What's the use of faith alone?

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2025

XrxrX said:
It may be argued Eastern Orthodox does,

It is absolutely the case that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East believe in prima scriptura, within the context of Holy Tradition. There is no conflict between Scripture and Tradition; the primacy of Scripture within tradition is a centrality - the Gospels lie at the heart of our tradition, surrounded by the New Testament Epistles, the Psalms and Prophecies of the Old Testament and so on.

Everything we do flows from Scripture and holds up to Scriptural scrutiny, at least according to how Scripture was understood in the centuries following the Ascension and the descent of the Spirt on Pentecost, and how it is still understood by the persecuted churches of the East, which have suffered under the Turkish yoke, the Communist yoke, the Fascist yoke (during WWII, the fascist Ustashe conducted a genocide against the Serbian Orthodox) and now the Islamist yoke.

but I don't believe it's correct that RC does. I'm not aware of any catechism or ordinance stipulating the primacy of scripture Over "sacred tradition" . If you can show it, I'd like to see it.

It appears there is a debate within the RCC over the issue, but the debate is semantic, since like the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic regard Scripture as part of the Magisterium, and there exists a concern that “prima scriptura” would suggest a false dichotomy.

What the Roman Catholics believe in appears to be the same as what we believe in; like the Orthodox, their historic liturgy (the various forms of the traditional Latin mass) is filled with scriptural references; the new liturgy suffers from dubious translations in some languages (for example, translating “Sabaoth” as “the Universe” and not “of Hosts”, although this was addressed in the English language with the revised 2011 missal, which also eliminated the rather irritating translation of et cum spiritu tuo (itself a translation of a Greek phrase) as “and also with you”, when it should be translated, like in the 2011 missal, as “and with your spirit” or better yet, as the Orthodox usually translate it, “and with thy spirit” since the second personal pronoun.

Note that you should in the context of the Roman Catholic Church speak more of the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the church, since this is what they emphasize, which is demonstrated by the fact that the RCC believes in the development of doctrine.

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
think the best way to understand the Lutheran tradition is also the most obvious: try reading the Book of Concord. The Lutheran Confessions are Lutheran theology.

Would you say that Lutheran liturgical texts have less weight with regards to Lutheran theology than in the case of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, and the Church of the East, where the liturgy itself is the main statement of faith in the absence of any confessional statements outside of the liturgy other than the 39 Articles used by some Anglican churches and the Athanasian Creed used extra-liturgically by the Orthodoxy? Since in our case, most creedal statements such as the Nicene Creed are in the liturgy themselves and are regarded as part of the liturgy. Primarily the Divine Liturgy, that is to say, the Mass, but there is also important content in the other sacramental services and in the Divine Office (the variable portions of which are particularly beautiful).

Specifically, Orthodox doctrine on certain subjects like the Transfiguration and the Nativity and the Baptism of Christ and what these represent is encoded into the liturgies of Vespers and Matins for these events (and in the case of the Nativity and the Baptism of Christ, in additional corresponding services as well, such as the Royal Hours and the Great Blessing of Water, among other things). For everything that is commemorated liturgically, the fullest explanation of it can be obtained by reading the liturgical propers for it (perhaps for this reason the hymns are prescribed in the Typikon as opposed to being discretionary).

It seems to me in Lutheranism the strong dogmatic content of Luther’s hymns and the content of the Mass and other services which might not be in the Book of Concord would impact your beliefs from the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, which I have heard Lutherans affirm.

XrxrX · Jul 14, 2025

The Liturgist said:
It is absolutely the case that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East believe in prima scriptura, within the context of Holy Tradition. There is no conflict between Scripture and Tradition; the primacy of Scripture within tradition is a centrality - the Gospels lie at the heart of our tradition, surrounded by the New Testament Epistles, the Psalms and Prophecies of the Old Testament and so on.

Everything we do flows from Scripture and holds up to Scriptural scrutiny, at least according to how Scripture was understood in the centuries following the Ascension and the descent of the Spirt on Pentecost, and how it is still understood by the persecuted churches of the East, which have suffered under the Turkish yoke, the Communist yoke, the Fascist yoke (during WWII, the fascist Ustashe conducted a genocide against the Serbian Orthodox) and now the Islamist yoke.

It appears there is a debate within the RCC over the issue, but the debate is semantic, since like the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic regard Scripture as part of the Magisterium, and there exists a concern that “prima scriptura” would suggest a false dichotomy.

What the Roman Catholics believe in appears to be the same as what we believe in; like the Orthodox, their historic liturgy (the various forms of the traditional Latin mass) is filled with scriptural references; the new liturgy suffers from dubious translations in some languages (for example, translating “Sabaoth” as “the Universe” and not “of Hosts”, although this was addressed in the English language with the revised 2011 missal, which also eliminated the rather irritating translation of et cum spiritu tuo (itself a translation of a Greek phrase) as “and also with you”, when it should be translated, like in the 2011 missal, as “and with your spirit” or better yet, as the Orthodox usually translate it, “and with thy spirit” since the second personal pronoun.

Note that you should in the context of the Roman Catholic Church speak more of the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the church, since this is what they emphasize, which is demonstrated by the fact that the RCC believes in the development of doctrine.

The Eastern Orthodox is certainly less problematic than the RCC, but woefully, still problematic enough for the Protestant. It really is heartbreaking because despite the history of animosity and even hostility between the 2 beliefs, any Born Again believer could, and should only ever want unity in the Body of Christ.

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2025

RandyPNW said:
I mentioned Church Membership as a very common example of nominal Christians wishing to "get in through the back door."

St. Paul didn’t think so.

You seem to be conflating the idea of being a dues-paying, card carrying member of a local church with the membership in the Body of Christ which is conferred through Baptism.

If one is Baptized, one has put on Christ, according to St. Paul, and is grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is, according to St. Paul, the Church. This is, according to St. Paul, essential to our salvation.

By Church, I am talking about the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed, however you define it. Belief in the importance of that Church is not optional - it is not a local church, it is the Universal church. Most Protestants have developed eccleesiologies, which in the case of Luther was based on the idea that the Church was everywhere the Gospel was preached and Baptism and the Eucharist made available, in the case of Anglicanism is based on “branch ecclesiology”, that Anglicanism is a branch of the early church, in the case of other denominations you might encounter invisible church ecclesiology or local church ecclesiology, particularly among Baptists, Congregationalists and the Stone/Campbell Movement.

But however you define the Universal church, membership in that is an imperative, according to St. Paul. Being baptized into it is not the back door to the Christian faith, or trying to get in by the back door, but rather is the front door, according to Scripture. It is the means by which our faith in Christ is actualized.

RandyPNW said:
I don't personally even identify such practices as anything more than "Christian observances." Marking them as somehow more sacred than "saying a prayer" seems to confer too much dignity upon exercises that were only meant to offer support for the routine Christian life.

This view is entirely unsupported by Scripture. It clashes with John 6, it clashes with Galatians 3:27, and it clashes with a host of other New Testament verses.

It is also directly relevant to the issue of Sola Fide vs. Nuda Fide, for the extreme anti-sacramentalism you exhibit clashes with the views of most Sola Fide Protestants. And the suggestion that a belief in the sacraments constitutes “trying to get in by the back door” as if the faith of Eastern Orthodox Christians such as the Antiochians who were just martyred for Christ by an ISIS attack in Damascus, with over 90 injured and nearly30 receiving Crowns of Martyrdom including children for confessing Christ while attending church, or the faith of the Oriental Orthodox Christians of the Coptic and Ethiopian churches who were beheaded in two separate incidents by ISIS in 2015 for refusing to renounce Christianity is somehow deficient is not only uncharitable, but deeply offensive. Likewise, the many Roman Catholic martyrs in the Middle East, and the many Anglican martyrs in Pakistan, and the confessors of these faiths.

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2025

XrxrX said:
but woefully, still problematic enough for the Protestant

Apparently not given our excellent relations with the largest Protestant denominations (the Lutherans and the Anglicans) and the mass conversion of former Jesus People to the Antiochian church in 1990.

More recently we’ve been receiving so many converts from non-denominaitonal aliturgical Protestantism (Hank Haanegraaf and myself both did this in the 2010s, when it was known to happen but was not occurring en masse to the extent that our clergy are overloaded and we are facing a capacity crunch), as have our liturgical Protestant partners and the more traditional Roman Catholic parishes such as those which offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

Liturgical Christianity is ascendant, thankfully, after a few decades when it seemed like everyone wished to redefine worship as listening to Hillsong while dancing in a megachurch.

Rose_bud · Tuesday at 12:02 AM

The Liturgist said:
St. Paul didn’t think so.

You seem to be conflating the idea of being a dues-paying, card carrying member of a local church with the membership in the Body of Christ which is conferred through Baptism.

If one is Baptized, one has put on Christ, according to St. Paul, and is grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is, according to St. Paul, the Church. This is, according to St. Paul, essential to our salvation.

By Church, I am talking about the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed, however you define it. Belief in the importance of that Church is not optional - it is not a local church, it is the Universal church. Most Protestants have developed eccleesiologies, which in the case of Luther was based on the idea that the Church was everywhere the Gospel was preached and Baptism and the Eucharist made available, in the case of Anglicanism is based on “branch ecclesiology”, that Anglicanism is a branch of the early church, in the case of other denominations you might encounter invisible church ecclesiology or local church ecclesiology, particularly among Baptists, Congregationalists and the Stone/Campbell Movement.

But however you define the Universal church, membership in that is an imperative, according to St. Paul. Being baptized into it is not the back door to the Christian faith, or trying to get in by the back door, but rather is the front door, according to Scripture. It is the means by which our faith in Christ is actualized.

This view is entirely unsupported by Scripture. It clashes with John 6, it clashes with Galatians 3:27, and it clashes with a host of other New Testament verses.

It is also directly relevant to the issue of Sola Fide vs. Nuda Fide, for the extreme anti-sacramentalism you exhibit clashes with the views of most Sola Fide Protestants. And the suggestion that a belief in the sacraments constitutes “trying to get in by the back door” as if the faith of Eastern Orthodox Christians such as the Antiochians who were just martyred for Christ by an ISIS attack in Damascus, with over 90 injured and nearly30 receiving Crowns of Martyrdom including children for confessing Christ while attending church, or the faith of the Oriental Orthodox Christians of the Coptic and Ethiopian churches who were beheaded in two separate incidents by ISIS in 2015 for refusing to renounce Christianity is somehow deficient is not only uncharitable, but deeply offensive. Likewise, the many Roman Catholic martyrs in the Middle East, and the many Anglican martyrs in Pakistan, and the confessors of these faiths.

Hey Liturgist

When you split @RandyPNW post the way you did, you make it say something which it is not. He specifically mentioned overemphasis to the point of extreme Christianity. I don't believe he is denying the value of the sacraments.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 12:11 AM

The Liturgist said:
Apparently not given our excellent relations with the largest Protestant denominations (the Lutherans and the Anglicans) and the mass conversion of former Jesus People to the Antiochian church in 1990.

More recently we’ve been receiving so many converts from non-denominaitonal aliturgical Protestantism (Hank Haanegraaf and myself both did this in the 2010s, when it was known to happen but was not occurring en masse to the extent that our clergy are overloaded and we are facing a capacity crunch), as have our liturgical Protestant partners and the more traditional Roman Catholic parishes such as those which offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

Liturgical Christianity is ascendant, thankfully, after a few decades when it seemed like everyone wished to redefine worship as listening to Hillsong while dancing in a megachurch.

I am indeed aware of the surge in interest in EO esp. and Latin Mass, more of a cultural oversteer of young males fleeing the emasculation of the mainstream culture. Being caught between that, and the pit of the NAR debauched mainstream is... a "hell" of a place to be for the "regular ol' Believer". It's a miracle the Church has endured, literally.. man is one wayward creature.

jas3 · Tuesday at 12:20 AM

XrxrX said:
Again, this is appealing to authority.. to which I (and every believer has the right) to selectively submit. We could sit and pick apart literally Every single Church Father, and ostensibly destroy half of their positions. Literally, a contemporary layman could..

Most contemporary Protestant laymen don't even have an awareness of the categories the Church Fathers deal with, much less an understanding and thought-out disagreement with any of them.

XrxrX said:
Only the arrogant and ignorant would off handedly dismiss them.

Yes, so why are you doing that?

RandyPNW · Tuesday at 12:30 AM

Rose_bud said:
Hey Liturgist

When you split @RandyPNW post the way you did, you make it say something which it is not. He specifically mentioned overemphasis to the point of extreme Christianity. I don't believe he is denying the value of the sacraments.

Yes, I don't deny the value of the "sacraments," if you wish to call them that. Special observances can hold loose groups of Christians together in a pagan environment. And sacraments, along with religious calendars, have brought unity to Christian kingdoms.

But the reality is, these are just external observances which support the main idea: Christ in us, the hope of glory. It is our unity with God that is most important, and that is secured by our walk with God, and not dependent upon observance of rituals.

The sacraments mean things that are very important, but their external observance should not be confused with the internal reality they are intended to represent. Not all who are Water Baptized are Baptized in the Spirit. Not all who confess to a priest is fully repentant from the heart without reservation. External practices do not ensure the realty.

The Liturgist said:
St. Paul didn’t think so.

You seem to be conflating the idea of being a dues-paying, card carrying member of a local church with the membership in the Body of Christ which is conferred through Baptism.

No, I wasn't conflating at all. I was in fact talking about the "dues-paying, card carrying member of a local church!" Those who are legal members of a local church, who thus claim to be part of God's universal Church, are not secured by the observance of religious rituals, including practice of the sacraments.

So I'm not depreciating the sacraments when observed properly. But neither am I saying they are necessary or even to be called "sacraments," since the Scriptures do not call them that. Apparently Jesus didn't find it necessary to tell his apostles to build the Church upon the observance of sacraments?

But what the "sacraments" represented were very important indeed. In Water Baptism it is the public profession of faith along with dying to the old man, in order to live a new life. Etc.

The Liturgist said:
If one is Baptized, one has put on Christ, according to St. Paul, and is grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is, according to St. Paul, the Church. This is, according to St. Paul, essential to our salvation.

Nobody here questions that. It is the ritual that is non-essential--not what it means. We practice the ritual because it is useful as a demonstration of intent. It does not have innate powers that transcend ordinary, mundane Christian living.

Fervent · Tuesday at 12:36 AM

RandyPNW said:
Yes, I don't deny the value of the "sacraments," if you wish to call them that. Special observances can hold loose groups of Christians together in a pagan environment. And sacraments, along with religious calendars, have brought unity to Christian kingdoms.

But the reality is, these are just external observances which support the main idea: Christ in us, the hope of glory. It is our unity with God that is most important, and that is secured by our walk with God, and not dependent upon observance of rituals.

The sacraments mean things that are very important, but their external observance should not be confused with the internal reality they are intended to represent. Not all who are Water Baptized are Baptized in the Spirit. Not all who confess to a priest is fully repentant from the heart without reservation. External practices do not ensure the realty.

This flattens the understanding of the sacraments...as they are not simply ritual observances but a means of participation in the mystery. They aren't simply externalities, or symbolic actions, but an invitation to participate in the Divine life. Part of the problem is that much of this is flattened by philosophies that do not have the capacity to represent the fullness of traditional sacramental theology and instead must see them as external/symbolic realities when they are crucial to the life of Christ. For example, when Romans says we are baptized into His death it is not being metaphorical or symbolic but speaking of what it is that baptism effects in our lives.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 12:39 AM

jas3 said:
Most contemporary Protestant laymen don't even have an awareness of the categories the Church Fathers deal with, much less an understanding and thought-out disagreement with any of them.

Yes, so why are you doing that?

You'd be surprised. This perception of the theologically ignorant "redneck bible thumper" trope is long gone. If you move in the circles of most non-Lutheran/Methodist/Anglican.. essentially (Protestant Catholic) denominations, the gleaned mean of biblical literacy is off the charts as opposed to even 50 years ago. I'd lay money (if I gambled which I don't) that the average Catholic of any stripe couldn't even sit in the same room as the average IFB Baptist and talk theology.. same for %90 of Reformed congregants (albeit much of what they "know" is wrong).. but, they certainly do know scripture. The simple fact is, Sola/Prima Scriptura has the benefit of hyperfocus, and it wields a pretty bountiful harvest when it comes time to defend the reason for the Hope that's in you.

timothyu · Tuesday at 12:51 AM

The Liturgist said:
United Church of Canada

?? The hybrid Methodist Presbyterian church?

Fervent · Tuesday at 1:10 AM

XrxrX said:
You'd be surprised. This perception of the theologically ignorant "redneck bible thumper" trope is long gone. If you move in the circles of most non-Lutheran/Methodist/Anglican.. essentially (Protestant Catholic) denominations, the gleaned mean of biblical literacy is off the charts as opposed to even 50 years ago. I'd lay money (if I gambled which I don't) that the average Catholic of any stripe couldn't even sit in the same room as the average IFB Baptist and talk theology.. same for %90 of Reformed congregants (albeit much of what they "know" is wrong).. but, they certainly do know scripture. The simple fact is, Sola/Prima Scriptura has the benefit of hyperfocus, and it wields a pretty bountiful harvest when it comes time to defend the reason for the Hope that's in you.

There is a certain diligence among Protestants in knowing the Biblical text, but that's not what that person was talking about. My experience has been there's a great deal of proof texting ability but not necessarily the kind of depth of knowledge that is necessary for fully grasping the context of these ancient texts. And part of that is a lack of awareness of the writings of the church fathers and Christian theological history in general, at least prior to the Reformation. So while it is great that there is a vibrancy in the reading of Biblical texts, that doesn't necessarily translate to clear understanding.

The Liturgist · Tuesday at 1:34 AM

timothyu said:
?? The hybrid Methodist Presbyterian church?

The successor to most Methodists, some Presbyterians and most Congregationalists in Canada.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 1:35 AM

Fervent said:
There is a certain diligence among Protestants in knowing the Biblical text, but that's not what that person was talking about. My experience has been there's a great deal of proof texting ability but not necessarily the kind of depth of knowledge that is necessary for fully grasping the context of these ancient texts. And part of that is a lack of awareness of the writings of the church fathers and Christian theological history in general, at least prior to the Reformation. So while it is great that there is a vibrancy in the reading of Biblical texts, that doesn't necessarily translate to clear understanding.

Not by definition would it translate, but it has nonetheless, for the very reason displayed here. The centuries old theological "battle" between the "churches", and the onslaught of countless cults.. you think this wouldn't generate an evolution of "theological gladiators" by necessity? It has, and like other generational conflicts... Everyone, from the working man, housewife and even the ankle biters all throw down now. The irony is those that take themselves the most seriously, mired in the trappings of endless "liturgy" and tradition.. that like to wear long flowing robes in the marketplace, so enamored of their own knowledge, well.. they can't scrap quite the same. At least that's my observance, and though it's good the common advance in literacy.. the reason for its necessity is unfortunate.

Fervent · Tuesday at 1:40 AM

XrxrX said:
Not by definition would it translate, but it has nonetheless, for the very reason displayed here. The centuries old theological "battle" between the "churches", and the onslaught of countless cults.. you think this wouldn't generate an evolution of "theological gladiators" by necessity? It has, and like other generational conflicts... Everyone, from the working man, housewife and even the ankle biters all throw down now. The irony is those that take themselves the most seriously, mired in the trappings of endless "liturgy" and tradition.. that like to wear long flowing robes in the marketplace, so enamored of their own knowledge, well.. they can't scrap quite the same. At least that's my observance, and though it's good the common advance in literacy.. the reason for its necessity is unfortunate.

I'm not sure "scrapping" is a praiseworthy attribute for Christians, so I find your characterization a bit strange. But your experiences are quite different from my own, where those I've interacted with tend to be well versed on NT epistles but beyond that there are sharp drop offs especially when the OT comes into play. And from there there are even steeper drop offs in knowledge of church history and Patristic literature.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 1:58 AM

Fervent said:
I'm not sure "scrapping" is a praiseworthy attribute for Christians, so I find your characterization a bit strange. But your experiences are quite different from my own, where those I've interacted with tend to be well versed on NT epistles but beyond that there are sharp drop offs especially when the OT comes into play. And from there there are even steeper drop offs in knowledge of church history and Patristic literature.

Go sit in on an IFB sermon.. you'll get the full 66 book menu. You'll have to ask for the dessert menu for other 7 though! But yeah, "scrapping" in context. Idk if you've noticed the advent in cults lately, but it's crazy.. and it requires scrapping. But yes, Church history and Patristic literature literacy is definitely wanting.. largely by design, which should change for no other reason than everything old is new again with regard to heresy and cults. The Church Fathers saw it all, and indeed started half of them! So, forewarned is forearmed in that regard.

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:04 AM

XrxrX said:
Go sit in on an IFB sermon.. you'll get the full 66 book menu. You'll have to ask for the dessert menu for other 7 though! But yeah, "scraping" in context. Idk if you've noticed the advent in cults lately, but it's crazy.. and it requires scrapping. But yes, Church history and Patristic literature literacy is definitely wanting.. largely by design, which should change for no other reason than everything old is new again with regard to heresy and cults. The Church Fathers saw it all, and indeed started half of them! So, forewarned is forearmed in that regard.

Accusing the church fathers of starting heresies is quite an inflammatory charge, particularly coming from someone who speaks so highly of IFB. As for a rise in cults, I haven't seen an uptick but that may be a geographical thing. Patristic literature is extremely important because it gets us closer to the historical context of the NT and helps us understand what the concerns of the NT authors were. Avoiding such literature leads to anachronistic readings and the imposition of modern(well, 19th and 20th century) philosophical structures on the text.

jas3 · Tuesday at 2:06 AM

XrxrX said:
If you move in the circles of most non-Lutheran/Methodist/Anglican.. essentially (Protestant Catholic) denominations, the gleaned mean of biblical literacy is off the charts as opposed to even 50 years ago.

Biblical literacy like knowing the difference between Ψ and Υ? I'd think you'd need to know at least the alphabet before claiming you could wipe the floor with the Church Fathers.

XrxrX said:
I'd lay money (if I gambled which I don't) that the average Catholic of any stripe couldn't even sit in the same room as the average IFB Baptist and talk theology.. same for %90 of Reformed congregants (albeit much of what they "know" is wrong)..

It seems like in spite of your assertion that Scripture is so clear a child can understand it, the only people who make the right connections in your mind are IFB. Funny how that works.

XrxrX said:
The Church Fathers saw it all, and indeed started half of them!

No, this is just historically illiterate and shows you don't really care to know what you're talking about. The Church Fathers weren't heresiarchs.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 2:33 AM

jas3 said:
Biblical literacy like knowing the difference between Ψ and Υ? I'd think you'd need to know at least the alphabet before claiming you could wipe the floor with the Church Fathers.

It seems like in spite of your assertion that Scripture is so clear a child can understand it, the only people who make the right connections in your mind are IFB. Funny how that works.
No, this is just historically illiterate and shows you don't really care to know what you're talking about. The Church Fathers weren't heresiarchs.

Being literate in biblical languages certainly doesn't hurt (and that literacy is wider now than any time in history as well) but not a contingency of functional exegetical/hermeneutical prowess. Unless one distrusts their literacy in translating the languages.. bit of paradox there. And I didn't say "only IFB", of which I'm not a member btw, so no bias.. just an observation. They train like Bereans. And yes, I was being hyperbolic that the Church Fathers started half the heresies.. we'll go with, say.. a third? Again, lighthearted tease. They didn't "start" the Gnostic rot that undergirds so many of them, and in all seriousness the milieu they functioned in did much to elucidate and if not eradicate, at least mitigate much of it. But again, so did John and Paul.

What's the use of faith alone?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads