N
Nordar
Guest
No deaf ears here
I totally agree with everything that you said, you put it way better than I could have, Kuddo’s to you:thumbsup:
- Status
I totally agree with everything that you said, you put it way better than I could have, Kuddo’s to you:thumbsup:
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Yes, I am well aware of the Charismatic Renewal within the Church. I have been Charismatic since the early 1980’s. I especially love the fervor which it brings. My mass preference is the Novus Ordo, but I have nothing against the Latin Mass as it was the mass in which I was raised as a child since 1940.
My personal preference is a mass where there is large choir singing Gregorian, Bach, etc. That said. I also love the guitar masses, especially the mariachi masses of the Mexican culture. They are rich and beautiful. I have been fortunate to attend masses in different parts of the world and all have been beautiful in the different cultures. This is only possible since Vatican II with the use of the vernacular.
The fervor of the priest definitely adds to the solemnity of the mass. I especially love attending masses of newly ordained priests. They seem so special and the intensity of the fervor infectious. At the same time, those who have been priests for a number of years carry burdens which many of us are unable to understand. They carry the weight of so many peoples problems and are always questioning whether they are helping their flock as they should. This worry, which many read as a lack of fervor is burdensome. This is why we must always and constantly keep our clergy in prayer.
I too thought I was a traditionalist until I came on the forum. What I found is that many people throw labels around which have different meanings to different people. Suffice to say, that we should consider ourselves truly Catholic with all that means and implies. Unfortunately even this will mean different things to different people.
NO, there is nothing wrong with you desiring to receive our Lord Jesus in Communion while kneeling. That desire does not make you a sinful non-conformist. It may however present “logistical” problems in different Churches. I read just this week where a priest is not to refuse giving Communion to anyone who is kneeling. i do not remember the source nor do I know of its accuracy. Time will tell. When at mass, if you are unable to kneel without causing a problem for others, know that God knows your feelings and desire better than you know your own and understands perfectly.
See above answer
Again, if the setting is conducive to kneeling, there is nothing wrong with it. At the same time, be aware of those around you, and the physical problems that kneeling may present for others approaching the Communion banquet as well.
As far as being worthy of this gift, none of us are. We have this infinite gift given to us, because of Gods infinite love for each of us. It is a love that surpasses our ability to understand. Of this love, St Paul wrote in his letter to the Corinthians, **"Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned in the mind of man what God has in store for those who love him:.
**
The Novus Ordo is my mass preference. As I have said before many times, a persons preference for a particular form of the mass does not make him or her any less Catholic. It is simply a choice that Holy Mother Church gives to each of us.
I hope this adequately answers your questions
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
I love your entire post Deacon, I especially love the above Scripture quotation, one of my favorites.And thank you for reiterating the intention of our HMC in giving us one rite with two forms. We are blessed with her gifts.
J
JReducation
Guest
Rev. Deacon:
This post is not only pastorally correct, but it is also eminently practical. Sometimes we forget that many rules and traditions also make room for that which is practical.
I’m not sure if it was on this thread or another. I posted where our bishop sent a letter on the use of incense in the mass. One of our friars who is also a priest has CP. He uses crutches. Our parish, as many parishes in our part of Florida, has five retirement communities.
The incense was out of the question. Many senior citizens have respiratory problems and the friar in question can’t safely handle cruches and a lit piece of charcoal. He approached his major superior who quickly contacted the bishop. The Bisop and the major superior agreed, no incense in this parish. Even though it adds to the solemnity and is part of tradition, Tradtion also calls for charity and a deep commitment tho those who are vulnerable.
The incense would not add to the solemnity of the liturgy. In fact it would pose a threat to those who are already engaged in deep communion with the Lord.
Good job!
JR
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
Quote From Pastor Ed "The fervor of the priest definitely adds to the solemnity of the mass. I especially love attending masses of newly ordained priests. They seem so special and the intensity of the fervor infectious. At the same time, those who have been priests for a number of years carry burdens which many of us are unable to understand. They carry the weight of so many peoples problems and are always questioning whether they are helping their flock as they should. This worry, which many read as a lack of fervor is burdensome. This is why we must always and constantly keep our clergy in prayer. "end quote
If we could all just keep that in mind, and show more support by prayer and our presence in availability, I think it would make a vast difference. I know that I for one shall try, GOD WILLING.
