Commandments of man or the commandments of God

JSRG · Jul 4, 2025

BobRyan said:
It is published by them and has their imprimature.

I noted in my post that all the sources are Catholic - except this one even though it was their university student, their approved doctoral thesis, their own University and publishing house and they were the ones that approved/sponsored and signed off on the project including giving the book the "imprimatur" .

I should note that while it has an imprimatur, an imprimatur is a statement that something can be printed (the Latin means "let it be printed"), but provides no inherent theological endorsement of its contents. What provides actual endorsement of the contents--to a certain degree-is a nihil obstat (Latin phrase meaning "nothing obstructs), a declaration that in the judgment of the person granting the nihil obstat, nothing in it goes against Catholic teaching.

Generally speaking, this distinction doesn't matter so much because in almost all cases a nihil obstat accompanies an imprimatur, so people frequently refer to the imprimatur+nihil obstat duo as simply an imprimatur. This work is a rare case where it has an imprimatur but no nihil obstat.

BobRyan · Jul 4, 2025

JSRG said:
I should note that while it has an imprimatur, an imprimatur is a statement that something can be printed (the Latin means "let it be printed"), but provides no inherent theological endorsement of its contents.

not quite correct.

"Definitions of imprimatur. noun. formal and explicit approval. synonyms: countenance, endorsement, indorsement, sanction, warrant.

imprimatur, (Latin: “let it be printed”)," in the Roman Catholic church, a permission, required by contemporary canon law and granted by a bishop, for the publication of any work on Scripture or, in general, any writing containing something of peculiar significance to religion, theology, or morality."

"In the Catholic Church, an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority, usually a bishop, that a book or other printed work is free from doctrinal or moral error and may be published. It signifies that the work does not contradict Catholic teaching, though it is not an endorsement of the book's content or opinions. The process typically involves a review by a censor (nihil obstat) who finds no issues, followed by the bishop's grant of the imprimatur"

In other words - they do not view the material as heresy. (at least to the extent that their own Jesuit Professor (head of their Church History department himself writes the forward to the book including this explicit endorsement "we gladly mention the thesis that Bacchiocchi defends regarding the birthplace of Sunday worship"

The Preface to this doctoral thesis book "From Sabbath to Sunday" is written by Professor Vincenzo Monacho, S.J.(so then a Jesuit Professor) . Vincenzo was "Chairman of the Church History Department - Pontifical Gregorian University.

In his forward to the book Vincenzo writes

"The abandonment of the Sabbath and adoption of Sunday as the Lord's Day are the result of an interplay of Christian, Jewish and pagan religious factors".

Vincenzo's final statement in the forward appeals to

"the exhortation that already in the fourth century the bishops addressed to the believers namely to spen Sunday not in outings or watching shows, but rather to sanctify it by assisting at the eucharistic celebrations..."

Even Vincenzo in his forward to the book, makes no appeal to any first century statement promoting Sunday as a day of worship.

==================
p. 163 of Bacchiocchi's book "These historical data which we have briefly considered discredit ANY attempt to make the Jerusalem Church, prior to A.D. 135 the champion of liturgical innovations such as Sunday worship"

What's interesting is that C.S. Mosna had just done a thesis paper on the same subject working with the same doctoral advisor - and then with this new research by Bacchiocchi - they publish a conclusion for the exact opposite to C.S. Mosna's work.

The Liturgist · Jul 5, 2025

BobRyan said:
Qualified authority according to the Vatican University

There’s no such thing.

BobRyan said:
It is published by them and has their imprimature.

Link me to it then.

BobRyan said:
This is not at all about "Liberal Catholics" -- keep guessing.

It apparently is, since the paper you cited was from a university known as a bastion of liberalism within the RCC, due to its associations with the Jesuits.

The Liturgist · Jul 5, 2025

JSRG said:
I should note that while it has an imprimatur, an imprimatur is a statement that something can be printed (the Latin means "let it be printed"), but provides no inherent theological endorsement of its contents. What provides actual endorsement of the contents--to a certain degree-is a nihil obstat (Latin phrase meaning "nothing obstructs), a declaration that in the judgment of the person granting the nihil obstat, nothing in it goes against Catholic teaching.

Generally speaking, this distinction doesn't matter so much because in almost all cases a nihil obstat accompanies an imprimatur, so people frequently refer to the imprimatur+nihil obstat duo as simply an imprimatur. This work is a rare case where it has an imprimatur but no nihil obstat.

That’s correct. An imprimatur does not mean “This document is correct” or “We agree with everything this document says,” rather, it means that the writer of the document has a blessing to publish it.

Even the Nihil obstat is not a guarantee of Catholic orthodoxy I would note; documents with an imprimatur and a nihil obstat are deemed by an authority to be compatible with the Catholic faith, but that does not make them official publications of the Holy See or the Popes of Rome.

Really, anything other than a Papal bull or encyclical or other document that is still in effect, or likewise one from a general council, such as the Vatican II constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the liturgical texts of the Catholic Church and other official documents, such as the Roman Martyrology or the creeds, or the decisions of the DDF and its predeccessors the CDF and the Holy Office that are still in effect, and related decisions of other Vatican departments, should not be regarded as applicable to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, although statements of regional episcopal synods should be regarded as regionally applicable.

The approach taken by anti-Catholic agitators seems to be to find some document that helps them make an argument, even where that document is obsolete, or some statement, and then construct an argument around it based on an appeal to authority fallacy.

The Liturgist · Jul 5, 2025

BobRyan said:
indeed - there are a great many non-Christian groups that disregard one or more of God's commandments.

But they did not control all of Europe for 1260 years -- as Daniel 7 predicts would happen in the case of the one changing "times and laws" in Dan 7.

And neither did the Roman Catholic Church, even in those parts of Europe that were not under Eastern Orthodox, Islamic or Protestant control (although when we factor in the large sections of Europe that were, during the period of 1,260 years that were for the entire period under Orthodox control, or for large portions of it under Islamic or Protestant control.

Did Ellen G. White actually say “All of Europe?” because I hadn’t noticed that, but the obvious inaccuracy of the 1,260 year claim, which aligns neither with a lasting increase nor a lasting decrease of Papal power in Europe (which ironically, had she set it a few years further, it would have been more plausible, had it been aligned with the collapse of Roman civil government which left Pope St. Gregory the only remaining authority at the end of the 6th century, and later, the conquest of the Papal States by the Italian Nationalists, which deprived the Pope of a secular power base, or indeed, even a recognized national government until the sovereignty of the Vatican City State was restored by the Lateran Treaty in the late 1920s, it would have been more convincing. But this was one of the major historical errors in The Great Controversy, along with those that attributed to the Roman Catholic Church actions of the Orthodox Church or the Roman Imperial government.

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
To claim the The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine and A Doctrinal Catechism is not a reliable doctrine of the Catholic church is not convincing. I have personally found every reference I quoted.

I am not personally familiar with the texts you mention above, but my perception is that they are old documents. I think an underlying theme of what you are saying is that Catholic teaching has said a thing in the past, so therefore it is a concern now. But is this logically sound?

What is the Catholic teaching TODAY? When you include quotes from the 1800's, it makes me wonder why there are none from the 2000's? There may be current publications mirroring what concerns you, so why not highlight them?

I think you are concerned about the institutional structure of the Catholic church, while not focusing on what a modern individual Catholic believer thinks and believes. There may be value to this, but one must be careful to not discard the "baby and the bathwater."

In my own SDA religion, someone might say to me, Mr. Uriah Smith said this or that in the 1800's. But my response would be that they are dead and buried, and I'm not bound to something someone else said before. I am concerned with what I read in the Bible today and what's going on in my community today. Likewise, a modern Catholic should not be bound to what some Catholic writer wrote in the past -- provided its not a foundation for their current belief.

If there are CURRENT errors to be exposed, fine. But it seems weak to use examples from over a century ago.

KT

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

KevinT said:
I am not personally familiar with the texts you mention above, but my perception is that they are old documents. I think an underlying theme of what you are saying is that Catholic teaching has said a thing in the past, so therefore it is a concern now. But is this logically sound?

What is the Catholic teaching TODAY? When you include quotes from the 1800's, it makes me wonder why there are none from the 2000's? There may be current publications mirroring what concerns you, so why not highlight them?

I think you are concerned about the institutional structure of the Catholic church, while not focusing on what a modern individual Catholic believer thinks and believes. There may be value to this, but one must be careful to not discard the "baby and the bathwater."

In my own SDA religion, someone might say to me, Mr. Uriah Smith said this or that in the 1800's. But my response would be that they are dead and buried, and I'm not bound to something someone else said before. I am concerned with what I read in the Bible today and what's going on in my community today. Likewise, a modern Catholic should not be bound to what some Catholic writer wrote in the past -- provided its not a foundation for their current belief.

If there are CURRENT errors to be exposed, fine. But it seems weak to use examples from over a century ago.

KT

Does the Catholic church teach today we should exalt the seventh day Sabbath to keep it holy Exo 20:8,10 and that all other days are working days Exo 20:9 according to the written Testimony and commandment of God. If not, they admitting to changing God's times and laws as we were warned Dan 7:25 is still very applicable.

I guess its a matter should we keep the commandments of God, the way God said or follow the traditions that were handed over the centuries. Jesus told us when we take the path of the latter where that leads to Mat 15:3-14 so I say it very much matters today,

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Does the Catholic church teach today we should exalt the seventh day Sabbath to keep it holy Exo 20:8,10 and that all other days are working days Exo 20:9 according to the written Testimony and commandment of God. If not, they admitting to changing God's times and laws as we were warned Dan 7:25 is still very applicable.

I guess its a matter should we keep the commandments of God, the way God said or follow the traditions that were handed over the centuries. Jesus told us when we take the path of the latter where that leads to Mat 15:3-14 so I say it very much matters today,

Yes, and....

You may be more effective if you have better supporting documents.

KT

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

KevinT said:
Yes, and....

You may be more effective if you have better supporting documents.

KT

Documents from their own teachings not convincing? I only posted a handful, there is so much documented proof they changed God’s Sabbath as they admit in the documents I already provided based on their authority over God’s.

They admit that Saturday is the Sabbath, than continue on to exalt another day instead of the Sabbath, that God said is for works and labors Exo 20:8-11 instead of the only day God sanctified for holy use and is a commandment of God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Sorry if you do not see this, thats our free will, I pray we all stay strong until the end and not let the strong delusions deceive us.

If you know of another entity that openly admits to changing God’s times and laws that God warned us of in Dan 7:25 that would have the religious authority that the whole world would follow, and matches everything in Dan 7, 8 and Revelation I am all ears

God bless.

The Liturgist · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
and that all other days are working days Exo 20:9 according to the written Testimony and commandment of God.

THe BIble itself doesn’t teach that - that is your own bias. The Jews worshipped three times a day, every day of the week, and the Temple operated every day of the week, and nowhere does Christ our True God criticize this. On the contrary, he praises it, saying “Pray without ceasing.”

Interestingly, the majority of worship services (and worshippers) on any given Sabbath are Roman Catholics.

The Liturgist · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Documents from their own teachings not convincing?

Not where they are unofficial or obsolete.

Just like the SDA church changed its views on the Trinity thanks to the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, and thus the non-Trinitarianism common among the Millerites is now contrary to official SDA doctrine, the Roman Catholics have developed and refined their doctrine and expressions of it.

I strongly suggest you take the advice of our mutual friend @KevinT as he is a devout Christian, a member of your church, and someone who I have found it to be a pleasure to converse with. When I have mentioned something very obscure, he has taken the time to look it up and summarize it to ensure we are talking about the same thing, which I greatly appreciate and admire. I would say he is among the most conscientious users of ChristianForums, and of great personal piety.

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Interestingly, the majority of worship services (and worshippers) on any given Sabbath are Roman Catholics.

LOL! Don't let this information out! What will people say!

Given that the vast majority of Christians are Catholics, and given that Sabbatarians are a minority of non-Catholic believers, I have no doubt that this is true. But I had never thought of this before. Oh the irony! Ha!

Best wishes,

KT

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

The Liturgist said:
... someone who I have found it to be a pleasure to converse with. ...

Thank you for the kind words.

For my education, in regards to the OP, may I ask what is the mainline thinking / teaching about Catholic Sunday worship? I find that most protestants react to discussions about Sabbath keeping with a discussion along the line of "Paul says that law was nailed to the cross, and if you tell me I should keep a 7th day Sabbath, then you are trying to put me back under Mosaic law." As to why Sunday?, I find that most feel that any day would do, and that Sunday just happens to be the day that everyone uses. In other words, many Protestants don't see this to something to even think about, and thus 1st day worship has little doctrinal justification -- though I'm sure someone will counter me on this point.

