If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BLUEMOON74 said:
Why dont you quote me some good stock heh heh?!😛
Click to expand...
Just to show a more full orbed view of Luther’s view of the Roman Church of his day, consider the following:

“We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.”
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
What a bunch of knuckleheads! lol
Click to expand...
No need. I did my thesis on Real Presence, which involved a lot of reading of Luther and the Marburg Colloquy. Learned more about Luther than I wanted to know. He was a knucklehead, too.

We all are. By the grace of God, we are justified and sanctified.

O+
 
O.S.Luke said:
No need. I did my thesis on Real Presence, which involved a lot of reading of Luther and the Marburg Colloquy. Learned more about Luther than I wanted to know. He was a knucklehead, too.

We all are. By the grace of God, we are justified and sanctified.

O+
Click to expand...
That is Mr. Knöchelkopf to you, mister!
 
We all are. By the grace of God, we are justified and sanctified.

O+
I CONCUR!
 
TriuneUnity said:
Just to show a more full orbed view of Luther’s view of the Roman Church of his day, consider the following:

“We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.”
Click to expand...
my inlaws are here, i will get back to you on this. 👍
 
ckempston said:
Actually, I just assumed that since he referenced Luther and was bashing Catholicism, that he was a Lutheran. I didn’t realize he was Orthodox. Hence, my response that Martin Luther sure wrote some nasty stuff himself. And perhaps the reason Luther gets attacked is because he deserves it, and most “Protestant” Christians are totally ignorant of the man’s issues?
Click to expand...
"And perhaps the reason Luther gets attacked is because he deserves it, and most “Protestant” Christians are totally ignorant of the man’s (Luther’s] issues?’
Code: 
                       I give this post five stars!
 
I just came across this guy, Mark Mallett, found out about him from a different thread. He lays out a good defense about apostolic succession, check it out, www.markmallett.com Then go to Marks Blog and find the Why Catholic? entry. I think our fallen away bros. should read this also.
 
I like Mark’s music. A lot of traditional Catholic folks do not. I hope he does well - he has brought many to the Faith; unfortunately, he is accused of relativism a lot, because of his musical style and evangelism methods.

Nothing new. The pipe organ was once thought to be an instrument of the devil. Same hymn, different verse…

O+
 
Robbinson said:
TriuneUnity - Jay29 was kind enough to post this reply a while back to my inquiry re: Apostolic succesion. I found it extremely helpful:

Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
**Acts 1:20 **- a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
**Acts 1:22 **- literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
**Acts 9:17-19 **- even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
**2 Cor. 1:21-22 **- Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
**1 Tim. 4:14 **- again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
**1 Tim. 5:22 **- Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
**2 Tim. 2:2 **- this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
**Exodus 18:25-26 **- Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
**Exodus 40:15 **- the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
**Numbers 16:40 **- shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
**Sirach 45:15 **- Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I copied this over to a new thread I made for the topic. 👍
Robbinson said:
TriuneUnity - Jay29 was kind enough to post this reply a while back to my inquiry re: Apostolic succesion. I found it extremely helpful:

Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
**Acts 1:20 **- a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
**Acts 1:22 **- literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
**Acts 9:17-19 **- even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
**2 Cor. 1:21-22 **- Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
**1 Tim. 4:14 **- again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
**1 Tim. 5:22 **- Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
**2 Tim. 2:2 **- this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
**Exodus 18:25-26 **- Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
**Exodus 40:15 **- the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
**Numbers 16:40 **- shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
Click to expand...
 
guanophore said:
Thanks! I copied this over to a new thread I made for the topic. 👍
Robbinson;3912175:
Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Click to expand...
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
**Acts 1:20 **- a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
**Acts 1:22 **- literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
**Acts 9:17-19 **- even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
**2 Cor. 1:21-22 **- Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
**1 Tim. 4:14 **- again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
**1 Tim. 5:22 **- Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
**2 Tim. 2:2 **- this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
**Exodus 18:25-26 **- Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
**Exodus 40:15 **- the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
**Numbers 16:40 **- shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.Thank you for the hard work here. Authority from God and the Power of the Holy Spirit should not be rejected.
Click to expand...
 
