Status
Not open for further replies.

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is nothing off-topic here nor any strawman, but something being avoided. You asserted what Bible translations you used and denigrated the NAB, while presenting yourself as a faithful RC, and thus the fact that it is your pastors that gave you the NAB, and do not sanction your preferred translations, is relevant.

Seeing as you basically excommunicate Catholics (or otherwise disallow them as being so) whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, then we should know what kind of Catholicism you are defending.

As for Vatican 2, why do I need to hear a long series of unofficial teaching by some priest who likes the Latin Mass in order to get an answer as to what kind of RC you are? Who knows if he overall concurs with how Pope Francis interprets it, but I am sure there are other priests who differ with him, while I still do not know if you consider all that V2 taught to be binding on Catholics.

Why is it so hard to get you to plainly answer "where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?"

Again, your perceptions and comments are spot on!

As I said already to our mutual Catholic friend, I hope she keeps on posting as the more she says the worse she makes the RCC look.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My point is, Our Lord, through the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, gives us an important moral command, he says that divorcing someone, except on the grounds of "fornication" is an act of adultery, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments! It is crucial that understand what is the correct interpretation of the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, and yet the many ecclesial authorities have completely different interpretation of this passage, which one is the correct one? What does Our Lord mean by "fornication?" in this passage?

I've gotta go, dinner is being served, but I'll be back shortly.

And once again, you did not post that Scripture!!!!!

It is your responsibility to tell us what Scripture you are referring to. I think everyone knows but it is still up to you to make sure so that there are no assumptions.

You know what assumptions are right? Assumption is believing that the Rosary is in the Bible when actually it is not.

Same with Purgatory.
Same with the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Same as the sinlessness of Mary and her assumption.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And once again, you did not post that Scripture!!!!!
I'm rather happy that the scripture wasn't quoted. It's kind of annoying when someone posts a wall of text of scripture quotations, and even more so when they don't bother explaining what their point even is.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Agreed!

My experience with this subject is that no matter how much bible Scripture is posted, no matter how much logic is considered, nothing will make any difference.

Well, building on bedrock, as Jesus Says,

Trusting Bible Scripture and Posting Bible Scripture (instead of sinking sand)

IS ENCOURAGING!!!! (i.e. it does make a difference or at least joy and hope !!)
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My point is, Our Lord, through the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, gives us an important moral command, he says that divorcing someone, except on the grounds of "fornication" is an act of adultery, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments! It is crucial that understand what is the correct interpretation of the infallible authority of Sacred Scripture, and yet the many ecclesial authorities have completely different interpretation of this passage, which one is the correct one? What does Our Lord mean by "fornication?" in this passage?

I've gotta go, dinner is being served, but I'll be back shortly.

You are asking what are the biblical grounds for divorce?
The answer is sexual immorality and abandonment.

Are there additional grounds for divorce beyond these two? Possibly.

Do you believe that a woman should stay married to a man who beats her all the time?

what about addiction to inappropriate contentography, drug / alcohol use, crime / imprisonment, and mismanagement of finances (such as through a gambling addiction). None of these can be claimed to be explicit biblical grounds for a divorce.

That does not necessarily mean, though, that none of them are grounds for divorce which God would approve of.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Again, your perceptions and comments are spot on!

As I said already to our mutual Catholic friend, I hope she keeps on posting as the more she says the worse she makes the RCC look.
Yes, other(s) have said that to me too -
they
were not sure before seeing online - they just thought it was okay -
then
when they saw all that was posted online, they went and researched it and
found out it was wrong. The 'controversy' was all about nothing/ on sand.

'Easy-peasy' ? (well, maybe not easy, but God worked out everything ... for their good, for everyone's good who loves Him and is called according to His Purpose in Jesus)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm rather happy that the scripture wasn't quoted. It's kind of annoying when someone posts a wall of text of scripture quotations, and even more so when they don't bother explaining what their point even is.

I totally understand why you would say that. If you do not accept the Bible and instead follow the dogmas of men, that is exactly what you would say.

Allow me to help you out in this kind of situation.

Scripture where Purgatory is found in the Bible..................."NONE".
Scripture where the sinlessness of Mary is found................."NONE".
Scripture where the assumption of Mary is found................."NONE".
Scripture where you are allowed to bow down to her image..."NONE".
Scripture where the perpetual virginity of Mary is found........"NONE".
Scripture where Bishops can not marry..............................."NONE".

