The world historical disaster of Vatican II

Bruce tells it like it is.

Tolkien and the world historical disaster of Vatican II

I feel particularly sorry for Tolkien that the Latin Mass, which was the focus of his life and something he saw as eternally dependable, was taken from him (and millions of other Roman Catholics) by the unforced error that was Vatican II (an elite-led ‘liberalization’ of the Church by dominant Leftist Catholic clergy and religious orders).

Vatican II was a real body blow, and I suspect the most deeply dismaying event of Tolkien’s whole life.

His friend George Sayer said that when participating in a modern English-language Mass in the late 1960s/ early 70s, Tolkien spoke-out the Latin words, loud and clear – presumably continuing this protest to the end of his life.

Unless and until the truly dread-full lapse and fall – a negative event of world historical significance – represented by Vatican II and what followed, is explicitly repented and reversed by the Roman Catholic Church; then that institution will certainly continue to dwindle and dwindle as a spiritual force for Good in the world.

29 Responses

  1. My friend, you highlight the very issue that is the ultimate repudiation of the legitimacy of the Roman hierarchy itself. You are, in fact, expressing the dismissal of the concept of the “authority of church tradition”.

    You, sir, like Tolkien before you, are Protestants at your core. Your own words convict you, so there is no point denying it. The “church tradition” is wrong, plain wrong, and you know it.

    It is a characteristic of all worldly institutions of a hierarchical nature that they are vulnerable to hijacking by hostile elites.

    Protestant congregational organization is immune to such hijacking, and therefore far more Conservative and Traditionalist, because they are a direct expression of the faith of the masses founded, of course, on the Bible itself.

  2. I would add, Protestant congregations are every much an expression of “Church tradition” as the Roman hierarchy. You yourself are asserting that the traditions of the people are wiser than the fashions of the elites.

    Why would you remain a member of an organization that is no longer a spiritual force for good in the world? Will you betray your own conscience, which is nothing less than the whisperings of the Spirit? How will you answer that question is Jesus asks it of you at the Pearly Gates?

  3. Boo freaking hoo.

  4. I a Protestant at my core? Oh heaven forbid. Your free-thinking, non-statue/Mary-worshiping ways frighten and confuse me. Of course, Catholics believe that the Church has some guarantees from the Holy Spirit. Incorrect doctrine will not be, and has not been, taught ex cathedra. Perhaps we can feel sure that there will always be valid sacraments somewhere in the world, although I’ve never actually seen that guarantee written down. Being a Catholic at heart means caring a lot about orthodox doctrine on the books and valid sacraments at Mass. On the other hand, what always strikes me is how paltry these guarantees really are. Widespread blasphemy and apostasy are not only possible; they have come to pass.

    Hierarchically-organized Churches are, as you say, vulnerable to take-over by hostile elites. Congregationalists are immune to subversion in this way, but I don’t think they’re safe from subversion either. In their case, it seems to come more in the form of cultural drift, of imbibing the ambient culture’s assumptions unconsciously and reinterpreting Scripture in their light. There’s no one immersed in the Church’s ancient traditions to tell them “Jesus’ audiences didn’t share your democratic, capitalist, feminist prejudices. You can’t just assume them without distorting the message. Here’s how people raised in the culture that God designed to be a medium for the Gospel understood this…” From a secular sociological point of view, I think the conclusion is that if the entire culture is against you, you’re screwed, whether you arrange hierarchically or not. Maybe episcopally organized Churches succumb first, because the elites are the first to accept ideological fads, but everybody else goes along eventually. Fortunately, Christians have not been left entirely to our own devices. Divine intervention, a bunch of road-to-Damascus conversions, seems like the only way out of this mess.

  5. It’s interesting how Justin fails to take into account Eastern Orthodoxy, which embraces neither Roman global centralism, nor Protestant congregationalism, seeing the Pope as “the first Protestant”, in fact.