**
If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3
Click to expand...
Jimmy B. wrote -

Are you ready for some truth?; most people don’t like the truth so much?

The reason I asked this question, is that I find many Christians somewhat disingenuous when it comes to the real reason, or reasons that they are not Catholic, or “no longer Catholic”.

I feel that many of the Catholic dissenters here who love to quote Bible verses and argue against Catholicism, have a personal reason for not being Catholic and not a biblical reason.

That is why you can never get anywhere with some of these people. I have also found this to be true in my real-life contacts and conversations with Catholic dissenters.

For example, a vast majority of people that I have met over the years who say that they left the Catholic Church, for this reason or that, it turns out, had no religion in their lives what so ever, for many years.

They didn’t leave the Catholic Church on Sunday to become a “Born-Again” on Monday. They left the Catholic Church on Sunday and became a “Born-Again” twenty or thirty years later.

Some left their Faith, turned their back on God and did as they pleased, without guilt, what a life.

They where having “fun”, living a promiscuous lifestyle and guess what, the guilt finally cought up with them (sin has a way of doing that, don’t you know). They were just full of sin and at the point in which they felt it was time to “go back to church” and it was only then that they discovered that the Roman Catholic Church (actually that God) had a problem with their previous years of bad behavior and now their existed a hurdle or two to overcome; and confession can be pretty humbling.

One thing leads to another and before you know it, these same people are now “former Catholics” and bible scholars, not to mention an authority on the Catholic religion, almost over-night. “It’s a miracle!”

It’s not a miracle, it’s disingenuous and hypocritical. Moreover, arguing now against Catholicism is a way for them to have God on their terms instead of His terms and to make them feel better about themselves.

There isn’t’ anything wrong with experiencing guilt. We all sin and we all feel guilt, it is the human condition, welcome to life.

Here is some more reality; Many of these “on-fire” Christians who are bound and determined to “save” all us Catholics, it turns out, if the truth be known, would probably be Catholic today if it wasn’t for the three or four marriages, which occurred in the interim period, during their “non practicing, “Christian” years”, before they were on fire…

I also know of many other personal, rather than biblical reasons why many are not Catholic, however there are too many to list here. Don’t get me wrong, I love all my Christian brothers and sisters, but like an alcoholic, you have to admit you have a problem before you can seek a cure.

Why aren’t you Catholic? Tell the truth.

Note:

“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic -1?”

And

“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic -2?”

Were closed because, they both exceeded the maximum number of posts.

Please, continue your remarks on this topic, here.
**
 
hey Jimmy B: I guess there have been no replys because you made such a good argument , they all went to enroll in RCIA!
 
“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?”

(One, Two & Three)

******Total Post Replays– 2538 ******
Total Post Views- 37,391

In my opinion, the total number of honest responses to these three threads are, less than 10. I guess that I was just hoping for a little more honesty….maybe the third time will be the charm…maybe not…

Thank you to all who participated, please feel free to continue the discussion, or any other discussion… in a new thread.

For now though, I would like to know -

“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?”
 
Jimmy_B said:
“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?”

(One, Two & Three)

******Total Post Replays– 2538 ******
Total Post Views- 37,391

In my opinion, the total number of honest responses to these three threads are, less than 10. I guess that I was just hoping for a little more honesty….maybe the third time will be the charm…maybe not…

Thank you to all who participated, please feel free to continue the discussion, or any other discussion… in a new thread.

For now though, I would like to know -

“If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic?”
Click to expand...
I hope my response was one of the honest ones.
 
