Mark of Ephesus et simili

[GrzeszDeL]

Myhrr:

So the Western Isles didn’t know about Christianity? Oh, right, what you mean by conversion is forcing other Christians to submit themselves to the authority of *your *Church.

St Joseph of Arimathea is the Apostle to Britain, he the one who baptised Linus who became the first bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul. Five hundred years of Christianity which your Gregory dismissed as not having Christian bishops. Keep him, he’s one of yours.

For pity’s sake, I said “England” - not “Britain,” “England.” Yes, there was already a Church on the British isles in Gregory’s day. To their everlasting shame, they made no attempt to convert the Saxons, so great was their hatred for the Germanic barbarians who had displaced them from their lands. The Celtic Christians prefered to let the Saxons go to Hell, so Gregory had to send a missionary from Rome to perform the duty which the Celts had shirked. I see no reason to hold it against Gregory that he would not indulge the Celtic bishops in their petty snit.

Nor was Gregory especially eager to displace the Celtic Church. When Augustine wrote to Gregory to ask whether the converted English should worship according to the Roman rite or the Celtic rite, Gregory answered that this was a matter of no importance, and Augustine should leave it to the congregations themselves to decide what liturgy to use. It was one thing back when you were griping about Leo, but I am really at a loss to see how you could object to Gregory.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

For pity’s sake, I said “England” - not “Britain,” “England.” Yes, there was already a Church on the British isles in Gregory’s day. To their everlasting shame, they made no attempt to convert the Saxons, so great was their hatred for the Germanic barbarians who had displaced them from their lands. The Celtic Christians prefered to let the Saxons go to Hell, so Gregory had to send a missionary from Rome to perform the duty which the Celts had shirked. I see no reason to hold it against Gregory that he would not indulge the Celtic bishops in their petty snit.

The Church was also in England. Which was as far as Augustine got, the campaign to subjugate the bishops of the Church

in the Western Isles to Rome’s domination continued, Wales, Council of Whitby, etc., and I’m not going to search through Gregory’s letter to Augustine again, but I can tell you that he did not consider any of the bishops to be Christian, his order to Augustine was to not give them any credibility contrasting this with his orders about Gaul which were to go carefully because they were bishops. This isn’t about the Church in the Western Isles and what it did or didn’t do, this is about the growth of papal claims demanding submission to the bishop of Rome. And Gregory was a major player in this, wherever Rome went the bishops became pawns.

Nor was Gregory especially eager to displace the Celtic Church. When Augustine wrote to Gregory to ask whether the converted English should worship according to the Roman rite or the Celtic rite, Gregory answered that this was a matter of no importance, and Augustine should leave it to the congregations themselves to decide what liturgy to use.

Rome’s priority is to get control first, what do you give the Melkites? Decades or centuries? How long after Augustine was the Council of Whitby?

It was one thing back when you were griping about Leo, but I am really at a loss to see how you could object to Gregory.

As above, he continued the change in ecclesiology of the Church, primacy of himself over the other bishops. It’s this that eventually with the help of Charlemagne’s agenda became the ridiculous claim for supremacy over the universal Church. And I’m sorry if the description offends you, read St Mark of Ephesus’ words to understand why I find your papacy claims offensive.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

A Happy and Blessed Nameday to Grz!

In the Orthodox Churches we serve the Liturgy of Pope Saint Gregory of Rome during the weekdays of the Great Lent before Easter. Next year I’ll be thinking of you and praying for you.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

A Happy and Blessed Nameday to Grz!
In the Orthodox Churches we serve the Liturgy of Pope Saint Gregory of Rome during the weekdays of the Great Lent before Easter. Next year I’ll be thinking of you and praying for you.

Why thank you, Father. As usual, you are most kind.

 

[theodorro]

Myhr

I’m suprised about your storyes about Linus as the first Bishop of Rome, if you read the Patrology you will see that St. peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (*The Little Labyrinth *[A.D. 211], in Eusebius, *Church History *5:28:3).

The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (*Poem Against the Marcionites *276–284 [A.D. 267]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (*The Chronicle *[A.D. 303]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (*Against the Letters of Petilani *2:118 [A.D. 402]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (*Church History *3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (*Against the Luciferians *23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (*Letters *15:1 [A.D. 396]).

 

[theodorro]

…

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid.,15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

I think that Fathers know best than the orthodox priest with a pseudoinformation who write books about history.
When you say that Peter was not the first Pope you have to argue with the Sacred Tradition (yes I know that the “Orthodox” Schismatic Church accept only some parts of Tradition not all)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

theodorro:

… I think that Fathers know best than the orthodox priest with a pseudoinformation who write books about history.
When you say that Peter was not the first Pope you have to argue with the Sacred Tradition (yes I know that the “Orthodox” Schismatic Church accept only some parts of Tradition not all)

So you agree with Grz that all Orthodox “Saints” are not Saints but are in fact in hell? Assuming that they have not had an unknown deathbed conversion and accepted the Pope’s authority.

