Pope Benedict XVI signed papal act on 3/30 "freeing" the TLM [rumor]

  • Thread starter Thread starter whosebob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
thistle:
Considering that Latin is not even required to be learned by priests, how will giving the right (not requirement) to celebrate the TLM really make any difference? The vast majority globally, as is currently the case, will continue to celebrate the NO.
Click to expand...
The Priest to celebrate the Latin would most likely come from seminaries designed to train them to do so. There are already several of these in place. There has also been some speculation about Pope Benedict XVI creating a super seminary of some sort. I believe this was to have something to do with the SSPX seminaries too. BTW - when Rome did their inspections of the US seminaries, they included the SSPX seminary.

I imagine there would probably be some, already ordained Priest, who take the initiative to learn it on their own. I know some who have done, or are doing this, in hope for the chance of saying this Mass.

I also, remember reading several news articles that some seminaries and Catholic colleges added Latin to their curriculum when Pope Benedict XVI was elected.
 
One word of caution to some posters:

Papolatry is very unCatholic. To say the pope can never be disobeyed, as a blanket, definitive statement, is not Catholic. Paul resisted Peter “to his face”. So did Athanasius. Catherine of Siena. The list goes on.

Unfortunately…as can happen with a long pontificate…under John Paul II a certain papolatry really crept into Catholicism. I remember a priest once telling me he could wear his stole outside his chasuble…because John Paul had done it.

That’s not Catholic. Not in the least.

Many Catholics opposed the Tridentine Mass because their pope never seemed to celebrate it (never publically, at least). Things have changed with Benedict…who did offer it publically, admittedly before his election…but still, the sense that “the pope = the truth, the correct answer, the preferred practice, always” is not Catholic.

The horrible result of papolatry is when you get the manager of one website (purporting to provide “orthodox” Catholic advice) actually saying that if John Paul had ordered that we do jumping jacks during the Consecration, he would do them out of “obedience”.

That’s sick, and it’s not Catholic.
 
I just came across this update on what may be coming down the line from Poe Benedict XVI regarding the Latin Mass.

Il Tempo: “Yes to the Mass…”

At last, the matter has reached the Italian press. This Palm Sunday, the old Roman daily Il Tempo publishes the following article filled with the kind of information we have been witnessing for a couple of weeks. All information contained in the following article is provided by Il Tempo and we cannot vouch for its details of date or nature of the possible “gesture” (you will notice that the reporter himself is very careful). Parts of it are unrelated to the Mass and, naturally, we cannot translate all of it, for legal reasons:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
 
On training for priests who want to brush up on Latin/TLM rite:

indcatholicnews.com/lms123.html

"The Latin Mass Society has launched a training fund to provide training days in England and Wales for priests who wish to learn the Latin and rubrics of the Traditional Latin Mass. It will also provide funds for priests to stay in the European seminaries of the Traditional priestly orders such as the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest where they can experience the Traditional ethos and receive spiritual and practical advice from Traditional priests.

The two main Traditional priestly orders are the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of St Peter. Their seminaries only provide training in the Traditional rite and they have long waiting lists of young men wishing to serve the Church as Traditional priests. Their candidates to the priesthood have been ordained by such as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Prefect of the congregation for the Clergy, and Cardinal Medina Estevez, retired Prefect of the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. Pope Benedict took a close interest in the resurgence of the Traditional rite when he was cardinal."
 
40.png
AlexV:
One word of caution to some posters:

Papolatry is very unCatholic. To say the pope can never be disobeyed, as a blanket, definitive statement, is not Catholic. Paul resisted Peter “to his face”. So did Athanasius. Catherine of Siena. The list goes on.

Unfortunately…as can happen with a long pontificate…under John Paul II a certain papolatry really crept into Catholicism. I remember a priest once telling me he could wear his stole outside his chasuble…because John Paul had done it.

That’s not Catholic. Not in the least.

Many Catholics opposed the Tridentine Mass because their pope never seemed to celebrate it (never publically, at least). Things have changed with Benedict…who did offer it publically, admittedly before his election…but still, the sense that “the pope = the truth, the correct answer, the preferred practice, always” is not Catholic.

The horrible result of papolatry is when you get the manager of one website (purporting to provide “orthodox” Catholic advice) actually saying that if John Paul had ordered that we do jumping jacks during the Consecration, he would do them out of “obedience”.

That’s sick, and it’s not Catholic.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression wearing the stole on the outside of one’s chasuble was a legitimate option.
 
oldfogey said:
“Also, while many priests may wish to do this not all know how as the semianries only teach the current Mass”

I’ll have faith in any priest to learn the Tridentine, if he wants to, because, afterall, he has a charism, and is not a robot. This is something which has been forgotten of late as the priest in the new rite is viewed (often) as a kind of servant for the congregation.