Jimmy_B said:
I’m sure you did but I don’t remember now, could you please link the post that you are referring to?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I forgot the link but I can reiterate my answer. It is not so much that I choose to be Non-Catholic, for I do believe Roman Catholicism possesses valid Holy Orders, Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. It is more that I have found my home in the Anglican Communion. Of course, there are several reasons I love the Anglican Communion:
  1. Eucharist: This was what originally caused me to fall in love with Anglicanism. There was just something profound about the Eucharistic liturgy (and this was before I understood the Real Presence and the history). One of the hard parts about being non-denominational and such is that it all seems to revolve around feelings and emotions (there is very little concrete), but with the Eucharist, there is something concrete.
  2. History: The Church of England has a long and amazing history. There were English/Celtic Christians present at Arles and Nicea. The first Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Augustine of Canterbury, was consecrated in circa 597 AD by Pope Gregory I and we still say that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine. We have produced many great theologians such Cranmer and Hooker, but have also been willing to learn from the Sacred Magesterium and the Continental Reformers.
  3. Liturgy: Perhaps I am biased, but after getting the privilege to receive Communion from a Roman Catholic Church (see I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow) at a Novus Ordo Mass (aka Mass of Pope Paul VI), I think the Anglican liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer is better aesthetically (although I do deny the validity and effectiveness of Roman Catholic liturgies). The original BCP was based on the Latin/Sarum Rite and elements of our liturgy can be traced back to the Early Church.
  4. Foundational Theology: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, XXXIX Articles of Religion, Anglican Catechism, Lambeth Quadrilateral. Enough said.
 
nsper7 said:
I forgot the link but I can reiterate my answer. It is not so much that I choose to be Non-Catholic, for I do believe Roman Catholicism possesses valid Holy Orders, Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. It is more that I have found my home in the Anglican Communion. Of course, there are several reasons I love the Anglican Communion:
  1. Eucharist: This was what originally caused me to fall in love with Anglicanism. There was just something profound about the Eucharistic liturgy (and this was before I understood the Real Presence and the history). One of the hard parts about being non-denominational and such is that it all seems to revolve around feelings and emotions (there is very little concrete), but with the Eucharist, there is something concrete.
  2. History: The Church of England has a long and amazing history. There were English/Celtic Christians present at Arles and Nicea. The first Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Augustine of Canterbury, was consecrated in circa 597 AD by Pope Gregory I and we still say that +Cantuar sits upon the Chair of St. Augustine. We have produced many great theologians such Cranmer and Hooker, but have also been willing to learn from the Sacred Magesterium and the Continental Reformers.
  3. Liturgy: Perhaps I am biased, but after getting the privilege to receive Communion from a Roman Catholic Church (see I am Going to My First Roman Catholic Mass Tomorrow) at a Novus Ordo Mass (aka Mass of Pope Paul VI), I think the Anglican liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer is better aesthetically (although I do deny the validity and effectiveness of Roman Catholic liturgies). The original BCP was based on the Latin/Sarum Rite and elements of our liturgy can be traced back to the Early Church.
  4. Foundational Theology: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, XXXIX Articles of Religion, Anglican Catechism, Lambeth Quadrilateral. Enough said.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
As I said, there are times I wish I could be Roman Catholic. I do have a love and honor for Roman Catholicism. After all, I have come to believe that the Pope’s role as Bishop of Rome and (Apostolic) Successor to St. Peter are not just within the Roman Catholic Church, but also the wider Catholic (Universal) Church. Although I found the Novus Ordo Mass a little too ‘modern’ (at least compared to the BCP Rite), I know that Roman Catholicism has many amazing Rites and liturgies that I wish I, as an Anglican, had access to.

Certainly, Roman Catholicism has its own fascinating history and, in a certain way, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury historically derives from Papal authority. During the time before the Great Schism occurred, the Roman Catholic Church appears to be the primary expression of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’/Catholic (Universal) Church and both Anglicans and Roman Catholics share many common foundational bonds, such as the Creeds and early Apostolic Succession (after all, prior to King Henry VIII’s first and Queen Elizabeth’s final schism from Rome, we had the exact same Apostolic lines tracing back to the Early Church).

Although Roman Catholics and Anglicans have the same Sacraments, the Roman Catholics seem to provide for a much fuller expression of them (after all, for mainstream Anglicans, five of the seven are sometimes viewed as not very important). For example, I have found it a blessing to be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance from a Roman Catholic Priest (again, see that that thread I linked to earlier).

Thus, there truly is a lot to admire and love about Roman Catholicism. It is truly a shame that there is no intercommunion between our two branches/sects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top