Now, you should not be annoyed at all because NO Scripture was posted!!!!
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, other(s) have said that to me too -
they
were not sure before seeing online - they just thought it was okay -
then
when they saw all that was posted online, they went and researched it and
found out it was wrong. The 'controversy' was all about nothing/ on sand.

'Easy-peasy' ? (well, maybe not easy, but God worked out everything ... for their good, for everyone's good who loves Him and is called according to His Purpose in Jesus)

Remember, I do not know you or how you live. I do not know if you are able to teach others the Scriptures but I do know that with a computer YOU are reaching out to the world with the Bible truth of God's Word.

I can see clearly that God has given you a gift and I encourage you to continue to get out the Word of God as you are doing now.

May the lord bless you and keep you !!!! In Jesus name!
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ignore strawmans? Then you must be ignored, since as has been shown and ignored, you depend on such, for SS as defied by Westminster no less, does not mean "nothing else but the Bible is needed," as excluding the magisterial office, but besides affirming the need for the illumination of the Spirit of God reason, the light of nature, and Christian prudence, etc., it affirms.

" The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate..."

"It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (CHAPTERs 30, 31)

What Scripture provides is one thing; what is how it provides it and how one may apprehend it is another. Scripture provides what is essential for the life of faith, but not simply in the plain formal sense, though one may see what is needed for salvation as plainly stated, but that what is necessary is often realized by deduction, and via a "in a due use of the ordinary means," and Scripture materially provides for reason, teachers, etc.


Let you know? you failed to even deal with most of what I wrote to you, and your argument that you convinced yourself with relies on a strawman, and a false premise, which would made manifest if you would only plainly answer my questions I have asked you.

Why is it so hard to get you to plainly answer "where do you see an infallible church being essential for common people assuredly ascertaining what/who is of God?"

And does being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

I am very impressed by your knowledge and especially your patience in dealing with others.

I encourage to keep up the wonderful work you are doing by getting out the Word of God as seen in His Bible. God has certainly given you a great gift and I pray that you will continue to use it to teach those who have rejected God's Word and instead accepted the words and dogmas of men.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't follow the NAB, it has a blasphemous translation of St. Luke 1:28 (Not that we're debating that!) and many other problems, let alone the modernist, and outright atheistic notes and helps.

I follow versions that follow the Vulgate, namely the Douay-Rheims and Knox Version, although I do tolerate the RSV-CE.

Just to be clear, you post here defending the alleged infallibility and exclusivity of the RCC as the vehicle through whom God speaks, but then refer to their scripture as blasphemous? How does that work?

I recall a few months ago you starting at least one long thread on the OBOB subforum about what you perceived as wrong teachings in your Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) class at your local Catholic church?

My letter to my modernist RCIA class

And then four months later you're still struggling to forgive them for whatever you think they've done?

I need help forgiving my RCIA class

I post this only for the purposes of introspection. It seems your issue isn't that there are Christians out there who do not follow the RCC's beliefs, but rather that everyone else, including the RCC, doesn't follow yours. At some point, my friend, you need to take stock of all the strife you have with fellow Chirstians and acknowledge the common denominator.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Now, you should not be annoyed at all because NO Scripture was posted!!!!
My point is a lot like the train which left the station an hour ago.

Because you missed them both.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This is a rabbit trail because it doesn't define Tradition.
What? I just defined tradition in accordance with what Catholicism teaches, which is what was challenged. But which is not the same as apostolic preaching, for they could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation, neither of which Rome claims to do, while even then the veracity of their preaching was subject to testing by wholly inspired Scripture, showing its primacy, which is abundantly evidenced.

As is that writing is God's means of long term authoritative preservation, as can be shown. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11;18:28; 28:23 etc.)
You can't find 1 Corinthians 3, nor can you find any one of 70+ verses where Peter is spokesman and leader of all the Apostles.
You are moving the goal posts. Where did I deny Peter was being the street-level leader among brethren? The EOs also affirm that. But which simply does not mean that the NT church looked to him as the first of a line of infallible exalted popes reigning over all the churches from Rome.

And note that Peter is not the one who provides the definitive, Scripturally substantiated conclusive judgment in Acts 15 as to this issue, but James does, while nowhere in any of the letters to the churches is submission to Peter even once enjoined, and in fact rather than ant form of reminder of Peter's unique preeminence and power, and the need to be conscious of it, outside of Peter's own letters, he is only mentioned in 2 of epistles, and is listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who seemed to be pillars.

There is successor for any apostle after one was chosen by casting lots (not voting) to replace Judas, and therefore to maintaining the original number of apostles,. (cf. Rev. 21:14) even after the apostle James was martyred in Acts 12, and there is no inference of ensured infallibility for any magisterial office.

Peter could speak as wholly inspired of God and thus speak infallibly, and also provide new public revelation, neither of which RC popes are claimed to do.

Nor do mere words necessarily equate to what we believe and led others do so, but actions reveal what we believe, at least at the present time. And thereby the overall holy shepherd Peter could lead souls astray by his actions and need to be publicly reproved.
You perpetuate standard Protestant myths about devotion to Mary, she can do NOTHING without God. I'll repeat that to make sure you get it: Mary can do NOTHING without God.
Another false charge, which now seems to be what you must rely on. Where did I say the m powers ascribed to Mary were self-possessed? Instead I specified such things as that the Mary of Catholicism is said to be omnipotent by grace, by an omnipotent Son.

But which does not change the charge of blasphemy in making Mary out to be an omnipotent demigoddesss, thinking of her far "above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6)
Psalm 138:2 doesn't say "His written word alone". You can search the whole Bible and NOWHERE is "word of God" used to mean the written word alone. That is a false man made Protestant tradition.
And where did I invoke Psalm 138:2as saying "His written word alone?" But if you actually do search the whole Bible even you might see that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken,with writing being God's chosen means of authoritative preservation, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which provides for the discernment of what is God, and the establishment of a body of inspired writings as authoritative, without an infallible magisterium, and for oral preaching of the Word, and for more of the word of God to be added to that body, as well as providing for the church and its offices, etc.

I apologize. As you know, infallibility is teaching without error, and is constantly misrepresented with straw man fallacies.
And as you should know, infallibility is only provided for by Rome when the pope or a ecumenical council in union with him declares/defines a matter of faith or morals for the entire church. And which requires "assent of faith/theological assent."
Sacred Tradition may also be loosely defined as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices.
Yet religious assent/“ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. And which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching" though some non-public dissent may be tolerated, for as such teachings may contain non-salvific error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while also see a General Magisterium, which may include the possibility of significant error.

But since there is no infallible list for what magisterial level each Catholic teaching RCs belongs to, then which level each belongs to, and this what manner of assent they are to give, can be subject to interpretation, as can the meaning of which. Thus we have RCs attacking certain Catholics rejecting what some of what papal bullls states, and even parts of encyclicals, or certain interpretations by Vatican Two of historical teaching as being contrary to them, while others basically say just obey what is currently taught and don't question:
In addition, click on the "76" in my signature. From your posts I am not seeing any understanding of Sacred Tradition. Purgatory and the papacy does not define it.
Sorry that you seem unable to see me defining it as being oral and written transmission of the word of God according to Rome, while as the OP only wants to deal with SS then elaboration on Sacred Tradition should no be expected.


 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My point is a lot like the train which left the station an hour ago.

Because you missed them both.

Honestly, if you could speak with out your sarcasm and arrogance showing through, you might be more believable in the things you say.

You did not like the Scriptures being posted.

Then when they are not posted you don't like that either.

Who missed what?????
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You did.

missed what?????
My point (and the train which left the station an hour ago).

All I did was appreciate the fact that the member made the point without posting a ginormous wall of text. I'm honestly not sure why that would bother anybody.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Again, your perceptions and comments are spot on!

As I said already to our mutual Catholic friend, I hope she keeps on posting as the more she says the worse she makes the RCC look.
His posting is actually grievous, and it is a "he" not a "she," as I had surmised before looking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Because Scripture, by the very fact that it's Scripture, and not a living entity,...other infallible authorities are needed, living infallible authorities, for God is a God of the Living, not the dead. A living Magisterium, and a Tradition in the living minds of believers is what God provided us, in order to help ensure, that His Authority, and His Gospel, are well heard.
Since you seem reluctant to plainly affirm what I asked, but nonetheless affirm that an infallible magisterium is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God.

Then if this is true as you in many words insist it is, then as has been explained to you but ignored - despite your stated confidence that you have covered everything pertinent - then you have essential nuked the NT church.
giphy.gif

(This is not flaming.)


For the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, holding to a body of books as being inspired by God and holding men such as John the Baptist as being "a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) and likewise common souls heard Jesus of Nazareth gladly, (Mark 12:37) another Itinerant Preacher, both of whom were rejected (Mark 11:27-33) by those who sat in the historical magisterial seat of Moses over Israel. (Mt. 23:2) Who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation if and as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

But whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Therefore an infallible magisterium is NOT is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God, nor does being the magisterial stewards of Scripture require or mean such possess the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, so that whatever they have will solemnly define in accordance with their scope and subject-based criteria, will be infallible (though they do not speak as wholly inspired of God, as men such as the apostles could, as well as thereby provide new public revelation).

Only in cults do we see leadership uniquely (or not) presuming such. The case of Caiaphas (John 1:49-51) was only that of the non-formulaic spontaneous uttering of prophecy, even of evil intent, not defining faith or morals whenever speaking according to Rome's infallibly defined formula.
Because human beings are fallen, and therefore fallible, Sacred Scripture will have to be processed through fallible beings, and thus, a danger for misinterpretation arises.
This is true, yet this does not mean that the Truth cannot be rightly discerned and win out. And despite your attempt to help God out, an ensured perpetual infallible magisterium was never God's means of providing and preserving faith -though the OT magisterium certainly had authority to enjoin conditional obedience, as do civil courts (Dt. 17:8-13; Rm. 13:1-7) - but God actually often raised up men who reproved those who sat in the official magisterial seat, and were rejected by them.

Therefore the real NT church did not begin under the premise of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, but upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, both rebels in the sight of those who often seat of Moses, whom the Lord charged with persecuting. (Matthew 23:31-37; cf. Acts 7:52)

And rather than an autocratic infallible magisterium defining what to believe and requiring implicit assent to it under that premise of ensured veracity, God allows false teachers to test the people, and tells them to themselves "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1; cf. 1Ths. 5:21)
In order for this danger to be avoided, other infallible authorities are needed, living infallible authorities,
And which solution is nowhere promised or found in Scripture, despite spurious Cath attempts to extrapolate it out of general promises such as to be progressively led into all Truth (while censuring us for interpreting the Scriptures rather than letting Rome do so).

In addition, unity itself is not the goal, but unity in Truth, and not by autocratic dictatorial controls, but by how the NT church obtained followers:

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

If unity is the criteria for veracity, and disunity means error, then cults such as the Watchtower Society would have the ascendancy, since their clone-like indoctrinated, slow-walking members walk in far greater lock-step unity with their leadership than Catholics do. Nor do Catholics overall testify to greater unity in basic beliefs than evangelical do. And as one who remained a weekly Mass-going RC for 6 years (this is not the Bible belt by far) after becoming manifestly becoming born again, and realized the profound basic changes in heart and life versus institutionalized Catholicism or Protestantism, I can attest I find far more of the essential unity of the Spirit (which rejoices in the living Christ and what He did in us, versus "The (particular) Church" being the main focus and security) than in Catholicism (the charismatics showed some promise).

But it is the quality of unity resulting from Berean-type souls searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught that is superior to the implicit assent Rome requires of her faithful.

Yet in reality, while your premise is that an infallible magisterium is essential for correct interpretation of Scripture, just what has Rome accomplished by her i(self-proclaimed) infallible magisterium?

  • Has she infallibly defined more than just a few verses out of the over 31,000 verses in the Bible? No.
  • Has she produced any infallible commentary on the whole Bible? No.
  • Has she infallibly defined anything close to all the Truths found in the Bible? No.
  • Has she even product an infallible list of all infallible teachings (and thus all that RCs must provide assent of faith to)? No.
  • Is Scripture so obtuse that its essential Truths requires an infallible magisterium, as they cannot otherwise be deduced, with the due use of ordinary means? No.
  • Are all infallible teaching so clear that their preclude the need for interpretation, and preclude variant ones? No.
  • Can RCs expect timely responses to disputes as to what Scripture means?
  • Within basic parameters, do Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) texts in order to support their church? Yes.
  • Are those whom Rome counts and treats as members more unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture? No.

Pinging redleghunter, JayW, Major1
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just to be clear, you post here defending the alleged infallibility and exclusivity of the RCC as the vehicle through whom God speaks, but then refer to their scripture as blasphemous? How does that work?
That is indeed an interesting question. The NAB even has the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, unlike his "true RC" opinion, and RCs are to follow the pastors. But they do interpret their interpreter, even as meaning they need not affirm all to all that papal Bulls and encyclicals teach, including the Popes Laudato si‘: (Praise be to you – On Care For Our Common Home)
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.