Interview with a Catholic Teen from the Philippines
Interview with a Catholic Teen from the Philippines
by Ringo Rodriguez and A.L.
Interview: Part 1
I will be posting interviews from a high school Catholic from the Philippines for the next couple of days. The person wanted to gain an insight on how Catholic teenagers in different countries like America view things.
Ringo Rodriguez = R, A = A
R: What do you think is the biggest problem with teenagers today?
A: I think the biggest problem is teenagers not knowing what the purpose of life is. Many of them have not examined their life. And as Socrates said, "An unexamined life is not worth living." Since they have not examined their life, they really don't know where to go. And so they go to things such as sex and drugs as if it will solve their problems and as if that's the only thing in life. Most of them get drunk every weekend or anytime they have a chance to do so or get high. Life to them is basically trying to get as much thrills as they can. This is a big problem because in the long run, they will find out that life is not about thrills. They will find out that sex and drugs will never give them happiness. It may satisfy their passions and bodily desires, but it does not satisfy them. This is why most of teenagers, especially girls, are depressed. They want happiness but they are looking for it in wrong places.
R: What is the difference between boys and girls?
A: Boys want pleasure and girls want intimacy. Girls want love and boys simply want to get "some." When a guy tells a girl he loves her, the girl thinks foolishly and think he truly wants love. The guy of course does not look at a girl as a person, but as an object, an instrument for pleasure. Most girls know this. However, they still fall into the trap because they don't think. They would rather go with their passions rather than their head. Boys tempt girls and girls fall for it.
R: What is the solution to this problem?
A: The solution to this problem and to everything is Jesus Christ. We need to tell them that the only way they can find happiness is in Jesus. Bishops, priests, and parents need to teach them that the reason why we can't find happiness in the material and the finite is because we were made for another. We are made for the infinite. And only the Infinite God can give us that. We need to produce new men for the world. We need to produce not "men without chests," but men with Hearts. That is, men which have their eyes fixed on the Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart. Also, the devout Catholic teenagers need to be examples. They need to live out their faith. They need to be the light of the world. We teenagers love to be counter-cultural. And this is the best time to be counter-cultural because the culture we would be countering is the culture of death.
R: What do you think of the state of the Church today?
A: I don't think it is in a good state. Though it cannot prevail against her, hell exists outside as well as inside the Church. There isn't really a new problem. The problem is dissent. We have many people who dissent from the faith because of misunderstandings of Vatican 2 and because of their man-made tradition. The problem is the "spirit of Vatican 2" which has nothing to do with Vatican 2 and the "spirit of pre-Vatican 2" which has nothing to do with pre-Vatican 2. The people who argue for the "spirit of Vatican 2" thinks Vatican 2 changed Church teachings and forget Tradition altogether. I would also argue that they never read any of Vatican 2 documents. The "spirit of pre-Vatican 2" is basically a notion that everything before Vatican 2 is fine and dandy and Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 has no authority over them. It means that their interpretation of Tradition transcends the Church's authority.
R: Which do you think is more of a threat?
A: Well, both is a threat. However, I believe the liberals, that is, those who believe in the "spirit of Vatican 2" are more dominate in the Church today. Their errors need to be condemned. However, there are people who think labeling themselves "traditionalist" will make everything better. Many people now label the Pope or past Popes as "rightists" or "leftists." And this I believe is wrong because the Church is neither "right" or "left." She is always in the middle. The Church will only look like she is toward the left if the person is on the right and the Church will only look like she is toward the right when the person is on the left. The true Catholic however, is with the Church and in the same mind with the Church. He is neither right or left. The romance of the true Catholic is never moving right or left, but staying in the middle.
R: Knowing the problems, can there be hope for the future of the Church?
A: Of course. There is always hope because the Church has her eyes fixed on Christ. Many people are asking where the "new springtime" is. I believe the new springtime is near.
R: Wait, why do you believe that?
A: Because we are under a winter right now, a rough winter. The Church is carrying a heavy cross right now. And every cross has a resurrection.
R: And what do you think this springtime will consist of?
A: I have more of a Ratzingerian view of the springtime. I believe it will not be a lot of conversions, but small convinced communities. These communities will be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. It won't be a lot, but it will be enough to destroy the Dark Age. It will produce new men; men with Hearts.
R: What is the difference between the Church in the Philippines and the Church in America?
A: I can't give you an absolute answer because I really don't know. However, I can tell you what I have experienced. In the Philippines, it is more charismatic. Filipinos love to sing and dance. They love to praise God. They also love to celebrate feast days by having festivals and parades. They are deeply devoted to the saints, especially our Blessed Mother. Here in America, it is more secular and we don't value family as Filipinos do. There are some positive things about devout Catholics here in America. One being Catholics, the devout ones, are more catechized. They know more about the faith. Filipinos on the other hand, I believe, are more devout in their practices. I think what distinguishes Americans and Filipinos would be reverence. Filipinos have a great sense of reverence.
R: Are there any negative things about the Catholics in the Philippines?
A: I can't say. However, I believe that they should not be influenced by the Western World. The Western World has become anti-Western lately. They have abandoned their Christian roots.
R: You talk about what the Catholics here should not do. However, what advice would you give them that we should do?
A: Pray for us.
R: Let's talk about a different subject. Let's talk about ecumenism. What is your view on ecumenism?
A: My view is the same as the Church's. Ecumenism is a good thing if it is taken properly. Ecumenism basically means that both sides present their gifts, the truths they have discovered. It means that both sides have a desire for Truth, for the fullness of truth and they are willing to discover it or help the other discover it. This does not mean that we should ignore our differences. We know that there are differences and disagreements. However, how we act upon those differences and disagreement is the issue. Should we become hard-hearted and condemn the people right away? No. We should look at those differences in a charitable matter. We should look at those differences and say, "Okay, here are our differences. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit guide us to Truth." As Pope John Paul II said, "...these disagreements should be faced in a sincere spirit of fraternal charity, of respect for the demands of one's own conscience and of the conscience of the other party, with profound humility and love for the truth. (Ut unum sint, 39)"
R: So it does not mean everything what is good for you is good for me and walk and hold each other's hands.
A: It means an open desire for Truth wherever it leads us, even if it leads us to the Catholic Church. It means a desire for full communion with our brothers and sisters in sister chuches and ecclesial communities so that we can worship the one true God in one house and to receive God Himself.
R: You used the word "communion." Why not conversion? Don't non-Catholics have to convert to the Church? Don't they have to become Catholic?
A: Being a Catholic is a continuous conversion. It is a continuous walk with God. So both parties need to "convert" in that sense. John Paul II in Allocution of January 21, 1996 said that a true ecumenism "consists in a continuous effort of prayer and conversion." The word "convert" is also misleading to people especially our Eastern brothers and sisters. To them, to "convert" means to give up their traditions and practices and become "Roman." Of course this is not what we mean. However, since so many people are confused and are misled about it, the Church has used a better word, which is "unity." This means that they can still keep their traditions and their practices and as particular churches, be in communion with Rome.
R: So ecumenism is the means and the end is communion with Rome.
A: The end is full communion with God and ecumenism and communion with Rome, explicitly or implicitly, are the means and the latter is the only means to that end
R: How important is ecumenism?
A: In this Dark Age, it is very important especially in America. America has become very secular and the effect of it is evil. We need a unity of religious people who have the desire to fight this darkness. We may have differences, but we have the same conviction that the Dark Age should end and we have to work on this same conviction. I believe the more we are together fighting for peace, that is, true peace which is found in Jesus Christ, the more we will experience a communion with each other though imperfect. This experience should then lead us to perfect communion.
R: You said before that the springtime will produce "men with Hearts." One of the "hearts" is the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Don't you think Mary is a stumbling block for Protestants?
A: It is but it shouldn't be. Remember, ecumenism is a desire for Truth wherever it leads us. If it leads us to Mary, then we should accept it. Also, Mary has been honored by the Protestant Reformers themselves. If Protestants want to be faithful to the principles of their fathers, then they should have no problem with accepting Mary as their Mother. In the Gospel of Matthew, you remember that Mary was said to have no children "until" the birth of Jesus. Did Mary had other children? Yes. It is us. Jesus gave Mary to us. Did He not say, "Behold, your Mother"? I would invite Protestants to accept the gift Jesus gave us. In a world where women kills not only babies, but mothers because of "choice," we need a Mother for guidance and comfort. We need a Mother to lead us to the Son.
R: We will talk more about Mary later on. Let's talk about dialogue with Muslims. I read your article On Dialogue with Muslims and you said, "Dialogue may not have made Muslims re-think their opposition to Catholicism, but it did make them re-think about Catholics. Their respect for John Paul made them respect other Catholics. And it may be a minority of them, but John Paul has implanted a seed, which is love and respect. And this seed will grow and it will spread...They already love God, though they lack love of neighbor. The only way to convert Muslims is to fill up what they are lacking. Dialogue will make them re-think about Catholics. And by re-thinking their relationship to Catholics, they will see that Catholics love God and also their neighbor. By seeing this, they will ask themselves if one can truly love God without loving their neighbor. They will see that a true submission to God -- an "Islam" -- includes loving our neighbor." Do you still believe this?
A: Yes I do.
R: Is this simply idealistic though? I see in places like the Middle East and here in the Philippines Muslims murdering Catholics. These people are close-minded people who have no desire for truth. How can we have a dialogue with them?
A: I believe that people can change. Here in America, most Muslims don't bomb buildings. What we need to do is to have a dialogue with people like these, people who are open-minded and tell them that suicide bombings is not an act of love of either God or neighbor. We need to encourage them to love their neighbor. We may not convince a lot of people. We may convince only a few. But we need to work with that few. A few can turn to great multitudes with God's help just like us Christians. We need not Muslims without chests, heads, feet, and hands, but Muslims with Hearts. We need to show them to Christ.
R: How do we show them to Christ?
A: Muslims believe in peace. And we can work from there. We need to show them by example that we do love them. I think we can also go on further. Muslims have a great devotion to Our Blessed Mother. If our eyes are fixed on the Immaculate Heart, I don't see why Our Blessed Mother cannot help us. I don't see why she cannot bring peace between Catholics and Muslims. And should we not "share" this love for Our Blessed Mother with Muslims? Is not Mary the Mother of all men? When we say "Our" Blessed Mother, why should we need include Muslims? Then, Mary can lead us from there.
R: Final question. You keep on talking about "men with Hearts." What is the first step towards this?
A: Besides prayer, the first step is an existential communion. This simply means that before we "act together with others," we need to "exist with the people." What does this mean? Jacques Maritain said, "To exist with... means loving someone in the sense of becoming one with him, of bearing his burdens, of living a common moral life with him, of feeling with him and suffering with him." It is a continuous communion with the people. Even if evil people arise, we should not separate ourselves from them. We need to condemn their actions, but we should never separate ourselves from them. In other words, we need to continuously be a neighbor to them. Only when we "exist with the people" can ecumenism, inter-religious, and multi-religious dialogues be fruitful. And with the grace of God, a civilization of love and peace will come to be. There will be new men, men with Hearts. And when we see this happening, we will know that the Hearts of Jesus and Mary are reigning.
R: Let's talk about the Liturgy. You said in your article "The Relationship of the Cross and the Mass," "Take away the Mass, and Christianity would be the same as other world religions, trying to reach God. But Christianity is God reaching for our hearts." What do you mean by this?
A: In other religions, people worship God by trying to "ascend" to Him. It is man making a quest for God. I find trouble in this and so did Aristotle. Aristotle said that friendship between man and God is impossible because the "gap" is too big. And it is. How can a finite being like man reach an Infinite Being like God? If religion is merely "trying to reach God," then we really cannot reach Him. Man would end up in despair because of his inability to reach God. But there is one thing which Aristotle did not see and this is because he probably never imagined it to ever becoming true. He is right that man cannot reach God. But can't God reach man? Of course He can. This is too good to be true. God the Almighty, the all-Powerful, descending to us so that we can form a friendship with Him. This happens everyday when we go to Mass. God comes to us! And that is the essence of Christianity. God came to me! God came to me, and keeps on coming to me so that I can be friends with Him. God came to me so that I may spend all my life with Him. This is the difference between Christianity and other religions. In other religions, man makes a quest for God. In Christianity, God makes a quest for man.
R: And this happens only when we go to Mass.
A: No. God comes to us in different ways, but in a unique way, He especially comes to us in the Liturgy.
R: How is it unique?
A: God is always present. He is present in nature and in people. He is not nature or the people, but He is present in them just as Bach is "present" in his music. He also comes to us through the Scriptures and Tradition. In those two instruments of revealed Word, He has revealed Himself. This for starters should be a great thing. God, the great Almighty, reveals His Being, His Personality to us! However, in the Liturgy, He is present to us...Literally. When the priest says, "This is my Body," it becomes His Body.
R: So it's not just a symbol?
A: No. It is not a symbol. It is not Jesus and bread. It is Jesus. What you see in the altar is Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God. As St. John Chrysostom said, "How many now say, 'I wish I could see his shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!" Did not Jesus say, "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink"? Or are the words "true food" false?
R: But if you look around, you will see many problems. Many people are abusing the Liturgy. What do you think is the cause of this?
A: I think the cause is not knowing what the Liturgy actually is. Yes, it is when the community gather together to praise God. Yes, it is when the community show their communion with each other. But it is more than that. The Liturgy is a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice for our sins. It is not a different sacrifice, but the same sacrifice of the Cross. It is the Cross applied to us. When we are at Mass, we are standing under the foot of the Cross. So before we try to be creative and try to please ourselves, we need to remember that we are under the foot of the Cross. Would we do the things we do at Mass what we would do if we are on Calvary 2000 years ago? But is not the Mass Calvary today? So I think the cause is the lack of realization of what the Mass really is.
R: So you don't think the Novus Ordo is the cause of all this?
A: No, I don't think so.
R: Some argue that the Novus Ordo gave room to abuses.
A: Well, I can also say that hyperdulia, the honor given to Mary, gave room to abuses. There were people who actually worshipped Mary, which the Church has condemned. We need to judge on the thing itself, whether it be the Novus Ordo, hyperdulia, or papal infallibility. The Church believes that the Novus Ordo is now the normal liturgy of the Church. So we have to obey.
R: Do you think bringing Latin in would be a help?
A: Yes. More Latin in the Mass would make us experience "catholicity."
R: But you believe the Novus Ordo is fine.
R: How about the reception of the Eucharist? Hand or tongue?
A: I remember that in the Philippines, tongue is required. I believe that the reception of the Eucharist by the tongue is a great development of reverence through the centuries. However, this does not mean that receiving Christ by the hand is irreverent since this was done in the Early Church.
R: Final thoughts on the Liturgy?
A: It's hard because there is a lot to say.
R: I know.
A: I would say that the Liturgy is what transforms hearts into Immaculate and Sacred Hearts. It is where we participate in the sufferings in Christ. And the more we participate in His sufferings, the more we come to know Him. And the more we come to know Him, the more we can be like Him. And the more we can be like Him, the more we can say, "I no longer live, but Christ who lives in me."
R: Let's talk about the Church, particularly the Papacy. As you know, the doctrine of the Papacy is what divides the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. How would you explain the doctrine of the Papacy?
A: I think the fault is on both sides. Some Catholics, not the Church, limit the word "authority" in a legal way. Of course there are legal aspects, but we should not limit it to it. I also understand that this was done because when the Church usually emphasize a particular point, some people limit it to that point. For example, when the Church emphasized the legal aspects of the Church at the time of the schism between the East and the West and the Reformation, some people limited the idea of "Church" into a mere hierarchology, over-emphasizing authority. So whenever people hear the word "Church," they immediately think of the political structure of the Church, the hierarchy. This is also true of Eastern Orthodox churches. However, this is a misunderstanding of what authority means. Authority should not be limited to "power." Authority should be understood in terms of service. The Pope, with St. Peter, as the foundation of the Church, must "hold up" the Church just as any foundation would hold the building up. A foundation is usually close to the ground. And since the Pope is the foundation, he must lower himself just as a foundation is lower than the bulding. He is a servant and he must carry the Church. At the same time, we must rest on the foundation and be obedient to it. So there is a mutual service between churches though have different types. The other churches serve in the sense of resting on the foundation, while the Church of Rome must stay low and uphold the Church.
R: But you are not denying the legal aspects of the Church right?
A: No of course not. Remember that in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom. Scholars, both Catholics and non-Catholics know that Matthew is speaking in a Jewish context. Remember Peter had just proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah. The Jews then know that the Messiah is the King God promised to them. And so Jesus, acting as the Davidic King, told him that He would hand him the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, which is always used in respect of Halakhic decisions.
R: And this proves the legal aspects of the Church.
A: Yes. But at the same time, we should also remember that the Pope also has the obligation to feed His sheep. The Pope should realize that he has universal jurisdiction for a purpose, for Somebody. He has the universal jurisdiction from Christ and for Christ, that he will feed His sheep.
R: Feeding the sheep means being a servant to the people.
R: What about the people other than the Pope?
A: Again, we must be obedient to the Pope. The Pope is our Holy Father. Whenever we say something about him, we must always recognize that he is our father. Would we say the things we say about him as we would to our fathers? We must support him and obey him, even if we do not understand or disagree with him. Obedience is a total self-giving. It is a sacrifice. It is an act of humility and love. When we think he has done something wrong, we must think of what Cardinal Newman said: "His yoke is the yoke of Christ, he has the responsibility of his own acts, not we; and to his Lord must he render account, not to us...Our duty is...to follow him wither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all corners, as a son would a father, and as a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God." So there is a mutual service, a true communion.
R: Let's move on to the Ratzinger-Kasper debate. Can you shed some light and give us your opinions?
A: I don't know if I can bring forth light, but I can certainly give my opinions. Remember that I am no theologian, so my knowledge is limited. First, Pope John Paul II, in the recent Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis section 8, seem to side with Ratzinger on the debate. This could mean, as my friend Shawn McElhinney said, that there is no more room for debate because once a Pope takes a position, there can be no more debate about it as Pope Pius XII said. That being said, I understand Kasper's position. He is against the hierarchology I was speaking about. But I have to go with Ratzinger because he scored some major points when he pointed out that the Church preceded creation itself. This is what the Early Church Fathers have taught. Hermas for example speaks of how the Church is an old woman because she was the first created and it was because of her that the world was made. We can also read in the 2nd Epistle of Clement that "the Church is not now, but from the beginning." Even Origen taught this. He said, "Do not think I speak of the spouse or the Church only from the coming of the Savior in the flesh, but from the beginning of human race, in fact, to seek out the origin of this mystery more deeply with Paul as leader, even before the foundation of the world. (In Cant. 2. 11-12)"
R: This is a little off topic, but what do you think of Ratzinger?
A: I think he is a bright man. He knows a lot of things and proved it in that debate.
R: What about Kasper?
A: I think he is a little careless. I understand some of the things he says like how he said that there should not be an "ecumenism of return" because I know he is speaking under the context of communio. However, he assumes that everyone knows communio ecclesiology. I'm careless in my writings too, so I understand. Overall, I think he plays too much politics though.
R: In your writings, you talk about communio ecclesiology. Can you explain communio ecclesiology?
A: Communio ecclesiology I would say is the same as eucharistic ecclesiology (what is eucharistic ecclesiology if not communio?)or at least best expressed in eucharistic ecclesiology. God gives His Body up for us and when we partake of His Body, we are united with Him and at the same time, we are united with those who partakes the same Body. "Because there is one Bread, we who are many are one body." The cross would be a good symbol since it involves two dimensions. As Ratzinger explained, there is a vertical, which is communion with God and a horizontal dimension, which is communion with each other. It should be noted that existing and acting together with each other creates only a community. Christ giving His Body gives the grace to the community to say "Our Father." "My" God and "his" God becomes "Our" God.
R: So it is the unity of faith which produces communion.
A: Not only faith, but the other theological virtues of hope and charity. By receiving the Eucharist, we profess the same faith, hope, and love, the three sources of unity of the Church. We profess our faith, announcing the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We profess our hope: "Christ will come again." The Eucharist is also the best place of which "all are joined together in the love of God, and to each other in mutual love' (St. Thomas). As John Paul II said, "Incorporation into Christ, which is brought about by Baptism, is constantly renewed and consolidated by sharing in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, especially by that full sharing which takes place in sacramental communion. We can say not only that each of us receives Christ, but also that Christ receives each of us. He enters into friendship with us: 'You are my friends' (Jn 15:14). Indeed, it is because of him that we have life: 'He who eats me will live because of me' (Jn 6:57). Eucharistic communion brings about in a sublime way the mutual 'abiding' of Christ and each of his followers: 'Abide in me, and I in you' (Jn 15:4). (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 21)"
R: Where does eucharistic ecclesiology come from?
A: The Bible and the Church Fathers. It has also been emphasized and developed by the Eastern Orthodox for the past century.
R: What's the difference?
A: The difference is that the Eastern Orthodox churches believe that eucharistic ecclesiology presupposes that there cannot be any papal "power" or authority. Of course this is wrong. Since we profess our faith in the eucharist, this would include the teaching of Our Lord: "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church." As Pope John Paul II said, "The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church's hierarchical order. (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 35)"
R: Out of all the "models" of the Church, what is your favorite?
A: The Church as a Person. In Vatican 2, the Church used the word "subsist" instead of "is" when they were talking about the Church. This simply means that the Church is a concrete subject, a concrete reality. Subsistence makes being pass from the quidditative order to the existential order. So when Vatican 2 used subsistence, she meant that the Church is not simply a theory or an idea, but a concrete reality. Also, one must note that subsistence is the ontological foundation of personality, the perfection of all nature. And we can also say with St. Thomas that "the head and members are as one mystic person" (ST, 46, 2 ad 1).
R: Talk about the "marian element" of the Church.
A: Vatican 2 says, "The Mother of God is the type of the Church, as St. Ambrose has already taught, in order of faith, love, and perfect union with Christ. (Lumen Gentium, 63)" In the East, they call Mary the "icon of the Church." What does this mean? Well, Vatican 2 said "The Church...will attain her full perfection only in the glory of Heaven. (Lumen Gentium, 48" It also said that the Church "in the Most Blessed Virgin has already attained the perfection in which there is no spot or wrinkle." From these passages, I believe that the Church will take on a Marian character in the end of times. The Church will be perfect in heaven just as Mary is perfect.
R: A Marian character? Not a Christ-like character?
A: Of course it will have a "Christ"-ian character. In fact, it goes much deeper than that. As I said before, the members and Christ are one mystic person. But in this Person of the Church, there are many elements. Three beautiful elements of the Church are Eucharistic, Marian, and Sacrificial. We can see this in Scripture by following the beloved disciple, St. John. In the Scriptures, Our Lord gave three things to St. John: His eucharistic heart, Mary, and the cross. At the last supper when Christ instituted the Eucharist, St. John laid his head on the heart of Jesus. This is precisely what should happen when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist. We must become intimate with Him, placing our trust in His Sacred Heart, being a friend of Jesus. Our Lord also gave St. John the cross. He was the only apostle to be there. This is the sacrificial element since everyone must take up their crosses. We must sacrifice ourselves to God and one another just like He sacrificed Himself for us. At the cross, He also gave him His mother: "Woman, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother.'" We know that the disciple is John. But here, we see John uses the word disciple. This means that whoever is a disciple must take Mary upon his hand. This means that in order for one to carry the cross, you need to take the Mother with you. And Mary will not refuse because Jesus told her that she would take our hands too. So if anyone wants to come to Jesus, to come to the cross, we must come to her as well. We would not know the way if our mother does not give us the way or guide us.
R: Thank you for letting me interview you. I appreciate it.
A: I hope I was a help somewhat.
R: You were.
A: Then Glory to Jesus Christ!
R: Glory forever!
by Ringo Rodriguez and A.L.
Back to Philosophy Articles
Back to Home Page
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links