Yes, you answered my questions. And I agree that if it causes a problem to the “line” and order of the “line” leading up to Communion, I would not kneel. I try to attend the Masses where it would not pose a problem. I have, although, been to many Masses where it would. It is nice to know that I am not wrong in kneeling if there is no problem posed to the order of the line. I do not want to do something “against” HMC.
Thank you for your responses.
God bless you all.
If we could all just keep that in mind, and show more support by prayer and our presence in availability, I think it would make a vast difference. I know that I for one shall try, GOD WILLING.
Yes, you answered my questions. And I agree that if it causes a problem to the “line” and order of the “line” leading up to Communion, I would not kneel. I try to attend the Masses where it would not pose a problem. I have, although, been to many Masses where it would. It is nice to know that I am not wrong in kneeling if there is no problem posed to the order of the line. I do not want to do something “against” HMC.
Thank you for your responses.
God bless you all.
J
JReducation
Guest
M
missymichelle
Guest
Which brings me back to -If John 23 were still alive, would you vote to burn him at the stake?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
What kind of post is this? If meant as humor, I fail to grasp it.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
G
GemmaRose
Guest
JR, this is one of the finest posts I have ever read in this or any other thread. I quote it again here because it deserves repeating.
I believe that all good people of faith, any faith, like tradition, because it gives faith a sense of grounding and continuity.
That being said, people do not like being reminded over and over again that the way the mass was celebrated prior to Vatican II was the best thing since sliced bread and the mass after Vatican II was moldy. For those of us who came into the Catholic world during the OF this becomes annoying. I for one converted to Catholicism when there was nothing but the OF. Had it been so inferior, I would not have loved the mass and the Eucharist as much as I do. I think that I speak for others when I say that we get tired of people making comparisons between the two forms of the mass and claiming that one is superior to the other.
As to abuses, speaking to older priests who grew up with the EF, I have learned that there were abuses there as well. Abuse is not built into the liturgy in either form. Abuse comes from attitudes that people have about their self-importance. People who believe that their ideas are better than those of others or that their needs have greater priority than those of others tend to build things into the mass to serve their interests. Such selfishness can be found in any form of the mass, because it stems from the sinful condition of man, not the mass itself. It would be nice to hear someone who lived with the EF admit that there were abuses and posibly are still some within the EF.
In reading an article about a sermon given by one of the SSPX bishops at a mass, I was not impressed when the sermon turned into a rant against the Vatican rather than a reflection on scripture and a proclamation of the Good News. Such a rant is an abuse as well. The sermon is not the place to air out one’s laundry. Therefore, it is very unappealing to hear of the reverent and faithful priests who celebrate the EF vs the irreverent priests who celebrate the OF, when you hear of a homily turned into proselityzing against Rome. This kind of traditionalism, if it can be called that, is regretable and bothersome.
Another annoying behaviour found among many (not all) traditional Catholics is the constant quoting of what former popes said about ecumenism, religious liberty and the liturgy. Or what someone wrote in a book. To the well educated Catholic mind it begs several questions. 1) How do you know that Pope X in 1600 was right and Pope John Paul II in 2000 was wrong? What if it was the other way around? What if Pope X was wrong and Pope John Paul is correctly interpreting a concept or interpreting ecclesiology correctly?
Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean that anything that came after it is wrong, because it is worded differently. It may be speaking to a different circumstance in Church history. Those who quote this author and that author to defend their traditionalist views, but do not quote John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI, often leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. Because it seems as if they place greater trust in a particular author who supports a certain viewpoint, but they do not trust the Pope who was given the authority to lead the Church and who has a better understanding of the Church, because he sees the bigger picture better than author X. This is also annoying to any Catholic who loves tradition, but includes in his tradition love, reverence and obedience to the Pope, not because he is God, but because he’s the Pope. If I had to choose betweent he best writer out there and the Pope, I would rather take my chances with the Pope unless he is preaching sin.
I don’t like it when people say that popes can teach sin as if the rest of us didn’t know Church history. Of course they can and have done so. But none of us can put a finger on a single thing that modern popes have expected or directed that is materially sinful. Just because it is different from what was said before, it does not mean that it is a sin or that the Pope has stopped believing in what was said before. It can mean that the contemporary pope is building on what a predecessor said or sees the circumstances as different and has to make a different statement, not to deny what came before, but to address what is happening today and what works today. The inability of some traditionalists to weave papal teachings together and their insistence that the popes of yesteryear were right and today’s popes are wrong, is an offense to the intelligent Catholic who can see the connection and the reason for restating something
It’s as if the person were trying to tell us that we do not understand Catholicism. Only he or she does, because he has a grip on something that Pope Pius X said. But why such people can’t take something that Pius X said and something that John Paul II said and weave it together as one continuous idea approached from different perspectives by different people in different times is beyond me. It’s almost insulting to those of us who can do so.
The use of the terms modern and modernist interchangeably is an insult to those Catholics who are well educated and know the difference between the two. Worse is the interchangeable use between the word new and modernist. Because something is new does not make it modernist. The incorrect use of language makes traditionalism sound horrible, when in fact it is not horrible.
Then there are too many apriori assumptions made by some postes that contemporary Catholics no longer appreciate such devotions as the rosary, Benediction, the Blessed Sacrament or the priesthood. This is a generalization that does not apply to every contemporary Catholic and is unfair.
Finally, there are some traditionalists who want to do battle over Vatican II, ecumenism, liturgy and form, but sow little interest in traditional mysticism, the virtues of endurance, humility and obedience which have been part of the Church’s traditional spirituality and asceticism for 2000 years. That lifestyle is equally important to the existence and growth of the Church as any encyclical ever written. There are some exemplary contemporary saints that are rarely mentioned by some traditionalists who exemplify traditional faith and adherence to the Church such as St. Faustina, Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Bl. John XXIII, St. Alberto Hurtado, St. Padre Pio, St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein. These holy men and women were canonized or beatified after Vatican II and they have much to offer Catholics by way of traditional love of prayer, silence, obedience, humility, suffering, endurance, charity and evangelical living. The failure to mention them or even bring them up on traditionalist forums makes one wonder if they are appreciated by traditionalists.
I do not believe that traditionalists are all cut of the same bolt of cloth as many of the ones who post on CAF. I have met and worked with many who are very devoted to a life of penance, prayer, virtue, and reform from within the Church without going out of their way to find only the faults of the Church. One who comes to mind is Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston. He is a very holy friar who continues to observe the Franciscan tradition, despite his ascension to the College of Cardinals. He even continues to wear the traditional friar’s habit of poverty and penance, instead of the regal red robes of a cardinal.
There is not such thing as traditional Catholicism that people don’t like. It is the way that people present Catholicism that people don’t like, whether they are presenting it from a traditional perspective or a very contemporary perspective. If it’s only condemnation and criticism of the Church and the spirituality of fellow Catholics, it gets old and fails to cultivate a real spirit of prayer, penance, charity and humility. It appears to lack an effort to weave together the teachings of the Church from its birth to today. It seems that while the liberals seem to push the Church forward into some chaotic spirituality that they call Catholic, others seem to want to hold the Church hostage in the past instead of seeing the relationship between what has been handed down from the past and what the Church (not some individual) is giving us today.
This lack of intellectual honesty is not only found among the so called progressive Catholics, but among some traditionalist Catholics.
I for one prefer to be a Catholic (without labels) who loves the tradition of the Church and finds the continuity of our faith in what the Church teaches today as well as what she taught centuries ago.
JR
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
i think that when people have problems with traditional catholicism, they have problems with catholicism. the fact that the current church is much different than the church 100 years ago is troubling. the ways of the world are faddish and ephemeral. we look to religion for transcendence and truth, things which don’t change. beauty is a transcendent truth. modern churches are objectively ugly, like modern art. we may have different tastes but when it comes to transcendent things like beauty, there are absolutes.
for example: st. peters basilica or st. patricks cathedral in manhattan–both beautiful–or the art of the sistine chapel or of byzantine icons. ugly: pornography, modern art like jackson pollak and picasso.
but we have so many modernists in the church, that they will tell you that modern art and music is beautiful and that gregorian chant and traditional church architecture is not their particular taste.
