was started which was dedicated to the essay:

SUSIPE DOMINE

On the very next day, a gent posting under the name ‘Xavier’ provided a solid critique of the essay:

Xavier - Reply #5

As of today, I have yet to find any errors in Xavier’s cogent critique. But, I feel compelled to dig even deeper into Fr. Bulgakov’s essay, along with Xavier’s contribution. I hope others will join me in this endeavor, and subsequently share their reflections.

Grace and peace,

David

Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’

Yesterday, I received in the mail a copy of Volume 59-Number 2-2020 of the BYU Studies Quarterly—SPECIAL ISSUE: JOESPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION. (Some subsequent online browsing revealed that a PDF edition of this special issue is available online—see THIS LINK.)

This issue, of course, brought back to mind part 2 of my series, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the diminishing relevance of “the Great Apostasy” (link), wherein I touched on the topic of the ‘First Vision’. I was planning to delve more deeply into the 'First Vision' but got sidetracked after discovering the online book, The Great Apostasy, which prompted THIS POST.

Given the contents of the aforementioned special issue, it seems somewhat providential that further exploration into the “First Vision' was delayed. This special issue, “features the proceedings of a conference held at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of Joseph Smith’s First Vision” (p. 4)—twelve papers—and three related articles. The entire issue is 320 pages in length.

Though I have just started reading the journal, I felt compelled to bring it to the attention folk who may share my interest in this intriguing topic.

Hope to share some of thoughts and reflections once I have completed reading this comprehensive contribution.

Grace and peace,

David

SSPX in Kansas under investigation

I do not want to take focus away from the informative, on going dialogue currently taking place in the combox of the previous thread, but the following article published yesterday by The Catholic World Report, ‘hits close to home’ for some folk who regularly contribute to this blog:

SSPX accused of intimidating would-be whistleblowers amid abuse investigation

The  following quote from the article seems to indicate that “guilt by association” may be in play:

The SSPX is under investigation in the state of Kansas for alleged sex abuse, along with the four Catholic dioceses.

 Let’s pray that the truth in the matter will come forth soon…

Grace and peace,

David

The Great Apostasy - A provocative, book length contribution, from a Catholic perspective

Whilst recently engaged in online research, I discovered a fascinating contribution on the issue of “the Great Apostasy” from a Catholic perspective. The work is 263 pages in length, and is appropriately titled, The Great Apostasy. A free PDF copy can be downloaded via THIS LINK.

This book drew me in from the beginning, and apart from checking a number of the sources referenced within its pages for accuracy, I literally could not stop reading it. It has me deeply reflecting on the possibility that I may have misunderstood the very nature of what “the Great Apostasy" entails.

The book is a must read for folk who are of the opinion that we may be living in the eschatology period which immediately precedes the second coming of our Lord. I also suspect it might change the minds of some who are not of that opinion, but take the time to read and reflect on its contents—I am eagerly looking forward to dialogue with those who do so.

Grace and peace,

David

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the diminishing relevance of “the Great Apostasy”: part 4 – Hugh Nibley

I am implementing a change of course for this ongoing series. The intent of my original plan was to be strictly chronological, proceeding from the oldest to the newest contributions on “the Great Apostasy”. However, certain comments published in the comboxes of the previous AF thread (link), and in a thread over at ‘Nick’s Catholic Blog’ (link), have prompted me to make some adjustments. Instead of examining a number of works from the writings James E. Talmage and B.H. Roberts concerning the “the Great Apostasy”, I am jumping forward to an essay written by Dr. Hugh Nibley. Of the dozens of works I have read from an LDS viewpoint on this topic—articles, essays, pamphlets and books—Nibley’s, “The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme”, provides the best defense of the LDS belief that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles in the first century had fallen into a deep, wholesale apostasy, to the point that the ordinances that had been authoritatively instituted, were no longer available on Earth, and needed to be restored at a future date. Importantly, Nibley focuses heavily on what the New Testament and a number of early Church Fathers had to say on the issue of the apostasy, providing hundreds of quotes and/or references from those sources to support his position

Dr. Nibley’s essay was first published in the Cambridge journal, Church History (Vol. 30, Issue 2 – June 1961, pp. 131-154 - link); it was reprinted in the book, When The Lights Went Out – Three Studies on the Ancient Apostasy (Deseret Book 1970, pp. 1-32 - link); again in BYU Studies (Vol. 16.1, Autumn 1975, pp. 139-184 - link); and then in the book, Mormonism and Christianity (Deseret Book/FARMS 1987, pp. 168-208 - link). Selections from the essay in this post will be from the online BYU Studies PDF version (LINK)—the page numbers in the online version differ from the original paper edition, so citations will include page numbers from both, with the first being the online, and the second, the paper.

Nibley begins his treatment with the following:

A Somber Theme:—Ever since Eusebius sought with dedicated zeal to prove the survival of the Church by blazing a trail back to the Apostles, the program of church history has been the same: “To give a clear and comprehensive, scientifically established view of the development of the visible institution of salvation founded by Christ.” To describe it—not to question it. By its very definition church history requires unquestioning acceptance of the basic proposition that the Church did survive. One may write endlessly about The Infant Church, l’Eglise naissante, die Pflanzung der Kirche, etc., but one may not ask why the early Christians themselves described their Church not as lusty infant but as an old and failing woman; one may trace the triumphant spread of The Unquenchable Light through storm and shadow, but one may not ask why Jesus himself insisted that the Light was to be taken away. Church history seems to be resolved never to raise the fundamental question of survival as the only way of avoiding a disastrous answer, and the normal reaction to the question— did the Church remain on earth?—has not been serious inquiry in a richly documented field, but shocked recoil from the edge of an abyss into which few can look without a shudder. (Page 1/139 – see online essay for footnotes)

In the next paragraph, Nibley outlines the “purpose of this paper”:

The purpose of this paper is to list briefly the principal arguments supporting the thesis that the Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles did not survive and was not expected to. We shall consider the fate of the Church under three heads: 1) the declarations of the early Christians concerning what was to befall it, 2) their strange behavior in the light of those declarations, 3) the affirmations and denials, doubts and misgivings of the church leaders of a later day. Our theme is the Passing of the Church, our variations, designated below by Roman numerals, are a number of striking and often neglected facets of church history. (Page 1/140)

He then writes:

(I) Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before,6 and that he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain.7 The Light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness “in which no man can work,” while “the prince of this world” would remain, as a usual, in possession of the field.8 (II) In their turn the Disciples were to succeed no better than their Lord: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”9 Like him they were to be “hated of all men,” going forth as sheep among wolves, “sent last as it were appointed unto death,”10 with the promise that as soon as they completed their mission the end would come.11 (Page 2/140)

[Notes:

6. Matthew, xvii:12; xxi:37–39; xxiii:31–37; Mark xii:6–8; Luke xvii:25; John 1:5, 10–11; iii:11f, 19, 32; v:38, 40–47; vii:7; viii:19; 23f, 37f, 40–47; xv:22–25; cf. Acts iii:13–15.

7. Matthew xi:15; Luke ix: 41; xiii:25–27; xvii:22 John vii:33f; xii:35f; xiii:33; xiv:30; xvi:16; cf. Acts iii:21.

8. John ix:4f; vix:30. Evil triumphs from Abel to the eschaton: Matthew xxiii:35–39; xvii:12 Luke xi:51; Clementine Recognitions, iii. 61.

9. Matthew x:24f; Mark xiii:13; Luke x:16; John xv:18–21; xvii:14: Acts xxviii:26f; F. C. Grant, “The Mission of the Disciples,” J.B.L., XXXI (1916), 293–314.

10. Matthew x:16–22, 28; xxiv:9; Mark xiii:9; Luke x:3; John xvi:1–2, 33; I Corinthians iv:9; II Clement v.

11. Matthew. xxiv:14; xxviii:20; Mark xiii:10. Below, notes 17,21.]

And then:

As soon as the Lord departs there comes “the lord of this world, and hath nothing in me”; in the very act of casting out the Lord of the vineyard the usurpers seize it for themselves, to remain in possession until his return;18 no sooner does he sow his wheat than the adversary sows tares and only when the Lord returns again can the grain be “gathered together,” i.e., into a church, the ruined field itself being not the church but specifically “the world.”19 After the sheep come the wolves, “not sparing the flock,” which enjoys no immunity (Acts xx; 29) after sound doctrine come fables;20 after the charismatic gifts only human virtues (1 Cor. xiii; 8, 13). The list is a grim one, but it is no more impressive than (VI) the repeated insistence that there is to be an end, not the end of the world, but “the consummation of the age.”21 It is to come with the completion of the missionary activities of the Apostles, and there is no more firmly-rooted tradition in Christendom than the teaching that the Apostles completed the assigned preachingto the nations in their own persons and in their own time, so that the end could come in their generation.22 (Page 2/140)

[Notes:

18. John xiv:30; Matthew xxi:38; Mark xii:7; Luke xx:14.

19. Matthew xiii: 24–30, 38. Both syllegein and synagogein are used.

20. II Timothy. iv:2–4; II Thess. ii:9–12; Rom. i:21–31.

21. Matt. xxiv:14; cf. x:23; xxviii:20, where aeon refers to that particular age. O. Cullmann, in W. D. Davies & D. Daube (eds.). The Background of the New Testament  and Its Eschatology (Cambridge Univ., 1956), 417; cf. N. Messel, Die Einheitlichkeit der

jüdischen Eschatologie (Giessen, 1915), 61–69, 44–50. See below, note 181.

