Protestant Paranoia and the RCC

Live4Jesus · Feb 1, 2003

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
In real life I do not run across Protestant paranoia against the Catholic Church.
The only place I do see it is on messageboards. Possibly it's because of the anonymity. For the most part non-Catholic Christians are very loving towards their Catholic brothers and sisters.
I think what we are seeing on sites like RR and occasionally on CF is a very vocal minority.
This vocal minority in no way, represents Protestanism.

Live4Jesus · Feb 1, 2003

I think the difference being that here, people discuss their beliefs in ways that they normally wouldn't sitting next to a neighbor or associate... maybe the anonymity is a good thing... keeps us from slamming the doors in each others faces...

There are some heavy duty doctrinal differences in my op. As much as I may appear anti-catholicism... which I will point out does bring a little bit of the awareness of Jesus Christ into a persons life... so they know the name at least which is good if they never knew that before.. but neither I am neither totally pro-protestantism either... it's just a step in the right direction... the end all of which, is Jesus.

Blackhawk · Feb 1, 2003

**I am taking my mod hat off now.  This is my own personal opinions. **

Now I know you meant well here but I have some problems with this post.

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
Well, I'm basing that on my limited exposure to what seems to be 'Protestant paranoia or anti-Catholicism'---Some Protestants (certainly not the majority, but the ones who exhibit the paranoia)--for the most part do not want to admit that Christianity started with the catholic church,

 

I am not ant-Catholicism.  However I do not believe that Christianity started with the Catholic church.  It started with just the church.  Now it was catholic but only in the universal sense at that time.  Later structures began developing and cardinals were developed.  Some of these cardinals in certain cities became very influencial.  One of these was the one in Rome but there were others.  One was the one in Constaniople.  After the East/West schism that officially was finalized I believe in the 11th century two churches became "the church."  One was the Orthodox church and the other was the RCC.  Later the RCC split again at the reformation and then in other places.  However my point is that whether one is Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or whatever one can say that the church started with their church.  I know this goes against RCC tradition but I believe it is wrong.  But I am not anti Catholic at all. 

 

or that Tradition is what ultimately led to the compling of the Scriptures. [/B]

 

I might agree or disagree with this so I might very well disagree with this but I am not anti-Catholic. 

 I mean, if they don't agree with certain aspects of the Catholic Faith, fine. But at least acknowledge the history of the Church for what it is....where their Christian roots originated. [/B]

Click to expand...

My Christian roots did not originate in the RCC.  They originated with Jesus and then the early church which later split into the RCC and the Orthodox church and then later into protestant churches also.  My church roots pass through the RCC but does not originate there. 

Many do not do that, in fact they deny it. And not only do they deny it, but they make the Church into something evil. And when I see that sort of attitude exhibited, it reminds me of rebellious children. Just my opinion, though.

Michelle [/B]

Click to expand...

Now I do not deny the RCC's role in history and the good it did do and is still doing.  I think the RCC reaches people that my church (southern Baptist) would never reach.  And that is why I think denominations are not that bad.  Baptists reach some people, Catholics another, and Lutherans a whole other group, etc..   

Gabriel · Feb 1, 2003

Although I have in the past argued with one of the Catholics on this board, I hope I have never given anyone the impression that I was a Catholic hater. Have I? If so, I apologize and beg forgiveness. I think all denominations have christians and non-christians in them. While I don't sgree with all that Catholisism believes, I also don't think any of it will send you to hell. I really don't know much about it at all.

Stormy · Feb 1, 2003

Originally posted by Blackhawk
**I am taking my mod hat off now.  This is my own personal opinions. **

Now I know you meant well here but I have some problems with this post.

 

I am not ant-Catholicism.  However I do not believe that Christianity started with the Catholic church.

I

If the RCC is not the first Church that Christ started then why is it that they seem to have all the relics from Christ? Do they not have his burial shroud and face cover? Do they have parts of the cross that he was nailed to? They have all the papers from the early church fathers? What else do they have? It would seem that they must be the first Church because otherwise why does no other church have anything other then Christians that left the first Church? Everything stayed with the first Church.

And further if it is the first Church that Jesus started then to say that it is not a Christian Church would seem a little like blasphemy. Don't you think?

Important!! Please do not get upset with me. I am not trying to provoke anyone.

I am not asking this as a person taking a side in a debate, but rather as someone trying to come up with the right answers to help in very important personal decision.

Please explain to me why Catholic is wrong.

Live4Jesus · Feb 1, 2003

I'm not a catholic hater either.

How could I be all my family and many of my friends are Catholic.

I am not paranoid about them either. Actually think that is funny tell you the truth.. if it were true that I was paranoid of them..

anyway after what I went through being saved, after growing up in catholic family... well I just have real strong feelings, knowledge even though I know a catholic would argue 'how could you have such knowledge?' But believe me I do... for sure...I have been saved by Jesus Christ.. and thing is, as a catholic I do sincerely think I was headed straight for hell.

And after that I studied about why... how... and I have lots of concrete reasons, they don't want to hear it.

Least when I was younger, about 30, I had one christian friend, just a non-denom type, he would visit various churches, maybe he was pentacostal i don't know... but the important things was he believed. he was a strict bible christian. He wasn't perfect... but I listened to him tell his stories..... and its because of him that I got saved. well I am sure God had a lot to do with it too, but that one friend,,, He simply said, 'Just ask'.

Thats all anyone really needs to do, just ask Jesus into your heart, into your life, give your life to him. And the caths they got to line stuff up... infant baptism which I do believe at this point is not honored by God... then first communion, then confirmation... like there is a day that everyone goes to the church they put their hand on your head and you receive the holy spirit.

well got to tell you it just aint true. Nothing happened.. And I could have accepted Christ as a six year old if they hadn't put all those rules in my way and then so... by the time I was 15 at confirmation I was already lost.

I went through close to another 17-18 years of literal hell almost from time to time, in my soul, and my life as a result, till that one friend showed up in my life.

No one had ever told me I could just ask, i really really didn't know. As a catholic all I knew was that I hadn't completed something they call' sacraments' perfectly so therefore I was done for.

And yea, it does make me a bit peeved but still I don't hate catholics. I actually feel for them... have even cried for them.

his-girl · Feb 2, 2003

I would like to state up front that I am not paranoid of the Catholic Church nor do I hate Catholics; I do however believe that the Catholic Church has strayed from the biblical teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and now teach a false doctrine.

I know what I'm about to print will cause quite a few Catholics to become angry, this is not my intent. Since BrainDamage posted this thread with the intent to bring further division between Protestants and Catholics, IMHO. I felt the need to rebuke his post and clarify the Protestant view point.

Jesus tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Also a very important scripture that is often overlooked by the Catholic Church is Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"

It is apparent, that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture. The Protestant Church cites the Bible alone as the source of doctrinal knowledge. The Catholic church, on the other hand, cites the Bible and Tradition as stated below in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82.

". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."

The Catholic Church often attempts to give human traditions higher authority than God's Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus' day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God--corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God's Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye." Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church. The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?

Most if not all Catholics will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic Church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? Claims do not make it true!

Is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Hebrews 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater.

Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. Also to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Hebrews 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the great.

I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.

Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus told satan during the temptation; Away with you satan! for it is written You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve.

Luke 11:28 More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!

PaLM 119 His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great high priestly prayer, He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, "thy law is truth." There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. "The law of the LORD is perfect" (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."

Sources: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/

http://www.carm.org/catholic.htm

Mephster · Feb 2, 2003

Originally posted by his-girl
I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.

actually, I'm not real sure on this point. The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox." In general, Protestants use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support their notion of sola scriptura.

"All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be fit, fully equipped for every good work."

By focusing on the word inspiration, they imply that the Bible is the Christian's sole and final authority. Their underlying premiss is that Scripture is the only truth that is divinely inspired, therefore it can and must be our only divine authority.

Protestants use the words like: "primary," "absolute," "final court," and "all doctrine" to set the parameters around their definition. However, none of these words, nor their lexical equivalents, does Scripture ever apply to itself.

What do y'all think about this?

his-girl · Feb 2, 2003

Originally posted by Mephster
actually, I'm not real sure on this point. The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox." In general, Protestants use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support their notion of sola scriptura.

"All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be fit, fully equipped for every good work."

By focusing on the word inspiration, they imply that the Bible is the Christian's sole and final authority. Their underlying premiss is that Scripture is the only truth that is divinely inspired, therefore it can and must be our only divine authority.

Protestants use the words like: "primary," "absolute," "final court," and "all doctrine" to set the parameters around their definition. However, none of these words, nor their lexical equivalents, does Scripture ever apply to itself.

What do y'all think about this?

Mephster,

I'm very tired and about ready to go to bed, I can come back after church tomorrow and post more scripture.  But in reading the above post did you read the following two scriptures? 

2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"

Can you quote scripture that states we are to add to the Word?  That the Word alone isn't sufficient?  Why must man add to the Word? 

Smilin · Feb 2, 2003

Originally posted by his-girl
will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.

Your single statement judges Catholics not to be Christians. My Catholic friends I met in the military as well as here ARE CHRISTIANS.... leave judgement to the Son as the Bible states....

Also, the Bible does not mention my ancestors traditions... are you insenuating I'm not Christian either?

If you decide to judge my faith... we'll take a history tour and list what 'supposed true Christians' done to my culture...

Smilin · Feb 2, 2003

Originally posted by his-girl
I know what I'm about to print will cause quite a few Catholics to become angry, this is not my intent. Since BrainDamage posted this thread with the intent to bring further division between Protestants and Catholics, IMHO. I felt the need to rebuke his post and clarify the Protestant view point.

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant...

and your viewpoint... who voted you spokesperson for their position?

All people who follow Christ are Christians.... Christ clarifies what a Christian is...

Simple concept eh?

MizDoulos · Feb 2, 2003

Instead of turning this thread into a productive discussion, it has ended in personal attacks and disharmony. Therefore, it has been closed.

Wolseley · Feb 2, 2003

And the caths they got to line stuff up... infant baptism which I do believe at this point is not honored by God... then first communion, then confirmation... like there is a day that everyone goes to the church they put their hand on your head and you receive the holy spirit.

well got to tell you it just aint true. Nothing happened.. And I could have accepted Christ as a six year old if they hadn't put all those rules in my way and then so... by the time I was 15 at confirmation I was already lost.

However, I know scores of Catholics who have received manifold spiritual blessings through reception of the sacraments, and who bear the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit by the manner of the lives they lead.

Has it occurred to you that your personal situation may not be typical? Simply because you personally believed you felt nothing, received nothing, and were lost while a Catholic does not mean that the Catholic Church is illegitimate, that all Catholics are lost, or that the sacraments are not true vehicles of God's grace.

Jesus tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Actually, I believe it was Paul that told us that, but that's besides the point.

Notice that 2 Tim 3:16 says "all" Scripture. It does not say ONLY Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible will you find anything that states that only written Scriptures are the sole Word of God.

It is apparent, that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture.

The Catholic Church has added nothing to the Deposit of the Christian Faith. The various Protestant churches, however, have subtracted much Christian doctrine which God has revealed through Apostolic Tradition.

The Catholic Church often attempts to give human traditions higher authority than God's Word.

Apostolic Tradition is not the tradition of man, however---it is the revealed Word of God. Jesus condemned the traditions of the Saducees and Pharisees, true. But He never condemned Christian Tradition; at the time He was lambasting the Saducees and Pharisees, Christian Tradition didn't exist yet; it was still in the process of being formed.

Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

As aforementioned, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is inspired. To the contrary, in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6, Paul tells his listeners to adhere to Tradition, and shun those who do not. Further, the Church is the final authority, not the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not call the Bible the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition.

Correct.

Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.

The Mass (being the celebration of the Eucharist), the priesthood (Holy Orders), and Penance are sacraments, and ergo are part of the Deposit of the Faith, not Doctrines. Purgatory and indulgences are also part of the Deposit, not Doctrines. The veneration of Mary falls under Dogma, insofar as the defined teachings about her are concerned; this is also not Doctrine. The distinction between venial and mortal sins is Scripture, coming from 1 John 5:16-17; this also renders it Deposit. The Rosary and sacred images are Devotions, which are nowhere near Doctrines.

The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?

There is nothing in any Catholic teaching which contradicts the Bible. There's quite a bit of Catholic teaching teaching which contradicts the Protestant interpretation of the Bible, however.

But, by what authority does the Catholic Church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? Claims do not make it true!

I might say the same thing for Martin Luther's novel idea that the Bible alone is the sole rule for all faith and doctrine. He could claim that all he liked, but claims do not make it true.

Is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition?

Tradition is authenticated by the Deposit of the Faith---meaning Scripture and Tradition together.

If so, then there is no check upon it.

Says who, and using what criteria?

Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition?

No. The Fathers merely quote Tradition; they do not constitute an inspired authority in and of themselves.

If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture.

Moot point in light of above.

Is it from the Bible?

Partially.

If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition.

But Tradition is also used as the authority in validating the Bible.

Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth?

Now we're getting warm.

Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.

Authority-wise, you are correct. The Bible is the product of the Church, not the other way 'round.

Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.

Okay, so you tell me: Before the Scriptures were written down---when they still consisted of words and concepts inside the minds of the authors---when they were still simply instructions and memories and exhortations which were passed from one person to another by word of mouth of one Apostle or another---what were they? Not Scripture. "Scripture" means "that which is written". But if there was an extant body of teaching which the Apostles had inside their heads and were teaching by word of mouth (and don't forget, the first Christian Scriptures weren't even written for 40-odd years after Jesus went back to heaven) that constitutes Tradition. And if some of that Tradition later got written down, that became Scripture. So your contention that Tradition did not produce Scripture is false. Scripture didn't simply fall out of the sky, already written. It had to be physically produced by a man sitting down and putting a pen to parchment. The thoughts and concepts that the Holy Spirit had put into his mind in order for him to write them down to begin with is Inspiration, which can be passed on two ways: orally (or Tradition), or in writing (which is Scripture).

The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible.

But if the Church had no authoritative body of established Tradition in order to know what Jesus actually taught, what were they comparing these Biblical books with as they written, in order to know for sure that they were inspired? If I know nothing about what Jesus taught, and somebody comes along and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", how do I know what the guy has written is true? On the other hand, if an Apostle has come through twenty years ago and taught us all what Jesus said, and the same guy comes up and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", I can read his book and compare it with what I already know to be true, and decide on the basis of that whether it stacks up or not.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great high priestly prayer, He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Notice that Jesus does not specify whether that Word was written or unwritten. The written Word of God is Scripture. The unwritten Word of God is Tradition.

There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.

The rallying cry of the Reformation. But 'twas not always so, I'm afraid.

this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

True. For both the written and unwritten Word.

Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

And the origin of the Scripture itself would be........the Holy Spirit, n'est ce pas? And if the Holy Spirit is capable of keeping the written page uncontaminated, you're saying that He is incapable of keeping the oral Tradition uncontaminated? I thought God was not limited.

The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."

You're still inserting the idea that when Scripture speaks of the Word, then it has to written. Words are spoken as well as written. God is not limited to words on paper only. There is nothing magical about printed words. They are merely a means to pass on concpets, the same way that spoken words can pass on concepts.

You may think by all this that I am trying to lessen the authority of Scripture; I am not. I am merely trying to help you to understand that the Word of God does not have to be written or printed to still be the Word of God.

You are under no compulsion to agree with me, of course. Your mileage may vary.

MizDoulos · Feb 2, 2003

To be fair to all, when a thread is closed, no other statements should be added. However, Wolseley, being a member of the staff, did not realize the thread was closed when he posted his comments. I apologize that others who may wish to post a resonse will not be able to.

Protestant Paranoia and the RCC

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Monkey Boy

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Saved by Grace

arete

Saved by Grace

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

<font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

<font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

Similar threads