My explanation is that I have corresponded with Archbishop Haverland, and he has been most positive and encouraging about my running something like an official blog for the ACC, as completely distinct from my personal blog. To do this, it would be necessary to have a team of blog authors writing material of appropriate quality and interest. Otherwise, there would be no point in it. I can say that out of some of those who might potentially be interested, one has a very busy professional life and hasn’t even the time for his own blog. I will not say any more about what has been discussed in private. This question of building up a group is the determining factor. Therefore I am leaving The Anglican Catholic blog in hiatus indefinitely. On my own, it is unnecessary because I already have my own blog, this one. This project has been there for some time, and the Retro-Church remained, though not updated for some time.
Retro-Church, an Anglo-Catholic blog that featured many articles written by ACC Metropolitan Mark Haverland and two or three ACC priests, has vanished into thin air. Several days ago I asked one of the blog's principals about what happened. He wasn't sure, but said he'd investigate the issue and let me know. Thus far, no word. I wonder if it has anything to do with this.
The Trinitarian is the "Official Gazette of the Anglican Catholic Church." Typically, the Trinitarian publishes one letter to the editor in every issue. Here is the latest such letter published in the latest issue (November-December 2013, p.2). Bolded emphases are mine:
I was disheartened by Father Mirabile's article ["Revitalizing Your Parish," THE TRINITAR1AN, July-August 2013] exhorting us to seek church growth by following Pentecostals and Charismatics in such things as "a live band with contemporary church music," "bike blessings" and outreach to addicts," and to forget the traditional Prayer Book because "most people under 50 have little or no connection to it."
Nowhere in this lengthy article was preaching of the Gospel mentioned. What sort of a church, then, do we want to build? There was no recognition that God is known through Christ alone, and Him crucified. Doctrine was mentioned once only, and that as being less important to people than love for our neighbor. This may be true as far as the world is concerned, but is it wise to serve the world? I can attest that it is the Gospel that saves, just as the Bible tells us. It is the form of doctrine to which we were delivered that redeems us from this present evil age and from the power of the enemy of our souls [Romans 6:17]. Then we are free to love our neighbors. We do not love them by ignoring or diminishing the Gospel, the sweet savor of Christ unto salvation [2 Cor. 2:15].
It is fair enough to ask how we can grow our churches. But the crucial question is: How do we strengthen that which remains, the things that are ready to die [Rev. 3:2]? The Lord gives the answer: "Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent [Rev. 3:3, NKJV]
Therefore I say: Look not to the world to grow your church, or soon you will go the way of the world. Rather, look to what we first received and heard. The Reformation restored primitive doctrine by eliminating medieval abuses, and the traditional Prayer Book is the treasure that God gave us through the Anglican Church, a bulwark that defends and preserves the truth, and by which humble hearts can contemplate the Gospel at every Eucharist, and repent — that is, by which we can do the things the Lord exhorts us to do. Thereby we receive, of Him, His body and blood, unto eternal life. And traditional hymns lead the heart in meaningful worship —unlike contemporary songs which, to put it gently, are light on truth. The trend to rob truth from the congregations is to be deplored, not encouraged.
There remain 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. It is to them the Church should reach out, to them we should speak. For their sake and for the love of truth we strengthen that which remains rather than casting it aside, and we look to the Lord by his Holy Spirit to help us bear fruit that is pleasing in His sight. His word will not return void. Let us then buy from Him gold refined in the fire, that we may truly be rich, and that the candlestick not be removed from its place.
Victoria, British Columbia,Canada
Now, thus far I have not posted any response to the recent comments of Fr. Jonathan Munn and Michael Frost immediately below. I was just gearing up to do that when my issue of the Trinitarian came in the mail and I read this letter from Ruth Magnusson from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. But before I do so, I would ask Fr. Munn, as he unlike Mr. Frost is an insider to the ACC, to consider these two questions: 1) Why did the Trinitarian decide to publish this letter?; and 2) what do you make of her connection between the Reformation and "primitive doctrine"?
(11/25: Fr. Munn has responded in the comments section below.)
Fr. Jonathan Munn has written a somewhat conciliatory article entitled, Broad Birettas and Canterbury Caps. The conciliatory note he strikes is with respect to the "regional variations" he has experienced in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), including even (!) the "Evangelical flavour" of the Masses he experienced at St. Matthew's church during the ACC's recent provincial synod.
"It doesn't matter", concludes Fr. Munn. "We are all Anglican Catholics and we are together."
Moreover, in an attempt to mollify critics of a previous article he wrote over at the currently dormant Anglican Catholic blog, Fr. Munn reaches out in the article to Continuing Anglicans outside of the ACC:
There are faithful Anglicans all over the place of all sorts of stripes, be they Anglo-Catholics, Anglican Papalists, Anglo-Protestants, Classic Anglicans, Anglo-Calvinists, Anglo-Orthodox, whatever. They all stand for some expression within the broad umbrella, unlike that large body which claims to define Anglicanism which in many places simply isn't even Christian, let alone Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Now, that is a remarkable statement since it includes "Anglo-Calvinists" within the fold. It is remarkable in light of how Munn and others in the ACC (and in Continuing Anglicanism at large) so often write and speak of Calvinism in very negative terms. But I was happy to see Fr. Munn here mention Anglo-Calvinism among the acceptable theologoumena within the Anglican breadth he seems to champion in this article. It gave me a bit of hope, as did Fr. Chadwick's recent statement, "I encourage fair debate and study of historical Calvinism, present-day Calvinism and perspectives for reconciliation between Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox Christians."
Fr. Munn's olive branch to Calvinism is not without qualification, however:
Anglicanism is indeed a broad church, but admittedly there is probably very little in common between Anglo-Catholics and those who interpret the BCP to be Calvinist. Disagreements over doctrine do happen, and one must without fail follow one's conscience as long as it is kept properly informed. As I have said below, I can never be a Calvinist and this seems to have stirred up more ill-feeling. I do not think Calvinism is correct doctrine, nor do I think its central tenets to be provable from Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Church. However, it is entirely possible that I am wrong. There must necessitate a "walking apart" between me and those who subscribe to TULIP. It is a fact of life, a fact of humanity and a fact of fallenness.
That doesn't mean that "walking apart" needs to be an unkind affair in any sense. If they are both truly valid versions of Christianity, then they must necessarily be walking in the same direction and to the same source. As long as can be found within them the Doctrine of Jesus Christ the Son of God preached faithfully and passionately, then there can only be a common end, and that end can only ever be decided by God alone. The hand of friendship can certainly cross all borders if one is willing either to offer it, or to receive it. If we cannot share the chalice, then sharing a cup of tea is a start.
Shall I put the kettle on?
I for one would love to have tea with Fr. Munn, and I very much appreciate -- and accept -- the hand of friendship he offers. I would simply ask him these questions as we conversed, as friends, over tea:
1. What are his thoughts about why Calvinism -- which is merely an attempt to be faithful to apostolic teachings about God's sovereign grace -- provokes such heated opposition from Anglo-Catholics, Arminians and liberals, and does he understand our concern that the three might share some common DNA?;
2. Does the ill-feeling he mentions above stem from the fact that he "can never be a Calvinist", or rather from what he and other Anglo-Catholics have written or said about it, which includes many outright misrepresentations of Reformed theology?;
3. When he speaks in this connection of "Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Church", will he concede that the Church has never really settled the issue between Augustinians and anti-Augustinians, and that this should call forth an attitude that tolerates the two theologoumena existing side by side in the Church?
Fr. Munn humbly states, "It is entirely possible that I am wrong." Yes, given our fallen state there is room for error on both sides of this question, something J.B. Mozley notes in his book on Augustine's view of predestination and because of which he too argues for ecclesial tolerance. Is the ACC really up for that? If so, then is appears to me that some revisions in its agenda are in order.
By an Anglican clergyman who, like me, converted to Orthodoxy and then left it after what he discovered there. Unlike me, however, he still holds to an Eastern view of soteriology.
"Acccording to Articles 9 & 10 it is impossible for us to either please God or even turn to him in our own strength. And those who worry about the historical particularity of the Articles as a product of the British Isles over four centuries ago should be reassured by the fact that it is the theology of Augustine the African that shapes their understanding of salvation, not that of Pelagius the Briton".
The entire article merits a read, except for his comment about women in ordained ministry, to which we respond: "Meh."
The Evangelical Ascetic. While it looks very promising, I'm going to wait awhile before I add it to my blogroll. So far, I agree with almost everything Bp. Scarlett has written in his initial articles. Thorton's book Christian Proficiency was instrumental in a spiritual turnaround that God granted me several years ago, and I have blogged on the book here.
There is one thing that gives me pause, however. I know some of the folks in Scarlett's circle out in California, and the sense I get from them is that they are largely uninterested in "party" debates and more interested in the life of prayer. I for one do not see this in such "either/or" terms. A statement in one of Scarlett's articles particularly troubled me:
Thornton’s point with regard to the mission of the church is this. People are drawn to and converted by holiness. People are not drawn to the church and converted to faith by theological arguments. Since holiness is cultivated by the life of prayer, it follows that the renewal of the Anglican way depends upon the renewal of ascetical practice.
It is impossible, however, to separate theology and the life of prayer, just as it is impossible to separate the phenomenon of theosis from the person and work of Christ. Unless we know not only who Christ is, but also what He did, our efforts at sanctification can go seriously awry.
I also find the statement that people are drawn to and converted by holiness lacking in depth. Sure, people are drawn to Christ by the "witness" of other Christians, but, if I may wax Aristotelian here, that only speaks to the proximate cause of salvation. Holy Scripture has much to say about the ultimate cause of salvation as well -- God's sovereign grace to us in the person and work of Christ. And when we're considering such Scriptural matters having to do with the ultimate cause of salvation and how all that actually eventuates, experientially, in our conversions, voila!, we're considering theological arguments.
Such reservations aside, I look for good things from this new blog.
Calvinism (Painting posted there: "Calvin Entering Hell", van Heemskerck)
It will be interesting to see whether not any of his readers respond to his offer to discuss Calvinism in his "Classical Anglican Blowout Department." Thus far they are silent on the issue.
As for Fr. Chadwick, well, his comments on the matter are rather typical: he's clearly an anti-Calvinist, and though he gives a number of links to articles critical of Calvinism and sees it as the root of all kinds of evils, he's really not interested in Calvinism you see (despite many posts on his blog that would seem to indicate otherwise), and admits his own tendency "to caricature Calvin" and simply "lacks the motivation to investigate the subject." ;>)
However, he "encourages fair debate and study of historical Calvinism, present-day Calvinism and perspectives for reconciliation between Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox Christians." For that I will give him credit. I too am interested in seeing some sort of modus vivendi established between the three. I am, after all, an Anglican and therefore believe that certain historically acceptable theologoumena should be allowed to exist side by side in our communion.
Retiring "The Embryo Parson" for now and using the nom de cyber "Capellane" (Old English, "Chaplain"). Currently exploring the option of getting certified as a lay chaplain rather than an ordained one. Until I get some clear direction from on high one way or the other, I am "Capellane."
Fr. Jonathan over at The Conciliar Anglican blog has posted a very thoughtful piece entitled Biblical Catholicism: Rethinking the Anglo-Catholic Movement. I read it this morning with great interest, as it sort of dovetails with a discussion I had with a Reformed Episcopal priest yesterday. He was telling me about the history of the REC and how today it has moved more toward a classical Anglican position, and in doing so has attempted to separate the gold and the dross as to Anglo-Catholicism. He stated, and I agreed, that there are certain aspects of early Anglo-Catholicism that are of value to classical Anglicans. It will be interesting to see what Fr. Jonathan has to say in this regard going forward.
On a related note, while I intend to keep critically engaging Anglo-Catholicism, I think the time has come to disengage the Anglican Catholic Church. I think I've said all that can be said about its increasingly isolationist mentality, though I will continue to hold out hope that new leadership in that church will change the course of its current direction. I intend to focus my attention on the Anglican Realignment and speculate how it may coax classical Anglican Continuers into agreements such as the REC-APA Intercommunion Agreement. It sure would be a great thing to see traditional Anglicans in the various Realignment and Continuing groups create a modus vivendi.
I recently fell off the wagon with respect to this summer's resolution to interact with Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox more irenically. I went into a combat mode after Fr. Munn's article on "Creeping Calvinism" and Thomas Sm's animated response to last year's article on why Evangelicals who get liturgical fever should beware of Eastern Orthodoxy. But that is my fault, not theirs. Going forward, I hope to write more articles that accentuate the positive aspects, rather than the negative ones, of Anglo-Catholicism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthooxy. To that end, I will be making some revisions to earlier articles in an attempt to do just that, and I will try harder to avoid going into the "search and destroy" mode when I read their anti-Protestant polemics.
It was perfect: neither "snake belly low" nor "biretta and lace" high nor Missal nor "praise choruses" nor anyone signalling for a fair catch nor homilettes for Christianettes, but a straight prayerbook service with hymns from the 1940 hymnal, with both the Gradual and the Gloria in Excelsis chanted in proper Anglican fashion, and wonderful Gospel preaching. All preceded by a great church school class that left everyone challenged to commit their lives to Christ without reservation, and followed by a great time of fellowship at coffee hour and then a visit with the priest and his family.
I purchased a new coffee cup too.
How my theology logically commits me (a mere classical Anglican and an anarcho-monarchist), all at the same time, to:
-- Jacobian revolutionism
-- National Socialism
-- The Baptist Church
-- The Presbyterian Church
-- The Muslim Religion
Details at 10:00. ;>)
Today I want to key in on something that Orthodox apologist Thomas Sm wrote in a previous exchange with me, as it highlights a fundamental problem in Catholic soteriology:
Reformed and increasingly non-Reformed Protestants emphasise "absolute sovereignty" and His power and claim the point of church is to worship Him because He is great and worthy of glory. You are inducted into the religion not by sacraments but by proclaiming belief. Of course, predestination then logically follows.
Mr. Sm echoes what I wrote yesterday about what the ACC and other Anglo-Catholic churches believe: "(P)eople become Christians by being baptized (usually as infants) and stay Christians by doing good works and availing themselves of the sacramental mechanics performed by the church." It reminds me of a fellow from the ACC church I used to attend who talked about an Evangelical woman he was dating, specifically about how she was trying to get him into her church so that he could be "born again." His response to her was that he was already born again, in the waters of baptism doncha know. Well of course.
Now, I understand that the New Testament does in fact clearly link baptism and regeneration, but how it does so is a somewhat complex topic, and the difficulty in explaining it is only compounded when we interject the practice of infant baptism into the explanation. (The New Testament authors who wrote about baptism as regeneration were almost certainly writing about that in the context of adult baptism. In fact, whether or not infants were baptized in the church of the first century is an open question.) How infant baptism may "regenerate" a child is not the issue I want to discuss here however. Rather, I am concerned to address Mr. Sm's point about Catholic vs. Reformed views on how a person in "inducted into the religion" and how that relates to "proclaiming belief" in the wake of a "sovereign" intervention in an adult person's life.
I want to begin that assessment with C.S. Lewis' account of his own conversion. Anyone who knows anthing about Lewis knows that he was on the High Church to Anglo-Catholic end of things, and like all good High Church/Anglo-Catholics, had a particular aversion to "Calvinism." And that is an odd thing, given how "Calvinistic" his conversion was:
What is most fascinating about Lewis, especially to evangelical Christians, is the story of his own conversion. The history of the church is a history of human beings who in one way or another at various stages of their lives encountered the risen Lord and responded with a "Yes, Lord I will" to his "Yes, come." The church, then, is the sum total of men, women and children who have been enabled by the Father to be drawn to Jesus Christ through the Spirit (John 6:44, 65). Virtually every one of their names is unknown to us, and so is their conversion story. But we are fortunate to know C.S. Lewis’ testimony because he has told it to us in his writings, especially in Surprised by Joy. . . .
In 1929 C.S. Lewis found himself challenged with God’s existence. This important milestone in his conversion journey was reached rather suddenly. As he tells the story, on one occasion during this time he happened to take a bus ride. When he got on the bus he was an atheist. When he came to his stop, he got off the bus believing in God’s existence. Not that Lewis was seeking God. He said he didn’t really want to find him. The revelation about God’s existence was something of a fright to him. He wrote in Surprised by Joy: "Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about ‘man’s search for God.’ To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse’s search for the cat."
But God was seeking C.S. Lewis and he found him. His call was coming and Lewis could find no place to hide. As Jonah running from the Lord, Lewis had been confronted with his own great "whale," so to speak. It was God beckoning to him. The reluctant prodigal finally knew it was time to come home. In Surprised by Joy, Lewis tells us about his feelings when he could no longer deny God’s existence to himself:
"You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.... But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."
When God drew Lewis’ heart to himself, he became conscious of the presence of his own sinfulness. "For the first time I examined myself with a seriously practical purpose," wrote Lewis. "And there I found what appalled me: a zoo of lusts, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears, a harem of fondled hatreds. My name is legion."
Though Lewis was frightened by what he saw in himself, the Holy Spirit would open Lewis’ heart and mind to Christ’s forgiveness and love. It happened in September 1931 when Lewis was converted to the faith. He had engaged in a lengthy conversation about Christianity with J.R.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson that started with dinner on the 19th and continued into the early morning hours of the 20th. The discussion challenged Lewis’ thinking and set the stage for what happened two days later.
It was on Sept. 22, 1931 that Lewis said yes to the Lord’s offer of himself — yes, according to his testimony, this was the exact day he became a Christian. It happened on a ride to the Whipsnade Zoo with his brother, Warren. Lewis tells about it in his book, Surprised by Joy: "I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion.... It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake". . . .
On Christmas Day 1931, C.S. Lewis joined the Anglican Church and took communion. (Article here.)
Now, Lewis was baptized as an infant in 1898, but by his own reckoning he did not become a Christian until 1931. At which point was he really "inducted into the religion", to quote Mr. Sm? At his baptism? Really? Be serious.
This highlights a phemomenon that has manifested itself in the history of the Church from the apostles (ad especially that most unwilling of them, St. Paul) to Lewis: the conversion experience. No matter how "regeneration" in the New Testament is to be understood, no matter whether or not infants born to Christian parents are proper subjects of baptism, and no matter whether or not a conversion experience is dramatic, like that of Lewis and countless others, for one to be truly "inducted into the religion", he or she must experientially be "delivered . . . from the power of darkness, and . . . translated . . . into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col. 1:13)
So if Mr. Sm and his fellow Catholics are wrong that one is inducted into the religion, usually as an infant, through baptism, then yes, predestination does "logically follow." Why predestination and not some Evangelical form of anti-predestination, like Arminianism? Because only a predestinarian soteriology rationally (not to mention biblically) accounts for why a person who is "dead in trespasses and sins" is made spiritually alive and "translated", which is to say converted, to the Kingdom of God's dear Son. That's what happened to Lewis, just as it did to St. Paul: God fetched them. And whom God fetches, He never loses. No wonder, then, that Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox despise this article:
XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well becausse it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
St. Paul and C.S. Lewis had dramatic conversion experiences, but of course it was only St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who retained a "Calvinistic" understanding of what happened to him. This precisely why I would (and do) say to men such as Thomas Sm, Anthony Chadwick, Jonathan Munn (and yes, Jonathan, Damien Mead and Mark Haverland as well), that when they rail against "Calvinism", their argument really isn't with Calvinism but with St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. And if your argument is with the apostles, it is also with the Lord who sent them. Even St. Innocent of Alaska understood the matter: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Liberals and Catholics often either deride or make fun of "born again Christians." Yes, there is a rather amusing stereotype out there of the "born again Christian", but it's stereotypical for reasons other than the born-againness of which they speak, for the fact of the matter is that there is no other kind of Christian than a born again one. Born "from above", to literally translate the Greek in John 3. "Born of God" (who is "above") to quote John 1.
None of what I write here is to diminish the need for sacraments. Jesus and His apostles are clear on the matter: if we are Christians, we are to be baptized and we are to regularly receive Holy Communion. Everything taken together, however, means merely that while we are not saved by the adminstration of sacraments, we are not saved without them. That is to say, they are secondary, not primary. Catholic sacramentalism has it "bass ackwards".
More Extremely Rare Stuff From The Orthodox: "St. Augustine is genuinely on to something in his interpretation of Scripture (on predestination)"
(Previous entry on Extremely Rare Orthodox Stuff here.)
See this two-part text of a lecture given by Peter Gilbert, an Orthodox scholar with a background in theology, Greek and Latin patristics, languages (Greek, Latin, French, Albanian), biblical studies, church history, and philosophy. The lecture includes a historical analysis of the controversy between Augustine and the Pelagians. At the end of Part Two, Gilbert rather reluctantly concludes that when it comes to the issue of why some believe the Gosple and others do not, "St. Augustine is genuinely on to something in his interpretation of Scripture. . . ."
In this case, an Orthodox saint, John Veniaminov (St. Innocent of Alaska):
Brethren, you have heard that the goal of our Society is to advance the conversion of those who do not yet believe in Christ our Savior. That is, we accept, each according to his abilities and the measure of his zeal, to further the conversion to the Orthodox Faith and the Truth of those among our fellow countrymen who still wander in the darkness of unbelief. As you can see, the work we hope to advance is great and holy and truly apostolic.
In order to obtain the success one desires, even in ordinary tasks and undertakings, it is necessary to muster (independently of financial means) intelligence, knowledge, experience, ability, activity and energy. When with all of this the circumstances are just right, one has reason to hope for success.
Now, in the work we wish to advance, this does not in the main apply. To be sure, we too will need (in addition to financial means) intelligence, knowledge, experience, ability and so on, but we cannot - and must not, even under the best of circumstances - count on these factors as a sure means of attaining our goal. And why not? Because man's conversion to the path of faith and truth depends entirely upon God. "No one can come to me", said the Savior, "unless the Father who sent Me draws him to Me" [Jn 6:44]. Therefore if, according to his incrutable judgments, the Lord does not wish for a given person or nation to be converted to Jesus Christ, even the most capable, most gifted, most zealous of workers will not succeed in his task. (Address of Metropolitan Innocent Veniaminov to the Organizational Meeting of the Orthodox Missionary Society, 1868. Quoted in Alaskan Missionary Spirituality, ed. Michael Oleksa, p. 141)