images of God the Father

[setarcos]

Think of salvation as a state of grace sharing in God’s life. We are complicated human beings we have an intellect and a will, and emotions, passions, concupiscence, etc, all this needs to be healed, fixed, brought back to God. Otherwise we go backwards, not forwards, and we might not persevere. Things like images in church can help us to be more focused in prayer, to be better disposed. I know they’ve helped me many times. Same with everything the Church offers that Protestants typically say “isn’t necessary”. This ignores the point that it’s difficult for us to be well disposed, to cooperate with God’s grace, - even though this is by grace too, - we need to cooperate. Everything in the Church helps us to do this better.

Look around you at people praying to God. Are their eyes usually open or closed? What do you envision when praying to God, that mass produced artists impression of what he looks like? Are you praying to the image or the real thing? How then does this image focus your spirituality that not having it doesn’t? I’ve said it before….you let the image help you focus on God when instead you should have God help you focus on God. You empower the image the image don’t empower you. The need for these things is a reticence to leave the world behind and follow Christ completely. As you’ve mentioned, it IS a testament to our spiritual weakness. That’s not a good thing and these things won’t strengthen that weakness but merely allow its continuation.

St John Vianney is someone you might be interested in. He had nothing, he lived very very poorly. He mostly ate cold or even mouldy potatoes. Yet he tried really hard to make his church look respectful and beautiful, as an act of worship. He was a priest and God did many miracles through him.

Now he sounds like a man I would enjoy taking a walk through the park with.
God Bless

 

[petra22]

Neighbor, being crass is unbecoming of a Catholic. I’m not on these threads because I think you are “idiots”. I don’t enjoy speaking with “idiots”. I consider you my peers with which I wish to share my thoughts. I emphasize the Roman Church because that is where most of you are at. I specifically made the statement that I’m not confining my beliefs to any one Church because I got the impression that a perception of picking on the Roman Church would eclipse my reasoning. I get the same reaction on protestant sites in which I am accused of being Catholic. What should I do? What I think God finds pleasing I would expect to be universally applied. Does God apply different principles to different Churches? I offered my opinion. It is up to you to decide if it makes sense. Ultimately the path you take is the path you make and it is up to you. Gods blessings be upon you and yours.

Have you heard of different learning modalities or is that outdated? When I was teaching there were 9… Some students were visual learners, some tactile/kenesthetic, some into numbers, some musically attuned… What I’m trying to say is that people learn in so many different ways and they learn about God in different ways. Also, different gifts and talents are given to different people. God gave us our talents and He wants us to USE them. So the musicians write songs to the honor and glory of God and the teachers teach the word of God and the artists bring the word of God to life for the people. Why would you not welcome the use of the talents??? To you it seems excess. God knows what is in the hearts and minds of his people. He would not have given these talents if He didn’t want them to be put to use… Those pictures bring the Gospel to life and to some learners, those pictures are so necessary because that’s how they learn… (I’m such a visual learner… )

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for sharing these images. I do enjoy early Christian art in its simplicity. I’d like to make a couple points though. First it shouldn’t surprise you that Christian artwork appeared early in her history. Though the earliest found so far is still 200 + years after Christ left this earth. This lack of earlier art may have been because they were still being persecuted and it would have been too dangerous or it may simply have been because the early Christians and followers of Jesus did not emphasize the use of artwork in following his message. These people were coming out of an age of paganism and I wouldn’t expect all pagan traditions to stop cold turkey. Emphasis on the non Jews since the Jews weren’t big on decorating, not that they didn’t do absolutely any mind you. One tradition was decorating their tombs. The romans were good at this. Especially among the elite. Another point is that much of what we consider early Christian art or symbology had a purpose other than “art”. This was a people being persecuted and a lot of the artwork was actually coded messages to their fellow Christians. Also these works were not generally revered like you see in todays Churches. They weren’t incorporated into their worship to the extent we see today. By the way…depending on what you mean by the Church going astray I’d say the Church did stray from time to time from her very earliest. For instance, Jesus admonished Peter for his wrong thinking shortly after his so called “commission”. As Jesus showed us by telling the man to sale all that he had…nobody is perfect. It was true in his time on earth and its true today. The early Christians were just as enamored with these things as the latter Christians. As soon as enough power was gained Larger and larger and more elaborate architecture for their Churches began and the biggest and best artwork was being commissioned. This didn’t and still in my opinion doesn’t make it right in light of the world in which we find ourselves in.

