voltaire,
I think the Orthodox churches would disagree with your statement: “You will find that it is all of the other Christian religions that are revisions on the original Christian religion, which is Catholicism.”
The western, Latin branch and the eastern, Greek branch of the church grew up simultaneously. There are other eastern churches, such as the Coptic church, that are not derived from the western church.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
I’m not insinuating anything. I don’t insinuate - but rather state, accuse or point out.
Standard Bible: I guess the Kings James Version, which seems the most common one in use today.
On art: I assume you are correct, in that whoever had a mollycodum of talent painted the religious pictures to get the point across. Having seen many works from earlier centuries, including those where the more important the person, the bigger his portrait or image in a painting – which kind of threw the scale of things all to heck – I can only assume that genuine talent was very primitive back then. Still, I find it offensive personally to find pictures on display which portray the Christ Child as ugly and sometimes even evil looking and find, personally again, no reason for them to be there.
75% say they do not worship Mary, 25% suggest that it is possible. Personal observation on my own suggests that over 50% actually do worship Mary.
There is a rule that prevents Catholics from attending other religious services.
The Church decided against birth control.
There appears to be a Bible separate from the Protestant one used exclusively by Catholics.
There also, in my own opinion, seems to be a massive amount of control over the worshipers of the Catholic religion by the Pope and corresponding Priests of all levels.
There seems to be a general acceptance of written texts by inspired or Holy men as virtual law in many areas without much consideration to the known fact that inspired religious ‘fanatics’ tend to write down the ‘word’ as they would often like it to be. (This is also found in various other religions.)
The ‘missing’ texts, gospels, chapters and possibly the never corrected translation of the basic Bible probably accounts for the many discrepancies noted in it today.
Catholicism is said to be the ‘Original Church’ but I thought the Baptist sect founded by John the Baptist was supposedly the original one. Plus, to make it more confusing, Jesus was a Jew, something most Christians seem to want to ignore. The original church was Jewish.
mipsman: So much for an intelligent exchange of ideas without bias.
Interesting discovery: Jesus apparently had siblings, which are not mentioned in the Protestant religions.
Exorcisms: After reading several books on the subject, some years back, watching several documentaries, I observed that the Catholic Religion seems to have the most need for them, plus have an extensive ritual to go with it. Most Protestant ministers in ‘casting out devils’ do not seem to have such an extensive ritual to follow, though, with the Evangelist sect, it is real hard to tell if what they are doing is factual, farce, or anything even like exorcism. I’ve seen priests exorcise a fishing boat, but never a Baptist minister.
Most other forms of the Christian religion have adapted with the times, but the Catholic religion seems having a hard time doing so. There is no sense in ranting about corruption in the Catholic line, marked in historical texts, because there is major corruption in the Protestant sections also. (Television ministries come to mind.)
A friend of mine is Catholic, but excommunicated because he divorced his first wife. I find it interesting that the Catholic Church will virtually throw out someone who is not willing to remain in an unhappy marriage. I find it even more interesting that he still goes to church, knowing that he is not considered a ‘good’ Catholic.
Because I’m originally Methodist, I’ve been able to get around and examine various forms of this sect of the Christian Religion. The only one I’ve not looked at real closely is Catholicism. It caught my attention some time back that every time there is a ‘religious’ sign, mainly Catholics see it (and I’m not talking about the potato shaped like Jesus’ face found in Idaho by some farm lady who never managed to get past the second grade). From Mexico, to South America, to Italy, through America, it seems that anyone who ‘sees’ the Virgin Mary is Catholic.
So, I’m asking, preferring not to go into ‘company sanctioned’ texts until later. I did check out the Catholic site following the link given in this board and came to the conclusion that it’s the ‘company’ line. It raised almost as many questions as it answered.
I previously stated that I hold to ‘my own set form of religion’ because I found flaws and questions among the many fragmented sects I visited. Ranging from ‘Hellfire Baptists’ to ‘Moderate Methodists’ to a section of the Jewish Religion which believes that Christ was the Son of God.’
I have a major problem with richly ornate churches containing alters of gold, valuable works of art and made of the finest marble and stones, who are supposed to look after the poor and starving, the sick and the down trodden and have to beg money from others to do so. The selling of a work of art could probably feed thousands of poor for a week.
I have no problem with churches containing wonderful works like the mysterious, hand made spiral staircase, gold plated crosses and so on but some churches I have seen must have cost millions to build and the Vatican alone must cost millions to maintain.
So, I’m talking to people like you in order to get the general opinions, beliefs and attitudes. If you find me obnoxious, then don’t reply. Any ‘flaws’ I find with the Catholic church, I have found in other churches.
Even in other religions. A quote from a Muslim, when asked if drinking was against his religion, why was he drinking in a bar. He pointed to the roof overhead and said ‘What Allah does not see, he does not know about.’
Plus, why do certain religions see more Holy apparitions than others and why do certain ones seem to have to remove more demons than others? Why do some restrict their members from freely learning about other religions and other ones not care? Who decided to present only certain sections of the Holy Scriptures to the general public, while other religions seem to allow anyone to learn what they want? Why do some religions adapt with time and others not?
Yet, as I stated before, almost all, if not all, of the current powerful religions in the world have many, many similarities, which indicates to me the potential of a common source.
Knowing mankind’s penchant for power over other men, I wonder how much of the various religions have been bent into their current forms to keep a small sect of each in power over millions?
It has happened before. It goes on even today in some areas.
What? Me worry?’
Gaudere,
I apologise wholeheartedly.
I would forgive you if you assumed I was a woman.
But I understand my crime was much more heinous.
It was a newbie mistake. I actually thought your name was David B. Gaudere.
________________________________Salaam
I have a question for anyone.
What about other Christian Holy Books?
I’m familiar with tha Apocrapha.
But what about the Orthodox Church.
What canon do they use?
And I’ve heard of some Ethiopic Holy Books.
ie The Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch.
Any other ancient holy books I’m leaving out.
Thanx in advance for curing my ignorance.
___________________________________Peace
hmm i dont remember where but i think the pope was going to “bring in” some mary worshipping religion… but that was like a year ago so i dont remember the details
Your observations regarding “Mary worship” do not correspond at all with mine. I think this point is not worth fighting over if you’re simply curious. We disagree.
No. See my post, above. (You are reading the responses, yes?) How many years ago was this Boy Scout saying he was forbidden to go to the Methodist church? And was there an opportunity for him to go to mas as well as going with the troop?)
What do you mean by “the church” and who was involved? Are you thinking that there was a cabal of “deciders”? I’m not sure this is worth fighting over, but your answer does not clearly indicate that you are reading the responses.
The Baptists (or their Anabaptist forbears) arose in the sixteenth century from various followers of (but not adherents to) the preachings of Calvin. John the Baptist was a solitary preacher who had some followers, but there is no indication that they ever organized into any specific group. After John was beheaded, they either became followers of Jesus or (more likely) returned to their regularly scheduled Jewish faith.
No serious Christian forgets that Jesus was a devout Jew. (A few twits have recently twisted various statements in the Epistles to indicate that they don’t realize what that means.) There is also a shameful record within Christianity of persecuting Jews, including using the abhorent epithet “Christ-killer.” Whether most Christians, today, are aware or unaware of Jesus as a Jew, the official statements of Catholicism certainly recognize that fact.
The claim that the Catholic Church was the “original” Christian Church relies on the Catholics looking back through history and claiming the various bishops of the early church, especially, Peter and the bishops of Rome. History is much more complex than a simple statement that so-and-so-was first can support. I will not attempt to lay out that entire historical record, here, but I would say that the RCC has as good a claim as anyone to have roots that go back to the beginning. The Orthodox obviously have as good a claim, although Catholics and Orthodox can fight over which group broke with the “real” historical line from Jesus. (Other groups can get in here to fight, too, of course.)
As to exorcisms: the RCC has a long tradition of expressing its faith in ritual. This means that if you want to find a method (i.e., ritual) to perform an exorcism, the RCC is the place to go, simply because they have documented the ones they use. A number of Protestant denominations reject (what they perceive as empty) ritual and so, you can’t go to them to find that information. In fact, there are Protestant denominations that are much more likely than the RCC to concern themselves with casting out demons. The fact that the RCC has a book with rituals does not make them the leader in exorcism, it makes them the leader in ritual.
Tom~
Rainbowcsr,
I guess I’m a little confused.
I’m not sure I understand why you’d ask questions if you’re unwilling to accept the answers.
As to the “worshipping Mary” business, I’ll admit that to the casual observer, it may look a lot like that, and perhaps even the uneducated Catholic may be doing that. But it is still beyond any question or doubt that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church holds definitively that only God is worshipped, not Mary. Do you understand this?
As to Catholics attending other religious services, there is no rule prohibiting that. This has been true since Vatican II in the early 1960s. Again, do you understand this? If you contend otherwise – where is your evidence? Cite the rule!
On to a new point:
No.
No, no, no.
There is no penalty of excommunicattion for divorce. Your friend is not excommunicated. What evidence led you to believe that he was?
It’s possible your friend may not be in a state of grace. That would mean that while he’s more than welcome to attend church, he’s not supposed to receive the sacraments.
But being divorced does not even imply that he’s not in a state of grace. It is perfectly possible to be divorced and be a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.
The problem arises only if your friend has remarried outside the church. In this case, he would not be in a state of grace, because the church contends that the first marriage is still valid ("…til death do us part," after all) and so the second “marriage” is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous relationship.
In no event does that give rise to excommunication. Even participation in an “second marriage” does not cause one to be excommunicated. Got it? No excomunication for this!
Frankly, what I find irritating here is your questions, which assume the truth of certain propositions. You start out saying that your friend is excommunicated. How dare you?
On the subject of my friend:
Don’t have a cow, man!
I might have the terminology wrong, but he, himself told me that he was excommunicated because of his divorce. He is remarried and she is Catholic also.
On the subject of the scout: This was back in the 1960s. The kid in mention was forbidden to attend the church but Scout Sunday was held in his Catholic Church also so he went there. OK, I understand that things have changed.
On the subject of birth control: By ‘the church’ I mean the Catholic Church and the ruling powers within it of the time.
Mary Worship: Accepted, though in the Protestant sects one is usually told to pray through Jesus for He is supposed to intercede for us. Most pray directly to God. There is no list of various Saints or others to pray to nor to work specific miracles. To us, having various holy people to contact for specific tasks seems like usurping Jesus’ power. Like, well, I don’t know the various Saints, but there is one usually kept in cars I guess to protect travelers, one to heal the sick, one for children, one for animals and so on. I get your point, though.
On the subject of which church or sect was first: I guess we’ll never really know.
(I never paid much attention to the term ‘Protestant’ until currently, because it is, to us, pronounced ‘prod-es-tant.’ To pronounce it like it is spelled, is protest-ant. To protest. Interesting.)
Bricker, what circumstances do give rise to excommunication? My mother was RCC as a child, but she always told me she was excommunicated for marrying my father, who was divorced (which I suppose makes my brother and me little bastards in the eyes of the Catholic Church. 
). Is excommunication perhaps something they were a little more free with 40 years ago?
Don’t be fooled by your modern-day predjudices when it comes to evaluating older art. It may have a different style than what you’re used to, but that doesn’t make it worse; not if you value the effect art has over its photorealism. I stand on the shoulders of every artist that has come before me, and the availiablity of nude models, anatomy studies and live-action photographs has been an invaluable asset to modern-day artists. These older artists were working without such things, and without the several hundred years of artistic advancement that I benefit from. Heck, artists didn’t even figure out true one-point perspective until the early Renaissance, but I don’t blame them for not knowing that; how likely is it that I would have figured it out on my own! Your contention that the pictures are ugly and offend you is baffling to me; it’s like someone saying we should hide away the Venus of Willendorf because “she’s fat.” If you don’t like them, don’t look at them; but they were painted with all the skill the artist had, and it is unlikely they had blasphemous intent. It is true that art was once seen more as a skill than a talent, and scores of purely “workmanlike” art were churned out by the artisans; but there is genuine talent from those days, too, and even the simply “average” pieces are a vital part of our artistic tradition and history.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.
I’m not sure how such things were handled before Vatican II. While it’s possible that excommunication was handed down for such a situation, I think it’s far more likely like that your mom was told she could not receive the Eucharist, and took that to mean she was excommunicated. Technically, that penalty is known as a censure.
A bit about sanctions in the Catholic Church: the vast majority of sanctions are ferendae sententiae, that is, they not binding upon the offender until actually imposed by competent authority. In other words, a bishop or priest must actually tell the person, “You are censured,” or “You are excommunicated,” for the penalty to be in effect.
Penalties for a few very severe offenses are latae sententiae, and are imposed automatically when the offense is committed. If a law is silent on the distinction, it is presumed to be ferendae sententiae; the law must explicitly state that its penalty is latae sententiae and the offender must know of the penalty before committing the offense before the penalty is effective. In fact, there are numerous extenuating circumstances that mitigate the effect of otherwise sanctionable conduct. If there’s interest, I’ll provide a list.
That said, here are the acts which canon law defines as sanctionable by excommunication:
[ul][li]Being an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1364 §1)[/li][li]One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1367)[/li][li]A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs an excommunication (Can. 1370 §1)[/li][li]A confessor who absolves his own partner in a sin against the Sixth Commandment (adultery) incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1378 §1, referencing Can. 977)[/li][li]Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur an excommunication (Can. 1382)[/li][li]A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1388 §1)[/li][li]A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Can. 1398)[/ul][/li]
For further reference, see the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, Book VI: Sanctions in the Church, Canons 1311ff.
Once again, my usual caveat. I am an atheist. I am not trolling. I do not intend to attack anyone. It makes no difference to me what anyone believes.
Now an observation:
It appears to me (and this is an educated guess, really) that much of the ritual we see in the Catholic church today came about as a result of compromises with paganism.
When the church entered a polythesistic area, where religious observance would have included idols and shrines, the Catholic Church seems to have co-opted the traditional practices of the locals. (Tom sort of hinted at this in an earlier post.)
Note how neatly The Patron Saint of X, The Patron Saint of Y, and The Patron Saint of Z, corresponds to The God of X, The God of Y, The God of Z.
It seems to me that the Catholic Church’s task of converting the locals to Catholicism would have been a little easier, if Catholicism were seen as not so very different in practice from the existing religion. And so, in place of statues of Appollo or Neptune, or whomever, we get statues of saints.
Now, to get around the prohibition on graven images, the Church makes the following neat distinction: “Ah, but we are not worshipping the graven images! We are honoring/worshipping what they represent!”
Frankly, this seems to be a pretty thin rationalization, to me. It’s as if, when Moses came down from the mountain and found the Israelites worshipping the golden calf, instead of grinding it down and forcing them to drink it (which is what he did), he made his own image of God and said, “Hey come worship over here! Now just remember: you’re not worshipping the statue I’ve made; you’re worshipping what it represents.”
I believe a great number of Catholics may not fully appreciate that distinction. (Again, this is based on the veneration I have observed being lavished upon the images themselves. I point again to the Black Madonna of Montserrat as just one example.)
Maybe I’m looking at it all wrong. If I am, I’m sure someone will clarify it for me. Intuitively, though, it seems that the veneration of the saints and the use of statuary by the Church seems to fit pretty well with the thesis that it all came about as a compromise with pre-existing pagan practice.
Now, it may not have been planned that way. I’m sure that a lot of this stuff crept into Church ritual, as former pagans clung to their earlier worship structures. Finding that it was unable to eliminate these practices, I suspect the Church simply co-opted them and re-cast them to fit Christian theology.
Again, I do not intend to attack the Catholic Church. I am simply trying to understand how it attained its present form.
As far as the Catholic Church being “the Original Church” goes, I am sure that it can trace its roots back that far. This is not the same as saying, however, that Christianity as practiced by the Catholic Church today is the same Christianity as was practiced by early Christians.
In fact, the idea behind many Protestant faiths is that the Catholic Church drifted away from the simple practices of early Christians, and grew into the theological bureaucracy we see today. These Protestant churches see themselves as returning to the practices of first century Christians.
Again, I’m not taking sides. I don’t have a stake in this one way or the other. I just think it’s important to see the other side of the “original church” debate.
jti, you’re absolutely correct about the Virgin. Mea maxima culpa, I was stoned or something yesterday. 
spoke-:
I’d say your general outline would be accepted by the majority of educated Catholics with a few minor quibbles by some people on some points.
I think we start to diverge more broadly when you identify the distinction made as a thin rationalization. (And I do not take that as an attack, only as a discussion point.) The story that comes to us through Exodus is that while God was not making Himself manifest to the Israelites, having a private conversation with Moses, they turned from Him to an idol. Now we can go back and forth forever discussing whether those people actually believed their calf was a deity or whether there was another god to which they were appealing through the image of the calf. I suspect that people in general are smart enough to know that if they build/sculpt/cast/shape/etc. and object, they are smart enough to know that the object is not divine. However, this was the first really great turning from God that the Israelites acted on after god led them from Egypt. This went far beyond wondering whether a quick trip through Gaza was a good idea (questioning God). This went well beyond not trusting God enough to refrain from striking a rock a second time when water did not gush forth immediately. This was a deliberate turning away from God. They actually referred to the idol as the one that had brought them from Egypt. (The image of the calf may be a bit of biblical sarcasm: bull gods were common in the region, but the Israelites can only come up with a calf.)
At that point, every aspect of the event became a taboo activity, the making of idols first among them. This, as I said, became part and parcel with the culture as well as the religion.
Now, before someone comes up and points out that the prohibition on graven images occurs 12 chapters earlier, let me note that God could, obviously, have known what their sin was going to be and included it in the decalogue. Since I am not a biblical literalist, I will go further and say that there are several strands of authorship through this section of Exodus and that I have no problem believing that the tale was worked so that in this telling the people are given the clear prohibition in Chapter 20 in order to give the sinners in Chapter 32 no room to claim that they did not realize it would be a sin.
We can get sidetracked really far hassling over the separate issue of biblical reading and interpretation. I will continue to hold that the issue of statues was a cultural aspect of Judaism that did not make it it through the osmotic process that left us with a Jewish-seeded but Gentile-grown Christianity. Similarly, (and there are Christian sects that dispute this issue, as well), the Lord’s Day moved from the Jewish Sabbath to the day on which the weekly celebration of the Resurrection occurred.
Tom~
And again, let me say that I did not mean to attack. I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. I can see where my use of the word “rationalization” could raise hackles. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, Tom.
Oh yes, and it occurs to me that we have some pretty clear examples of pagan rituals being co-opted by the Church, which tends to support my thesis:
If I am not mistaken, Christmas was built on the foundation of an earlier pagan mid-winter festival 9and incorporated many of the rituals of that festival), and Easter took the place of (and incorporated the rituals of) a pagan spring festival.
Rainbowcasr has some really good questions - things I’ve kinda wondered, too.
"I watched the Pope and thought to myself that this guy is really old. "
I watched the Pope on TV recently too, and after ALSO thinking he was really old, I started feeling bad for the guy. It’s like this dog and pony show and the poor old decrepit guy gets dragged out and showed off all over the globe. He’s put through his tricks (perform a church service, say some prayers, kiss the ground, whatever), then they parade him around town on a “float”.
Weird. Can’t they just let the old guy REST for a few minutes? And popes are popes for life, right? So how about when they get sickly and unable to do the dog and pony show anymore (still alive but barely moving-which is about where the Pope is right now), then what? Is there an understudy who takes over until the pope either recovers or croaks?
Ok, here’s a little bit I found through Jeeves on that subject (by the way there actually IS a Vatican website but its pretty useless - VERY little info and lots of broken/missing links):
The Pope dies
When the Pope dies, the Cardinal Camerlengo (currently Eduardo Cardinal Martinez Somalo) must verify the death, traditionally by calling the Pope three times by his name without response. He must then authorize a death certificate and make the event public by notifying the Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome (currently Camillo Cardinal Ruini). The Camerlengo then seals the Pope’s private apartments. He would also arrange for the “ring of the fisherman” and the papal seal to be broken. He then makes preparations for the Papal funeral rites, the novemdieles, the nine days of mourning."
So a pope is considered dead when he’s unable to respond three times to his name? Interesting. Wonder how many popes were buried while actually in a coma or paralized? And I could find nothing on “ring of fisherman” what’s that? What "papal seal"is being broken, the one on the Pope’s bedroom door that was JUST sealed? What’s the point of that? Any Catholics got the straight dope on this?
Each pope has his own ring and seal, with his own coat of arms. The custom dates back to medieval times, when rings and seals were used to authenticate documents. When the pope dies, his ring and seal are broken. Nowadays it’s pretty much symbolic, but originally it was done to prevent any post-mortem forgeries by anyone else.
I imagine that the seals on the bedchamber would be that of the Cardinal Camerlego, which I believe is the equivalent of “chamberlain” - the official responsible for the chambers in a palace.
Since business has to be carried on even without a pope, another seal is used until a new pope is elected, with the Latin for “while the seat was vacant” or some such.
As for the calling three times, again it dates back to medieval times, and I would imagine today would only occur after the doctors say “He’s dead, Jim.”
(All of the above is my speculation; open to correction by someone who knows what they’re talking about.)
Two interesting reads on the apparatus of the death of a pope and the election of a new one are: In The Shoes of the Fisherman, by Morris West, and The Making of The Popes 1978 by Andrew Greely. They’re likely both out of print, but you should be able to get them from a library.
West’s book is a fictional account of the death of an old pope and the election of a new one, while Greely’s is a review of the actual electoral process of JP I & II in 1978. The odd thing about West’s book, written in the 60s, is that his fictional pope, Kyril I, is a Russian (the first non-Italian pope in centuries), who brings a new style to the papacy by reaching out pastorally, and who tries to mediate Cold War tensions by his contacts with the Soviet Communist hierarchy.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
OK, like I said, I understand Mary is to interceded between the people and God, but no one has yet answered my question – or rather, observation, – about all of the other Saints. It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church has a role call of Saints so long that you kind of need to look them up. So, why do people pray to various Saints for protection or for various things? I mean, there is already Jesus, and Mary.
According to most religious beliefs, God and Jesus alone are capable of handling the prays of the multitudes, and then Mary is added, so why the hundreds of Saints?
Who steps in if the Pope gets senile? Who has the authority to question the Pope on his actions or decisions? Some people can start to go senile and not show major outward signs, but their decision making capabilities are compromised. With all of the power the Pope wields, who is there at his advanced age to make sure his judgment is still good?
Protestants had a similar problem with that evangelical preacher of a major TV ministry to went on the air and tried to get donations by stating that unless they reached a certain goal, God would call him home. The goal was not reached and he is still around and not preaching much anymore because they discovered he is going senile.
What? Me worry?’
Because that’s what Catholics do. Why pray to Jesus or Mary, if there’s God? Because that’s what Catholics and Protestants do.
According to “most religious beliefs,” God and Jesus can do no such thing. Neither Jews nor Moslems think that Jesus can handle any prayers at all. Likewise, I’m confident that Hindus don’t believe that praying to the Christian God does much good. If you want to disbelieve a religion or a sect of a religion, fine. But why pick apart the specifics when there’s the general to consider? Before telling Catholics that they shouldn’t ask Saints to intercede for them, first prove beyond doubt that your God exists. What’s that, no proof? It’s a matter of belief and faith? Well, OK. Catholics have a 1% or so difference from you in how to exercise their faith. You think Jesus is the only Lawyer Unto God, whilst Catholics think there’s a Holy Bar Association. Big Whoop.
The Pope is only considered “infallible” when he issues a specific kind of doctrinal statement. He’s not infallible when he’s picking for the NCAA tournament. Do you think the Pope just writes major pieces of doctrine on the john and emails them to the Churches? There’s a process here, in which the Bishops are involved. The Catholics have been doing it this way for a while. And while I have my problems with the what the Catholic Church has done over the years, IIRC they’ve always managed to avoid the Pope suddenly issuing a decree to worship peanut butter or whatever it is you seem to be worried about.
“Protestants” had no such problem. One church, IIRC, did. Do you think that the Methodists were affected by this? Or the Mormons?
NYC IRL III
is on April 15th. Do you have what it takes?
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
[Edited Manny’s post, above, for quote tag problems.]