 |
| Pope Francis takes advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury Source: Twitter |
OK. I get it. Theology and tradition are now thought irrelevant.
Women are allowed to become deacons. Then you bend to secular claims of discrimination and misogyny and allow female deacons to be ordained priests.
People get used to seeing women at the altar so you have to agree that it is unfair if women priests are not allowed to be bishops.
So obvious. Why didn't Jesus Christ think of this?
Postscript [24.01.2021]
Personally I never thought that there was a major issue around women being admitted to the diaconate, given that there's quite some degree of ancient precedent for women deacons, around which there appears to have been no contemporary controversy. Indeed Dom Gregory Dix, Anglican Benedictine monk and distinguished scholar of the universal Church's distant past, hypothesized that the western bishp's mitre had its origin in the headgear adopted by the earliest women deacons.
ReplyDeleteWomen priests and bishops are an entirely different matter, and are entirely without precedent. Even the ancient Montanists, condemned by the ancient Church as heretical, while lauding certain women prophets don't appear - despite some modern assertions to the contrary - to have ordained women to the episcopate or presbyterate.
I note that Bishop Schneider repeatedly says that women have never acted in various capacities 'throughout the history of the universal Church'. Does he then not consider that the many Nonconformist traditions, some of which have permitted women to perform many functions for many years, are not a valid part of the universal Church?
ReplyDeleteYes!
DeleteEnforcer
Baptist Trainfan, if you read Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Apostolica Curae, you will see that the late Pope claimed that Anglican Ordinals dating from the Reformation onwards were devoid of "Form" and "Intention". For this reason, all Anglican clergy from bishops downwards are not properly ordained, and as a result, Anglican orders are null and void. If that is the Roman Catholic view of Anglican Orders, Non-Conformists stand no chance of their ministries being recognized as valid.
DeleteSeymour
@ Baptist Trainfan
DeleteA Roman Catholic bishop is always likely to conceive the notion of 'the Universal Church' in a very particular way, given that his communion has a very particular - indeed, a unique - 'take' on its definition! But I think that the clue to unpacking the very reasonable point which you're making is found by looking at the nature of new movements which arise from time to time within the Christian community.
On the one hand, take as examples Benedict of Nursia's form of monasticism, Francis of Assisi's Friars Minor, Ignatius Loyola's Society of Jesus and even, in modern times, Opus Dei. All these were novel and pioneering movements - Benedict's perhaps least so, because monasticism was by no means new in his day, but his idea of a single monastic 'brand' was a novelty given that monasteries had hitherto been single independent entities. And all, inevitably as novel ideas, attracted a degree of initial suspicion and hostility within the Church.
But all these movements conceived of themselves, absolutely and unconditionally, as being within the Church rather than over against it. And as such they came to be accepted, if not always loved!
On the other hand there are Christian movements, such as the ancient Montanists, the mediaeval Cathars and Bogamils, and also, I suggest, historic protestantism and 'nonconformity', which conceive of themselves as being over against the Church as they were currently experiencing it rather than as within it - taking for their text St Paul's reference to second Isaiah's 'come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord'.
Hence such movements have tended to see themselves as 'the gathered church', consciously and deliberately defining themselves as essentially different from a 'mainstream' church which they normatively viewed as defective and even corrupted. It's even arguable, I suggest (perhaps a tad tongue in cheek!), that - at least originally - they're 'not a valid part of the universal Church' because they didn't want to be and quite deliberately chose not to be.
Thank you and of course I take the point. I do understand (though disagree with) the whole issue of Apostolic Succession and "validity" of priestly orders - but of course I disagree with the very idea of Priesthood (but not Ministry) in the Church. What gets me is the way that some Christians from certain parts of the Church do give the impression that Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and the like Aren't Proper Christians when we'd strongly argue that we are. (And yes, I know that it can work the other way, with enthusiastic Evangelicals dismissing Catholics are "not really saved").
DeleteComing as I once did from an Anglican Catholic position, I never felt that the 'free churches' consisted of people who weren't 'proper Christians'. Such things should be left to divine providence to determine, rather than be ruled upon by frail and partial ecclesial disciples in the here and now.