Hi!

…you’ve missed the point… Christians began using art/imagery from early on… as they gain status of no longer being under the death squads they flourished… as they gain status (no longer under death threats by the state) they began to demonstrate their zeal by creating and displaying Christian art.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Monica4316]

Greetings, since this IS a thread you started I also feel that it is most pertinent that I respond to you.

thank you

First let me thank you in taking the time to try to understand my position before stating yours. Since you’ve addressed some of my points I shall do you the respect of addressing some of yours.
I never said that the Church was simply an institution; however I am primarily concerning my assertions with the institutional parts of the church, that is the administerial part and those necessary parts used in carrying out these functions.

I think the reason I mentioned the Church being a Body rather than only an institution, is to demonstate its visible and also divine supernatural aspect…

I used to be “non denominational” Protestant and the church where I went had no images at all. But they also believed in an invisible Church. But as Catholics we believe in a visible, incarnational reality, and it’s meaningful because God became Man The Church is His mystical Body on earth with a visible structure. So making invisible things visible is totally ok

Agreed, man is a corporeal creature who is inextricably tied to the tangible in his experience. Those experiences made tangible to us by God are good and true. However like man’s spiritual experiences which can be evil and God warned us to test so can the tangible experiences be evil.

I don’t quite follow you here… a spiritual experience can be from God, or not from God. So we need to test everything. A spiritual experience resulting from praying before an image needs to be discerned like any experience. But simply praying before an image is a neutral good thing as long as we don’t worship the image of course, but Catholics don’t do that.

The issue with Catholicism is that it believes it cannot be wrong in anything.

We can sin as individuals, but Catholic doctrine is preserved from error through infallibility of the Church. Otherwise, the Church might have gotten off track very early on in Church history when there were countless heresies like Arianism. How did the Church know that Arianism is a heresy and what the correct doctrine is? The Holy Spirit guides the Church, which is why it’s infallible. In Protestantism, there are so many different types of it and they’re all in disagreement and division with one another… when I was Protestant, I believed a certain way, but it was a way that some people thought was correct, while others (for example, Lutherans, or United Church) thought differently… where is the guarantee that one’s church is correct in that case? I’d suggest that in Protestantism, there’s too much reliance on one’s own understanding - which can be very flawed, precisely because there are so many different types of it

 

[Monica4316]

While Protestantism may be focusing too much on the invisible, Catholicism has taken the opposite path in focusing too much on the visible. I am not against the visible revelations of God. Nor am I against a God whose revelations are sometimes invisible to us.

Why do you say that in Catholicism there’s too much emphasis on the visible? what do you define as too much, and how do you know? (honest questions)

You are wrong here. Creation fell in tandem with mans transgression. See the RCC #400. The visible creation you are surrounded with today most certainly can be a distraction and in point of fact is vying for your attention all the time. Pick your visible poison, all parts of a fallen creation……wealth, pornography, gluttony, a desire to horde beautiful things for oneself, the desire to just own, the noise of modern society etc. etc… Even our spirituality can be distracting us from the good if it is directed elsewhere. The spirit is not synonymous with the good though good can be found in the spirit.

Yes I am aware that creation was affected by the fall… I meant that it’s not evil in itself. The Church doesn’t teach that. Even our nature is still good, it’s not absolutely corrupted. We have kept our human nature, though it got affected by the fall. Our nature is not sufficient for salvation, because we need grace, but this doesn’t make it inherently evil or entirely corrupted to something evil in itself

As for attachments to created things… that’s not because of created things themselves. It’s because of the sin in us. For example, Our Lord lived among created things here on earth and He wasn’t inordinately attached to anything. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with the birds, sky, etc.

Yes spirituality can go the wrong way…but I don’t see any evidence that Catholic spirituality has gone the wrong way with images… simply because they help to bring people to God, rather than distract us from Him

We worship God in the spirit.

what would you say this means?

There are two ways to grow closer in communion with God, through the tangible made a tangible good through Gods revelations to man and the intangible through personal reflection and self-examination and communion with your fellow Christians on Gods revelations of the invisible. Anything else is a lie or a superfluous distraction of the world.

why wouldn’t the images of Christ, Our Lady, and the Saints be examples of a tangible thing made good through God’s revelation? After all, they show the example of the Incarnation or God’s work in His creatures.

Early Christians held their gatherings in fields or simple dwelling places. The world since has only distanced itself further from God not closer and the evolution of where we gather to worship has itself devolved into unnecessary worldly decorations and distractions. While the sacraments are a grace from God, the $10,000 dollar commissioned mural or statue that adorns your church is not and kissing the feet of the statue or kneeling before the mural is little more than an attempt at filling a spiritual emptiness inside you by empowering a lie, an artist’s personal interpretation of his personal impressions of his personal God. By definition if you need these things in order to be inspired to communion with God then you are using them as a crutch on which to hang your spirituality. You are not holding communion with God by kissing the feet of statues. These are empty hollow gestures.

the early Church forbid iconoclasm as a heresy. The early Church was for images.

Why do you assume there’s spiritual emptiness inside? why not seeing it as an expression of the love inside?

imagine you’re living far away from a beloved family member… sometimes you take their photograph and give it a kiss. Is that wrong? why/why not? how is it different to kiss an image of Our Lord?

images are not THE thing that our spirituality is based on. It’s just a help in prayer.

 

[Monica4316]

Your merely trying to justify having these things. As I’ve said before, scripture tells us the kingdom of God is within us.

the Kingdom of God is within us but we can express our love for God in different ways… venerating images is one of them, because the respect goes to Him. Also even though the kingdom is within, what we do externally affects our soul, which is why our actions can be virtuous or sinful. It’s all linked.

Your need of these things in order to help you “focus” on worshiping and communion with your God is a testament to your clinging to the world not an attempt at shutting the world out to focus on God.

when the Bible uses the word “the world”, in the negative sense, it’s not talking about created things… but the things of the flesh. The concupiscence things or what is in society that’s sinful. Simply having something physical doesn’t mean it’s worldly…

also, what I said doesn’t imply an absolute need… we pray without images too. I just said it could help helpful.

You’ve merely transferred your distraction from one noise to another to focus on, neither of which has anything to do with worshiping God.

distraction by definition brings someone AWAY from God. If something brings us to God, it can’t be a distraction… if looking at images of Jesus helps me to open up more to Him in my heart, that’s not a distraction

At best they become a distorted vision of what should be a personal communion between God and yourself.

But there is a personal communion at the same time that’s in the heart… these are not empty gestures

I’m not against beautiful music, or art, or architecture for that matter except when they are used as tools for communion with God unless otherwise commanded by God.

do you ever use music in prayer? for example, do you ever sing to God? how is this different?

These things are not for God; these things are for the enjoyment and communion of man with man and are in themselves neither evil or good except for the impressions they give to the receiver.

the things are for us, but surely there’s no evidence they are being harmful?

God neither needs these things nor desires them as an expression of worship as he has expressed in scripture, Acts 7:49 for instance,

God knows how to bring Himself to our level. He is very kind that way. He is little with the little ones. If something helps us to open up more to Him, that’s a means to an end… that’s what images are: a means to an end.

 

[Monica4316]

especially if a greater good has to be sacrificed in order to achieve them. What would you have the good Samaritan do, go ahead and use the money he was given to buy a statue to adorn the new church or use that money to pay for the medical expenses of the injured man instead? Which is the greater good, The necessary or the unnecessary? There will always be someone else to help and we can only do what we can. What if the Samaritan had thought, “ I cannot use this money to pay for his expenses since I have already helped another and it is the Churches turn to get decorated. It would be only fair.” The image that the “Church” presents to the world should be the Christian ideal. Is it the Christian ideal to elaborately decorate our Churches despite the expense and use unnecessarily expensive architectural preferences to build our churches even though our fellow man still suffers?

many Saints who had beautiful images in their churches gave away ALL their own personal possessions for the poor. Why don’t we give up our cars/fancy clothes/jewellery/etc/ first, for the poor? we don’t, but why don’t we do that and then we can keep the images too? the images are an act of reverence. The rest is just for human enjoyment. Also the images don’t need to be super expensive, just beautiful. But I think if we try we can have enough to feed the poor and keep the churches beautiful too.

I
I don’t know where you got the idea that I am against the visible. It’s good to realize lessons from the visible. To enjoy the beautiful and find comfort in the visible but realize this, the visible now is not what God intended. Any beauty you see in the visible now is a shadow of the Eden God had created man to live in. If we look close enough we will always find the ugliness behind the beauty in this world, the decay, the death, the tooth and claw and spilled blood, hidden, waiting to shock one back to reality. Most of us for this reason are content not to look too closely. We don’t need an image to think about Jesus’s humanity. You are human are you not? Look within yourself.

yes creation is not what it’s going to be someday, but there’s still good in it. We can find the good in it

looking at images of Our Lord has helped me

I
God doesn’t give his grace to us through a statue or a picture. His grace is not contingent upon your ability to receive it with help from an image. You pray for strength and God willing he grants it. Your strength comes from God’s grace within you. You allow the delusion of believing you cannot be strong in your faith without being reminded of God by some statue or picture. Free yourself from this worldly thinking. God speaks to you all the time…not just when your attention is focused on any particular unnecessary image.

well firstly, we don’t believe the grace comes THROUGH the picture. The only things that grace comes through are the Sacraments. Blessed objects or pictures are occasions of grace, that is a difference. In any case the grace comes from God in the end, obviously.

No one is saying here that we CAN’T be strong in faith without a picture. We’re saying it’s helpful.

Look around you at people praying to God. Are their eyes usually open or closed? What do you envision when praying to God, that mass produced artists impression of what he looks like? Are you praying to the image or the real thing? How then does this image focus your spirituality that not having it doesn’t? I’ve said it before….you let the image help you focus on God when instead you should have God help you focus on God. You empower the image the image don’t empower you. The need for these things is a reticence to leave the world behind and follow Christ completely. As you’ve mentioned, it IS a testament to our spiritual weakness. That’s not a good thing and these things won’t strengthen that weakness but merely allow its continuation.

Now he sounds like a man I would enjoy taking a walk through the park with.
God Bless

well St John Vianney did like images

we can’t know what happens inside a human heart in prayer. Someone is looking at an image and praying… their heart though is with God and experiencing His presence interiorly. It’s much like using words in prayers, like the Our Father. It just provides content to think about. Often when I look at a picture of Jesus, I think of what it might be like to see Him someday, - this is something I don’t know yet, but it makes me want to see Him in Heaven. It’s not a distraction from God so no reason to leave it

God bless!

 

[Monica4316]

I’ll put it another way. In Protestantism there’s often a choice between one thing or another. Like how you presented the choice between an image leading to God vs God leading to God. Why can’t it be God using an image to lead to Him? Then it would be an example of coming to God with His own help. Do you not agree that God can use something in creation? Why/why not?

We love the images simply because we love the Person they represent. People keep images of their family for much the same reason. They are happy to see them just because they love the family member. They think “oh there’s my spouse!” Or “there are my parents!”. It’s really quite simple. When I see a picture of Jesus I’m just happy it’s a picture of Someone I love. There are certain images that show Him as very compassionate, or suffering… it gives thought for reflection kind of like how a book would. Do you ever read descriptions of how God loves us, or how He suffered for us? Do you think that’s fine to do? How is this different? It’s just images rather than words - different media, same purpose.

Spiritual reading is good for us to help us think about spiritual things which can lead to mental prayer. Images do the same thing… what is the difference between reading a book about Jesus, listening to a hymn, or looking at a picture? Different media, same purpose

 

[SyroMalankara]

It should be added, the extreme example of a $10000 mural or statue against a poor starved homeless person is simply rhetoric. No institution has done more for that same man physically, the same institution is attempting to raise him from the dead spiritually. Do you honestly believe an empty warehouse or space devoid of Christian beauty does that? One need not spend extreme amounts either, there are hermits and desert monks, who today, rely on nothing more than God, the Sacraments and printed copies of icons as aids to prayer

 

[jcrichton]

I’ll put it another way. In Protestantism there’s often a choice between one thing or another. Like how you presented the choice between an image leading to God vs God leading to God. Why can’t it be God using an image to lead to Him? Then it would be an example of coming to God with His own help. Do you not agree that God can use something in creation? Why/why not?

We love the images simply because we love the Person they represent. People keep images of their family for much the same reason. They are happy to see them just because they love the family member. They think “oh there’s my spouse!” Or “there are my parents!”. It’s really quite simple. When I see a picture of Jesus I’m just happy it’s a picture of Someone I love. There are certain images that show Him as very compassionate, or suffering… it gives thought for reflection kind of like how a book would. Do you ever read descriptions of how God loves us, or how He suffered for us? Do you think that’s fine to do? How is this different? It’s just images rather than words - different media, same purpose.

Spiritual reading is good for us to help us think about spiritual things which can lead to mental prayer. Images do the same thing… what is the difference between reading a book about Jesus, listening to a hymn, or looking at a picture? Different media, same purpose

Hi, Monica!

What I believe Protestantism does is resolve to demand that “their way be the right way;” they read Sacred Scriptures and determine that ‘this’ and not ‘that’ is what God means… they have evolved from a “separation” state and they refuse to accept anything that might demonstrate that they need to return to the original Body… attacking the Church is not only a necessity of finding their place in the world but of sticking claim to the Foundational Word of Christ (St. Matthew 16:18-19–note the forgotten v 20).

…yet, it is as the old adage, ‘can bring the horse to water…’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It should be added, the extreme example of a $10000 mural or statue against a poor starved homeless person is simply rhetoric. No institution has done more for that same man physically, the same institution is attempting to raise him from the dead spiritually. Do you honestly believe an empty warehouse or space devoid of Christian beauty does that? One need not spend extreme amounts either, there are hermits and desert monks, who today, rely on nothing more than God, the Sacraments and printed copies of icons as aids to prayer

Hi, Syro!

I concur with you.

If one has any gripes or questions about the Catholic Church’s Mission to the Poor one could always research ‘The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization.’

The Catholic Church took to heart Jesus’ second Delegation to Peter (St. John 21:15-17) as she has painstakingly cared and nurtured not only her fellow parishioners but all of the world’s poor (and may I add, without forcing Catholicism down their throats).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

Greetings, I trust this day finds you in good health and peace.
I am familiar with some of the learning theories floating around. I consider the primary modes; Social and solitary, each subdivided into the other various preferred modes of learning. I don’t know why or where in my posts you got the impression that I am against the use of images in learning? Your mistake is in not distinguishing the practical matters of teaching with the spiritual matters of worshipping God. It is for Gods own good pleasure that he has given various talents to humans and it is by their good use that man finds himself capable of communion with each other in mutual worship. This I acknowledge and understand. Everything we are, everything we are capable of comes from God. I am not against the exercise of natural talents. It is the misuse and exploitation of our gifts to justify poor behavior in the name of God that I am against. It is beyond me why you people cannot distinguish between excess, exploitation, and the impractical versus the practical and Glorifying use of tools and talents. Jesus Christ gave us the model with which to emulate our lives. Verse after verse in scripture points us away from excess and enrichment in this life and storing up our treasures in the next. The humble, meek, and poor shall be the inheritors of Gods kingdom. How many more examples does one need to understand that Gods Church is not to be expected to enrich itself in this world? The perfection of the Church in this world is to give all her worldly possessions away; she has no need of them. Any foundation she has should be completely free of worldly possessions beyond the practical. You would have me believe that if we were to do that the Church would become destitute and unable to perform her duties? You wish to take it beyond the practical to the extreme in order to justify keeping the excesses which tie you to the world. Have we no trust in God? Jesus said to do this. His words light the path and the path is to possess nothing from this world. As I’ve said before this is impossible for most people but the institutional parts of the Church should represent the ideal demonstrated and preferred by Jesus Christ. The truth of the matter is anything can be justified through twisted language but if you cannot, in testing the spirit of these matters, feel from the holy spirit the wrongness in these excesses then I would suggest it may be because Satan is whispering in your ear even to the extent that the Pope himself has to admonish his own bishops for their excesses. Why? If a German bishop needs 43 million dollars to embellish his residence with why not give it to him? If it fosters a more spiritual setting for him and enables him to serve his flock better why not? If the bishops need bmw’s to zoom around in to be better spiritual servants, why not let them have the cars instead of cheaper less desirable and perhaps less comfortable models? What’s the harm? These two very real examples are why the Church must not cling to excess in any form. Even the elite begin to mistake the instruments of worship for the comforts provided by the so called “God” of this world.

 

[setarcos]

Why do you people consistently redirect towards something I never said. I never said one word about having problems with the Catholic Church’s Mission to the Poor. If Catholics wish to parade around touting all that they do for the Poor like proud peacocks I could care one wit. I’d take more stock in the old woman who Jesus said gave more than all the others. Catholics are just as good at cherry picking their own virtues as anyone else in the world conveniently leaving out the controversies and moral failures and as for not doing all this tending to the poor without shoving Catholicism down their throats, shoving Catholicism down their throats is exactly what Catholics had done for centuries when they gained enough power to force agreement with their dogmas onto the unwilling something they are incapable of doing in modern times conveniently changing for the times from proselytizing to evangelizing.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Yet, your tone of voice belies your purported argument.

When was the last time a Catholic went to your home to force you to go to Mass?

When was the last time a Catholic quoted Scriptures to you for doing anything against the Church?

You came here with your pretense of “understanding;” yet, your words speak volume against you.

You seem to know something about Scriptures; yet, your efforts to share them demonstrate that they are mostly an external part of your life as their Truth fails to become interiorized.

When you wake from your anger and stupor, perhaps your mind will be clearer expressed. Till then…

God bless; may the Holy Spirit grant you the peace you seem to be needing.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

My friend my tone of “text” shows my frustration with cult like behavior. People become so entrenched in their own emotional attachment to what they first perceived to be right that they avoid rational discussion through redirection, equivocation, all out ignoring points made, attacking character and myriads of other tactics with which to victimize and claim moral victory at the same time. This is why I am non denominational. Collectively all institutionalized religions act like cults while condemning other so called cults by calling them cults and claiming moral superiority and truth while at the same betraying the truths they claim to have. Your question should read, “when was the last time a Catholic had the power to force me to go to mass, either through forced coercion or threat of reprisal?” Its the times were living in my friend. The Roman Catholic clergy in times past did force people to mass through these methods and worse because they had the secular power to. We digress here though, I don’t wish to get into the past sins of the Church. I am merely concerned here with its present attitude.
Pretense of understanding? I came here to discuss my reasons for believing what I believe to be true in expectations of discussing why I am or am not correct. How is it that you say the scriptures truths have failed to become internalized within me? How is it that you believe they have in you? It is precisely their internal truths I believe I am expressing in my disparagement of Catholic excess. Why am I wrong in what I say? Reflect upon what I have said and you tell me through the power of the holy spirit if you don’t see a glimmer of truth. You tell me what Jesus is telling us concerning accumulating wealth in this world. I have given scriptural quotes. I do know “something” about scripture. You tell me where has my thinking gone wrong? Earlier I gave a post asking for a simple binary answer. I qualified it with the understanding that I needed no reasoning behind the decision at the time just a simple answer but not one person on here could do it. They responded with lengthy replies on how the question was this or irrelevant or unfair completely missing the point of the question as a starting point. People can talk themselves into or out of any opinion while completely ignoring what was actually said by others. You explain to me why I shouldn’t be frustrated at these responses.
God be with you always and you with God.

 

[setarcos]

God grant me patience and perseverance in this miserable world.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

If you want to really contribute or engage you must refrain from your tactics.

Cult. Search the definition.

Projection/deflection: search the definition.

Quoting Scriptures is nice; yet, quoting Jesus’ observation does not negate how wrong you are.

Do you actually believe that Jesus wanted all believers to give just a few coins?

Just recently it was stated that if the US government would tax the wealthy 100% the moneys gained would only be able to be used to run the US for 9 or 10 days.

It is irrational to think that if we defund the Church the poor would be better served.

Do you really believe that man’s heart is so generous that billions would come forth and supply the need of the poor?

That is an unfounded utopian dream (star trek).

Did you understand the passage that you’ve cited? Jesus is not holding the wealth of the people against them; He is faulting their hearts–even when they give more than that old lady, their reasons are for self-promotion… just like the Pharisee and the Publican–the first tooted his “virtues” while faulting all others; the latter, acknowledged his transgressions in humility.

God exalts the humble and rejects the proud.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

I fully support your prayer!

May the Holy Spirit Grant the Light of the world to enlighten our minds and heart!

Maran atha!

Angel