traditional catholicism is here to stay. the charismatic movement, folk masses, modern church music, modern church design and all moderism in the church will fade away. in the end, traditionalist win, moderns lose.
for example: st. peters basilica or st. patricks cathedral in manhattan–both beautiful–or the art of the sistine chapel or of byzantine icons. ugly: pornography, modern art like jackson pollak and picasso.
but we have so many modernists in the church, that they will tell you that modern art and music is beautiful and that gregorian chant and traditional church architecture is not their particular taste.
traditional catholicism is here to stay. the charismatic movement, folk masses, modern church music, modern church design and all moderism in the church will fade away. in the end, traditionalist win, moderns lose.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
CradleCath;3885400:
I for one don’t “feel right” when I am in a Church that has the tabernacle off to the side somewhere. But, the more I study the matter and having had a few discussions with clergy about it, it seems that “off to the side” IS the proper placement.
Not that I’ll ever be comfortable with it.
I agree. You are sooooo right! I will never be comfortable with “off to the center.” I always call it playing “hide and seek” - you come into a church and have to search for Jesus. (“Jesus, come out, come out, wherever you are!”)
More seriously though, my “head” (and knowledge and education) knows that “off to the side” is the proper placement and why it is, but my “heart” says:
FRONT AND CENTER… BRING ON THE CANDLES AND INCENSE AND FLOWERS… THIS IS JESUS !!!
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I would love to spend the rest of my life on earth and all of eternity in heaven on my knees before Him. Unfortunately, the arthritis in my knees has been so destructive that the only way I will ever kneel again on earth is through a Divine miracle.
So, what I tell Jesus is something along these lines: “Lord, You know how much I want to kneel before You, and You know that there’s no way that I can. But You can see my heart, Lord, and You know that my heart kneels before You. My heart is prostrate before You and worships at Your feet.”
So, even when you can’t kneel, you can!
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
I think that the problem with those who are “Traditionalists” lies with the feeling that the OF is a way of saying that God has to change with the times.
Many liberals try to promote women priests and gay marriage among other things by saying that the Church has to conform with the times.
But that is not what is going on in the OF. Not at all! That is just what Traditionalists are afraid is happening. So, their worry and defense is legitimate. They are under the impression that anything that changes is an attack on the Church and means that we are demanding that God change. I would stand up and yell about it also if that is what were happening. And so would the rest of those who are for the OF on this thread. We, none of us, would stand for an attack on our Faith. But the OF is not an attack on the Faith. It changes nothing about the Faith.
Anyone who is a true Catholic, or Christian of any denomination for that matter, gets very insulted with people who say that God has to change, or His Church has to change with the times.
I do not believe that Vatican II was an attempt to do that. I believe that the Spirit of Vatican II was an attempt to be more open to individuals. It became more welcoming, more warm, more joyful. It did not change what the Church or Mass was at all !!!
It simply allows people to understand more of what they are joining into in the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. It is much easier to do that if you understand what is being said and done.
I have been to a Latin Mass, and I loved it. But I have to say that if I had been a person who just walked in off of the street, I would have felt totally excluded from what was going on.
In the OF, anyone can walk in and understand if they listen. And that is beautiful and evangalasism in and of itself. How does one meet with Jesus if one doesn’t know He is there? In any Catholic Church, if the Mass is not being distorted by abuses (those things unacceptable to the Holy See), one can come and see the goodness of the Lord…and that is what happens in the Ordinary Form.
The Catholic Religion is hard to accept sometimes when the world is screaming at us that we need no laws or rules or authority figures. But many people are converting to the HMC in today’s world. It is because we are a faith that welcomes new souls into the fold.
It is not something that is telling God that He must change. So, to the traditionalists that are feeling threatened by the OF, you can relax. It is understood by the OF followers that God is perfect and can never change.
There is a place for the Tridentine Mass form and the OF, because it is the exact same sacrifice. Why does there have to be a war between the followers of both forms?
Is that what Jesus is calling us into when He calls us to unity? We can be totally unified with each other.
A sin is a sin whether you are following the OF or the Traditionalists Way! And you still have to be absolved from the sin the exact same way. If I sit in front of the priest rather than kneel…or if I am facing him without a grid in between us, does that lesson the prayers, my confession, the priests counsel, or my recieving absolution? No. It does not.
Both Traditionalists and the OF are of the same exact Holy Roman Catholic Faith which follows the Pope in Rome faithfully. We both have a deep love for Jesus in the Eucharist, reverence for the Mother of God and the Rosary, and the Sacraments. What separates us except our preference?
I pray that all sides may cease with name calling and hateful remarks and be what Jesus calls us to be…brothers.
God bless you all.
Many liberals try to promote women priests and gay marriage among other things by saying that the Church has to conform with the times.
But that is not what is going on in the OF. Not at all! That is just what Traditionalists are afraid is happening. So, their worry and defense is legitimate. They are under the impression that anything that changes is an attack on the Church and means that we are demanding that God change. I would stand up and yell about it also if that is what were happening. And so would the rest of those who are for the OF on this thread. We, none of us, would stand for an attack on our Faith. But the OF is not an attack on the Faith. It changes nothing about the Faith.
Anyone who is a true Catholic, or Christian of any denomination for that matter, gets very insulted with people who say that God has to change, or His Church has to change with the times.
I do not believe that Vatican II was an attempt to do that. I believe that the Spirit of Vatican II was an attempt to be more open to individuals. It became more welcoming, more warm, more joyful. It did not change what the Church or Mass was at all !!!
It simply allows people to understand more of what they are joining into in the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. It is much easier to do that if you understand what is being said and done.
I have been to a Latin Mass, and I loved it. But I have to say that if I had been a person who just walked in off of the street, I would have felt totally excluded from what was going on.
In the OF, anyone can walk in and understand if they listen. And that is beautiful and evangalasism in and of itself. How does one meet with Jesus if one doesn’t know He is there? In any Catholic Church, if the Mass is not being distorted by abuses (those things unacceptable to the Holy See), one can come and see the goodness of the Lord…and that is what happens in the Ordinary Form.
The Catholic Religion is hard to accept sometimes when the world is screaming at us that we need no laws or rules or authority figures. But many people are converting to the HMC in today’s world. It is because we are a faith that welcomes new souls into the fold.
It is not something that is telling God that He must change. So, to the traditionalists that are feeling threatened by the OF, you can relax. It is understood by the OF followers that God is perfect and can never change.
There is a place for the Tridentine Mass form and the OF, because it is the exact same sacrifice. Why does there have to be a war between the followers of both forms?
Is that what Jesus is calling us into when He calls us to unity? We can be totally unified with each other.
A sin is a sin whether you are following the OF or the Traditionalists Way! And you still have to be absolved from the sin the exact same way. If I sit in front of the priest rather than kneel…or if I am facing him without a grid in between us, does that lesson the prayers, my confession, the priests counsel, or my recieving absolution? No. It does not.
Both Traditionalists and the OF are of the same exact Holy Roman Catholic Faith which follows the Pope in Rome faithfully. We both have a deep love for Jesus in the Eucharist, reverence for the Mother of God and the Rosary, and the Sacraments. What separates us except our preference?
I pray that all sides may cease with name calling and hateful remarks and be what Jesus calls us to be…brothers.
God bless you all.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I respectfully suggest that you read (or re-read) JR’s post in this thread (#592 on page 40).
J
Jesus_N_Cherie
Guest
Honestly, that is one of the most beautiful things I have heard in longer than I can remember! I dread the time when I can no longer kneel. And I have spent time with geriatrics patients who can no longer kneel. I wonder what they think about their inability to kneel. For there is no shame in what one is physically unable to do.I would love to spend the rest of my life on earth and all of eternity in heaven on my knees before Him. Unfortunately, the arthritis in my knees has been so destructive that the only way I will ever kneel again on earth is through a Divine miracle.
So, what I tell Jesus is something along these lines: “Lord, You know how much I want to kneel before You, and You know that there’s no way that I can. But You can see my heart, Lord, and You know that my heart kneels before You. My heart is prostrate before You and worships at Your feet.”
So, even when you can’t kneel, you can!
But I do have a pet peeve about those who have removed the kneelers entirely from the church building so that no one’s feelings have to be hurt if they cannot kneel because of a physical ailment.
Now, in many circumstances, the priest will tell the congregation that kneeling is not allowed.
If we Catholics have to argue about something with someone, why are we not arguing with those who are actually creating and taking part in the abuses?
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Forgive me, I didn’t know they allowed Playboy in the Sistine Chapel or at our brother Byzantine Catholic’s Church
WOW. That’s all I can say. Highly offensive stuff, what you’re saying here. Indefensible.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m no expert on the Mystical Life, but I see nothing in these lines to suggest spritual pride. Nor do I see anything to suggest Traditionalist or other. What you have posted here is not Traditionalism. It is faith. Our faith takes different expressions. Look at the Apostles.
Peter was a bumbling leader. Paul was heroic and assertive. John was a mystic and a thinker.
Then you have the many holy men and women of the Church. Each expressed his love for God in the manner that was most appropriate for him or her. Benedict found God through silence and solitude. Francis found him through poverty and the cross. Teresa of Avila found him through contemplation. Teresa of Calcutta found him on the streets of the slums. John XXIII found him in history. John Paul II found him through Mary. And so the list goes on.
Each of us must find our Lord along the road that he paves for us. Since God does not show himself to all of us in the same way, it is also unlikely that he expects all of us to return his love through the same gestures. If kneeling helps you see the awesomeness and tremendousness of God, then by all means follow it, as long as it does not violate charity or enlarge your ego.
But if it helps you see yourself as you truly are before God and see God as he truly is, then who are we to call it anything but love.
JR
C
CradleCath
Guest
I have no idea what the poster you are replying to is thinking when he/she asks about Pope John Paul being “brought up on charges”??The man has been declared a Blessed with a proven miracle. It is not likely that he will be brought up on any charges. Othewise, how do we explain the miracle?
Also, his life has been carefully studied by a commission for the cause of saints and the case is closed. The only thing left is one more miracle and canonization will go forward. There is no more review of his life allowed.
JR
It almost sounds as if he/she thinks the canonization process involves a trial??I would like to know where you got your infomation about the progress being made on Pope John Paul’s cause for sainthood. He has not been beatified yet, though the positio has been handed over to the proper personnel in Rome. Now the Positio must be examined by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
In the case of sainthood because of “heroic virtue”, & this is the usual path for someone who is not a martyr, the positio is examined by historians, by theologians, by doctors and then there is an exam by the cardinals. Only after all this “passes muster”, can Pope John Paul II be beatified & entitiled to the title “Blessed”. Beatification also ,of course, allows Catholics to give limited veneraltion to the person in question.
Whoops! I almost forgot…Rome is hoping for John Paul’s beatification to occur on the anniversary of his death in 2009. But, keep in mind, this is only** hoping**.
C
CradleCath
Guest
No need to even think to answer this one. Just reread my post…the one you just answered. I copied & pasted a bit of it.You’re missing my point. The question is whether people dislike Traditionalism. My point is that we do not dislike Traditionalism. There are behaviours that we dislike, behaviours that are often shrouded under the label “Traditionalism”, but are not really. They are simply poor social skills.
JR
My answer to your dislike of some “behaviors” was:
Originally Posted by CradleCath
"People" do not like a lot of things. I, for instance, do not like it when I broach an idea to my husband & he says, “I know a better way to do it”. (Thank God, he seldom does that.) I do not like it when the help at my store will not work as hard as I do. I do not like it when some of our hierarchy do not support the Pope 100%. I don’t like it when one who has never attended a TLM., gives their opinion of same based on what “someone told them”. **There are many things in this world that a lot of us don’t like, but most of us can control our emotions, think it through & at least, understand the point of view of the other person…even when we don’t agree. **
C
CradleCath
Guest
Just a little advice that might keep you from being embarrassed. Ask your pastor before you kneel for Communion. It has been forbidden in my diocese for years. I believe that the powers that be are in the process of re-thinking that, but, as of today, it’s still forbidden.
I never tried kneeling because of that, but I feel just as you do. IF God was standing in the sanctuary so that you could SEE Him, wouldn’t you fall on your knees? Guess what, He IS there, but we can only see him with our hearts.
- Status