  6. The only problem with this is that it runs directly counter to what actually occurred in history. Congregational protestantism has been the font of reinterpretation and progressivism at every step. The final disaster of V2 came out of the wish to finally imitate and appease the Protestants who were so far advanced!

    Could you give an example of what you are talking about?

  7. As a secular conservative, but one friendly to religion, I can only comment as an outsider here. Yet, from the outside, I have to say that protestant Christianity appears to have no anchor at all. Ordination of homosexuals…tolerance of irresponsible (may I say sinful?) lifestyles…dilution of the commandments…if I could be religious, I would be outraged. Sometimes I feel outraged on behalf of the faithful, given how far the so-called mainstream Christian denominations have strayed from what even I can read in the Bible. At least, even with Vatican II, the Catholic Church has not strayed as far.

  8. I would agree with you in the sense that V2 is Church teaching and by the Church’s own laws, must be believed by the faithful. Either the Church is without error or Christ was a liar. But we know that the pope is human, can err, and can be (as in, it is possible) a heretic.

    In this instance, we see the Church teaching as indisputable, immutable truth all sorts of things which are contrary to Tradition. Where does that put Catholics? This is the problem with remaining loyal to the reigning pontiff.

    I know God exists, He sent His Son, and His Son established the Church, and the Church cannot err in its doctrines, so if the Church is not wrong, who is?

    As far as I am concerned, those who protest V2, but cannot say Ben XVI is not the pope, put themselves in an untenable position – one which you seem, in a roundabout way, to have picked up on. (Not that I care to get into an in-depth debate of sedevacantism or Catholicism v. Protestantism debate with anyone).

  9. I am not making an anti-Catholic point here, I am Catholic (albeit Anglo but intenting to become Roman via the Ordinariate, if/ when possible).

    But these matters are not for us to decide, not alone at any rate; they are authoratatively described in scriptural prophecy.

    Assuming, that is – as I do, from Fr. Seraphim Rose’s teachings – that we are in the ‘end times’ (but do not know how far into the end times, nor when they will end) – the prophecies make clear that the mystical (real) Church will survive, but that most of the ‘official’/ Institutional Church will be subverted by ‘the Antichrist’ (i.e. that which mimics Christ, but is in reality the Enemy).

    Think of the Russian Orthodox Church under communism and what they went through.

    (Probably you don’t know – but there were periodic attempts at genocide of clergy, monks and nuns; millions of Christians killed and sent to camps, continual persecution of all kinds and infiltration and takeover of the Church hierarchy by the state, KGB etc. There were so many martyrs that the numbers are almost beyond count. From a Communist perspective, there needed to be – Russia was the most devoutly Christian country in the world until 1917. Then the official Church was utterly corrupted. But an unofficial Catacomb Church kept alive the true spirit.)

    The Russian Orthodox Church has come through this and there is now a big revival. However, there has been no repentance of what happened; and unless or until there is repentance, this Russian Orthodox revival cannot come to ultimate good.

    The end of the end times can always be *postponed* by repentance, and *if* the Roman Catholic Church was to repent of Vatican II then (as I understand) there would be a genuine possibility of renewal – but, of course, at some considerable cost – maybe even a very severe worldly cost – while nonetheless being effective at the spiritual level.

    My point may be clarified in my current blog post – I wished to imply that Vatican II was *not* well-motivated. To say this is partly merely to assume that almost all human-derived motivations are bad in this fallen world; but also that the explicit motivations for Vatican II are not good – they were worldly motivations – motivations of expediency, the opposite of good motivations.

    Contrast with Vatican II the motivations of The Anglican Ordinariate. In worldly terms this has led to enormous problems, complications, controversies for both Roman Catholics and Anglicans – but so what! The motivation was spiritual, not worldly – the reversal at a stroke of centuries of miserable schism.

    If Benedict XVI achieved nothing else then *this* was an event of (potentially) world historical importance (potentially – because how it works-out in practice depends on human choice, naturally).