DeleteGiven that I recognized that, since mainstream Catholic thinking always asserted that Christians should always follow their - informed - conscience, a Christian disciple must always in the end defy the Church's teaching if that conscientiously appears to him or her to be mistaken and wrong, it's arguable that you're actually only a 'proper Christian' if you do just that: if you follow your conscience even if that defies the Church's teaching.
It's surely the Almighty who makes the ultimate decision, and not any temporal prelate - however elevated, in earthly terms, such prelate might appear to be.
@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteJust an afterthought. I think that the notion of 'apostolic succession', at least as it's usually conceived of by modern protestants, can create unnecessary confusion when it comes to debating who is or isn't 'a valid part of the universal Church'.
Because the 'apostolic succession' seems to me, at least in western Christianity, to be too readily asserted in impersonal terms - what I describe as 'the pipeline theory' - like a piped water supply! If you think that way, you're either 'on the mains supply' or you aren't, and that's it. If the pipeline is broken, you may still get a trickle of gravity-fed stale water through your tap, but it won't be the genuine article. Simply put, you're 'cut off'!
There's not a scrap of evidence to suggest that the church in the classical period thought in anything remotely like such terms. Their concern was authenticity: how can you know, or at least do your utmost to ensure, that your local church proclaimed and taught the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ? And continued to do so?
The culture was overwhelmingly oral. Other than the canon of the Old Testament/Apocrypha brought over from Judaism, the earliest church possesseed no definitive and universally accepted canon of Christian scripture: there was merely a core number of gospels and epistles which most local churches in most places accepted as authoritative. But around them was a variety of other writings, reverenced in some places and unknown or treated sceptically in others. And teaching, or at least implying, a variety of different ideas.
As a further complication, if an epistle were accredited, say, to Barnabas, how could you be sure that Barnabas was its author or that it reflected his teaching? And if a gospel is described as 'the gospel of Thomas', could you be sure that the accreditation was genuine? And all this in an era in which quite a large number of Christians - many of whom didn't come from the top echelons of contemporary society - were barely literate.
Against this backcloth the church looked to its bishop, both to lead and to be its reliable source of authentic teaching. In the small churches of earliest times, it was invariably the bishop who presided at the Eucharist, preached, and directed and took a considerable part in catechizing converts.
So the quality of any new bishop was fundamental, and much attention was paid to trying to ensure it. In a well-run local church hopefully the members themselves would focus on electing a bishop with pastoral and oratorical skills, evident integrity and irreproachably orthodoxy. But as a 'quality control', the custom evolved that the new bishop had to be consecrated by bishops from neighbouring local churches - later a minimum of three - who would also examine the qualities, doctrines and fitness of the new bishop, and would only consecrate him if they were satisfied. That seems to have been an element in the development of provinces/archdioceses.
It wasn't a fault-free system - what human system is?! - but at least it sought to ensure quality and orthodox leadership. And in a time when there was little else to go on, the proposed new bishop would be examined as to the authenticity and orthodoxy of his beliefs and his teaching. To which he would explain that he'd received the gospel which he would proclaim from his predecessor bishop X, who in turn had received his from the previous bishop Y, and so right back to the hazily recollected apostle Z who first brought the gospel to their town and planted a church there.
That's the pragmatic origin of the notion of apostolic succession. Nothing to do with magic, pipelines or mystic sacramental hot-wiring!
John, do you not allow also for the effect of the prayerful laying on of hands, wbereby the Holy Spirit operates?
DeleteRob
@ Rob:
DeleteI certainly would. The laying on of hands with prayer was a part of the earliest Christian tradition, and any local Christian church familiar with the writings of St Paul - which, from what we know, most seem to have been - would have been aware of the fact that one of the contexts of the laying on of hands was to commission someone for a ministry - as attested, for instance, in the case of the proto-deacons mentioned in Acts 6, Barnabas and Timothy - though some local churches might not, at that early time perhaps, have been familiar with II Timothy.
And as bishops were generally seen as the successors to the apostles, the neighbouring bishops were the obvious candidates to perform the laying on of hands with prayer - as well as symbolizing the acknowledgement of the new bishop's ministry by the wider church.
Thank you. Then how do you reconcile this with your provocative and hyperbolic references to 'magic, pipelines or mystic sacramental hot wiring'?
DeleteRob
@ Rob:
DeleteBecause my experience over rather a lot of years was that rather a lot of sincere people in the free church tradition, having no perspective on the theology of it, perceive the idea of apostolic in exactly those terms.
Which is why I set out the original core meaning of the doctrine. No point in expecting someone outside the tradition to start where you are. You have to try and pitch to where - you think! - they might be.
The danger of a purely functional pipeline theory is that it can separate the transmission of Holy Orders from the life of the Church. Look at the website of any Episcopus Vagans (most of them have them, their often grandiosely-named denominations usually having more reality in cyberspace than reality) and as likely as not you'll encounter a "pedigree" leading back to some bona fide Catholic or Orthodox prelate -- or maybe several of them, one of the obsessions of such individuals being the acquisition of multiple lines of succession. Can the sacraments exist beyond the boundaries of the Church? In simple terms Augustine said Yes and Cyprian said No, but if the latter, where do you draw the line?
Delete@ Matthew:
Delete"The danger of a purely functional pipeline theory is that it can separate the transmission of Holy Orders from the life of the Church."
I think that you make a wholly valid point. The weakness, as I see it, of western/Latin theology is its tendency to 'mechanize' the concept of divine grace; you 'do' one thing, and something else will automatically follow.
But in authentic Christian thinking, grace isn't akin to a chemical formula where, if you add one element to another, something entirely predictable must inevitably follow. Surely divine grace is intrinsically personal.
As to whether the sacraments can exist beyond the boundaries of the Church, I'd have been inclined to leave that matter to the infinite wisdom of the divine. In that context I remember George Bernanos's 'Journal d'un curé de campagne', where the curé in question finally comes to the conclusion that 'grace is everywhere'. Some things - unless there's an unambiguous need to define in the face of dubious teaching - are better left to the providence of God.
Sorry not to have come into this conversation earlier - I'm finding it very interesting and thank John for his perceptive and informative post. I think he's exactly right when he says that many outside the Catholic tradition regard Apostolic Succession in the wholly untenable and mechanistic way he describes; we'd certainly regard it as the passing-down of the Apostolic heritage of doctrine rather than as a succession of "validly ordained" people, partly because we wouldn't necessarily agree with you on the meaning of ordination in the first place! As John says, there has to be a "mechanism" for maintaining the purity and accuracy of the faith; however it's a moot point whether that discerning process is carried out through hierarchical church leaders or by the gathered 'laos' of God. Having had experience of living in Africa and knowing how oral traditions there are carried through generations, it seems very much that the knowledge and memory of the community serves as a corrective in the telling of traditional stories.
DeleteWhat John is saying seems to me somewhat similar to what Josef Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict as said in his book "God's Word" (not that I've read it!) Interestingly enough, since we've been talking a lot about Church Tradition, is something he wrote back in 1969: ""Not everything that exists in the Church must be for that reason also a legitimate tradition. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate tradition. ... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically," with Scripture serving at times as a criterion for "this indispensable criticism of tradition". In other words - I think! - tradition must not be too readily dismissed BUT it should always be placed under a critical microscope.
John Ellis: Of course we can only say where God is, not where He isn't, but there has to be some rule of thumb whereby "dodgy" sacraments are avoided. In Orthodoxy the question about any group is always "Is it canonical?", although some of them slip in and out of that status. ECOF in France is a well-known case in point (out, in and out again), as is the East African archdiocese under the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which started life as an offshoot of the non-canonical "African Orthodox Church" (see https://orthodoxwiki.org/Christopher_Reuben_Spartas).
Delete@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteYears ago I remember reading an autobiography of an Anglican priest - I forget whose! - in which he recalled an occasion in his first curacy when he was sent by his rector on an errand to a local nonconformist minister. The minister, a man in 'high middle age', greeted the young priest cordially and when the business was dispatched offered him a friendly cup of tea.
Somehow the conversation drifted on to the ecumenical issue of the moment - the Church of South India issue perhaps, or maybe the earliest steps in the Anglican-Methodist conversations - and the minister remarked that he really couldn't see what the problem was; the obvious solution was for everyone to recognize everyone else's ministry and their respective churches could get on with the practical side - formidable enough in itself - of growing together.
The young priest replied that this really wasn't an option for Anglicans - at least, many of them - because of the doctrines around apostolic succession and the grace of orders. His earnest exposition was halted by a jovial gale of laughter from the minister: 'Don't be silly, my boy! Look, you'd better get on, son - I've got some serious things to get done this morning, and I really haven't got the time to waste on daft flights of fancy like that!' And he was cheerfully escorted to the door. Perspective is everything.
But you're right - the original, and still arguably very significant, context of the notion of apostolic succession was integrity of doctrine and teaching, both in time and across the world: the 'apostolic' bit in idea of the 'four marks of the Church'.
Though another (more difficult, I guess, for those, like Baptists, who stand for an 'independent' and congegational polity to get their heads around?) mark of the Church is 'Catholic'. And also, for that matter, 'one'.
The 'Catholic' view - over against at least some 'reformed' understandings - is that the Church is in its very essence 'one', even though it necessarily manifests in a large number of individual local mini-churches across the world: 'we, being many, are one bread, one body, because we all partake of the one bread'. After all, the core meaning of 'catholic' is καθ'όλου - 'according to the whole'. Each individual local church ought only to be viewed in the context of its place within the universal whole. The whole Church in consequence has a legitimate say in the affairs of the local church, something which was represented by the involvement of neighbouring bishops in the consecration of a new 'diocesan' and ultimately by the establishment of ecclesiastical provinces overseen by an archbishop. I also seem to recall that for a long period of time in the classical period it was customary for a new bishop to send a communication to neighbouring metropolitans announcing his election and consecration, though war, weather and ecclesiastical scrapping meant that it wasn't always consistently done and the custom ultimately became obsolete. There was a specific technical term for these letters, which has now slipped from my memory!
All that contrasts pretty fundamentally with a conception of the Church grounded in a gathering of local believers who may then, voluntarily but not necessarily, choose to link themselves with other believers of similar mind in other places. The polar difference in understanding is revealed in the terminology: 'I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church' contrasts vividly with the terminology traditionally employed by parts of the reformed Christian tradition, such as 'the Union of Welsh Independents', 'the Paptist Union' and, originally back in the 1730s,'the Methodist Society'. It's a pretty formidable divergence of understanding.
Thank you. You have indeed put your finger on a grave defect in many congregationalist settings - which hasn't been helped in Baptist circles by some leaders (who ought to have known better) stressing "the independence of the local church". This of course is wrong: although we are in some ways independent, we must all be INTERdependent; I certainly regard myself as part of the wider Body of Christ and have a real problem with new churches (both independent and denominational) which plant themselves in local contexts with absolutely no reference to anyone else. I write this in the context that, yesterday and today, I've been involved in a Cytun/Churches Together in England course which included folk from many denominations ranging from Roman Catholic to Redeemed Christian Church of God!
Delete@ Baptist Trainfan:
Delete'... in Baptist circles by some leaders (who ought to have known better) stressing "the independence of the local church".'
That calls to mind someone telling me that there were, at least at one time, no less than three competing Baptist congregations in Newbridge, down in your part of the world. Ostensibly each was founded on a theological principle, but my informant, who lived locally, thought that it had been more a matter of clashing charismas and ambitions!
@ Matthew:
'Of course we can only say where God is, not where He isn't.'
My sense is that, generally, the Orthodox tradition copes with doubt, ambiguity and the frequent messiness of human situations more flexibly and pragmatically than western Christianity has tended to do. Even in the field of moral theology; an Orthodox friend of mine described how an Antiochene patriarchate priest in Syria had handled a confession of male homosexuality on the part of a member of his flock, and I was struck by the way in which he had blended consistency with traditional Christian moral teaching with an understanding and caring pastoral concern - a demonstration in action of the reiterated reference in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom to the Almighty as 'a good God who loves mankind'.
Nice picture of Justin Welby. Has he finally been found? He seems to have been missing for the last 9 months.
ReplyDeleteJon
I seem to remember him being in the paper getting his experimental vaccine; perhaps now he will be emboldened to leave his kitchen table and serve at the Lord's Table?
DeleteFurther to my previous comment Justin has issued a call to prayer for the nation. The statement that goes with it is dreadful. Take for example this sentence...
Delete"On the cross, Jesus shares the weight of our sadness."
Jesus does not share our sadness on the cross, he is punished for our sins. Justin has turned the cross into another symbol of narcissistic therapeutic deism.
Welby is merely the latest politically correct false prophet deserving of only utter contempt. Ignore her.
Delete'... he is punished for our sins.'
DeleteNot, at least when said baldly without some explanatory expansion, an understanding of the atonement which every Christian could share!
As usual, Fr Hunwicke speaks sense: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-were-minor-orders.html
ReplyDeleteSome things never change Seymour.
ReplyDeleteEnforcer
AB, some of the criticisms of the Apostolic Succession made by your learned contributors, John Ellis and Baptist on Wheels, seem rooted in theological liberalism, which Newman so famously opposed. I ask in all seriousness: Does a disbelief in the supernatural and sacramental lie behind the criticisms of sacramental grace conveyed by ordination? If so, out must go belief in miracles and in the incarnation, the greatest miracle, with the acceptance also of the Real Presence. Surely it is not suggested that ordination could be replaced by the awarding of a certificate accompanied by a slap on the back?
ReplyDeleteJust asking. I do not intend to misrepresent.
Rob
Was I criticizing apostolic succession? Certainly not my intention - I was just exploring how and why the idea seems to have first appeared within the Church. I don't see any necessary implication that doing that must invove 'disbelief in the supernatural and the sacramental'.
DeleteFor my part it's not liberal theology nor a disbelief in the supernatural, however most Baptists would plead guilty to a disbelief in sacramentalism! We'd be very wary of saying that divine grace is conveyed "mechanistically" through human acts, whether that be the laying on of hands, the immersion of baptism or the consuming of bread and wine. Rather we would see these as outward symbols of God working within us. So, for example, we would trust that a Minister of the Gospel would receive God's unction to do their work. Indeed, hands are often laid on them in prayer in ordination and induction services, though not specifically by any one member of the Church 'hierarchy' - however they would be Ministers even if the specific physical act had not taken place, as they have been 'recognised' and 'commissioned' by the wider Church and called by the local congregation.
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I have expressed myself somewhat clumsily!
John,
ReplyDeleteForgive me for pursuing this, but I thought your dismissal of the 'pipelines or mystic sacramental hot-wiring' in one of your early contributions was a reference to it.
Regards,
Rob
No worries about you 'pursuing this' - pursuing things is one of the joys of this site; and what I presume is its function, at least in part!
ReplyDeleteI can really only reiterate what I said before: Baptist Trainfan, as he acknowledges, stands in the reformed and 'congregational' tradition, and I was simply seeking to convey my awareness of where he's coming from, and trying for a moment to 'stand in his shoes'. And viewing the apostolic succession as at best mechanistic and at worst a sort of mere superstitious magic is by no means uncommon among Christians with that perspective.
And I was trying to convey that the doctrine of apostolic succession is and never was in its origins anything of that sort. The notion that when the apostolic age faded into the past the Church in the patristic period was somehow infected by pagan notions is often found in protestant thinking. Indeed, Jehovah's Witnesses peddle it vigorously on the doorstep.
And there's no doubt that the intellectual framework of late classical thought did influence theological development at least within the orbit of the Graeco-Roman world, because that was the intellectual climate of the time - it was inevitable. But the Church of that era was always concerned to ensure that its gospel was aided and illuminated by that intellectual framework, yet never subsumed into it. Some of the earliest controversies were indeed wholly rooted in that tension: the controversies around the influence of Gnostic ideas on the Christian message being perhaps the most obvious instance.
Limitations of space - this site won't accept posts of too many characters! - prompt me to resist the temptation to demonstrate my original very definite belief 'in the supernatural and the sacramental'. But if you're interested in a 'testimony' - something which our brother Baptist Trainfan would readily recognize from his tradition - which would demonstrate that, I can offer one which will probably, if I can resist being too prolix, stay within the character limitations imposed by the site!
Cofion cynnes ...
Many thanks John.
ReplyDeleteJust a little light relief here. Did anyone else notice a further two desk jobs advertised yesterday on The Llandaff Matters Web site? Salary between £32k-£38k. There'll soon be more people 'working' at The Court, Bridgend, than go to Mass on Sunday.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things which strikes me is how bureaucratic and managerial the Church in Wales seems to have become since my day. With salaries to match, I suppose.
DeleteI brought this up with Mrs O on her Misery Area Roadshow. I asked why so many people were earning more than a Deacon? Why luxury offices in the Bay? The answer was that we can afford this because the Cathedral Road office suite was sold for "many millions of pounds". Needless to say my comments were edited out of the published minutes.
DeleteSelling the family silver will only pay the £500,000 per annum rent at the new Penthouse suite in Callaghan Square for so many years.
DeleteSounds like Caiaphas' ideas on economics haven't improved since blowing her wad on the "pilgrimage" to Santiago di Compostela in preparation for the 2020 centenary.
Indeed, John Ellis. Who remembers Betty Horley? A most magnificent secretary to Bishops of Llandaff. The Ordinary of the diocese now has an Executive Assistant!
ReplyDeleteBetty Horley of Clock House.
DeleteThe dear lady will be spinning in her grave at the thought of the current shambles.
Prayers answered? I've just read Llandaff Cathedral's news letter for tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteThere is a section asking for prayers for the long term sick in the parish, including a list of names. As no prayers are asked for Mr. Capon, may we assume a return to health and work?
PP. Interesting spending in Llandaff. While Monmouth are merging roles and being more frugal. All the ADs PT, with other roles eg: Newport: AD, Bishop's Chaplain and Precentor. Mon: AD and Sir of Min/formation.
ReplyDeleteThe consultation by the bishop on MAs is open, honest and she is listening, learning and engaging. Even the flow of new clergy to open posts is good. From where it was to where it is now is better. Interesting that the new monastic groups have been suspended too. If you read the latest newsletter, it is clear that real financial accountability is now in place and the new online church focus into the future has momentum. Time will tell as a new Archbishop is appointed, but I don't think Bangor will be defacto, more likely a Gregory or one of the 3.
If anyone can think back seven years to when the Harries Report was first published, the Bench insisted that the Governing Body had approved this Report and it had to be acted upon. Recommendation 25 suggested merging Bangor and St Asaph dioceses, St Davids and Swansea and Brecon dioceses, and Llandaff and Monmouth dioceses. There would be an archbishop in Llandaff with an assistant bishop who would run the diocese. Since then, we have had appointments to St Davids, Llandaff, Monmouth and now they are looking to appoint S&B. When people complained about Misery Areas, they were told that the recommendation in the Report on this had to be implemented. Clergy who were employed to look after one parish, now find themselves looking after three or more parishes for the same stipend. Isn't it time the bench-sitters did a little more work for less money? As for the array of new posts being created, it is a sure sign that the Church in Wales is in its death throes. It is a way of looking busy, when in reality, those at the top have no vision and haven't a clue what they are doing.
DeleteSeymour
@ Seymour:
DeleteYour post reminded me of much earlier times and a satirical lament, quoted by Bishop George Reindop in his book 'No Common Task', allegedly penned by a disillusioned rural dean.
'A shepherd taken from his flock
To succour other muttons;
Without any sign of gaiters, or any extra buttons:
If you're asked to be a rural dean
You'd better far say "Nay!"
For you'll get archdeacons' work to do
Without archdeacons' pay!'
If true then of rural deans, how much more true of modern ministry area leaders. ;-)
Re Decline in the church continues:
DeleteAfter a very long interregnum the new appointment to Abergavenny has been announced:
Father John Connell of St Augustine's Rumney. According to the press release:
Fr John has been happily and civilly partnered to Claudio, his partner of ten years, since 2015.
Is that decline? I couldn't possibly comment.
Father Tom Bates moved on from Abergavenny earlier this year. He is also 'civilly partnered' so I detect an emerging acceptance of same sex relationships in parish appointments.
Cymraes yn Lloegr (with connections to Abergavenny)
Good article on over-management in the C of E by Giles Fraser: https://unherd.com/2021/02/can-the-church-cope-with-being-broke/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
ReplyDeletePP. I see the Bishop of Salisbury is to retire in July. I wonder if one so well sent to Wales of our 5 will translate?
ReplyDelete