Grz is right. This is the infallible teaching of Unam Sanctam and of the post-schism Fathers of the Western Church.

Do you really believe them, Theodorro? Do you believe that I am going to hell because I am Orthodox and I do not accept papal authority? Do you believe that your Orthodox family will find their final resting place with the Devil in hell?

I know that these are very personal questions but this is the end result of what Grz believes and this is the teaching of Unam Sanctam.

 

[Myhrr]

theodorro:

I think that Fathers know best than the orthodox priest with a pseudoinformation who write books about history.
When you say that Peter was not the first Pope you have to argue with the Sacred Tradition (yes I know that the “Orthodox” Schismatic Church accept only some parts of Tradition not all)

Can you elaborate on the context of each of those quotes? I don’t have the time to respond to them like this, but if you’re going to make charges of ‘pseudoinformation’ from ‘the orthodox priest’ (who do you mean by that?) you should think twice before posting facts you haven’t checked yourself.

If you want to take this seriously and start another thread on them we could look at it together, but please bear in mind that you could be wrong.

As an example, you’ll note that one of the references is to Peter and Paul as the Apostles of Rome, this is typical of the way Rome was thought of by the early fathers, not Peter alone. The Petrine Chair did not mean Rome to them, it meant bishops of the Church, those faithful to the Petrine Confession.

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Linus was ordained by Paul.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Myhrr:

As an example, you’ll note that one of the references is to Peter and Paul as the Apostles of Rome, this is typical of the way Rome was thought of by the early fathers, not Peter alone.

I agree. For the first eigth centuries all the Fathers always link Peter AND Paul together as the founders of the Church of Rome. After that, in the West, Paul starts to drop out of view and Peter’s role is emphasised.

We can look at just one of numerous examples, from Saint Irenaeus…

“[We point] to the apostolic tradition and the faith that is preached to men, which has come down to us through the successions of bishops; the tradition and creed of the greatest, the most ancient church, the church known to all men, which was founded and set up at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. For with this church, because of its position of leadership and authority, must needs agree every church…for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful from all parts.”

Note that there is no mention of any special petrine authority associated with Rome. It is the Church of both Peter and Paul and it is because of their leadership and authority that every other church must agree with it. Saint Irenaeus knows nothing of the later petrine claims.

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Again this is the same teaching as Saint Ireneaus. After what I have already given above Irenaeus immediately goes on to say:

"The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the church, handed over to Linus the office of bishop… He was succeeded by Anacletus, after whom, in the third place after the Apostles, Clement was appointed to the bishopric. He not only saw the blessed apostles but also conferred with them, and had their preaching ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes… "
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c 185AD).

Notice that it is the Apostles in the plural, Peter and Paul, whom Irenaeus credits with founding the Church of Rome. And he credits BOTH of them, and not just Peter, with making Linus the first bishop of Rome.

 

[Myhrr]

Fr Ambrose:

Notice that it is the Apostles in the plural, Peter and Paul, whom Irenaeus credits with founding the Church of Rome. And he credits BOTH of them, and not just Peter, with making Linus the first bishop of Rome.

I think this an interesting example that no great importance of ‘succession’ was ever attached to which particular Apostle ordained a bishop, the bishop was a bishop of the whole Church in his own place, the One Church, equal with all others just as the Apostles were equal. Paul ordained Linus and Anacletus and Peter ordained Clement, who actually became bishop in rome around twenty years after Peter’s death. In his epistle he shows he understands this concept when he writes to the Church in Corinth from the Church in Rome.

Ignatius also speaks of himself as the successor of Peter and Paul, in Antioch; even not understanding the ecclesiology I find it really hard to credit anyone believing that he would think of a bishop in Rome as superior to him. At the time of his martyrdom was there a bishop in Rome ordained by any Apostle?

Although a p.s. to that, I think in those very early days bishops were not necessarily limited to one particular place, like Clement they travelled around or perhaps better to say they were moved around.

 

[theodorro]

So you agree with Grz that all Orthodox “Saints” are not Saints but are in fact in hell? Assuming that they have not had an unknown deathbed conversion and accepted the Pope’s authority.

No, I don’t think that orthodox saints are in hell, they were men who made the good, as human beings they had errors/sins, but I’m sure that they are not in hell, they are in heaven with catholic saints. Here in Romania there are apparitions of St Virgin Mary to Seuca, and when the apparition take place there is a solar wonder (all people can look at the Sun and there is the rainbow and the Sun rotate), there Holy Virgin saied to make a grout with seven Orthodox priests and seven Catholic priest and pray for Unification, she added that there in heaven all saint love us with the same lov event they were orthodox or catholic.

Do you really believe them, Theodorro? Do you believe that I am going to hell because I am Orthodox and I do not accept papal authority? Do you believe that your Orthodox family will find their final resting place with the Devil in hell?

Of course not, the Orthodox Church dont’t respect the papal authority, but the faith is the same, the Sacraments (Misteryes) are the same. But I think that the orthodox priests who say lies about Catholic Church will be punished, those who hate the Latin Church, because the hate is from the devil.

In those quotations Epiphanius and Irinaeus talk about Peter and Pul as founders of the Church, not as Bishops of the Church of Rome, is a big difference.

Peter and Paul fpunded the Church, but Peter was the Bishop and manny Fathers affirmed this. All Fathers says that in Rome is the Chair of Peter because he was the first bishop of the Church and this is a diference between founding a Church (qith Ap. Paul) and to be the Bishop of that Church. He founded the Church of Antioch and was not it’s stabile Bishop, but Rome had the primacy because Peter was here the first Bishop and founder (founder with Paul).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

 

[Myhrr]

theodorro:

In those quotations Epiphanius and Irinaeus talk about Peter and Pul as founders of the Church, not as Bishops of the Church of Rome, is a big difference.

Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

I don’t think any of the other sources make such as claim as does Eusebius here who doesn’t take into account any other journeys where Peter founded the Church or his life in Jerusalem, he was married and had children, and the RCC actually makes no

claims for dating Peter’s episcopy in Rome, the claim is that it’s because Peter died in Rome that his ‘sole episcopy’ passed down to his successors there.

I think we really need to understand that first otherwise none of the quotes used here will make sense. According to most traditions Peter died in Rome around 67 AD, if Eusebius is taken as simple fact then pre 42 AD Peter established the Church in Antioch and then went to Rome as its bishop.

What does Origen really say of Peter here, that he first went to Rome not long before he was martryred there? .

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.”
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.”
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

If you insist on placing Peter as bishop of rome pre his martrydom you’ll have a problem, as we’re saying the early fathers had no concept of Rome’s claim to sole petrine primacy. If the importance of this particular succession was known to them do you think Tertullian would have written the above?

Peter and Paul **conjointly **bequeathed the gospel, not Peter and Paul taught there but Peter left his sole succession to the bishops in Rome and not to any other place he established the Church, rejecting Antioch his first see in favour of Rome…

If such a concept, as Rome has it, had existed in the early Church it would have been discussed, commented on, referred to specifically in every epistle having anything to do with Rome, but there’s no such idea let alone teaching.

St Ignatius successor of Peter and Paul in Antioch wrote to the Church on his way to Rome and martyrdom, in his letter to Polycarp he reminds him that he has only God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as his bishop above him. Why didn’t Ignatius remind him that Rome had sole petrine succession and so its bishop was above him? We really mustn’t read into the fathers what we’d like them to be saying. Petrine succession as the sole perogative of the bishops of Rome did not exist in the early Church. It began its life as a claim by Victor in the calendar arguments and he was castigated by the other bishops for daring to claim superiorty for that reason, so even if he did have petrine succession is wasn’t considered of any particular importance - not in jurisdictional authority or spiritual authority.

All the arguments about Peter and the Rock are a red herring in this. It doesn’t matter what you think Christ meant if Peter can’t be shown to be** without a doubt**, by clear teaching, an authority over the early Church by himself or his first successors in Rome and that has to start with proof that Peter was bishop in Rome to the exclusion of Paul and his ordained successors Linus and Anacletus and who is honoured by the Church for teaching that he was Peter’s equal.

 

[theodorro]

Read the Fathers where they mention that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[Myhrr]

My reference earlier to the “oblivion” that the EP and RCC have consigned the history of the schism comes from the

December 7, 1965

Removed from memory…committed to oblivion!

Following is the text of the joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved
by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople,
read simultaneously (Dec. 7) at a public meeting of the ecumenical council
in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. The declaration concerns the
Catholic-Orthodox exchange of excommunications in 1054.

praiseofglory.com/lifting.htm

I’ve searched, there were some pages missing, the official EP’s site and couldn’t any mention of St Mark of Ephesus or St Photios, I might have missed it, but it seems to me this denial of Orthodox history isn’t the way to go in any reunion talks. Who are we supposed to remember as Saints? Those that attacked Orthodoxy?

An Orthodox the RCC doesn’t find offensive:

St Maximos the Confessor
Then Troilus and Sergius pointed out to St. Maximos that the whole Christian world recognized the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople as legitimate, that all the Eastern Patriarchs and their locum tenentes were in communion with him, and that the plenipotentiary representatives of the Roman Pope would serve with the Patriarch and commune with him. Thus, he was the only one remaining in the whole world who did not recognize the Patriarch.

The St. answered, “If even the whole universe should begin to commune with the Patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit will give over to anathema even the angels, if they should begin to preach any other gospel, introducing anything new.”

Venerable Maximos remained unshaken in his religious convictions. Finally, they cut off his right hand and tongue, so that he could not proclaim or defend the truth, either by word or pen. They then dispatched him to confinement in Lazov, a region of Mingrelia in the Caucasus. Here his faithful assistant St. Anastasios continued his work of writing in defense of Orthodoxy. Venerable Maximos died on August 13, 662, foreknowing his approaching death.

Venerable Maximos wrote many theological works in defense of Orthodoxy. Especially valuable are his instructions on the spiritual and contemplative life, some of which are included in The Philokalia, a collection of patristic instructions on prayer and the ascetic life. In these ascetic instructions, the spiritual profundity and perceptiveness of St. Maximos’ thought is revealed. Also, an explanation of the Liturgy that has a great theological significance has come down to us from him.

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/saints/maximos_confessor.htm

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Thinking of saints that everyone can endorse, today is the Roman feast of St. John Chrysostom.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
O Lord, my God, I am not worthy that you should come into my soul, but I am glad that you have come to me because in your loving kindness you desire to dwell in me. You ask me to open the door of my soul, which you alone have created, so that you may enter into it with your loving kindness and dispel the darkness of my mind. I believe that you will do this for you did not turn away Mary Magdalene when she approached you in tears. Neither did you withhold forgiveness from the tax collector who repented of his sins or from teh good thief who asked to be received into your kingdom. Indeed, you numbered as your friends all who came to you with repentant hearts. O God, you alone are blessed always, now, and forever.
Amen

Holy John’s father died when he was young, and he was raised by a very pius mother. He was well educated. He studied rhetoric under Libanius, one of the most famous orators of his day.

He worked as a preacher and priest for a dozen years in Syria. While there he developed a stomach ailment that troubled him the rest of his life. It was for his sermons that John earned the title “Chrysostom” (golden mouthed). They were always on point, they explained the Scriptures with clarity, and they sometimes went on for hours.

Reluctantly, he was made a bishop of Constantinople in 398, a move that involved him in imperial politics. He criticized the rich for not sharing their wealth, fought to reform the clergy, prevented the sale of ecclesiastical offices, called for fidelity in marriage, and encouraged practices of justice and charity.

He became archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, and revised the Greek Liturgy. He was proclaimed Doctor of the Church in 451.

Holy John’s sermons caused nobles and bishops to work to remove him from his diocese; indeed, he was twice exiled from his diocese. Eventually he was banished to Pythius, and died on the way.

As Holy John was a model of what a bishop should be to his flock, I think that today would be an excellent occasion to pray for our own bishops, that they might preach the faith just as zealously as Holy John did.

Holy John Chrysostom, pray for us!

 

[hlgomez]

Theodorro,

I can’t say nothing but you must be a living Catholic saint. Praise be to God for your excellent explanation! You know much more about the Orthodox than me because you were once there, and I would assume–you were once disobedient with the pope. But now, you are in the one fold of Christ and thanks be to God. There are hundreds of orthodox faithful who hate the Catholic Church because of their distorted views, coupled by clergymen who continue to widen the rift of the Body of Christ. I don’t say they are going to hell. But God only works for those who are humble, and to those who are humble to acknowledge the truth–both found in Scriptures and Tradition–they will know that it was Peter who was chosen by Christ to lead His flock here on earth and it was ONLY him that Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom. They (orthodox clergy, esp.) just need to go back to Scriptures and see with all humility why Christ change the name of Simon to Peter and gave him the keys. The big picture lies there, and the writings of the early Fathers only attests to that particular event in history. There’s nothing more He asks of us but to be faithful and follow the one He sent. Humility and love is the only antidote to the rift between the East and the West. Hate should not be in the heart of a true follower of Christ.

Pio

 

[prodromos]

hlgomez:

There are hundreds of orthodox faithful who hate the Catholic Church because of their distorted views, coupled by clergymen who continue to widen the rift of the Body of Christ.

I certainly don’t hate the Catholic church, but you might be right. After all, “hundreds” is a mere fraction of 1% of the Orthodox faithful worldwide and there are always bound to be a few with misconceptions

They (orthodox clergy, esp.) just need to go back to Scriptures and see with all humility why Christ change the name of Simon to Peter

You mean John 1:42?

 

[GrzeszDeL]

This is not really a “saint,” per se, but as long as both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics are celebrating the same feast today, I thought it deserved a mention. Happy feast of the Holy Cross everyone.

saints.oca.org/IconDirectory/LG/greatfeasts/0914elevation.jpg

I do not know that you need to celebrate it by folding a paper boat and wearing that on your head, but if the Spirit moves you thus, do not let me stop you…