    Since the Pope has done this much, I will not despair of a formal repentance for Vatican II while Benedict XVI lives – this Pope has shown he is capable of it.

    Bruce Charlton

  10. Justin,
    If we look at congregational Protestants as a whole, we find they are vulnerable to “grass-roots subversion.” The independent churches of colonial New England were as defiantly congregational as any in history, and yet we have them to thank for Unitarianism. Most of the “congregational” churches that didn’t go Unitarian adopted Presbyterian church government as a defense against popular heresy. Liberal Christianity was not foisted on the mainline churches, since most retained the right to appoint and dismiss their pastors, and there’s always the option for a disgruntled Protestant to move to a new congregation, or even start a new sect on their own.

    Neither Catholics nor Protestants have grounds for preening pride here. Episcopal and congregational ecclesiology have different vulnerabilities. I’d suggest we commiserate with each other.

  11. I’m glad I saw your comment here, Dr. Charlton. It’s clearer than your post today. This pope has said explicitly that the Church must adhere to the Truth, even at the expense of its size.

    What do you think a formal repentance would look like? I have long hoped that the pope would take steps towards communion with the Eastern Orthodox, and do so with great humility and appreciation for the strengths of their tradition, as well as acknowledgment of Western failures.

  12. I disagree with Justin, trent13, and Dr Charleton and all in the same way. VII provides its own escape mechanism, one clearly expressed by John XXIII and Paul VI and referred to by the current Holy Father. The two conciliar Popes both said quite clearly and explicitly that VII was about re-expressing the same Catholic Faith in modern language. It is obvious, just by reading the documents, that there is something very different and experimental about this council.

    Thus, the Church can back away from this experiment by saying “hey, that re-expression led to a lot of misunderstandings, let’s go back to the way we used to talk.” The Holy Father has explicity said that it is a live possibility that VII was a failure; hence, we may believe that it was a failure (so, there is nothing Protestant about despising those phenomena colloquially called Vatican II or about despising the way the documents of Vatican II were written. It goes without saying that there is nothing Protestant about thinking that holding VII was imprudent or that the conciliar Popes were crappy Popes.).

    The documents of VII and the subsequent Magisterium are such a tangled mess that they could be taken to mean almost anything at all. They provide no constraint at all on the future development of the Church, especially if they are subjected to the sort of willfully hostile re-interpretation which the reformers have subjected the rest of Church teaching to. If the Syllabus can have a counter-Syllabus, then the counter-Syllabus can have a counter-counter-Syllabus. Or, the council can just quietly be dropped.

    Conservative Catholics are deeply annoying, and we should not forget their bizarre parrotting of the inane “springtime of Vatican II” slogan. However, in the longer run, their optimism is justified. Day by day, the liberals are retiring and dying. Day by day, new vocations are moving further and further to the right. Since personnel is policy, the liberals are screwed. The only way this fails to fix things is if the Church starts ordaining married men in significant numbers. Then we are truly screwed.

    Ugly is ugly. Nobody thinks Picasso holds a candle to Titian. Calling Gaudium et Spes “beautiful” just makes it clear that the speaker is a liar. Can you imagine someone having a devotion to Teilhard de Chardin?

  13. Commiseration is called for, agreed.

    Congregationalism gave us Unitarianism, surely, but it also gave us Methodists and Baptists, the people who evangelized a continent, and now, the world.

    Compare the “chaos” and degeneration caused by congregationalism in America, versus the stagnation and spiritual impotence caused by the state-church system in Europe.

    Remind me again, which continent is more religious?

  14. Congregational freedom gives us heresy, but it also gives renewal. Looking at the American experience, if people schism off of the True Vine, their shoot withers. Unitarianism, for example, or Quakerism, DYING organizations. Just like “Mainline/Establishment” Protestantism, dead and dying… Episcopalianism, DYING. Evangelical movements of all types, that found themselves upon Gospel truth, LIVING and GROWING.

    In America, schismatics gravitate towards heretical offshoots, true, but what do they do in Europe? Atheism, non-practice, spiritual deadness…. those are the legacies of leaving religion up to “the establishment”.

    When the Visible Church has been coopted by Satan, what are you supposed to do? Luther answered this long ago…

  15. I would disagree with the idea that everyone goes along eventually. We are called, and JUDGED, as individuals. If our church leaders schism from Truth, are we required to follow them? Let me put the question to you: what line would have to be crossed for you to leave the Roman Catholic Church? Is there one? Or would you support it, NO MATTER WHAT?

  16. Were the Ordinary Magisterium not infallible, I would agree with you. But that is where your thesis fails. I refer you to John Daly’s article on the subject here: http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm#crisis

  17. VII has certainly failed in many parts of the world, especially the West. But does it deserve any credit for the significant Catholic gains in Africa and other parts of the world where the push for inculturation was not co-opted by malevolent interests?

    The Council of Florence failed to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But didn’t it pave the way for the reunion of many Eastern Catholics?

  18. Justin,
    My main point was simply to observe that congregational government is no prophylactic against heresy. In fact, I’d say that it is often more responsive to the Zeitgeist than episcopal government. This is why, until fairly recently, Catholicism was more countercultural than most Protestant denominations.

    Protestant sects can avoid some of the dangers of congregational government by restricting membership to persons with well testified beliefs and experiences. Historically the membership of a Protestant church was always much smaller than the audience at a Sunday service, and revocation of membership was much, much more common than Catholic excommunication. Obviously the whole structure of a Catholic parish is radically different from this, and it would be disastrous to put anything up for a popular referendum. Our “religious” are more like your “saints” and “elders” than you may think.

    European Christianity is not healthy, to be sure; but I wouldn’t put this down to a shortage of Baptists and Methodists. I honestly wonder where American Christianity would be if our losses in the Great Wars of the Twentieth Century numbered in the millions.

  19. @GR “What do you think a formal repentance would look like?”

    It would not matter so long as it was clear and unambiguous. If it was decided, the Pope would have no difficulty in doing this.

    The announcement, and subsequent clarifications, concerning the Ordinariate are an example (the clarifications were necessary to prevent high level opponents hijacking and nullifying the change).

  20. @Justin – the big problem is spiritual pride – and the tendency for self assertion.

    The Catholic Churches are more aware of this perennial sin than the Protestant – especially, it seems to me, the Orthodox Church is aware of this.

    One way to try and minimize SP is obedience – e.g. in monasticism. Obedience to an Elder of advanced holiness.

    This models, I understand, in microcosm the obedience of the sinful human to God – knowing that pride is the primary sin, and humility second only to love among the virtues.

    A major pitfall of the modern world is spiritual pride: a person awakens to the need for salvation, but this then becomes corrupted into an exercise in self will, and individual judgment.

    The protestant ‘answer’ includes the abolition of religious orders – but this is not really an answer…

  21. I believe the Church to be infallible because God revealed this; and I believe God revealed it because it is affirmed by the Church. In the second proposition “because” is not taken in the same sense as in the first, for it does not signify the formal motive of faith, but only the indispensable condition of faith, that is, the infallible proposition of the object of faith.

    If we are talking about something more than a useful taxonomy for the study of comparative religion, then there is a danger of falling into tautology: “The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.”

    One can, of course, try to set up an explicitly doctrinal test – “The true faith is contained in the three catholic creeds,” or “The true faith is that Jesus Christ is Lord,” although, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute him.

    Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. After all, the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which stands in pride of place at the beginning of the Codex of Justinian, did so very neatly, by referring to “that religion which from then to now declares itself to have been delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”

    Not only does it avoid the vice of circularity, but, suitably updated to refer to living authorities, it is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

  22. Hmm. For 2000 years, the Church, the Bride of Christ, has preserved the doctrines of God. The Roman persecution, the scores of heretics, Islam, the Protestant DEformation, the dumbarse atheist writers like Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, and, more recently, our dear friend Richard Dawkins, all have failed to destroy the Church. Sedevacantism is the denial of God’s power on Earth; the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church founded by Jesus Christ; the hand of God would not allow the gates of hell to prevail against it (Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam, Clementine Vulgate, Matthew 16:18). I hate to sound all Protestanty, quoting from the Bible like a televangelist, but it’s true. The Church will endure persecutions and protect the doctrine of Christ until the terrible judge judges his people.

    Admittedly, the Church was purer before VII (although I find myself somewhat sympathetic for Rahner. I mean, I’d like to think that Aristotle, Pythagoras and the rest were saved, for they acted in accord with what they believed was good and true, and also, if someone’s only knowledge of Christianity at the hour of death was from Dawkin’s God Delusion, God condemning him for thinking ill of the Church would make God seem somewhat like a retarded douchebag, especially if the guy was (otherwise) a good person, right?), the Church is still the Bride of Christ. There is no one else we can turn to, and there never can be. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, if there’s no legitimate Church to be outside of, either everyone is saved or everyone is damned.

  23. John Khoo said: “Sedevacantism is the denial of God’s power on Earth; the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church founded by Jesus Christ; the hand of God would not allow the gates of hell to prevail against it”

    I am afraid your comment is indicative of ignorance in regards to the sedevacantist position. It is precisely because sedevacantists believe that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church that they are sedevacantist. If they believed otherwise, they wouldn’t be sedevacantist, but atheist, since to say that the gates of hell can prevail against the Bride of Christ would be to admit that Christ is a liar.

    You further make your argument against sedevacantism ludicrous by saying that “the Church was purer before VII,” as if though there are degrees of purity in the Bride of Christ. The Church is the Church – either she is true, and her doctrines are inerrant, or those who pretend to represent the Church are not who they claim to be. There is no third position.

    The Church before VII can’t be regarded in the light of “greater purity,” but in the light of being Catholic. It is precisely because of the doctrinal error which has been taught on a global scale by the hierarchy since VII that sedevacantists say, “these men are outside the Church, they are not Catholic, for the Church teaching cannot teach error.”

    My simple point is this: before making such outrageous statements that sedevacantists deny God’s power on Earth (or that sedevacantists ascribe to any other heresies), understand the contradiction of your own position, and get your facts straight about their position.

  24. Ah, you misunderstand. I was not referring to doctrine, but to practice. The Church has been largely prudent in accepting the doctrines of VII, so there’s nothing sufficiently outrageous to be called a heresy. The old Mass was, well, better, to summarise, but the newer, more common Mass is acceptable.

    Additionally, the Church has been growing in strength since Christ founded it. If the sedevacantist position is indeed true, that God has abandoned his Church and left it without a Pope for half a century, this would buck that trend severely. It’s a very steep plunge to say that the largest religious body on Earth has suddenly become a heretical group (for half a century!), and seems to imply something about how well God is taking care of His Church. And what of all the apparitions and miracles that have occured after VII? If the Church was truly heretical now, would God not have said something about it? Would God not have stirred up even more protest, and not just inspiring the truth in the minds of a small group of sedevacantists?

    There is a reason why the Catholic Church is the largest religious organisation on Earth.

  25. Mr. Khoo, it sounds like you’ve been sipping the democracy Kool-Aide. What does the size of the Church have to do with its adherence to Truth? The two values are orthogonal. You still fail to understand the sedevacantist position (which I don’t agree with): If their position were true, then what we’ve been calling the Church for several decades is not, in fact, the Church that Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against. In our age of increasingly adept propaganda and information warfare, it isn’t a stretch to believe this could be pulled off by the Prince of this world.