22. Mark xiii:9f; Acts ii:16f, 33; Origen, In Mt. Comm. Ser. 39, in P.G., XIII, 1655B, concludes that, strictly speaking, jam finem venisse; so also John Chrysostom, In Ep Heb. xi, Homil. xxi.3, in Migne, P.G. LXIII, 1655B.]

Shifting focus to the Apostolic Fathers, Nibley writes:

(X) The Apostolic Fathers denounce with feeling the all too popular doctrine that God’s Church simply cannot fail. All past triumphs, tribulations, and promises, they insist, will count for nothing unless the People now repent and stand firm in a final test that lies just ahead; God’s past blessing and covenants, far from being a guarantee of immunity (as many fondly believe) are the very opposite, for “the greater the blessings we have received the greater rather is the danger in which we lie.”33 (Page/s 4/142, 143)

[Note:

33. I Clem. xli. 4; xxi. 1; Barnab. iv. 9, 14; Ignat., Ephes, xi. 1. “The last stumbling-block approaches . . .” Barnab. iv. 3, 9; I Clem. vii. 1; II Clem. viif; xvi; Hermas, Vis., ii. 2; iv. 1.]

A bit later:

(XII) The call to repentance of the Apostolic Fathers is a last call; they labor the doctrine of the Two Ways as offering to Christian society a last chance to choose between saving its soul by dying in the faith or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world.41 They have no illusions as to the way things are going: the Church has lost the gains it once made, the people are being led by false teachers,42 there is little to hinder the fulfillment of the dread (and oft-quoted) prophecy, “. . . the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture and their fold and their tower to destructions.”43 The original Tower with its perfectly cut and well-fitted stones is soon to be taken from the earth, and in its place will remain only a second-class tower of defective stones which could not pass the test.44 In the Pastor of Hermas (Vis. iii. 11–13) the Church is represented as an old and failing lady—“because your spirit is old and already fading away”—who is carried out of the world; only in the world beyond does she appear as a blooming and ageless maiden. The Apostolic Fathers take their leave of a Church not busily engaged in realizing the Kingdom, but fast falling asleep; the lights are going out, the Master has departed on his long journey, and until he returns all shall sleep. What lies ahead is the “Wintertime of the Just,” the time of mourning for the Bridegroom, when men shall seek the Lord and not find him, and seek to do good, but no longer be able to.”45 (Pages 4, 5/ 143, 144)

[Notes:

41. Ignat., Magnes., v; II Clem. vi; Barnab. v; xviii; see K. Lake’s note on Hermas in his Apostolic Fathers (Loeb ed., 1912), ii. 21, n. 1.

42. I Clem. i; iii; xxiv; xix; Ignat., Trall, vii; Ephes., xvii; ix. 5; Hermas, Vis., iii. 3, 10. Cf. Test. of Hezekiah, ii. 3B–iv. 18.

43. Didache, xvi. 3; Barnab. xvi; Enoch lxxxix; lvi; lxvif; Logion No. xiv, in Patrologia Orientalis, IV, 176f; cf. IX, 227f.

44. Hermas, Vis. iii. 3–7.

45. Hermas, Sim. iii; iv; ix; I Clem. lviii; Euseb., H. E., III. xxxi. 3; V. xxiv. 2.]

Two more selections before ending this introductory post to Nibley’s essay:

Arguments for Survival:—The arguments put forth by those who would prove the survival of the Church are enough in themselves to cast serious doubts upon it. (XXXIV) The first thing that strikes one is the failure of the ingenuity of scholarship to discover any serious scriptural support for the thesis. There are remarkable few passages in the Bible that yield encouragement even to the most determined exegesis, and it is not until centuries of discussion have passed that we meet with the now familiar interpretations of the “mustard seed” and “gates-of-hell” imagery, which some now hold to be eschatological teachings having no reference whatever to the success of the Church on earth. (Page 12/152)

And:

Christians have often taken comfort in the axiom that it is perfectly unthinkable that God should allow his Church to suffer annihilation, that he would certainly draw the line somewhere. This is the very doctrine of ultimate immunity against which the Apostolic Fathers thunder, and later Fathers remind us that we may not reject the appalling possibility simply because it is appalling. (Page 13/153)

Shall end here for now, hoping that the folk who are interested in this topic will take the time to read the entire essay, and look up the extensive quotes and references provided therein.

Grace and peace,

David