Anyone that has struggled with Catholicism - please reply.

Markie Boy · Aug 2, 2020

No protestant replies please - Catholics only.

So I struggle with some Catholic teachings that just don't seem to fit historically for me. Papal Infallibility is #1, mandatory celibacy for clergy #2, the swing of "you must be Catholic to be saved" to what we have today where the Catechism says Islam is the first among others that worship the true God along side Catholics #3.

I guess I'd like to be Catholic, as it makes family life so much easier. But I find I just can't reconcile these things with my conscience.

1. It's not that hard to prove Papal Infallibility is not true. And more so, I think the spirit of it, the idea that you need all this fine print for it to even come close being plausible, goes against Jesus way of teaching and living. Not even factoring in the current pontiff on this one.

2. It's historical fact that Jesus chose married men to lead the Church, and it was allowed for centuries, and still is in limited capacity. Not wanting to debate this one - it's just another historical deviation from the original that I think does not help. Our diocese would close if we didn't have imported clergy - literally almost have to close. And imported clergy can be good, but what I see they are often too disconnected from the culture to work with people, and the simple language barrier can be frustrating. And they are puppets - if they don't do what the bishop says they can be yanked - so we'll get no reformers among them.

3. I have no idea who is saved in Catholic teaching. Ask anyone older and you'll hear the "Oh yeah, when I was a kid if you were not Catholic you were going to hell." That did not come from nowhere, Boniface the VIII papal bull stating all living creatures had to be subject to the Roman pontiff for salvation.

Today the Catechism says you can be any of a variety of false, pagan faiths and still be saved.

The lack of historical continuity, on the above issues is pretty overwhelming unless one does not want to give history a fair reading, and reads their own ideas into it. I couple this with a Church that does not seem to want to clean itself up - even in the SSPX with it's abuse issues. The idea that Latin Trad is the remedy is false.

On the fair side - Catholicism is the only faith I find that has what I'd call the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general.

Anyone else been through all this and actually stayed Catholic?

Michie · Aug 2, 2020

I’ve struggled. Not necessarily with the same things. It seems to come in waves. Have you consulted a priest with your worries?

Joyous Song · Aug 2, 2020

I struggled as well when I was young, but I by nature a researcher, a thinker and highly intuitive, so as a result I went to scripture to get proof. One of these came from Is.28, which my husband and I plan to be posting on the Scripture message board right after Revelation chapter 1 is done, that is one more post.

As for Papal Infallibility, it may have come into being to fulfill prophecy of 2Thess.2

zippy2006 · Aug 2, 2020

I don't think papal infallibility is easily demonstrable or indemonstrable. The tradition of clerical celibacy is also a complex topic, especially when historical abstinence from the sexual act on the part of married clergy is taken into account. Development of doctrine is similarly complex, as is the question of salvation outside the Church. I don't see any value in pretending that these are easy topics to adjudicate, either for or against. I also don't see how they are direct issues of conscience.

It seems to me that you struggle with the basic idea that the Church is not infallible, namely that She has proclaimed doctrines to be infallibly true which you believe to be false. I've thought about that issue too, and I'm not quite sure how to navigate it. I tend to think such people can still find a place in the Church.

Markie Boy said:
On the fair side - Catholicism is the only faith I find that has what I'd call the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general.

As you allude to here, you could still be grounded in the long, venerable Catholic tradition. You could still worship God in the liturgy. You could still receive Jesus in the Eucharist. I don't see why someone who believes the Church is not infallible must depart. Obviously some people disagree, but if you have examined the issues dutifully and come to the conclusion that the Church is not fully infallible and yet want to remain Catholic, believing all of the core doctrines, I don't see a problem with that. What I would recommend is finding criteria by which you can firmly assent to established, orthodox doctrines. Most people assent on the authority of the Church. By questioning its authority you would need to have a different means to assent.

Of course I am open to correction. This is a difficult issue.

Markie Boy · Aug 2, 2020

zippy2006 said:
I don't think papal infallibility is easily demonstrable or indemonstrable. The tradition of clerical celibacy is also a complex topic, especially when historical abstinence from the sexual act on the part of married clergy is taken into account. Development of doctrine is similarly complex, as is the question of salvation outside the Church. I don't see any value in pretending that these are easy topics to adjudicate, either for or against. I also don't see how they are direct issues of conscience.

It seems to me that you struggle with the basic idea that the Church is not infallible, namely that She has proclaimed doctrines to be infallibly true which you believe to be false. I've thought about that issue too, and I'm not quite sure how to navigate it. I tend to think such people can still find a place in the Church.

As you allude to here, you could still be grounded in the long, venerable Catholic tradition. You could still worship God in the liturgy. You could still receive Jesus in the Eucharist. I don't see why someone who believes the Church is not infallible must depart. Obviously some people disagree, but if you have examined the issues dutifully and come to the conclusion that the Church is not fully infallible and yet want to remain Catholic, believing all of the core doctrines, I don't see a problem with that. What I would recommend is finding criteria by which you can firmly assent to established, orthodox doctrines. Most people assent on the authority of the Church. By questioning its authority you would need to have a different means to assent.

Of course I am open to correction. This is a difficult issue.

All very well put.

It's odd - in my life it looks fully Catholic - I don't drink hardly ever, pro-life, no contraception in my marriage, etc. I really have almost no issues with daily life guidance from the Church. The detailed dogma and doctrines I find confusing and unhelpful generally.

Bob Crowley · Aug 3, 2020

For what it's worth, and I've mentioned this before here and there, I believe the Catholic Church is "closest" to the truth.

I've got a peculiar reason for this. I was Presbyterian, and I had a very wise, and prophetic pastor at the time. He predicted a number of things, including the fact I'd become Catholic.

I've had a few brief visions of him after he died, in which he just turns up, says something, and then disappears again. Bear in mind he was Protestant.

In one of them, he simply said "The Catholic Church is closest to the truth", with a distinct emphasis on the word "closest". Then he disappeared again. I think he turned up at a time when I was wondering about my membership, possibly as a result of some questioning on my part. Oddly enough it wasn't due to the pedophile crisis, as he has warned me about that before he died way back in January1992.

He said "I think there'll be reports of child abuse ... and I think there's going to be a LOT of them!" So he told me that about 30 years ago, well before I made the decision to become Catholic.

I don't agree with the ban on the contraceptive pill for example. I believe it was God's gift, given largely through Catholic researchers, at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world. Pope John XXIII set up a committee to look into it and they recommended it should be approved for use by married couples. Pope Pius VI expanded the committee, and again they recommended it should be approved for us by married couples.

From Wikipedia -

With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the church argued for a reconsideration of the church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population. Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI wanted the almost three thousand bishops and other clerics then in Rome for the Second Vatican Council to address the birth control issue even though many of these bishops expressed their desire to bring this pressing pastoral issue before the council.

Role of Paul VI - After John XXIII's death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals.)

Majority report - The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting. According to this majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:...

But he caved in to a small group of hardliners, and banned it. I haven't got much time for his decision.

But as I said, I think the Catholic Church is closest to the truth.

If it's the closest, there isn't much point in going anywhere else.

If people want to tell me the Church is infallible as a whole, I'd suggest they take a good look at its history. The pedophile crisis wasn't the first scandal - not by a long shot. Christ hand-picked 12 disciples. One of them betrayed Him, while Peter denied Him three times, and the rest of them ran away, with the exception of John possibly, and I'm not even sure about that.

I suppose you might say the apostolic tradition got off to a rocky start, and it's had ups and downs ever since.

But I'll stick to it because I think it's the closest to the truth. And I'm quite sure it was the old pastor who turned up that night.

parousia70 · Aug 3, 2020

Would you say that I have to believe in everything you believe, before I can believe in you?

Root of Jesse · Aug 3, 2020

Markie Boy said:
No protestant replies please - Catholics only.

So I struggle with some Catholic teachings that just don't seem to fit historically for me. Papal Infallibility is #1, mandatory celibacy for clergy #2, the swing of "you must be Catholic to be saved" to what we have today where the Catechism says Islam is the first among others that worship the true God along side Catholics #3.

I guess I'd like to be Catholic, as it makes family life so much easier. But I find I just can't reconcile these things with my conscience.

1. It's not that hard to prove Papal Infallibility is not true. And more so, I think the spirit of it, the idea that you need all this fine print for it to even come close being plausible, goes against Jesus way of teaching and living. Not even factoring in the current pontiff on this one.
[/quote]Do you understand what Papal Infallibility is? The doctrine is very clear and very specific. The Pope is infallible if, and only if, he meets these conditions. First, he must be teaching the entire Church, Secondly, ex-cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter), and the teaching must be on matters of faith and morals. So, by the definition of what Papal Infallibility is...can you tell me a matter of faith and morals any pope has taught about that is wrong?

2. It's historical fact that Jesus chose married men to lead the Church, and it was allowed for centuries, and still is in limited capacity. Not wanting to debate this one - it's just another historical deviation from the original that I think does not help. Our diocese would close if we didn't have imported clergy - literally almost have to close. And imported clergy can be good, but what I see they are often too disconnected from the culture to work with people, and the simple language barrier can be frustrating. And they are puppets - if they don't do what the bishop says they can be yanked - so we'll get no reformers among them.

You are right, at least one. But you must understand that this is a requirement to become a priest. There are many historical reasons for it. But it's a discipline that can be changed or relaxed. It's not a doctrine.

3. I have no idea who is saved in Catholic teaching. Ask anyone older and you'll hear the "Oh yeah, when I was a kid if you were not Catholic you were going to hell." That did not come from nowhere, Boniface the VIII papal bull stating all living creatures had to be subject to the Roman pontiff for salvation.

Today the Catechism says you can be any of a variety of false, pagan faiths and still be saved.

The lack of historical continuity, on the above issues is pretty overwhelming unless one does not want to give history a fair reading, and reads their own ideas into it. I couple this with a Church that does not seem to want to clean itself up - even in the SSPX with it's abuse issues. The idea that Latin Trad is the remedy is false.

On the fair side - Catholicism is the only faith I find that has what I'd call the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general.

Anyone else been through all this and actually stayed Catholic?

Jesus said "Baptism now saves you." And it's true. That said, we must, throughout our lives, work on our salvation. I agree with you somewhat that the Church doesn't seem to want to clean herself up, but that is the ugly political side, which I abhor. I don't like Francis when he says something about climate, which isn't about faith and morals, or immigration. It's not the same thing to say we should be good stewards of the earth, or that we should treat all people with dignity.
The reason returning to the Traditional is considered a remedy is that it was more rigorous, which I think people want, compared to how lax it has become, which is what the Church thinks we want.

Michael Jordan didn't make his freshman basketball team because he couldn't make free throws. He had a meeting with the coach to ask why. His coach told him, and for almost a year, MJ set out making 500 freethrows a day. Not trying them, making 500. After that, he asked the coach what else, and slowly worked on his game to become the best basketball player of his time.

We want priests and bishops to exhort us to be better Christians, better people in general. To tell us our faults and help us make the team.

Root of Jesse · Aug 3, 2020

Bob Crowley said:
For what it's worth, and I've mentioned this before here and there, I believe the Catholic Church is "closest" to the truth.

I've got a peculiar reason for this. I was Presbyterian, and I had a very wise, and prophetic pastor at the time. He predicted a number of things, including the fact I'd become Catholic.

I've had a few brief visions of him after he died, in which he just turns up, says something, and then disappears again. Bear in mind he was Protestant.

In one of them, he simply said "The Catholic Church is closest to the truth", with a distinct emphasis on the word "closest". Then he disappeared again. I think he turned up at a time when I was wondering about my membership, possibly as a result of some questioning on my part. Oddly enough it wasn't due to the pedophile crisis, as he has warned me about that before he died way back in January1992.

He said "I think there'll be reports of child abuse ... and I think there's going to be a LOT of them!" So he told me that about 30 years ago, well before I made the decision to become Catholic.

I don't agree with the ban on the contraceptive pill for example. I believe it was God's gift, given largely through Catholic researchers, at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world. Pope John XXIII set up a committee to look into it and they recommended it should be approved for use by married couples. Pope Pius VI expanded the committee, and again they recommended it should be approved for us by married couples.

From Wikipedia -

But he caved in to a small group of hardliners, and banned it. I haven't got much time for his decision.

But as I said, I think the Catholic Church is closest to the truth.

If it's the closest, there isn't much point in going anywhere else.

If people want to tell me the Church is infallible as a whole, I'd suggest they take a good look at its history. The pedophile crisis wasn't the first scandal - not by a long shot. Christ hand-picked 12 disciples. One of them betrayed Him, while Peter denied Him three times, and the rest of them ran away, with the exception of John possibly, and I'm not even sure about that.

I suppose you might say the apostolic tradition got off to a rocky start, and it's had ups and downs ever since.

But I'll stick to it because I think it's the closest to the truth. And I'm quite sure it was the old pastor who turned up that night.

I don't have any problem if people are struggling with belief in Catholic doctrine. Some of them are hard. I do have an issue when people dismiss a doctrine when they don't yet understand what that doctrine says. Infallibility is one such. Infallibility doesn't mean the Church is perfect, it means the doctrine is perfect. It means that the body of bishops in communion with the Pope can agree and interpret doctrine. But have individuals, even popes made terrible mistakes? Certainly. They're men.
Regarding contraception, I know lots of people disagree and do their own thing privately. But marital sex is supposed to be unitive and procreative. Contraception takes that away, the procreative. Also, did you know that modern BC pills can cause an abortion? Unbeknown to the mother, too.
Regarding your pastor's prophecy, I think he read the cards right. We had the Sexual Revolution in the 60's and many of the men who became priests later on came from that era. Very sad to say, but there it is.
Oh, one other thing...you said 'at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem...I disagree that population was the problem. Delivery of food and good water was. It was more a problem of distribution of resources than too many people.my 2 cents.

zippy2006 · Aug 3, 2020

Markie Boy said:
All very well put.

It's odd - in my life it looks fully Catholic - I don't drink hardly ever, pro-life, no contraception in my marriage, etc. I really have almost no issues with daily life guidance from the Church. The detailed dogma and doctrines I find confusing and unhelpful generally.

That makes sense. It's interesting because the average Catholic probably isn't even aware of papal infallibility or extra ecclesiam nulla salus, though they are certainly aware of priestly celibacy. Of course it's good that you are aware of these things and are weighing them, but many would view them as abstractions. I don't tend to view them as abstractions myself, and I think this whole concept of acceptable dissent is a topic worthy of discussion.

VincentIII · Aug 4, 2020

I've struggled with a few things. The big three are:

transubstantiation - I asked about it here in another thread and resolved my struggle.
the emphasis on Mary - I understand and agree with Mary's position in the Church, but sometimes feel like the extent to which she's emphasized blurs the line between reverence and worship. The Church is clear on the distinction, but I doubt many lay Catholics are clear. This leads to the third struggle:
Many Catholics are so poorly catechized, including having not read the Bible. I understand that the Bible is read to them at Mass, and it can probably be said that most Catholics are more churchgoers than Bible readers. I'd like to see an increase in catechism and individual and group Bible study.

Markie Boy · Aug 4, 2020

In my old Baptist church there were a few things I questioned or didn't agree with, but there was liberty to believe different on things that don't affect salvation. That's huge compared to the RCC. For centuries people could be saved and not believe in the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. - but today if you disagree you are cut off from the Church.

And they tell you that their sacraments are necessary for salvation - so if you loose those you are in trouble. The whole thing is engineered to try and keep control over people. Case in point - Holy Days of Obligation - sounds dreadful, but you are obligated. Change that to Holy Days of Celebration - sounds like something interesting to check out! They choose power and control over inspiration.

Guess the whole thing and mind set looks more of the World to me than spiritual.

And yes - the Marian stuff has gone so far off the rails it often displaces the Gospel. They have gone so far beyond what we see of her in Apostolic times it's mind boggling. They have made her all powerful over the demons, and seem to talk about her more than Jesus.

Michie · Aug 4, 2020

zippy2006 · Aug 4, 2020

Markie Boy said:
In my old Baptist church there were a few things I questioned or didn't agree with, but there was liberty to believe different on things that don't affect salvation. That's huge compared to the RCC. For centuries people could be saved and not believe in the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. - but today if you disagree you are cut off from the Church.

The Baptist dynamic also holds in Catholicism. For example, denying papal infallibility and denying a celibate priesthood are considered very different things. The faithful have more liberty to disagree with the latter than the former.

And they tell you that their sacraments are necessary for salvation - so if you loose those you are in trouble. The whole thing is engineered to try and keep control over people. Case in point - Holy Days of Obligation - sounds dreadful, but you are obligated. Change that to Holy Days of Celebration - sounds like something interesting to check out! They choose power and control over inspiration.

It's really not a malicious control mechanism. It's just a system based on Roman law (obligations and dispensations) that doesn't mix well with the strong western focus on individual liberty. Indeed for most cultures the idea of a weekly obligation to worship is small potatoes.

Root of Jesse · Aug 4, 2020

zippy2006 said:
That makes sense. It's interesting because the average Catholic probably isn't even aware of papal infallibility or extra ecclesiam nulla salus, though they are certainly aware of priestly celibacy. Of course it's good that you are aware of these things and are weighing them, but many would view them as abstractions. I don't tend to view them as abstractions myself, and I think this whole concept of acceptable dissent is a topic worthy of discussion.

The reason many may not be aware of papal infallibility is because it is so seldom actually used. Regarding extra ecclesiam nulla salus, we have come to understand what "the Church" means. Also need to understand who said it-Cyprian, in the third century regarding those who lapsed in the face of persecution. What it means is that Christ established one Church, and all Christians are that Church.

Root of Jesse · Aug 4, 2020

VincentIII said:
I've struggled with a few things. The big three are:

transubstantiation - I asked about it here in another thread and resolved my struggle.

the emphasis on Mary - I understand and agree with Mary's position in the Church, but sometimes feel like the the extent to which she's emphasized blurs the line between reverence and worship. The Church is clear on the distinction, but I doubt many lay Catholics are clear. This leads to the third struggle:

Many Catholics are so poorly catechized, including having not read the Bible. I understand that the Bible is read to them at Mass, and it can probably be said that most Catholics are more churchgoers than Bible readers. I'd like to see an increase in catechism and individual and group Bible study.

Transubstantiation is a word used to mean how the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. I agree with you that some people are overly Marian, but I try to remember that Mary points us to Jesus.
Regarding your last point, the Church has no authority to impose catechism classes on the faithful. They can only provide resources, and you know there are many, many out there. I am a catechist precisely because, when I was converted, my RCIA classes were just so...I wanted meat, I got crackers. I had to research the meat myself, which I wanted to do before I came into the Church.

Root of Jesse · Aug 4, 2020

Markie Boy said:
In my old Baptist church there were a few things I questioned or didn't agree with, but there was liberty to believe different on things that don't affect salvation. That's huge compared to the RCC. For centuries people could be saved and not believe in the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility, etc. - but today if you disagree you are cut off from the Church.

This is not true. The Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Papal Infallibility were believed since the beginning, only defined much later. And if you disagree, you're the same as any Protestant, you're a protesting Catholic. But if you're struggling with the concept, need understanding, and say "God, I trust what you've taught me, but I just don't understand", it's not the same as disagreeing. You are still in communion with the Church.

And they tell you that their sacraments are necessary for salvation - so if you loose those you are in trouble. The whole thing is engineered to try and keep control over people. Case in point - Holy Days of Obligation - sounds dreadful, but you are obligated. Change that to Holy Days of Celebration - sounds like something interesting to check out! They choose power and control over inspiration.

The Sacraments are necessary for salvation, but all of them have differing frequencies. Baptism, marriage, ordination, only once. Reconciliation, as frequently as necessary. Anointing of the Sick, as frequently as necessary. Eucharist, as often as possible.
The Church does not impose itself on people, not anymore. They can't possibly. They can only propose. I, for one, believe in rigor to improve my spirituality, just as an athlete would want a coach that inspires him to get better. Every Mass is a celebration, and we should all realize that. Sundays are Holy Days of Obligation, too. Lots of Catholics ignore that, but remembering the parable of the sower, it follows.

Guess the whole thing and mind set looks more of the World to me than spiritual.

To me, it's just the opposite. I know some Catholics are methodical and formulaic, but again, the parable.

And yes - the Marian stuff has gone so far off the rails it often displaces the Gospel. They have gone so far beyond what we see of her in Apostolic times it's mind boggling. They have made her all powerful over the demons, and seem to talk about her more than Jesus.

Marian dogmas do nothing but point to Jesus, so I don't know what you're talking about. I understand that some people, and groups, go overboard, in my eyes, but I don't criticize, I just don't do what I'm not comfortable with. As for power over demons, I seem to remember in Genesis and Revelation that the woman crushes the head of the snake?

zippy2006 · Aug 4, 2020

Root of Jesse said:
Regarding extra ecclesiam nulla salus, we have come to understand what "the Church" means.

We have? There are earth-shattering disagreements over the interpretation of the passage in Lumen Gentium describing what the Church is:

Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata, licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt. (Lumen Gentium 8, emphasis mine)

Also need to understand who said it-Cyprian, in the third century regarding those who lapsed in the face of persecution. What it means is that Christ established one Church, and all Christians are that Church.

I would say that this is basically inaccurate, and you are skimming over oceans of complexity. For starters, see my post: Did WW II and the Holocaust Help to Ignite Vatican II?

Root of Jesse · Aug 4, 2020

zippy2006 said:
We have? There are earth-shattering disagreements over the interpretation of the passage in Lumen Gentium describing what the Church is:

Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata, licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt. (Lumen Gentium 8, emphasis mine)

Well, I'm not trying to write posts that nobody will read. But if you believe Christ created one Church, that is, the Catholic Church, and you believe that those who branched off (Orthodox, Calvinist, etc) are still attached to that, they are still, loosely, Catholic. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, indeed, all Christians. Catholic is the Church of Christ, their particular claim to a denomination is their response to His call. Also, we believe God is all-Merciful, and Himself can save whomever He wishes.

I would say that this is basically inaccurate, and you are skimming over oceans of complexity. For starters, see my post: Did WW II and the Holocaust Help to Ignite Vatican II?

No, it's not inaccurate, although it's simple, for the sake of brevity. No, I didn't see your post. I'll check it out.

pdudgeon · Aug 4, 2020

all of these are complex issues that take both time and experience to fully digest, and understand.
To skim across the surface and try to understand the depths of knowledge that is there waiting for you is to judge far too hastily.

All three of these issues; clergy celibacy, Marian dogma, and papal infallibility, have good solid reasoning and centuries of experience behind them; and that as the result of living a true Christian life.

It was in the sincere effort to do so, and as the practical result of living as Christ wanted them to, that these beliefs were formed in the Church.

My advice would be to take each one of these questions and ask yourself this:
What events or problems that Christians encountered in living a Christian life, made these particular beliefs the answer that led earlier Christians to a deeper and more profound understanding of what God wanted from them?

It's worth a shot, ya think?

Anyone that has struggled with Catholicism - please reply.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dragonsworn

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Dragonsworn

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Traditional Catholic

Similar threads