Do Anglicans celebrate the Assumption of Mary?
Andrew Goddard writes:I was rather shocked last week to spot in my Twitter feed the post-obit tweet from the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Today nosotros marker the Feast of the #Assumption of the Blest Virgin Mary. Like Mary, allow each of us say our yes to God's call and trust the boundless love of Jesus Christ.
Information technology was a tweet alongside a video of his trip to Walsingham for its national pilgrimage back in May. I later discovered that this was the second tweet of the day on the subject from the Archbishop and that 4 hours earlier the video had been tweeted and we had been informed:
Information technology was blithesome to be at the national pilgrimage to @ShrineOLW earlier this summertime. As nosotros celebrate the #Assumption of Mary today, I pray that the example of the mother of God will draw united states of america to Jesus afresh.
Then two tweets on the aforementioned 24-hour interval making the same indicate. What was I to assume (pun intended)? I have to confess that my initial idea—given the reference to Mary saying yes to God'southward call—was that the Archbishop'due south twitter account must be run by a immature intern who had confused the assumption with the announcement (the biblically recorded business relationship of Gabriel announcing she would behave Jesus, Lk i.26–38). Or perhaps it was a recognition that many Anglicans do believe in the supposition and marking it alongside Christians of other denominations? Or was it merely a desire to highlight his recent Walsingham visit on an appropriate day in the church's calendar but which was then inappropriately named? (August fifteenthursday is in Common Worship—but not the 1662 Volume of Common Prayer, 1928 Proposed Prayer Book, or 1980 Alternative Service Volume—a festival in which Anglicans celebrate the Blessed Virgin Mary).
Apart from the reference to the assumption, the exact content of the tweets is fantabulous and uncontentious: Christ-centred exhortation based on the example of Mary who, because of his orthodox Christology, Archbishop Justin rightly calls "the female parent of God" (theotokos). This fits with his pattern of focussing on Christ and with the theme of the Walsingham Festival this year, "Do whatever he tells you" (Mary's words at the Cana hymeneals in John 2.five). As he says in the video "It's about allowing Mary to point us to Jesus and that is for me the centre of this pilgrimage".
But the basis on which these exhortations are made is surprising: that "we" were on that day "marking" or "celebrating" the "Feast of the Assumption". To clarify the multiple issues information technology is helpful to explore iii questions:
- What is the Assumption?
- Does the Church building of England mark it?
- Should nosotros be believe it and marking it?
The Assumption of Mary
The assumption of Mary refers to a belief apropos how she departed her life on world. Near this, Scripture is silent—we last encounter her at the start of Acts waiting for the Spirit. As tardily as the 4th century there was no clear church didactics about the end of her life merely shortly afterwards the Quango of Ephesus in 431, the first Council to deal explicitly with Mary, this began to change. The Council, on the basis of education about Christ every bit truly God, favoured Cyril and theotokos (God-bearer) over Nestorius and Christotokos as a designation for Mary. Following this, various accounts concerning what happened to Mary began to gain prominent circulation and the issue began to be marked by Christians. The "assumption" refers to the conventionalities that Mary's soul and body were reunited and taken to be with Christ in heaven. In the words of the 2004 Anglican-Roman Catholic (ARCIC) argument on Mary:
The feast of Mary'due south 'falling asleep' dates from the end of the 6th century, but was influenced by legendary narratives of the stop of Mary'southward life already widely in circulation. In the W, the most influential of them are the Transitus Mariae. In the Due east the feast was known equally the 'dormition', which implied her decease merely did not exclude her being taken into sky. In the West the term used was 'assumption', which emphasized her being taken into sky just did not exclude the possibility of her dying. Belief in her assumption was grounded in the promise of the resurrection of the dead and the recognition of Mary's dignity as Theotókos and 'Always Virgin', coupled with the conviction that she who had borne Life should exist associated to her Son'southward victory over death, and with the glorification of his Torso, the Church (para 40).
This belief continued to exist of import in much popular piety and in formal celebrations. Tim Perry in his fantabulous Mary for Evangelicals (IVP, 2006, see also his The Blessed Virgin Mary with Daniel Kendall, SJ) notes that "By the eighth century, the assumption was widely and popularly believed, even if not officially approved" (p 240). Although the Reformation is ordinarily seen as rejecting much of the church's belief and exercise in relation to Mary, the reality was slightly more than complex. Many leading Reformers, for example, held non just to the biblically authorised doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ but to her perpetual virginity. Zwingli kept the Marian festivals, including the Supposition, in the metropolis of Zurich. In this connected credence of the assumption, nonetheless, he was unusual, and most Anglicans rejected the supposition or held it as adiaphora. Paul Williams in his study of Mary in the Anglican tradition (in Mary: The Complete Resource edited past Tina Beattie and Sarah Jane Boss, hither at p251) notes Tyndale (1494–1536) was particularly vehement:
Of what text 1000 provest hell, will another show purgatory; another limbo patrum; and another the assumption of our lady: and another shall bear witness of the same text that an ape hath a tail….
Equally pertaining to our lady's body, where information technology is, or where the trunk of Elias, of John the evangelist, and many other be, pertaineth not to us to know. Ane matter we are sure of, that they are where God hath laid them. If they are in hyevaen, nosotros take never the more in Christ: if they exist not there, nosotros accept never the less … as for me, I commit all such matters unto those idle bellies, which have nought else to do than to move such questions; and requite them free freedom to concur what they list, as long equally it hurteth not he faith, whether it be and so or no:…
He as well cites Whitaker (1548–95) who commented:
The papists celebrate the feast of the assumption of the blessed virgin Mary with the utmost honor, and the Rhemists in their notes on Acts 1 praise this custom exceedingly: yet Jerome, in his book to Paula and Eustochium, concerning the assumption of the blessed virgin, says that 'what is told about the translation of her body is apocryphal'…
The place of the assumption of Mary thus marked a clear difference between Protestant (including Anglican) and Roman Catholic theology, liturgy and piety. The growth in Marian visions from the mid-19th century onwards gave added back up for many Catholics to the conventionalities of Mary's assumption and force per unit area grew for information technology to become formal church teaching. Mary was specially of import in the spirituality and teaching of Pope Pius XII and in November 1950 in Munificentissimus Deus he officially defined the dogma (para 44):
By the dominance of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authorisation, we pronounce, declare, and define it to exist a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the always Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed torso and soul into heavenly glory.
The following paragraph added:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into incertitude that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Cosmic Organized religion.
It is therefore unsurprising that the 1981 ARCIC study Potency in the Church building II stated:
The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption heighten a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture. For many Anglicans the teaching authority of the bishop of Rome, independent of a council, is non recommended by the fact that through it these Marian doctrines were proclaimed as dogmas binding on all the faithful. Anglicans would also enquire whether, in whatever future union between our ii Churches, they would be required to subscribe to such dogmatic statements (para. 30).
Do Anglicans mark the Assumption?
The tweets say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is joining with others ("Nosotros") to "mark the Feast of the #Supposition of the Blessed Virgin Mary" and "celebrate the #Assumption of Mary today". The trouble is that at that place is no such marker or celebration within the Church of England and there has not been for 470 years.
Baronial 15th is, since Mutual Worship, a festival in which we recollect the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is also the day in which the Roman Catholic Church has the solemnity of the Assumption and the Orthodox Church marks the Dormition. This has, however, never in the post-Reformation Church of England been a celebration or mark of the assumption and in fact the festival may be celebrated on September 8th instead (when the church building traditionally marks the nascence of Mary).
As we take seen, Anglicans and other churches of the Reformation had significant problems with aspects of Marian piety and teaching, in detail the supposition. These theological disagreements led to changes in Anglican liturgy where in 1549 and 1552 the Calendar initially removed all Marian feasts except the Declaration and Purification (both events mentioned in the gospels). This just changed in 1561 when, in the words of Colin Podmore, speaking at Walsingham on Mary and the Anglican Tradition:
The Calendar of 1561 is of crucial importance considering information technology saw the return, after those brief breaks that I mentioned, of three of the Marian feasts. From 1561 onwards the Church of England once again marked Our Lady's Conception on viii December, her Nativity on eight September, and the Visitation on 2 July. Only the Assumption remained excluded. (Italics added).
Paul Williams similarly notes in his business relationship of the 1561 changes that "the conspicuous continuing omission is the Assumption, which disappeared from Anglican worship in 1549". He then adds "only partially to return in some twentieth century Anglican calendars".
I am unclear whether any Anglican calendars actually formally celebrate the assumption on this 24-hour interval (I'd be surprised but am willing to be proved incorrect). The connections made to it liturgically conspicuously vary in different provinces. Indeed, on careful scrutiny, I discovered (to my surprise) that the Church of England's own liturgy goes quite some way to help those Anglicans who do believe in the assumption in the fashion it frames the liturgy for August xvth.
The Church of England collect could be read every bit affirming a special glorious place in heaven at present to Mary. However, it need not be read as such particularly in the light of other prayers referring to the departed in Church of England liturgy (on which more generally meet here) in which we pray "co-ordinate to your promises, grant us with them a share in your eternal kingdom":
Almighty God, who didst await upon the lowliness of the Blest Virgin Mary and didst choose her to be the mother of thy only Son: grant that we who are redeemed by his blood may share with her in the glory of thine eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, i God, now and for ever.
The set readings similarly include some passages which have been traditionally read in support of the assumption, several of which are used in the Roman Cosmic Lectionary on August fifteenth:
- Psalm 132 is the Psalm for the 2d Service. Its verse 8—"'Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might"—was oft cited in Christian tradition with the ark as a type of Mary in defences of the assumption of Mary to exist with her ascended son.
- Psalm 45:x–17 is the Psalm for the Principal Service. This has been read as, in the words of Pius XII in his encyclical pronouncing the dogma, describing Mary "as the Queen inbound triumphantly into the royal halls of sky and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer".
- The Old Attestation reading of Isaiah 61.x, 11 also could have on new meanings in the context of conventionalities in the assumption: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a benedict decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels".
- Combined with the above texts and figural/typological hermeneutic, the New Testament lesson of Revelation xi.xix–12.6, ten opening with "Then God's temple in sky was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant" would exist seen as further confirmation of Mary'south heavenly presence, now aslope "her child…snatched upwardly to God and to his throne".
- Although Song of Solomon 2.1–7 (for the 2nd Service) is not every bit prominent as other texts from the Song in traditional attempts to defend the doctrine from Scripture (the 1950 papal encyclical refers to 3.vi, 4.8 and 6.9) one can see that the words "Permit him lead me to the feast hall, and let his banner over me be love" could also hands have on new meanings once read with the woman of the Song as a type of Mary if one believes the assumption.
The Episcopal Church in the US as well remembers Mary (simply equally Saint Mary the Virgin: Female parent of Our Lord Jesus Christ) on August fifteenthursday and although it also does not speak of "the Feast of the Assumption" its collect (besides used in the Scottish Episcopal Church (p 37) and in the new ACNA BCP) points even more strongly to Mary'southward assumption than that in the Church building of England:
O God, you have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary, female parent of your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who take been redeemed by his claret, may share with her the glory of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with y'all, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, i God, at present and for e'er. Amen.
In brusk, despite the Archbishop's tweets and a certain amount of conscientious ambiguity in liturgical wording and selection of readings, "nosotros" in the Church of England do not take a Feast of the Assumption and have not had since 1549. That is because we do not believe in the doctrine of the Assumption.
Should nosotros believe in the Assumption?
Information technology is beyond question that a number of Anglicans do believe in the Supposition of Mary, perhaps even in the form expressed in the 1950 encyclical. This has been true not just of more than catholic Anglicans such equally E.Fifty. Mascall but even of those who might be viewed as more liberal theologically such every bit John Macquarrie who gave a detailed biographical account (in his Mary for All Christians (T&T Clark, 2001 (2nd edn), pp. 82–96) of his journey to the place where "I have come up to see the dogma of the Supposition as the expression in appropriate theological symbols of some of the nearly hopeful affirmations of the Christian organized religion". Evangelical New Attestation scholar, John Wenham, could as well say at a Mariological conference at Walsingham, in a paper and so published by Churchman in 1972:
Finally, I see Mary as our forerunner in heaven. I cannot quite accept the dogma of the Assumption as promulgated in 1950, but I tin very nearly. I do non think that there is evidence that her earthly body saw no corruption—I find it very hard to believe that she of a sudden disappeared and that this amazing miracle was not widely known in the Early on Church—merely I practise believe that clothed in her spiritual body, she in her full humanity was taken into heaven.
Yet, every bit already noted, the Church of England since the Reformation have never formally accepted the assumption of Mary and this has been ane of the major divides with Rome (and, in some importantly different ways, with Eastern Orthodox belief). In an attempt to address this, in 2004 ARCIC produced a report on Mary and the Marian dogmas which ended
that the didactics about Mary in the ii definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the education of the Scriptures and the ancient mutual traditions (paragraph lx).
This was simply ane of a number of controversial claimed agreements in the document. Information technology is of import that, in the ARCIC report'southward ain words, "It is non an authoritative annunciation by the Roman Cosmic Church or by the Anglican Communion". In fact, the Church of England's Faith and Order Advisory Grouping produced a helpful set up of rather critical papers in 2008 including ones from an evangelical perspective by Martin Davie (pp 49–65 and besides in Anvil) and David Hilborn (pp 84–90). In February 2011, Full general Synod passed the following very cautious move from the Council for Christian Unity and rejected an amendment explicitly welcoming the report:
That this Synod, affirming the aim of Anglican – Roman Catholic theological dialogue "to discover each other's faith every bit it is today and to appeal to history only for enlightenment, not as a way of perpetuating past controversy" (Preface to The Terminal Report, 1982), and in the light of recent steps towards setting up ARCIC 3:
(i) note the theological assessment of the ARCIC report Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ in the FOAG conference paper GS 1818 equally a contribution to further dialogue;
(ii) welcome exploration of how far Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common organized religion and spirituality, based on the Scriptures and the early Ecumenical Councils, with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary;
(3) asking that, in the context of the quest for closer unity between our two communions, further joint study of the bug identified in GS 1818 be undertaken – in particular, the question of the authority and condition of the Roman Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Supposition of the Blessed Virgin Mary for Anglicans; and
(4) encourage Anglicans to report the report with ecumenical colleagues and in detail, wherever possible, with their Roman Catholic neighbours.
Information technology therefore cannot be claimed that post-obit the ARCIC Study the Church of England has accepted the doctrine of the assumption.
For evangelicals there is certainly the need for a rediscovery of Mary'due south importance afterwards frequently over-reacting against the place she is given in Catholic education and piety. There are signs of this happening as in Timothy George'due south 2007 article, Tim Perry's volume and the 2009 Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) statement on Mary taking the same title equally the Walsingham Festival this yr. As Perry writes, "nosotros can and should affirm the role of God's grace throughout Mary's life, and then that, every bit a outcome of such grace, she is indeed an example to believers and that her example precisely is her grace-enabled perseverance" (p. 285). However, that sentence from Perry begins "While immaculate conception and actual assumption are notions closed to traditional Protestants…" and, every bit Davie and Hilborn point out, there are skillful reasons why this is so and should remain the example. Even if evangelicals need to recover a proper identify for Mary in their theology, that identify needs to exist biblically and theologically defensible and so cannot embrace Mary's assumption into heaven equally part of the teaching of the church.
Hilborn sums upwardly the three classic evangelical objections to the Roman Catholic educational activity on the assumption: the lack of biblical potency (as illustrated above, the claimed biblical support depends on peculiar readings of particular texts into which belief in the assumption is read); its relatively late doctrinal development; and its detraction from a focus on Christ.
Davie looks at alleged biblical precedents for Mary'south assumption (as opposed to the typological and figural readings noted above) such as Elijah or Enoch but and then notes that
there is nothing in the Bible to propose that what happened to these two individuals provides a precedent for the fate of either Mary or whatever other Christian believer. In the New Testament the only person who enters into glory in body and soul prior to the final resurrection of the dead is Christ Himself and there is no suggestion that this volition be truthful of anyone else… there is no general biblical blueprint of especially godly people existence assumed body and soul into sky that could then employ to Mary: in the Bible itself what happened to Enoch and Elijah is seen as exceptional rather than normative.
He besides highlights that while it is true that believers take been with raised with Christ already, "we shall merely experience this fully at the finish of time. (Rom. 8:18–25; 2 Cor. v:1–5) and so we distort the biblical pattern if nosotros advise that "in Mary at least this tension has already been overcome". Even more seriously, in that location is the chance that in talking of Mary's assumption nosotros give to her "a role that in the New Testament belongs solely to Christ. In the New Attestation it is Christ and not Mary or anyone else who foreshadows what will exist when the new creation is revealed".
As the ECT statement says, applying the Church of England's Article vi, on the sufficiency of Scripture, to the assumption:
At i level, the doctrine of Mary's bodily supposition applies to Mary what the Bible declares to have happened to the prophets Enoch and Elijah—that she was taken into heaven, torso and soul, at the end of her earthly life. In this way, Mary is believed to have predictable what many Evangelicals refer to as the rapture of the Church at the return of Christ. Mary's supposition presupposes a number of things that are indeed a part of our common Christian confession: the reality of sky; the communion of saints; the overcoming of expiry; the resurrection of the flesh; the sure triumph of Jesus Christ over sin, hell, and the grave; belief in the literal, visible render of Christ in glory; the goodness of creation; and the unity of soul and trunk for all eternity. None of these biblical truths, however, requires belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, which is without biblical warrant (the vision of Revelation 12:1-half-dozen says nothing about Mary's body being taken into heaven) and has no basis in the early Christian tradition.
The apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950), in which Pope Pius XII promulgated the dogma of the assumption, does non take a position with respect to Mary's death, yet this is a question of some theological importance. If Mary was taken to sky without expiry in the way of Enoch and Elijah, was this because her body was incorruptible and thus not subject to the fact that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23)? On the other hand, if she actually died (without having sinned) and and then was raised from the dead to heavenly celebrity, then her resurrection would seem to be parallel to that of Christ who lone died and rose once again for our justification (Rom. 4:24-25). Both opinions are present in the apocryphal writings that form the basis of later legends (such every bit Christ's surrender of the heavenly kingdom to Mary at her coronation in glory), only it seems prudent to follow here the silence of the Scriptures and the reticence of the Church Fathers of the showtime three centuries.
In brusk, there is absolutely no biblical evidence for Mary'south assumption. The biblical truths that information technology is claimed to be consonant with and to bring to a focus are either truths which relate uniquely to Christ or to all believers. At that place is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the pattern and effect of Mary's departure from this life was whatsoever unlike from that of any other faithful follower of her son. To claim there is theological rationale for distinguishing her journey from ours is, furthermore, to make a biblically unwarranted distinction which risks detracting from the unique work of the Saviour she diameter. Information technology is through Jesus' total humanity that our human being nature has been redeemed and entered into glory and it is Jesus who in his person as truly God and truly homo now intercedes for united states of america at the Father's right hand.
Determination
Predictably, responses on Twitter and elsewhere showed how divided Christians remain in relation to Mary. The Archbishop'south tweets and scenes in the video delighted some and enraged others. Some responses highlighted how Christians neglect to engage with each other well or respect different traditions, something Archbishop Justin consistently challenges as he urges us to disagree well. Others, presuming he sends or approves all his tweets himself (which is often not the example for high profile figures), offered their own assessments of Archbishop Justin in the calorie-free of how they already viewed him. These too were non always charitable.
The first cardinal question, however, is simply whether the tweets were correct in what they said about the assumption. They are right if the "We" refers to "some Christians" rather than "We in the Church of England" or "Nosotros Anglicans" although the terminology favours the Roman Catholic West over the Orthodox Due east (it would have been better for i tweet to utilise "Assumption" and the next to speak of "Dormition" if that was the intention). But "we" in the Church building of England (and the overwhelming majority, possibly the whole, of the Anglican Communion) have no such Feast. We do not as a church building believe in what the Banquet marks in other parts of the church. In suggesting otherwise, the tweets therefore significantly misrepresented Anglican doctrine and practice.
The next question is whether whatsoever of this matters. In one sense this could all be dismissed as making a mountain of an article out of a molehill of a few words in a couple of tweets. Merely that is to forget the significance of what appears in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, even on Twitter, if it touches on matters of theological controversy.
Another reason it matters is the deeper issue of different approaches to issues on which the church building is divided. We cannot and should non deny that unlike traditions exist and that some of our divisions arise from doctrinal disagreements which are long-continuing and significant. Attempts are, withal, sometimes made to achieve greater Christian unity past going downward that path simply ultimately this undermines ecumenical endeavours. The ARCIC report on Mary failed to be received by the Church of England in big function because the Anglicans involved in information technology were not honest about the real differences, including on the assumption of Mary. It is therefore not surprising if some read the "We" in the tweets as suggesting that celebrating the Feast of the Assumption is part of the teaching and pattern of Church building of England worship or implying such doctrinal disagreements are unreal, unsubstantial or unimportant. This understandably upsets and offends many faithful Anglicans, adding fuel to some of the already fiery disputes.
Unity among Anglicans and ecumenically is much better served by being clear about, explaining, and exploring our different beliefs and practices and then seeking to deepen mutual understanding and bonds of Christian love across our doctrinal divides. Ten years ago, Evangelicals and Catholics Together sought to follow this path in relation to Mary and their joint statement ends with these powerful words:
Every bit brothers and sisters in Christ who are in lively communion with the saints on earth and the saints in heaven, we together pray—in words Richard John Neuhaus composed for us before he died:
Almighty and gracious God, Male parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who was in the fullness of time born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from whom he received our human being nature by which, through his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection, he won our conservancy, accept, we beseech you, our giving thanks for the witness of Mary's faith and the backbone of her obedience.
Grant to us, we pray, the faithfulness to stand up with her by the cross of your Son in his redemptive suffering and the suffering of your pilgrim Church on earth. Past the gift of your Spirit, increase within united states a lively sense of our communion in your Son with the saints on earth and the saints in heaven. May she who is the first disciple be for usa a model of faith'south response to your volition in all things; may her "Let information technology be with me according to your word" be our constant prayer; may her "Practise whatever he tells you" arm-twist from us a more perfect give up of obedience to her Lord and ours.
Go along to atomic number 82 us, we pray, into a more than manifest unity of faith and life so that the world may believe and those whom yous have chosen may, with the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, rejoice forever in your glory. This we enquire in the proper noun of Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and forever.
Amen.
If you lot enjoyed this, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot have valued this mail service, would you lot considerdonating £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If y'all enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot have valued this post, you lot can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Proficient comments that appoint with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful debate, tin can add real value. Seek first to empathise, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/do-anglicans-celebrate-the-assumption-of-mary/
0 Response to "Do Anglicans celebrate the Assumption of Mary?"
Publicar un comentario