No faux paux a well intentioned priest could do performing the TLM could equal the intentional deviations we have had inflicted on us in the liturgy, and excused, in the last forty years.
Click to expand...

An EXCELLENT point!!! I’m sure that God would forgive any unintentional errors! And much of the error we HAVE seen over the last several decades has NOT beee unintentional.

Many blessings,
 
40.png
AlexV:
One word of caution to some posters:

Papolatry is very unCatholic. To say the pope can never be disobeyed, as a blanket, definitive statement, is not Catholic. Paul resisted Peter “to his face”. So did Athanasius. Catherine of Siena. The list goes on.

Unfortunately…as can happen with a long pontificate…under John Paul II a certain papolatry really crept into Catholicism. I remember a priest once telling me he could wear his stole outside his chasuble…because John Paul had done it.

That’s not Catholic. Not in the least.

Many Catholics opposed the Tridentine Mass because their pope never seemed to celebrate it (never publically, at least). Things have changed with Benedict…who did offer it publically, admittedly before his election…but still, the sense that “the pope = the truth, the correct answer, the preferred practice, always” is not Catholic.

The horrible result of papolatry is when you get the manager of one website (purporting to provide “orthodox” Catholic advice) actually saying that if John Paul had ordered that we do jumping jacks during the Consecration, he would do them out of “obedience”.

That’s sick, and it’s not Catholic.
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!
This is exactly the thing, The FSSP are critical of! Unfortunately you find it all over the web and on blogspots. I love, and am loyal to His Holiness Benedict XVI. I miss JPII, However His long Pontificate was not without serious criticism. Irregardless of His personal Holiness and character.
The example you gave about the jumping jacks, is a good example. (False obedience) I could give several examples myself.
A Priest friend called this phenomenon “creeping Papalotry”
 
I’m sorry, but the warning of papolatry in the context of this thread is simply so vague, that it rings more of insipid grandstanding. What specifically in this thread has been papolatry or bordering on papolatry?
 
If Benedict XVI wants to step on the toes of the US Bishops, then more power to him.

I beleive that in some countries, the indult has not been granted at all (Mexico, for one).

Dissension and discord in the Church? It’s always been there.

Bringing back the TLM will not correct all the problems the Church faces. Nor will banishing the Paul VI Missal solve all the problems.

For those faithful who wish to worship according to the 1962 Missal - this should be available to them, if not at every parish, then at least accessible at another nearby parish.

One thing to keep in mind is that with all the “modern” church buildings (that look like college lecture halls) not every parish will be suitable for the celebration of the TLM. In addition, there has to be a lot of priests - and bishops - who do not speak Latin.

These are stumbling blocks, not permanent barriers. Latin should be taught in all seminaries. New church construction should be limitied to somehting that actually looks like a church - and suitable for the TLM - not like something Cardinal Mahony approved.

Benedict XVI is a liturgist, and I believe he means business when he wants to address the abuses in the Liturgy.

For what it’s worth - I do not blame Vatican II for the problems the Church has experienced. The worst it did was give an excuse to those who sought to wreck the Church and put up something suitable to themselves in its place.
 
Ok. I need some help here. I read the article but I am not quite sure.
Being a convert only 12 years or so ago I am familiar only with the mass as it is today.
I had attended a pre-vatican II mass once as a child with a friend. I remember wearing a scarf over my hair, the mass was in Latin, the large crucifix, the altar against the wall, that we we prayed what I learned later was a litany, that there were statues of Mary and Joseph that made me cry and that Father had his back to us. Oh, and that it was beautiful and I wanted to stay there forever. But my mom was protestant so that didn’t happen.
What does it appear that the Holy Father is proposing?
 
When our previous PP died suddenly, the priest who was then appointed was a bit reluctant to continue the TLM that was celebrated every Sunday following he NO Mass. However, he brushed up on his Latin and gave it his best.

Four years on, he has the parish preparing for a TLM on August 6, which will be the only parish Mass that day. The parish has just had a younger priest appointed to us, and he is studying up on the TLM so as to be able to take over when Father (who is elderly) is no longer able to celebrate.

It seems that the intention with the Aug 6 TLM is to gradually introduce Latin and Gregorian Chant into the NO Mass. Father (PP) has been talking about Sacred Silence and Reclaiming a Greater Sense of the Sacred. It very much sounds as though he intends to celebrate the NO Mass the way Vatican II wanted.
 
