Are Protestants Saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TristanCross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi again–

I used the CCC to answer this question and encountered a lot of confusing posts about why the CCC is not infallible, etc… I Asked an Apologist if the CCC was an accurate portrayal of the current teachings of the Catholic Church. His answer:

**Hi,

The very reason that the Catechism of the Catholic Church exists is so that it can help people know exactly what the Church teaches in our current practical situations. The Catechism is it!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. **

And as I stated in an earlier post, the CCC does indicate that Protestants can be saved outside the Catholic Church. So I would think that would end the debate, since when the CCC was commissioned and written, the Church was fully aware of the Council of Trent and other Papal Bulls when it approved the current CCC.

Therefore, to disagree with the possibility of the salvation of Protestants, one must be in disagreement with the Church. And that is all I really needed to know.
Catechism are NORMS not dogmatic!! They mix together theolgical tendencies with Church dogmas they are bothe there but this particular Catechism CCC is not an accurate nor complete clear presentation.

Q: Is better to remain celibate or to marry ? It isn’t clear in the CCC

Introduction-Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, pg. XXXVI:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
 
The OP’s question is answered in the CCC–satisfactorily to me, anyway. I understand it does not comprise the entire history of the teachings of the Catholic Church, but it does address the OP’s (and mine) question according to the current teachings of the Church.
 
The OP’s question is answered in the CCC–satisfactorily to me, anyway. I understand it does not comprise the entire history of the teachings of the Catholic Church, but it does address the OP’s (and mine) question according to the current teachings of the Church.
That is the problem there is no current teaching! If you are Catholic the Faith is the same from the death of the last Apostles! your phase and the CCC implies there are things we believe that the Apostles didn’t.
 
That is the problem there is no current teaching! If you are Catholic the Faith is the same from the death of the last Apostles! your phase and the CCC implies there are things we believe that the Apostles didn’t.
My phase? I don’t understand. I have done research now, and understand that there are a group of Catholics who do not agree with the CCC on this matter–nor do you agree with people far more educated than I about what was intended in the statements made by previous Councils, popes, etc. on the contextual meaning of salvation not being possible outside the Church.

That is okay. People don’t agree. I just don’t think the preponderance of teaching from reputable sites such as EWTN, the Vatican and other scholars can be overcome with a simplistic, legalistic view of historical statements (even DOGMA if you wish) taken out of context. Apparently more and more young people are becoming “feeny-ites” (new term I learned today) and it has been interesting to research it. I’m sure I will do more.

But now I think we’re at an impasse here. I do believe Fr. Serpa that the CCC represents the current teachings of the Catholic Church. I do believe the statements of the Early Fathers and parts of the Council of Trent are taken out of context to prove an untenable position. And I do believe that mercy triumphs over judgement whenever possible.

God bless.
 
My phase? I don’t understand. I have done research now, and understand that there are a group of Catholics who do not agree with the CCC on this matter–nor do you agree with people far more educated than I about what was intended in the statements made by previous Councils, popes, etc. on the contextual meaning of salvation not being possible outside the Church.

That is okay. People don’t agree. I just don’t think the preponderance of teaching from reputable sites such as EWTN, the Vatican and other scholars can be overcome with a simplistic, legalistic view of historical statements (even DOGMA if you wish) taken out of context. Apparently more and more young people are becoming “feeny-ites” (new term I learned today) and it has been interesting to research it. I’m sure I will do more.

But now I think we’re at an impasse here. I do believe Fr. Serpa that the CCC represents the current teachings of the Catholic Church. I do believe the statements of the Early Fathers and parts of the Council of Trent are taken out of context to prove an untenable position. And I do believe that mercy triumphs over judgement whenever possible.

God bless.
Out of context? Here is the context:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. ex cathedra:
*** “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
**
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302. infallable
*** “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. ex cathedra:
  • **“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” **
the Church is defining a dogma and by defining that means it can not change. How can a fallible source give the “true” meaning of an infallible source? That’s just crazy!

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
 
A Catholic admits what Protestants have stated all along, interesting no.
No, this person just chose his words poorly…either because he was tired and not thinking clearly, or because he just wasn’t thinking clearly…Catholics only worship God. We obey the commandments. It is protestants who don’t obey God in all things, they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to quote and believe in while they pretend that other parts don’t exist. They even dumped a bunch of books out of their Bible because they didn’t want to read them…or didn’t you ever question why your Bible has fewer books than ours? Who do you think wrote the New Testament anyway? Protestants? HA…no, CATHOLICS. We are the original Christians. We are the church that Jesus Himself founded. And, we do what He told us to do. We were originally Jews then we expanded to add Gentiles (thanks to Paul and others). Jesus told us to honor our Mother Mary…who is Queen of heaven. You are stupid not to do what He says. Jesus told us He would be with us to the end of time…and He is with us everyday…in PERSON. Is He with your church IN PERSON? You think I’m talking nonsense… that’s because you don’t know anything about the Catholic faith… but you sure are going to make up a bunch of untruths… just because a single person mistakenly used an incorrect word… even though they didn’t mean it that way. You know, that is breaking the 8th commandment…you are bearing false witness…because that person did not mean that…and you KNOW IT…YOU ARE ONLY TRYING TO MAKE YOUR CASE…prideful protestants.
 
The wisest and most prophetic man I’ve met so far was my original Protestant pastor, who at the time was in the Presbyterian Church, but was Methodist by training.

He died in 1992. However fairly late in the piece, probably around 1990 or 1991, we were talking in his office.

To my surprise, and remember this was a Protestant pastor, he made the following commments -
  1. “I sometimes wonder if Protestants get to heaven”. His argument was that he didn’t think God was as easy going about the division of HIs Church as we are. We tolerate, or at least live with, a great many things that would not get a moment’s tolerance in heaven.
The Reformation he stated, was easily the most violent episode in Church history.
  1. “I think (the 'false prophet”) was Martin Luther Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian."
They’re not what you expect Protestant pastors to say.

Towards the end of his life, he came to the conclusion that the Protestant postion on the Pope was a heresy, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith which bluntly states the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and which every Presbyterian pastor swears on as part of taking office.

A couple of years after he died, he appeared briefly in a vision (one of about four or five all told) in which he said, “We’re not in heaven. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain - in fact, its pretty good, so you don’t have to worry about that. But we’re not in heaven.”

So … if he was right, and I used to find from experience he was nearly always right about everything, and that if he said something would happen, it usually did, then my understanding is that there are no Protestants in heaven. That doesn’t mean they’re condemned, but I think they’ll have to wait till the churches recombine. Some of them have been waiting a long time.

I’m inclined to agree with him. I thnk they’re “saved” (along with the Orthodox), but I don’t think they’re in heaven. I think God won’t tolerate the division of His Church with extreme violence, or the continued lies told in His Name about Catholics and the Catholic Church.
Well, he was right, even though I think there are a lot of other wise men, like Pope John Paul II, Bishop Sheen and Padre Pio. But, this is why we must all pray for Jesus’ Church to re-unite. I pray everyday that God gives our good Pope the wisdom to do this work…and that the parts of the church in schism (this includes Protestants) will be given the grace to come back to Jesus’ Church under the Pontiff. Please join me in prayer. Pray that Jesus’ Church becomes whole again. God bless you all.
 
Jesus said “church”, not “churches”. Long before schisms, protestant sects, etc., all Christians were called Catholics. United in His Holy Name.

I would think nothing delights Satan more than to see the disunity that is the fruit of the Great Schism, the Reformation, and so forth. He has much to gain. Souls are his prize.

I say this because of the Last Supper and the Pentecost. The Church was born of the carrying out of Christ’s will, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The word Catholic has a meaning. For Protestant sects, it seems Scripture is enough. But can they justify rejecting or dismissing Christ’s will of unity in His name ?

Christians who do not place themselves subject to the Pope are treading on egg shells imho. After all, it is not the Roman Catholic Church who broke away from the Church Christ willed.

One must ask him/herself if they truly believe that Scripture is enough. Is a preacher who has not been ordained, and thus void of the quality of Apostolic Succession, truly to be expected to secure souls for Christ ? Without the Sacraments ? Without being in full communion with the Church the Apostles built ?

What about Luther ? Did those who followed his lead secure their souls ? How could they ? Many of his followers, like he himself, walked away from the Church the Apostles built.
How can one rest easy knowing that ?

I wonder what this world would look like today, had those who left the Church remained ? What impact would be seen if those that left were to return ?
 
What can I say to that?
Oh how nice… :eek:
Are you familiar with the seminary in Louisville ? Your pastor may have studied there. If he did, ask him about the fliers he saw on the doors of dorm rooms as he walked down the halls. The one’s with the quotes of Luther and others, spewing venom towards the Chair of Peter.

Imagine a Roman Catholic walking those halls. Oh how nice… :eek:

😉
 
Out of context? Here is the context:
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. ex cathedra:
*** “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
**
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302. infallable
*** “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. ex cathedra:
  • “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
the Church is defining a dogma and by defining that means it can not change. How can a fallible source give the “true” meaning of an infallible source? That’s just crazy!

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
Out of context means pulling quotes from something without giving or having a full understanding of the historical, social, etc. surroundings. It wasn’t until I read an article written by someone for EWTN that I understood. Some people take a part of Scripture out of context and make it mean something unintended. Likewise, some people take partial teachings of the Magesterium out of context and make it mean something unintended.

I think this is what bpbasilpx was referring to on another post.

And I don’t think it’s crazy to believe what the CCC teaches. Those who wrote it and approved it were well aware of all of your quotes listed.
 
No, this person just chose his words poorly…either because he was tired and not thinking clearly, or because he just wasn’t thinking clearly…Catholics only worship God. We obey the commandments. It is protestants who don’t obey God in all things, they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to quote and believe in while they pretend that other parts don’t exist. They even dumped a bunch of books out of their Bible because they didn’t want to read them…or didn’t you ever question why your Bible has fewer books than ours? Who do you think wrote the New Testament anyway? Protestants? HA…no, CATHOLICS. We are the original Christians. We are the church that Jesus Himself founded. And, we do what He told us to do. We were originally Jews then we expanded to add Gentiles (thanks to Paul and others). Jesus told us to honor our Mother Mary…who is Queen of heaven. You are stupid not to do what He says. Jesus told us He would be with us to the end of time…and He is with us everyday…in PERSON. Is He with your church IN PERSON? You think I’m talking nonsense… that’s because you don’t know anything about the Catholic faith… but you sure are going to make up a bunch of untruths… just because a single person mistakenly used an incorrect word… even though they didn’t mean it that way. You know, that is breaking the 8th commandment…you are bearing false witness…because that person did not mean that…and you KNOW IT…YOU ARE ONLY TRYING TO MAKE YOUR CASE…prideful protestants.
Step away for a minute and think about what Jesus would say to this. I believe the same theology you do in this post, but in this case, right doesn’t make might. "Stupid’? “Prideful Protestants”? As a former Protestant of 37 years, I never heard–even when I lived in Louisville, KY–such condemning words about Catholics.

I know it’s hard to believe, but most Protestants are happily trying to serve and love God the best way they know how. They are not considering and rejecting the Catholic Church. The barrier between the two is so thick that most Protestants are not even aware of what you accuse them of rejecting.

I know you are responding to Janet, who left the RCC, but in “trying to make your case” (I will not shout at you in all caps) I’m afraid you might be forgetting what Jesus said are the two greatest commandments.

Discussion and debate is wonderful–name calling is not.
 
Discussion and debate is wonderful–name calling is not.
This might shock you but Christ was known to call people names at times.

Protestants do not worship the true Christ, they worship a false “Christ” made up by men and accuse the true Christ of been a liar when they deny the doctrines He taught and teach the opposite.
 
This might shock you but Christ was known to call people names at times.

Protestants do not worship the true Christ, they worship a false “Christ” made up by men and accuse the true Christ of been a liar when they deny the doctrines He taught and teach the opposite.
Do you really believe that Protestants worship a false Christ? This is a new one to me.

I worshipped Christ as a Protestant and now as a Catholic. Same Christ. Better understanding now. The Church calls those who have been baptized and raised in a separated fellowship Christians. Some Catholics do not. I understand this schism of understanding exists.

It doesn’t surprise me that Jesus called people names. I’ve read the Bible many times. Most of the people He called to account were those who burdened the people with laws and forgot the two greatest commandments.

Besides that, it is a little insulting to Christ to compare what He said, as the Word made flesh and God Who is love, to the name calling previously referred to. I just don’t think it fits in with the totality of Christ’s teaching or the teaching of the Church.
 
Out of context means pulling quotes from something without giving or having a full understanding of the historical, social, etc. surroundings. It wasn’t until I read an article written by someone for EWTN that I understood. Some people take a part of Scripture out of context and make it mean something unintended. Likewise, some people take partial teachings of the Magesterium out of context and make it mean something unintended.

I think this is what bpbasilpx was referring to on another post.

And I don’t think it’s crazy to believe what the CCC teaches. Those who wrote it and approved it were well aware of all of your quotes listed.
When you look up a word in the dictionary do you say : “Hey wait a minute what is the context?” NO.

Definitions are definitions and if when the Church defined something and didn’t mean what it was defining that would be deception. By the very fact of DEFINING they are telling us what to believe.

SO that is the context the Church has defined --it so and that is why I believe it.

EWTN or CCC has defined it for you so you believe them but both are FALLIBLE sources!
 
When you look up a word in the dictionary do you say : “Hey wait a minute what is the context?” NO.

Definitions are definitions and if when the Church defined something and didn’t mean what it was defining that would be deception. By the very fact of DEFINING they are telling us what to believe.

SO that is the context the Church has defined --it so and that is why I believe it.

EWTN or CCC has defined it for you so you believe them but both are FALLIBLE sources!
Absolutely you must use context. Even with single words, but especially with teachings. The Church has defined it differently from you. Unless you believe that what the Church is teaching now regarding the application of the dogma you cite is wrong. If so, I think your thinking is representative of what I was researching yesterday. And I simply do not agree with that line of thinking.

I am not out of line with the teaching of the Church by believing the CCC. I understand you believe I am. That’s fine.
 
Do you really believe that Protestants worship a false Christ? This is a new one to me.

I worshipped Christ as a Protestant and now as a Catholic. Same Christ. Better understanding now.
Indeed they do a “Christ” of their own making which they have set up in place of the true Christ.

Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church.” “No,” say all Protestants, “do not hear the Church; protest against her with all your might.”

Jesus Christ says: “If anyone will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican.” “No,” says Protestantism, “if anyone does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, an ambassador of God.”

Jesus Christ says: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church.” “No,” says Protestantism. “ the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.”

Jesus Christ has declared Saint Peter and every successor to Saint Peter — the Pope — to be His Vicar on earth. “No,” says Protestantism, “the Pope is anti- Christ”.

Jesus Christ says: “My yoke is sweet, and My burden light.” (Matt. 11:30) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “it is impossible to keep the Commandments.”

Jesus Christ says: “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt. 19:17)
“No,” said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting.”

Jesus Christ says: “Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” (cf. Luke 13:3) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “fasting and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”

Jesus Christ says: “This is My Body.” “No,” said Calvin, “this is only the figure of Christ’s Body; it will become His Body as soon as you receive It.”

Jesus Christ says: “I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “No,” say all Protestants, to a married man, you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another.

Jesus Christ says to every man: “Thou shalt not steal.” “No,” said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church.

The real Jesus was born of a woman who was:
Code:
A) Immaculately conceived
B) Sinless throughout her life
C) A perpetual virgin
D) Assumed body and soul into Heaven
The Protestant Jesus was not.

The real Jesus established a visible Church with a visible authority and the hierarchical structure of a kingdom and a body (see Acts 6: 6; 14:23; 1 Cor.12:28; 1 Tim.4:14;Titus 1:5); whose bishops continue to exercise the same teaching and governing authority of the Apostles (see Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.5:21-22; 2 Tim.2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 2:15).

The Jesus in whom Protestants believe in and worship did NOT establish such a church.

The real Jesus established the Papacy by building His Church upon St. Peter, thereby giving the world a visible teaching and governing authority representing Christ’s own teaching and governing authority (Mat.16: 18-19; Lk.22:31-32; Jn.21:15-17).

The Jesus in whom Protestants believe in did NOT establish such an authority.

The real Jesus established a visible, sacerdotal priesthood to consecrate bread and wine into His Sacred Body and Blood, to perpetuate His one sacrifice of the cross, and to apply its fruits and graces down through time to believers, which includes the forgiving of sins (Lk.22:19; Jn.20:21-23; 2 Cor.5:18).

The Jesus in whom Protestants believe in did not establish such an office or function.

The real Jesus makes Himself truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the outward appearance of bread and wine, in the Holy Eucharist (Lk.22:19-20; Jn.6:52, 54-57; 1 Cor.10:16; 11:27). The Jesus in whom Protestants believe in does NOT do such a thing. Yet, since the Holy Eucharist IS literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ present on earth, to deny that it is, is to deny Jesus himself. There can be no unity, nor cooperation, with those who deny the Eucharistic Lord since at Vatican II, in the Church’s very Decree on Ecumenism (ch.1), it was declared that Christ:

“instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about.”

As you can see, it is not a matter of Protestant or other unbelievers not merely believing as much as Catholics believe, or of each side just holding different interpretations which need to be worked through in greater detail, rather, it is a matter of Protestants believing the very opposite what the Catholic Church teaches and other religions not believing at all. You can never reconcile “A” and “NOT-A.” Truth, and thus Divine Faith, can never contradict itself. As God has revealed, the preaching of the Apostles is that God is faithful: their preaching was not “It is, and It is not” (see 2 Cor.1:18-19).

The true Christ has by His Passion and Death, by the shedding of His Precious Blood on the Cross, actually made righteous and truly justified those to whom the grace and merit of His Passion is communicated (Rom.5:19; 1 Cor.6:11; 2 Cor.5:17; Eph.4:23-24; 2 Pet.1:4). The Blood of the Catholic Jesus actually cleanses the souls of those who have been (validly) baptised from both Original Sin and any actual sins committed before hand. These souls are objectively made righteous and beautiful before God.

The Passion and death of Jesus for Protestants has no ontological (i.e. actual) effect on the soul. In other words, the application of the fruit of the death of “their” Jesus brings about no objective change upon the soul of believers, it only changes their “position” or “status” before God. They call this “imputed righteousness” or “declared justification,” where the believer is covered by Christ’s blood and righteousness. For Protestants, God declares the believer justified, but the believer in reality, in his soul, is not so.
The Church calls those who have been baptized and raised in a separated fellowship Christians. Some Catholics do not. I understand this schism of understanding exists.
The Church calls them separated brethren, this does not negate them been also called false brethren, they are brethren by their baptism but they are not of us. There is no schism of understanding there are just different ways of saying the same thing.
 
Leonius,

Thank you for your reply. I believe the reason the Church allows for the salvation of separated brethren is because they do not know the things you mentioned. You speak as though Protestants are consistently denying Catholic teachings, when in actuality they don’t know them.

Your arguments about worshipping a false Jesus, numerous though they are, are not convincing. Protestants worship the Christ in the Bible–and while their information may be incomplete and some of their doctrines false–He is not false. Who are you to say they are worshipping a false Christ? The current teachings of the Church do not support your stance on this.

Yes, there is more than misunderstanding between Protestants and Catholics. There is invincible ignorance. Another grey area in which I don’t care to veer–I’ve read the arguments.
 
Culpable ignorance is far more common than invincible, which is exceedingly rare in today’s world of mass information.

But ignorance is beside the point, ignorance does not save it only makes one not guilty of unbelief. There are still a multitude of other sins against the natural law which all men are cognisant of as it is written upon our hearts.
 
Jesus Christ says: “I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “No,” say all Protestants, to a married man, you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another.
This seems like as good a place as any to share with you all a quote from “The Simpsons” that was re-run last Sunday.

Marge was telling Lisa a story about Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh and that ordeal and in the part where the British Navy was going against the Spanish Armada, Reverend Lovejoy was the clergy abord the ship who led the men in this prayer:

"Lord Jesus,

Although our country turned Protestant for the SOLE reason that our fat, mean king could dump his faithful wife, we know you’re on our side. So please, destroy these horrible monsters who believe your Mother should be revered."
 
As Catholic Christians or Protestant Christians, we must be very careful to say and act with the same humility of heart as the Blessed Mother exhibited at the Annunciation. And we should most seriously remind ourselves that our judgment is human not divine. Reading the gospels and the lives of the Saints shows us how unworthy we are to carry any other mantle than that of humility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top