  26. Alright, it seems I need to be more explicit. The reason I referred to was not democracy. I was talking about the influence of the Holy Spirit, leading more people towards the Church than the influence of men lures people to false religion.

  27. I find your reasoning inexplicable on a variety of levels. First, the practice of the faith and its doctrine are directly correlated (lex orandi, lex credendi). If anything, the practice of the faith (or should I say lack thereof) since VII is an explicit sign of the falsehood of the Novus Ordo’s teaching. The loss of of vocations is a huge indicator that there is very little, if at all, in the Novus Ordo which impels us to believe and act on that belief.

    You said “The Church has been largely prudent in accepting the doctrines of VII, so there’s nothing sufficiently outrageous to be called a heresy.”

    This makes no sense at all and smacks of heresy. Supposing that Paul VI was a true pope, Vatican II would have the charism of infallibility under the Ordinary Magisterium. In a council of the Church, it is not the council proposes and the Church accepts, but that the Church teaches through the Council. Either the Council was true, and must, therefore be accepted on the fact that it was infallible, or it was false. There are no degrees to infallibility. To even suggest that VII could have taught anything objectionable skirts the anathemas of Vatican I re: the Ordinary Magisterium.

    You also said, “The old Mass was, well, better, to summarise, but the newer, more common Mass is acceptable.”

    If the Novus Ordo is the Church, no one, not you or any other, can question her official worship, the New Mass, nor can it be criticized or compared to an older rite and be found wanting. The Church is Perfect. Either it is conducive to piety, or it is not the Church – to suggest otherwise also skirts anathemas (of the C. of Trent).

    And even If we would disagree with each other re:heresy in the ranks, there is also to be considered the warning received of God (via Pope St. Pius X), regarding the growing numbers of modernists within the ranks of the hierarchy, even in the early 20th c. Not to mention that Christ Himself and previous saints warned us of a time when heresy would be taught by the hierarchy and in Christ’s name, such that even the saints would be deceived. And further, that that is how we were to know that they were not true teachers, because they taught error in the name of Christ. How can you claim that we were not warned and told?

    Not only with the VII popes do we have a break with rhetoric, practice, and papal dignity (what previous pope would ever kiss the koran? or apologize to the Jews?), but also doctrine. Without the Truths of the faith, there is no Church, regardless of whatever other “indicators of truth” the Novus Ordo may seem to hold (though I fail to see any at all).

    As to miracles and apparitions, you mean like Medjugorie? Enough said on that….

    As Gabe Ruth pointed out, numbers are no indicator of truth – using that principle we might as well say that the Muslims could have the true religion after all.

    Finally, you stated “the influence of the Holy Spirit, leading more people towards the Church than the influence of men lures people to false religion.” The problem is, the Novus Ordo is drastically losing numbers; using your reasoning, this would in fact prove the Novus Ordo to not be the Church, rather than the other way around. Also, according to Novus Ordo practice and doctrine, there is no such thing as false religion – according to JPII, Judaism is our big brother, Islam worships the same God we do, and Protestantism, we discover in our enlightened age, actually isn’t fundamentally different from the Catholic faith after all (thank you Joint Declaration on Justification!).

  28. It seems you carry the infallibility of general councils very far, much further than most Catholic theologians would acknowledge.

    As Newman said of Vatican I, in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk

    “of a Council Perrone says, “Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492.”

    And again, “Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of name, as Tournely and Amort [Vid. Amort. Dem. Cr., pp. 205-6] who contend that even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church’s infallible teaching; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor less than that of those capitula.”

    Thus, “ in those circumstances and surroundings of formal definitions, which I have been speaking of, whether on the part of a Council or a Pope, there may be not only no exercise of an infallible voice, but actual error. Thus, in the Third Council, a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defence of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius, and narratives, not trustworthy, are introduced into the Seventh.”

    He continues, “As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter, as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope’s act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened.” We saw much of this in the Second Vatican Council.

  29. Really, and from whose authority do you come up with this response.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: