Hi Folks
Over this past summer, we changed our telephone and internet carrier to a local company who could also save us a considerable amount of money.
The company we jilted (or at least that seems to be how they see it) has sent lovely cards telling me how much they miss me. We have also been getting phone calls.
I received another one today. As soon as the caller got to "We have a special offer..." I cut him off and told him I was not interested. He asked me why.
I told him that if they valued my patronage so much, they should have given me these fabulous offers while I was still their customer. He actually admitted I had a point. No kidding.
It is not like that with God.
God loves all His creation. He loves us more than we can imagine. We are made, after all, in His image and likeness. He also loves us enough to let us go, if that is what we choose. Look what happened to the Angels who proclaimed that they would not serve. They went to Hell.
Jesus shows us this in the Gospel of John. When He proclaimed that it was necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood, many of his followers said that He was speaking harshly and that they would no longer follow Him. Jesus let them go.
We can also be confident that if we wish to repent, while we are alive, and come back to God, He will take us back. We see this expressed in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the Gospel of Luke.
In the latter case, we are told that a party was held to celebrate the return of the lost son. Would this actually make up for what is lost during our time without God's grace?
I am fairly certain that God longs for us, if we choose to be away from him. Parents long for children. The woman who loses the gold coin, again in the Gospel of Luke, turns the house upside down until she finds it. So does the shepherd search for the lost sheep.
God will not usually hound us though. Or perhaps He IS hounding us...but sin clouds our perceptions and we do not hear. Hmmm.
I told the telephone company to leave us alone. I cannot imagine that I would want to do that to God...ever. But if I did, I think He would honour my bad choice and leave me to my own devices.
Fortunately, when I changed phone companies, most of the devices stayed exactly the same.
God Bless
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
All Hallow's Eve
My Friend S sent this to me, I think it appeared in their church bulletin.
I hope the authors don't mind me borrowing it. I thought it was very good.
(In this weekly column, Tom and April Hoopes share family-friendly ways of
observing the liturgical year and celebrating the Sunday readings.)
Halloween and All Souls
Last year, we attended our Connecticut parish’s “Holyween” party,
where the kids dressed as saints and Dominican Father Bernard Confer guessed
with astonishing accuracy who each was. This year we’re in Atchison, Kan.,
a town that has a cottage industry of promoting haunted houses.
Catholic parents often debate the merits of Halloween as it’s celebrated
in America today. Is it too macabre? What message does it send?
We will remind the kids that “All Hallows Eve” — the vigil of All
Saints’ Day — dates back to the time the Church took over the Pantheon
in Rome in the 600s. The “gods” were removed from altars which were
reconsecrated to the martyrs. So, on the first “All Hallows Eve,” the
streets of Rome were literally lined with carts of bones — martyrs’
relics. Yes, other pagan practices have been mixed in, but we will focus on
that first mix of skeletons and saints.
We’ll pray to the folks in heaven and celebrate their victory with fun and
candy. And on All Souls’ Day, Nov. 2, we will round out the experience by
visiting a cemetery to start the month of prayer for the dead.
Readings
Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14; Psalm 24:1-6; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12
Our Take
The beatitudes — today’s Gospel — are more relevant than ever. Let us
count the ways.
1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven.”
Those who aren’t poor in spirit — those whose hopes are in wealth,
health or material pleasures — have had a tough year. But those who look
to spiritual realities for fulfillment needn’t be fundamentally disturbed
by market crashes or tough times. Their investments are in good hands.
2. “Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”
In order to mourn, you have to be sensitive to the value of life. In a world
with 42 million elective abortions each year, this beatitude is as needed as
ever — and as powerful as ever. The most effective new voices in the
pro-life movement are the mothers of aborted children.
3. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
To be meek means to allow God’s will to dominate your own will. The meek
don’t abuse the earth; and the meek don’t see mankind as a blight on the
earth, either. The meek take God’s creation on God’s terms, and truly
inherit the earth by appreciating the beauty of nature and the dignity of
human life.
4. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
will be satisfied.”
“Be nice” is a fine philosophy of life, as far as it goes, but it
doesn’t go far enough. To “hunger and thirst for righteousness” means
to refuse to tolerate the destruction of social values. Such a hunger
won’t stand for the destruction of marriage and the family, pornography,
embryo-killing research, or other intrinsic evils. However …
5. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
“Not tolerating evil” can’t mean “rejecting those we disagree
with.” Christ said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We
can have that same merciful attitude toward sinners — especially since
we’re sinners, too — and seek to better them, not just denounce them.
6. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God.”
Pope John Paul II said to be “pure of heart” is to see the true value of
other people, and not make them objects. People describe how a glance from a
John Paul or Mother Teresa made them feel like they were in the presence of
something great. If we are pure of heart, we’ll see Christ in those we
meet — and that will help them see God, too.
7. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Ours is an age where escalating violence is seen as an answer to problems.
Though self-defense is sometimes necessary, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John
Paul II both pointed out that even that necessary and noble war, World War
II, left Europe on a path to secularization and the culture of death.
Solidarity, not war, is the path to peace.
8. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for
theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”
There are today more persecuted Christians than ever before — Christians
are being harassed and killed in India, Africa, the Philippines, China,
Myanmar, Iraq, the Middle East, and on and on. We can pray for the
persecuted — and pray to the martyrs of our time for the building of the
Kingdom of heaven on earth.
—This article originally appeared in our sister publication, the National
Catholic Register.
I hope the authors don't mind me borrowing it. I thought it was very good.
(In this weekly column, Tom and April Hoopes share family-friendly ways of
observing the liturgical year and celebrating the Sunday readings.)
Halloween and All Souls
Last year, we attended our Connecticut parish’s “Holyween” party,
where the kids dressed as saints and Dominican Father Bernard Confer guessed
with astonishing accuracy who each was. This year we’re in Atchison, Kan.,
a town that has a cottage industry of promoting haunted houses.
Catholic parents often debate the merits of Halloween as it’s celebrated
in America today. Is it too macabre? What message does it send?
We will remind the kids that “All Hallows Eve” — the vigil of All
Saints’ Day — dates back to the time the Church took over the Pantheon
in Rome in the 600s. The “gods” were removed from altars which were
reconsecrated to the martyrs. So, on the first “All Hallows Eve,” the
streets of Rome were literally lined with carts of bones — martyrs’
relics. Yes, other pagan practices have been mixed in, but we will focus on
that first mix of skeletons and saints.
We’ll pray to the folks in heaven and celebrate their victory with fun and
candy. And on All Souls’ Day, Nov. 2, we will round out the experience by
visiting a cemetery to start the month of prayer for the dead.
Readings
Revelation 7:2-4, 9-14; Psalm 24:1-6; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12
Our Take
The beatitudes — today’s Gospel — are more relevant than ever. Let us
count the ways.
1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven.”
Those who aren’t poor in spirit — those whose hopes are in wealth,
health or material pleasures — have had a tough year. But those who look
to spiritual realities for fulfillment needn’t be fundamentally disturbed
by market crashes or tough times. Their investments are in good hands.
2. “Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”
In order to mourn, you have to be sensitive to the value of life. In a world
with 42 million elective abortions each year, this beatitude is as needed as
ever — and as powerful as ever. The most effective new voices in the
pro-life movement are the mothers of aborted children.
3. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
To be meek means to allow God’s will to dominate your own will. The meek
don’t abuse the earth; and the meek don’t see mankind as a blight on the
earth, either. The meek take God’s creation on God’s terms, and truly
inherit the earth by appreciating the beauty of nature and the dignity of
human life.
4. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
will be satisfied.”
“Be nice” is a fine philosophy of life, as far as it goes, but it
doesn’t go far enough. To “hunger and thirst for righteousness” means
to refuse to tolerate the destruction of social values. Such a hunger
won’t stand for the destruction of marriage and the family, pornography,
embryo-killing research, or other intrinsic evils. However …
5. “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
“Not tolerating evil” can’t mean “rejecting those we disagree
with.” Christ said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We
can have that same merciful attitude toward sinners — especially since
we’re sinners, too — and seek to better them, not just denounce them.
6. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God.”
Pope John Paul II said to be “pure of heart” is to see the true value of
other people, and not make them objects. People describe how a glance from a
John Paul or Mother Teresa made them feel like they were in the presence of
something great. If we are pure of heart, we’ll see Christ in those we
meet — and that will help them see God, too.
7. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
Ours is an age where escalating violence is seen as an answer to problems.
Though self-defense is sometimes necessary, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John
Paul II both pointed out that even that necessary and noble war, World War
II, left Europe on a path to secularization and the culture of death.
Solidarity, not war, is the path to peace.
8. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for
theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”
There are today more persecuted Christians than ever before — Christians
are being harassed and killed in India, Africa, the Philippines, China,
Myanmar, Iraq, the Middle East, and on and on. We can pray for the
persecuted — and pray to the martyrs of our time for the building of the
Kingdom of heaven on earth.
—This article originally appeared in our sister publication, the National
Catholic Register.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Natural Family Planning Misunderstanding?
Hi Folks
Pondering again.
The issue came up in one of Danielle Bean's blog articles...in the comments at least. More recently it has come up in an email group to which I belong.
Are 'poor' (as in financially challenged) people being irresponsible if they do not actively use NFP to limit their family's size, as opposed to leaving the whole thing up to God?
First, I will define a couple of terms:
Natural Family Planning is a method of fertility awareness by which a couple may choose to space, or to avoid, a pregnancy, by avoiding sexual relations during the woman's fertile period. This method is approved by the Roman Catholic Church for married couples who for serious reasons (ie not to be able to afford a bigger boat) wish to space children. The method properly used is sort of like saying to God "We'd rather not have a child (right now) but we're open to your will."
Another licit option for Catholics in family planning is to simply let God decide when and whether babies arrive. By inference, I call this 'hands off' family planning. Which is not to be confused with complete abstainance.
Complete abstainance can also be practiced by a couple who feel they must not have any children.
What I have read is what I previously stated: if a family is materially poor, they are being irresponsible if they do not actively avoid pregnancy, and just allow God to decide if and when they become pregnant.
I do not understand this line of thinking. If the proper mindset for the use of NFP is to be open to life, even if it should begin when we would rather it did not, we are leaving it, ultimately, up to God.
If a couple chooses to leave it entirely up to God, who knows everything, how is this being less responsible than if they signalled God that be co-creators at this time is not desireable, but ultimately agreed to follow his will?
I think that the irresponsibility argument is removing credit from God to be able to decide when and where he wishes to begin a life. God has been known to work around contraception when he's forced to. There was even a case of a Virgin becoming pregnant...but God asked permission of her to do this!
A life begun is always a blessed event, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I do not disagree with the use of NFP. I wonder though that those who demand its use from certain sectors of the population are not really wanting to demand abstainance? This seems to me to be one step away from demanding sterilization.
No one has been able to explain the irresponsibility argument to me in a way that does not end up sounding like "I don't wish to care for the children of poor people". Okay, but what if God decides that these poor people should have children? Is it not possible that we are being called to assist these people?
So, explain it to me, please!
God Bless
Pondering again.
The issue came up in one of Danielle Bean's blog articles...in the comments at least. More recently it has come up in an email group to which I belong.
Are 'poor' (as in financially challenged) people being irresponsible if they do not actively use NFP to limit their family's size, as opposed to leaving the whole thing up to God?
First, I will define a couple of terms:
Natural Family Planning is a method of fertility awareness by which a couple may choose to space, or to avoid, a pregnancy, by avoiding sexual relations during the woman's fertile period. This method is approved by the Roman Catholic Church for married couples who for serious reasons (ie not to be able to afford a bigger boat) wish to space children. The method properly used is sort of like saying to God "We'd rather not have a child (right now) but we're open to your will."
Another licit option for Catholics in family planning is to simply let God decide when and whether babies arrive. By inference, I call this 'hands off' family planning. Which is not to be confused with complete abstainance.
Complete abstainance can also be practiced by a couple who feel they must not have any children.
What I have read is what I previously stated: if a family is materially poor, they are being irresponsible if they do not actively avoid pregnancy, and just allow God to decide if and when they become pregnant.
I do not understand this line of thinking. If the proper mindset for the use of NFP is to be open to life, even if it should begin when we would rather it did not, we are leaving it, ultimately, up to God.
If a couple chooses to leave it entirely up to God, who knows everything, how is this being less responsible than if they signalled God that be co-creators at this time is not desireable, but ultimately agreed to follow his will?
I think that the irresponsibility argument is removing credit from God to be able to decide when and where he wishes to begin a life. God has been known to work around contraception when he's forced to. There was even a case of a Virgin becoming pregnant...but God asked permission of her to do this!
A life begun is always a blessed event, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I do not disagree with the use of NFP. I wonder though that those who demand its use from certain sectors of the population are not really wanting to demand abstainance? This seems to me to be one step away from demanding sterilization.
No one has been able to explain the irresponsibility argument to me in a way that does not end up sounding like "I don't wish to care for the children of poor people". Okay, but what if God decides that these poor people should have children? Is it not possible that we are being called to assist these people?
So, explain it to me, please!
God Bless
Monday, October 19, 2009
St. Teresa, Pray for Us
Hello again
I've had one of those weeks where I feel God is trying to send a message.
Early in the week, I picked up a copy of St. Teresa of Avila's "Vida", her autobiography. I am not so sure about the translation, as it seems to have some 'new age' potential...but I've paid for it, so I'll read it.
I neglected to remember that her feast day was October 15, which coincides quite well with my starting the book!
I have read some of this Doctor of the Church's work before. I think I may have an affinity with Carmelite spirituality.
This Sunday's homily brought a mention of St. Teresa, which I think is the first time I've heard her mentioned at Mass. Apparently Father is a fan of hers as well. I was pleased to find this out.
During Mass, I noticed the presence of a friend whom I have not seen in several years, as she moved away. Four years back, she borrowed a book from me, St. Teresa's "Interior Castle". When I went to give her a hug after Mass, she said "I have something for you!" It was my book!
So I've come to the conclusion that it is time for me to do some more reading of Saint Teresa. I don't think it could be more obvious.
God Bless
I've had one of those weeks where I feel God is trying to send a message.
Early in the week, I picked up a copy of St. Teresa of Avila's "Vida", her autobiography. I am not so sure about the translation, as it seems to have some 'new age' potential...but I've paid for it, so I'll read it.
I neglected to remember that her feast day was October 15, which coincides quite well with my starting the book!
I have read some of this Doctor of the Church's work before. I think I may have an affinity with Carmelite spirituality.
This Sunday's homily brought a mention of St. Teresa, which I think is the first time I've heard her mentioned at Mass. Apparently Father is a fan of hers as well. I was pleased to find this out.
During Mass, I noticed the presence of a friend whom I have not seen in several years, as she moved away. Four years back, she borrowed a book from me, St. Teresa's "Interior Castle". When I went to give her a hug after Mass, she said "I have something for you!" It was my book!
So I've come to the conclusion that it is time for me to do some more reading of Saint Teresa. I don't think it could be more obvious.
God Bless
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Reflections on the Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Good Morning
As I was lying in bed last night, not sleeping (if anyone cares to say a prayer for me regarding this vicious worsening of my chronic insomnia troubles, I would be greatly appreciative) I was thinking about children.
Last Sunday's Gospel, Mark 9:30-37 was about people receiving a child in Jesus' name, also receiving Jesus.
Father delivered a delightful homily which was a bit of a variation on what is often presented as the message of this Gospel passage.
One often hears that this reading is talking about being open and welcoming as a child is in order to receive Jesus. Father's perspective was that it might also mean having a good sense of humility. After all, welcoming a child is not always convenient...his illustration of this was humourous and, to me, familiar. Parents go into the room of a child who was sleeping only to discover that the child has been quietly creating a disaster which can sometimes be unsanitary. Think: paint by numbers, where the only number is "2". Having to deal with child disasters can happen when one is all set to go out for an evening. I envision an old "Family Circus" cartoon which shows the mum, dressed up in a long elegant evening gown, plunging out a plugged toilet and opining "For this, I went to college?". Parents must be willing to change plans at a moment's notice.
I suppose that welcoming a child could also go back to the child's very birth...or conception.
I had another thought about children and faith. We who have been involved in religious education have often heard, or said ourselves, the importance of "understanding" in preparation for sacraments. This is particularly said for First Communion. The implication is that a child shouldn't be too young.
I would first ask if any of us really understand what it is that happens during the confection of the Eucharist (Communion). By some God-powered miracle, Jesus becomes the bread which we later consume.
But, to a young child, everything is a miracle and most things are hard to explain. How does a car work? Why does rain fall from the sky... sometimes even when the sun is shining?
Might it not be that a child is actually more likely to "understand" what is happening when Jesus gives His body to us in the Eucharist? After all, a youngster's mind may not yet be bound by the rules life imposes...laws of nature and all that.
As I think a little more, I realize that my thoughts also focus on humility. We grown-ups often do not like be taught. We think we know it all already. It can be hard for us to accept miracles; things we cannot explain or understand. Children are accustomed to not understanding things, so they accept what they are told by people they trust. It is sad if we grow and become jaded to truth. The Gospel of Luke 18:16 comes to mind.
We should become like children, to accept and be accepted by Jesus. For such as these is the Kingdom of Heaven!
As I was lying in bed last night, not sleeping (if anyone cares to say a prayer for me regarding this vicious worsening of my chronic insomnia troubles, I would be greatly appreciative) I was thinking about children.
Last Sunday's Gospel, Mark 9:30-37 was about people receiving a child in Jesus' name, also receiving Jesus.
Father delivered a delightful homily which was a bit of a variation on what is often presented as the message of this Gospel passage.
One often hears that this reading is talking about being open and welcoming as a child is in order to receive Jesus. Father's perspective was that it might also mean having a good sense of humility. After all, welcoming a child is not always convenient...his illustration of this was humourous and, to me, familiar. Parents go into the room of a child who was sleeping only to discover that the child has been quietly creating a disaster which can sometimes be unsanitary. Think: paint by numbers, where the only number is "2". Having to deal with child disasters can happen when one is all set to go out for an evening. I envision an old "Family Circus" cartoon which shows the mum, dressed up in a long elegant evening gown, plunging out a plugged toilet and opining "For this, I went to college?". Parents must be willing to change plans at a moment's notice.
I suppose that welcoming a child could also go back to the child's very birth...or conception.
I had another thought about children and faith. We who have been involved in religious education have often heard, or said ourselves, the importance of "understanding" in preparation for sacraments. This is particularly said for First Communion. The implication is that a child shouldn't be too young.
I would first ask if any of us really understand what it is that happens during the confection of the Eucharist (Communion). By some God-powered miracle, Jesus becomes the bread which we later consume.
But, to a young child, everything is a miracle and most things are hard to explain. How does a car work? Why does rain fall from the sky... sometimes even when the sun is shining?
Might it not be that a child is actually more likely to "understand" what is happening when Jesus gives His body to us in the Eucharist? After all, a youngster's mind may not yet be bound by the rules life imposes...laws of nature and all that.
As I think a little more, I realize that my thoughts also focus on humility. We grown-ups often do not like be taught. We think we know it all already. It can be hard for us to accept miracles; things we cannot explain or understand. Children are accustomed to not understanding things, so they accept what they are told by people they trust. It is sad if we grow and become jaded to truth. The Gospel of Luke 18:16 comes to mind.
We should become like children, to accept and be accepted by Jesus. For such as these is the Kingdom of Heaven!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Comment worthy?
HI Folks
I have recently been informed that I had created no way for people to comment on my blog.
I have attempted to remedy this so please let me know (I know some people have my email address) if you are still not able to comment.
There is a little pencil at the end of the posts...beside the envelope for emails.
Thanks!
I have recently been informed that I had created no way for people to comment on my blog.
I have attempted to remedy this so please let me know (I know some people have my email address) if you are still not able to comment.
There is a little pencil at the end of the posts...beside the envelope for emails.
Thanks!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Behold Your Mother
Well, I've again been reading "Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome" by Richard Littledale.
Some of the arguments (and we still hear this ALL the time) made against the Church are with regards to our veneration of Mary, Mother of God.
I think I've already discussed some of our treatment of Mary, but this time I am going to address our belief that Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of all believers.
In the Gospel of John (19: 26-27) Jesus, while dying on the cross, speaks to the Beloved Disciple (John)and tells him that Mary is his mother. He turns to Mary and tells her that John is her son.
This is a practical move. If Mary had children other than Jesus, and the Church states that she did not, Jewish law would insist that she be cared for by them. John was now tasked with her care, in lieu of other family for her.
The Church also teaches that this gives Mary to all of us as our mother. For me, this is not a hard thing to get my mind around.
We are told that the Church is the Body of Christ. After all, we do Christ's work in the world. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ. We are the Body of Christ. Therefore, is not Mary our mother, too? I do not see where the problem lies.
Mr. Littledale's book is giving me much fodder for research. He mentions names and makes arguments which I have not heard before. Some of his arguments are based on fallacy, which amazes me for someone who was apparently a lawyer. Perhaps saving souls entitles one to fabricate a little? Nah.
I have just found the reply which John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote to the work of Littledale and look forward to reading it.
(edited insertion) The article I linked to above is not actually by Cardinal Newman. Sorry about that. It would seem I have not yet found his article, if it even exists, as other sources indicate it should! (end of insertion)
I am not yet familiar with Newman's works (shame shame!) but from a quick reading of the introduction of the reply, I think I will enjoy his style. Already it reminds me a little of GK Chesterton.
I spoke to my father a couple of weeks ago. He gave me "Plain Reasons" a couple of years ago when I saw it on his bookshelf. I have since found out that this book was from the library of his father, who was never Catholic. This really piqued my interest.
Kinda gives me a connection to the Oxford Movement!
God Bless
Some of the arguments (and we still hear this ALL the time) made against the Church are with regards to our veneration of Mary, Mother of God.
I think I've already discussed some of our treatment of Mary, but this time I am going to address our belief that Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of all believers.
In the Gospel of John (19: 26-27) Jesus, while dying on the cross, speaks to the Beloved Disciple (John)and tells him that Mary is his mother. He turns to Mary and tells her that John is her son.
This is a practical move. If Mary had children other than Jesus, and the Church states that she did not, Jewish law would insist that she be cared for by them. John was now tasked with her care, in lieu of other family for her.
The Church also teaches that this gives Mary to all of us as our mother. For me, this is not a hard thing to get my mind around.
We are told that the Church is the Body of Christ. After all, we do Christ's work in the world. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ. We are the Body of Christ. Therefore, is not Mary our mother, too? I do not see where the problem lies.
Mr. Littledale's book is giving me much fodder for research. He mentions names and makes arguments which I have not heard before. Some of his arguments are based on fallacy, which amazes me for someone who was apparently a lawyer. Perhaps saving souls entitles one to fabricate a little? Nah.
I have just found the reply which John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote to the work of Littledale and look forward to reading it.
(edited insertion) The article I linked to above is not actually by Cardinal Newman. Sorry about that. It would seem I have not yet found his article, if it even exists, as other sources indicate it should! (end of insertion)
I am not yet familiar with Newman's works (shame shame!) but from a quick reading of the introduction of the reply, I think I will enjoy his style. Already it reminds me a little of GK Chesterton.
I spoke to my father a couple of weeks ago. He gave me "Plain Reasons" a couple of years ago when I saw it on his bookshelf. I have since found out that this book was from the library of his father, who was never Catholic. This really piqued my interest.
Kinda gives me a connection to the Oxford Movement!
God Bless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