In SDA circles, I have been exposed to many like posters on this thread implying that the Catholic church actively believes that church fathers have made these changes, and that these changes are properly ordained. In other words, that they HAVE thought about the issue, and that it is based on sound theology rather than simple common practice. But I have had little opportunity to discuss with level-headed persons who have a different background. So any light you shed on this for me would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Kevin T

Edit: After posting this, I realized I could just look this up myself. I found these sites:

Why We Worship On Sunday – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

When Is the Proper Sabbath?

I have a friend who belongs to the Seventh Day Adventists, and they have their worship service on Saturday. She and I had a discussion over what was proper Saturday or Sunday. I said that Sunday wa…

catholiceducation.org

I disagree with the conclusions, but I hear what they are saying.

KT

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Not where they are unofficial or obsolete.

Just like the SDA church changed its views on the Trinity thanks to the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, and thus the non-Trinitarianism common among the Millerites is now contrary to official SDA doctrine, the Roman Catholics have developed and refined their doctrine and expressions of it.

I strongly suggest you take the advice of our mutual friend @KevinT as he is a devout Christian, a member of your church, and someone who I have found it to be a pleasure to converse with. When I have mentioned something very obscure, he has taken the time to look it up and summarize it to ensure we are talking about the same thing, which I greatly appreciate and admire. I would say he is among the most conscientious users of ChristianForums, and of great personal piety.

Yes, Ellen White always believed in the Trinity and many who call themselves Adventists do not really believe in our doctrine, which was true even from the very beginning. Ellen White stopped writing for a while for this very reason and the church fell apart. Even Jesus had a Judas so there will always be people working from the inside to destroy the church, but God will take care of it in His own time.

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

The Liturgist said:
THe BIble itself doesn’t teach that - that is your own bias. The Jews worshipped three times a day, every day of the week, and the Temple operated every day of the week, and nowhere does Christ our True God criticize this. On the contrary, he praises it, saying “Pray without ceasing.”

Believing God's own written Testimony, exactly how it reads is not my bias

Exo 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Isa 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,

We should worship God everyday 365 24/7 and in doing so one would be obeying God's commandments the way God said. God gave us six days to get our works and labors done and only sanctified one day, the seventh day Sabbath. Exo 20:8-11. He only deemed one day as His holy day, the seventh day Sabbath, meaning there is no other. Isa 58:13. The exalting of Sunday as the Lords Day against God's own Testimony of when that day is both written and spoken by God Exo 20:11 Isa 58:13 Mar 2:28 when God made it as a common day is not coming from Scripture but man-made doctrine.

It didn't work out well for anyone who did this before us, I do not believe it will work out well now.

Eze 22"26 Her priests have [a]violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church.
—Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89.

The Liturgist said:
Interestingly, the majority of worship services (and worshippers) on any given Sabbath are Roman Catholics.

Most Saturday mass times are in the evenings. The Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening, so the majority of times its no longer the Sabbath.

Please do not try to convince me that the the majority of the Catholic church does not attend Sunday mass or this is not the day they elevate over God's Sabbath . Most of the mass times on Saturdays that I could find say for blessed Mary, which has nothing to do with the Sabbath or any Scripture worship for that matter.

https://manna.amazingfacts.org/amazingfacts/website/sabbathtruth/documents/dies-domini.pdf

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Yes, Ellen White always believed in the Trinity

I found this post: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFnoECFUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3eOvFCEFziy2xhD2V0-Q-F

It is a power-point presentation from andrews.edu (Andrews University), and it indicates that EGW's understanding of the trinity changed with time. See especially slide (page) 21.

KT

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

KevinT said:
I found this post: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFnoECFUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3eOvFCEFziy2xhD2V0-Q-F

It is a power-point presentation from andrews.edu (Andrews University), and it indicates that EGW's understanding of the trinity changed with time. See especially slide (page) 21.

KT

Not all Adventists are really Adventists. I'm not sure if you ever listen to Professor Walter Veith. He speaks of this often and had a major issue with the German conference. Not sure if its with the same one you posted.

This was taken from her estate.

EllenWhite.Org Website - Did Ellen White condemn the doctrine of the Trinity? (“The Pioneers and the Trinity”)

<p><em>I’m wondering about the Trinity. I have a friend who has been handing me a lot of booklets that say that thinking of the Holy Spirit as a

ellenwhite.org

I’m wondering about the Trinity. I have a friend who has been handing me a lot of booklets that say that thinking of the Holy Spirit as a Third Person is dangerous and that Adventists haven’t always held this view. She states that Ellen and James White were not Trinitarians. Can you help me understand what our beliefs are and have been in the past?

James White would not have considered himself a Trinitarian, nor would others of our early pioneers. In at least some cases (James White included here), they seem to have been objecting to the idea, apparently held by some Trinitarians, that God is really only one Person who has appeared at different stages of earth’s existence as Father or Son or Holy Spirit. James White believed that They were separate Beings, so that in Gethsemane and on the cross the Son could actually pray to the Father, not to Himself.

However, various statements from Mrs. White uphold the eternal, self-existent nature of the Son and the full personality of the Holy Spirit. Some of these statements are conveniently collected in the book Evangelism, pages 613-617. I’ve copied some of them and a statement from The Desire of Ages at the end of this response.

However, as clear as Mrs. White’s statements are, the Bible is the source of Adventist belief in the Trinity. Several lines of evidence in the Bible provide firm support for this doctrine. The Father, of course, is not in doubt here—He is included as God in everyone’s list. But the Bible makes Jesus equal with God; see, for example, such texts as John 5:17, 18; 8:58, 59; Philippians 2:6; and the many texts that call Jesus “Lord,” which is the term used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to God. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is called a Person and is equated with God; see, for example, Acts 5:3, 4, where the Holy Spirit is identified as a Person because He can be lied to, and where lying to the Holy Spirit is equated with lying to God.

So, the Bible indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Persons, yet it also says there is one God (as in Deuteronomy 6:4). How can we account for this? Frankly, it’s more than human minds can grasp—but that shouldn’t surprise us, for God must surely be greater than our minds can encompass. We express these Bible truths about God by using the term Trinity, which signifies a unity of three. I can’t find a satisfactory way of accounting for all the Bible evidence other than by this means, which is why I believe in a Trinity.

Some Ellen G. White statements:

There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit— those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized. . . .—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63. (1905). . . .

Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God. . . . In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. . . .—Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900. . . .

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. . . . He is the eternal, self-existent Son.—Manuscript 101, 1897. . . .

While God’s Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.—Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. . . .

Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. —The Desire of Ages, p. 530 (1898). . . .

We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.—Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.) . . .

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”—Manuscript 20, 1906. [The preceding Ellen G. White statements are all found in the book Evangelism, pages 615-617.]

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world’s Redeemer (The Desire of Ages, 671).

For a detailed article on the God hand and the Trinity please see https://media1.whiteestate.org/legacy/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
James White would not have considered himself a Trinitarian, nor would others of our early pioneers. ...

However, various statements from Mrs. White uphold the eternal, self-existent nature of the Son and the full personality of the Holy Spirit. ...

You have provided evidence that EGW wrote things (at some point) consistent with Trinitarian theology. But this does not address the issue of timing, or of changing understanding. The presentation that I linked to indicates that rather than changing from anti-trinitarian to pro-trinitarian, her writings show a progress from "relative ambiguity to greater specificity. Some of her early statements are capable of various interpretations, but her later statements, 1898-1906, are explicit to the point of being dogmatic."

The original assertion was that White's understanding matured with time.

KT

KevinT · Jul 5, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
Not sure what this has to do with the OP. There are lots of anti-SDA threads out there, I was hoping to keep this thread based on Scripture and what the Word of God says versus the traditions of man. I would happy to discuss further if you want to create a new post about the Trinity.

It doesn't related to OP. But when you post, "Ellen White always believed in the Trinity", I feel obligated correct the record.

KT

SabbathBlessings · Jul 5, 2025

KevinT said:
It doesn't related to OP. But when you post, "Ellen White always believed in the Trinity", I feel obligated correct the record.

KT

But you have not proven that she hasn't always believed in the Trinity either and the presentation you provided, doesn't show it either. It indicates a progression, but its not a strong argument or proof that she ever changed her position on the Godhead.

Commandments of man or the commandments of God

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads