tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post8034284368919986146..comments2023-10-28T05:58:07.377-07:00Comments on Anglicans Ablaze: Archbishop Robert Duncan on the New ACNA OrdinalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-31355683712314237342011-08-20T05:25:48.192-07:002011-08-20T05:25:48.192-07:00A steward in the classical Anglican Ordinal’s unde...A steward in the classical Anglican Ordinal’s understanding of the office of a priest (or presbyter) is not the hired manager of the estate or house but a slave whose duty is to purvey food to his fellow slaves. He wears the thrall’s collar, as do the other slaves. If he proves unfaithful in his task, this office can be taken from him and given to another. One of the temptations of his office is that he may succumb to pride, that having been appointed to this position in the household, he esteems himself too greatly in his master’s eyes and assumes that he is better than his fellow slaves. He may desire to adorn himself in a way that shows his station to be higher than that of the other slaves in the household, take upon himself a pretentious title, and otherwise set himself apart from his fellow slaves. <br /><br />The ordination rite in the classical Anglican Ordinal does not cater to this impulse. The Exhortation speaks of the excellency and difficulty of the office and the height of the dignity into which the Lord has placed the ordinand to stress the care and study with which the ordinand ought to apply himself and dutifulness and gratitude that he ought to show to the Lord. The Exhortation goes on to warn the ordinand not to offend others or cause them to offend. The Exhortation further stresses the place of Scripture in the ministry of a priest. The ordination rite emphasizes the latter with the questions in the Examination and the Bishop’s delivery of a Bible to each new priest after his ordination. <br /><br />The ceremonies and ornaments that the new ACNA Ordinal introduces into the ordination rite change this understanding of the priest’s office. It reflects the view of the priest articulated in the Catechism of the <i>2011 Book of Common Prayer</i>. “He is to make visible Jesus Christ the High Priest, making intercession and offerings on our behalf.” The same Catechism teaches, “In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the Bishop sets apart, by laying on of hands and <i>anointing with holy oil</i>, specific men for the pastoral and sacramental headship of the common life of the Church. These men receive the increased gifts of the Holy Spirit to be Servant-Leaders and Pastors of Christ’s flock.” Whatever this is, it is not the doctrine of historic Anglicanism. It is, however, the implicit doctrine of the new ACNA Ordinal.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-58041535135653746352011-08-19T19:40:48.953-07:002011-08-19T19:40:48.953-07:00Chris,
The danger, my friend, is that the chalice...Chris,<br /><br />The danger, my friend, is that the chalice will contain wine and have a paten placed on top of it, containing a host, thereby conveying to the new priest and to those present that the new priest is a sacrificing priest, a sacerdote. <br /><br />Add to the rite the following ceremony:<br /><br /><i>The Bishop then anoints the hands of the new Priest, saying</i><br /><br />Grant, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this unction, and by our blessing; that<br />whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified; in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.<br /><br />And the new Ordinal teaches with muted language and ceremonies not only the Medieval Catholic doctrine of the sacerdotal character of the priesthood but also the Medieval Catholic doctrines of Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass. These ceremonies are unnecessary except as statements of doctrine, doctrine that is contrary to Scripture and the XXXIX Articles. <br /><br />I have compared the anointing of the new priest's hands in the new ACNA Ordinal and the anointing of the new priest's hands in the <i>2011 Book of Common Prayer</i> Ordinal. They are close to each other in wording, and the doctrine of that book is quite evident. <br /><br />In the controversies over Ritualism in the nineteenth century the ecclesiastical courts articulated a principle that is applicable here. Where a practice is associated by a school of thought in the Anglican Church with a particular doctrine or by another denomination with that doctrine and the doctrine is not a official doctrine of the Anglican Church in accordance with its formularies, or the doctrine is rejected by the same formularies, the practice should be avoided. <br /><br />Enrichment has in the past been used to mask the introduction of practices into Anglican worship that have doctrine attached to them that is contrary to the Scripture and the XXXIX Articles. The introduction of such ceremonies as giving a chalice to the new priest and anointing his hands with the oil of chrism must be viewed with scepticism borne of past experience. Such ceremonies are never what those championing them claim that they are!Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-75958638442019370832011-08-19T18:44:54.248-07:002011-08-19T18:44:54.248-07:00If he ISA steward, then why does it obscure the bi...If he ISA steward, then why does it obscure the biblical duties to give him the chief instruments, or keys, by which he admits Fellow servants to the riches of the masters house? How does a chalice obscure, instead of highlight, that he is a minister of Word and Sacrament? <br /><br />This is not the 13th or 16th century. We are not confused with Rome. The danger is being confused with sectarians (like Baptists or Presbyterians) rather than historic catholics. The transmission of the sacred vessels and sacred scriptures is a ceremonial worthy of signing what is being done to all who have the sense of sight (even if they be deafandilliterate).Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-31425906954799946222011-08-19T18:44:41.069-07:002011-08-19T18:44:41.069-07:00Chris,
The notion of "Holy Tradition" i...Chris,<br /><br />The notion of "Holy Tradition" is sheer fantasy. The apostles had nothing to do with vestments, incense, anointings, chalices, etc. They are later developments. In some cases they are what the XXXIX Articles refer to as the "corrupt following of the apostles, later developments that the Medieval Church would equate with apostolic practive but which are not actually derived from apostolic practice. <br /><br />At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church realized that if it appealed to Scripture, it did not have a leg to stand on so it recognized "Holy Tradition," interpreted by the Church, as authoritative as Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church then made "Holy Tradition" more authoritative than Scripture in its insistance that Scripture must be interpreted by "Holy Tradition" and Holy Tradition was infallible. The Church as the interpreter of "Holy Tradition" was also infallible. All very convenient for the Roman Catholic Church. It was right no matter what. The English Reformers and the XXXIX Articles rejected this nonsense. The Ritualists would revive it in the nineteenth century to justify their beliefs and practices. You appear to be following suit.<br /><br />I have devoted more than 25 years of my life to the study of Church history, the Book of Common Prayer, Christian worship, and related subjects, including the controversies over Ritualism of the nineteenth century. I do not believe in such fairy tales.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-15087037381980287142011-08-19T16:36:37.920-07:002011-08-19T16:36:37.920-07:00They forbid it in the same place where they forbid...They forbid it in the same place where they forbid vestments, incense, anointings, chalices, etc. The simple fact is that while the Scriptures give us everything necessary to salvation, they do not give us everything the apostles taught their successors in terms of orderly worship and administration.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-71987243055695373312011-08-19T16:30:37.154-07:002011-08-19T16:30:37.154-07:00Chris,
Where do they forbid the giving of Bible?...Chris,<br /><br />Where do they forbid the giving of Bible? With what teaching in the Scriptures is the giving of the Bible not agreeable? On the other hand, the beliefs and practices to which the other ceremonies and ornaments are tied are "repugnant" to what the Scriptures teach. <br /><br />The Scriptures teach that Christ's sacrifice is <i>complete, finished</i>, and we have no part in his sacrifice. We cannot reiterate or represent it. Nor do we participate in it. We commemorate it. Ceremonies and ornaments that imply otherwise are unscriptural albeit they may not be specifically probited by the Scriptures. They are far from edifying. On the contrary, they "blind the people and obscure the glory of God." They "are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected." They "more confound and darken than declare and set forth Christ's benefits unto us." <br /><br />The Anglican priest is a steward in his Master's household. He feeds his fellow servants from the provisions that their Master supplies. He feeds them with the Word and the sacrament of the Holy Communion. The only "sacrifice" in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is our offering of praise and thanksgiving and self in <i>response</i> to what Christ did for us on the cross.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-6458689617116593892011-08-19T13:46:55.867-07:002011-08-19T13:46:55.867-07:00Charlie,
Where do the Scriptures enjoin the trans...Charlie,<br /><br />Where do the Scriptures enjoin the transmission of a Bible in the ordination service. <br /><br />Adding to God's word again, are we?<br /><br />(Or do all 16th c. innovations by Reformers get a pass?)<br /><br />It's symbolic language. I agree that at the time it had to go because of the "mass for the living and the dead" part. That time is gone. What is needed now is balance.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-28795166344662088882011-08-19T09:10:01.999-07:002011-08-19T09:10:01.999-07:00Chris,
The giving of the chalice was dropped from...Chris,<br /><br />The giving of the chalice was dropped from the 1552 Ordinal for good reason. The practice can be too easily misunderstood and too easily abused. The giving of the Bible recognizes that the sacraments are themselves a visual proclamation of the gospel--the Word made visible. <br /><br />The inclusion of the other pre-Reformation Medievel Catholic ceremonies and ornaments, while they may be optional, are an endorsement of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic and post-Tridentian Roman Catholic doctrines and practices tied to these ceremonies and ornaments, which the English Reformers and historic Anglicanism reject. The fact that some dioceses have used these ceremonies and ornaments does not justify their incorporation into the Ordinal. If the Episcopal Church practices the blessing of same sex unions and solemnizes gay marriages for a period of years, does this justify the inclusion of these rites in the Prayer Book? Of course not! Neither does some dioceses' use of these ceremonies and ornaments justify their inclusion in the Ordinal. <br /><br />The formula to which you refer was late Medieval addition to the Ordinal. It is not found in the earliest Ordinals. It is one of the accretions by which the primitive ordination rites were overlayed. It was an object of contraversy in the nineteenth century when the Ritualists would claim it was essential to valid ordination. As Harrison and Sansom and others observe it is out of harmony with the conviction that the essence of ordination is the laying on of hands with prayer, which in turn is a reflection of the conviction that it is God who ordains. It also draws attention away from the ordination prayer that precedes it. It was apparently designed to fill silence during the laying on of hands. The 1792 Ordinal provides an alternate formula because the sacerdotal implications of "Receive the Holy Ghost..." were objectionable to many, despite the Scriptural language, particularly because the formula was unknown in the ancient rites, but first came into use in the thirteenth century. This was same period in Church history when Transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood became official doctrines of the Medieval Catholic Church, which may explain the Ritulists' attachment to this formula.<br /><br />All three Ordinals that were used as models for the new Ordinal contain ceremonies and ornaments and countenance doctrines and practices that put them at odds with historic Anglican formularies, which GAFCON recognizes as the long-standing doctrinal standard of Anglican. If the ACNA wants to adopt such a flagrantly Anglo-Catholic Ordinal, it must give up its claim to being the new North American Anglican province, forego the recognition of the GAFCON Primates, and join the ranks of the Continuing Anglican Churches. The new ACNA Ordinal is a repudiation of the Jerusalem Declaration, the theological basis of GAFCON.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-6848549561737121842011-08-19T07:32:07.193-07:002011-08-19T07:32:07.193-07:00All of the Anglo-Catholic doctrines and services a...All of the Anglo-Catholic doctrines and services are repugnant to Scripture and are expressly forbidden by the 39 Articles of Religion. Furthermore, the Articles interpret the 1662 prayer book and not the other way around. The 1662 BCP is the only legitimately Anglican prayer book. The 1928 and 79 are not legitimately Reformed and Anglican...<br /><br />Furthermore, wherever the papists have taken over anyone who is a believer can legitimately preach the Gospel and administer the two sacraments. Since the ACNA is predominated by false ministers and a false gospel of the papists, then Article 19 prevails where the congregation may call its own minister and administer the sacraments on its own.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-88735388150974414032011-08-19T05:12:55.149-07:002011-08-19T05:12:55.149-07:00Also, the inclusion of the hymn text for the Veni ...Also, the inclusion of the hymn text for the Veni is a good thing. It's always been mandated, but the text was not included. That allowed all sorts of messes. The musicians at my own ordination used the Taizé version. While I love that piece, it leaves much to be desired. I was glad to have memorized the Neale text for use as vesting prayers and happily prayed it in the midst of their ostinato.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-91541867522898621292011-08-19T05:02:13.095-07:002011-08-19T05:02:13.095-07:00The transmission of the chalice is mandated by the...The transmission of the chalice is mandated by the rubrics. I can understand your concern there, but I believe it a healthy symbol gesture. The old charge it's to be a faithful minister of Word and Sacrament. Imbalance of either ministration causes instability.<br /><br />similarly, I'm pleased that they included the more ac stuff. All of it is clearly marked as optional. All of it had been practiced in this country for more than a century. At least now there is a prescribed form: "If you are going to include these elements, here is how to do it so that you avoid superstition."<br /><br />I'm far more troubled by the actual form of ordination which seems to be glossed over by evangelicals angry at the inclusion of optional rubrics. The classical formulas all gave an imperative epiclesis for the Spirit to fall on the ordinand. More importantly, they explicitly included the power and obligation to absolve. Out is most troubling to me that this was left out, as it is in every ordinal until 1979. Even the CofE maintains the duty in the charge immediately following imposition in a common worship. But the ACNA ordinal doesnt use the words absolve, forgive, remit, or any of their derivatives. It's ain even mentioned?<br /><br />I will be discussing this with Bishop Foley when he visits the parish next week.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-38350163602677431992011-08-17T14:55:48.606-07:002011-08-17T14:55:48.606-07:00Yes, that was part of the reason I decided to brea...Yes, that was part of the reason I decided to break with Christ Church Longwood. Mr. David Knox, although himself an Evangelical, is too willing to compromise with the Anglo-Catholics for the sake of job security. I, on the other hand--being the knuckle head I am--, decided that the truth and the Gospel are more important than job opportunities or being a "company" man.<br /><br />Denominations are essentially secular organizations with political motivations. The local congregation is the only way to sure of fellowship and sound doctrine. Where two or three are gathered in His name He is in their midst.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-47694292042518207802011-08-17T10:54:14.168-07:002011-08-17T10:54:14.168-07:00Charlie,
George Conger has written articles defen...Charlie,<br /><br />George Conger has written articles defending the ACNA and criticizing my articles at the behest of the ACNA when my articles gained the attention of the Church of England Newspaper or otherwise attracted unwanted attention. When I asked Archbishop Robert Duncan for an explanation of why the ACNA College of Bishops recognized the orders of a CEEC bishop, his director of communications decided that I was too unfriendly to ACNA and Bob Duncan to provide me with the requested explanation. Instead he got Conger to write an article.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-84782291858061345822011-08-17T10:51:30.577-07:002011-08-17T10:51:30.577-07:00Robert,
Cranmer did initially retain the practice...Robert,<br /><br />Cranmer did initially retain the practice of giving the new priest a chalice. This is the justification that the compilers of the new ACNA Ordinal use for the reviving the practice. At the same time they reintroduce an entire raft of pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic ceremonila and ornaments. The rubrics do not prohibit a paten on the mouth of the chalice and wine in the chalice and a host on the paten. The three Ordinals that they turn to as models--the 1979 American, the 1989 South African, and 2001 English <i>Common Worship</i> Ordinals evidence Anglo-Catholic influence and permit these ceremonies and ornaments to varying degrees. <br /><br />The new Ordinal was also modeled upon supposedly ecumenical Ordinals, that is, the Roman Catholc Pontifical and other ordinals modeled upon it. <br /><br />What we have here is an example of how a particular Church party has taken advantage of the desire for a modern language version of the Ordinal to change the doctrine, rites, and ceremonial of the Ordinal to reflect their own beliefs and practices. It has been happening since the early twentieth century. With the passage of time that Church party grows bolder. Without any real opposition in the ACNA it can pretty well do what it pleases.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-21174101673182019452011-08-17T02:17:34.024-07:002011-08-17T02:17:34.024-07:00The 1549 edition is not fully reformed. Not until...The 1549 edition is not fully reformed. Not until 1552 does the prayer book become more reformed. Anglo-Catholics usually favor the 1549 for that reason.<br /><br />I should point that Elizabeth's settlement was more political than theological because she sought appease those who were leaning Catholic. It obviously didn't work since the Catholics tried to take her life...<br /><br />Doctrinal minimalism never works. Such thinking leaves loopholes for the heretics and subversives...Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-67744235831985855082011-08-16T23:46:22.274-07:002011-08-16T23:46:22.274-07:00Still miffed by the Utopianism here. Mr. Duncan h...Still miffed by the Utopianism here. Mr. Duncan has never given clear theological direction since day one. Surely, no indication of Confessional maturation. The day is (has been, actually) over to take him seriously. <br /><br />Rick Warren and Metropolitan Jonah at their inauguratory celeb-fest in 2007 (or was 2008 or 2009?) spoke volumes. <br /><br />Mr. Virtue has never sorted through the stories either.Reformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06818168068978748081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-47440082461003739202011-08-16T22:03:33.051-07:002011-08-16T22:03:33.051-07:00An excellent article, but Cranmer even in his 1550...An excellent article, but Cranmer even in his 1550 ordinal retained the giving of the chalice but not the annointing of hands.Robert Ian Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14128876156920192055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-12670119550142997182011-08-16T19:41:45.781-07:002011-08-16T19:41:45.781-07:00@Hackney Hub
You are surely right. There is not ...@Hackney Hub<br /><br />You are surely right. There is not much difference. The only difference is the homosexuality issue and you're correct. ACNA will eventually come full circle.<br /><br />Peace...<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-60759172107433582062011-08-16T18:02:34.161-07:002011-08-16T18:02:34.161-07:00Jordan,
We work where we sense that God has calle...Jordan,<br /><br />We work where we sense that God has called us to work or where God through circumstances has placed us. <br /><br />You may have to labor in Goshen before you follow God into the Sinai. I may be allowed only to see the promised land at a distance and not be allowed to enter it. <br /><br />We are where we are for a reason even though we grasp that reason dimly or not at all. <br /><br />Due to my particular circumstances I am free to write what others might think but fear to write because their bishop, their fellow clergy, or their congregation might react adversely to what they write. <br /><br />I write with no assurance that what I write will be heeded. Some shrug off what what I write; others do not care to hear what I say and tune me out. However, I feel a sense of obligation to keep writing. The easy path would be to say nothing, pursue my hobbies, and let the world go to hell. But my conscience will not let me do that.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-38326072571233257252011-08-16T14:10:29.564-07:002011-08-16T14:10:29.564-07:00I imagine the ACNA Prayer Book will look like the ...I imagine the ACNA Prayer Book will look like the BCP 2011 produced by the Diocese of the West. I stand with you, Robin, in saying that the ACNA is not turning out to be the guardian of Anglican orthodoxy that I hoped for, but, unlike you, I am willing to work from within the structures of ACNA (and now the TEC Diocese of Albany) to at least counter the Tractarians' bad history. I don't really see that much difference between ACNA and TEC anymore, TEC is just a few steps ahead of ACNA.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />JLThe Hackney Hubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814256545664986458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-4356566561443181062011-08-16T12:38:19.874-07:002011-08-16T12:38:19.874-07:00Charlie,
For the most part the 1928 Ordinal retai...Charlie,<br /><br />For the most part the 1928 Ordinal retains the 1790 Ordinal, which is substantially the 1661 Ordinal. However, the new ACNA Ordinal is not a modern language version of the 1928 Ordinal. It takes a number of texts from the 1928 Ordinal and then adapts them. They not only altered textually but also where and how they are used. A weakness of the 1928 Ordinal was the change that it made in the examination of the candidate for the diaconate, no longer requiring blanket belief in the canonical Old Testament and New Testament. The new Ordinal incorporates this weakness in all three examinations of candidates--deacons, priests, and bishops. Of course, none of these changes is mentioned in the interview. People are given the impression that the new Ordinal is a modern language of version of the 1928 Ordinal, which is far from the case. <br /><br />The 1549 Ordinal, which was published in 1550, was only partially-reformed like the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. It was replaced by the 1552 Ordinal, which was more thoroughly reformed. The 1552 Ordinal is the classical Anglican Ordinal, not the 1549-1550 Ordinal. <br /><br />All this is possible with the standard for worship and prayer that the ACNA adopted in its constitution in its fundamental declarations. It includes the 1662 Prayer Book and the Ordinal annexed to it <i>and</i> the books that preceded them, which include the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Sarum Missal and the Sarum Pontifical. The same declarations treat the 1662 Prayer Book and the 1661 Ordinal as two of a number of doctrinal standards and relegate the 1571 Thirty-Nine Articles to the trash heap of history.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-50022085163297829502011-08-16T10:33:53.460-07:002011-08-16T10:33:53.460-07:00"The Ordinals from 1549 on... are very much i..."The Ordinals from 1549 on... are very much in our new Ordinal...." Dead give away, isn't it?? He also focuses on the 1928 BCP, which is clearly an effort to get away from 1662. A clever sidestep by Anglo-Catholics but a sidestep nevertheless...Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-82057014569193843322011-08-16T10:31:18.302-07:002011-08-16T10:31:18.302-07:00Wait... The connection with the 39 Articles is me...Wait... The connection with the 39 Articles is mentioned about 15:18-25<br /><br />You're right. He completely ignores the mention of the 39 Articles in the answer....<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-91057552186082700842011-08-16T10:28:38.851-07:002011-08-16T10:28:38.851-07:00I think you're right, Robin. It has been edit...I think you're right, Robin. It has been edited out. It's no longer there.... 13:40Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9073400.post-19386229848316169792011-08-16T10:11:26.213-07:002011-08-16T10:11:26.213-07:00Charlie,
It is at the very beginning of the inter...Charlie,<br /><br />It is at the very beginning of the interview, right after the title of the interview is flashed on the screen. May be Kevin edited it in response to my email.Robin G. Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09511384478845569163noreply@blogger.com