40.png
AlexV:
One word of caution to some posters:

Papolatry is very unCatholic. To say the pope can never be disobeyed, as a blanket, definitive statement, is not Catholic. Paul resisted Peter “to his face”. So did Athanasius. Catherine of Siena. The list goes on.

Unfortunately…as can happen with a long pontificate…under John Paul II a certain papolatry really crept into Catholicism. I remember a priest once telling me he could wear his stole outside his chasuble…because John Paul had done it.

That’s not Catholic. Not in the least.

Many Catholics opposed the Tridentine Mass because their pope never seemed to celebrate it (never publically, at least). Things have changed with Benedict…who did offer it publically, admittedly before his election…but still, the sense that “the pope = the truth, the correct answer, the preferred practice, always” is not Catholic.

The horrible result of papolatry is when you get the manager of one website (purporting to provide “orthodox” Catholic advice) actually saying that if John Paul had ordered that we do jumping jacks during the Consecration, he would do them out of “obedience”.

That’s sick, and it’s not Catholic.
Click to expand...
Oh, come on… nobody here is worshiping the Pope.
What’s amazing is that a hundred years ago the SSPX, if they were around, would be the most ardently ultramontane of all religious groups. Because it did not get what it wanted, it now has a neo-Gallican approach to ecclesiology… subsidiarity in ecclesiology taken to an extreme.
 
I didn’t say anything about “worshipping the pope”. I also didn’t say one word about the SSPX.

My point remains. Some Catholics think whatever the pope says or does is right, proper, justifiable, correct, you name it.

That view isn’t Catholic, and never has been.

Truth remains that a parish can post pro-homosexual agenda propaganda on their website, violate countless rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae and detail their abuses on their website, and nothing much happens (see St. Joan’s, Minneapolis).

But in plenty of places, offer one Tridentine Mass…you’re in huge trouble. Express preference for it? You’re “outside the Church”. Say you prefer it? You might get kicked out of a seminary for that.

That’s fascism, it’s indefensible…and it’s alive and well in some corners of our church in America.

Could John Paul have intervened more forcefully? Sure. After all…he named plenty of the most problematic American bishops.
 
Alex V: RE: Papolatry
You mean the way “traditionalists” go on about Saints Pius V and X and the Servant of God Pius XII? Yeah, papolatry can be a HUGE problem.

However, in this instance of the SSPX, the Pope simply confirmed what was already fact (and fact in the face of the agreement reneged upon by the late Archbishop): they excommunicated themselves.

As for disciplines imposed by the popes, here’s what pre-Vatican II popes had to say about obidience to the legitmate authority. They seemed not to believe it was “sick” and “not Catholic.”

Pius VI condemned the proposition that the approved ecclesiastical discipline of the Church can be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful. The 18th century condemnation by Pius VI reads…The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Gregory XVI also affirmed that those that propose that the discipline of the Church is harmful fall under the condemnation of Pius VI…

“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).The Council of Trent similarly declared:“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).

Pope Pius IX likewise taught:“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Vatican I likewise affirmed:

“We teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” (Pastor Aeternus , ch. 3, par. 2)
 
Really now, I am surprised someone woukldn’t be adept at ratehr elementary reading comprehension.

Did I say the Novus Ordo Missae was an “incentive to impiety”? Nope.

I said the pope isn’t always right. I said blind obedience to the pope isn’t Catholic.

I stand by both points. I didn’t say a word about the SSPX. Indeed, they’re irrelevant to the point.

The pope isn’t always right. And preference for the Tridentine liturgy doesn’t make you “unCatholic”.
 
40.png
AlexV:
Really now, I am surprised someone woukldn’t be adept at ratehr elementary reading comprehension. Reading comprehension…spelling…skills of equal importance.

Did I say the Novus Ordo Missae was an “incentive to impiety”? Nope. Good, glad to hear it.

I said the pope isn’t always right. I said blind obedience to the pope isn’t Catholic. **And no one here has really argued with your point about the jumping jacks (which I grant you is really whacky), but that’s because everyone here, from the far left to the far right, knows THAT THE POPE IS NEVER GOING TO ORDER US TO DO THAT!!! The fellow that suggested it needs to rexamine his ecclesiology, but I don’t think anyone on this thread is quite that far gone, even those of us who loved and admired Pope John Paul II. **

I stand by both points. I didn’t say a word about the SSPX. Indeed, they’re irrelevant to the point. **Point conceded, you didn’t. I brought the point UP because that is what some “radical traditionalists” (for some, read “most”) assert as being an example of how a pope can be wrong. Now, as it happens, if the pope HAD decretally excommunicated the Archbishop, I think he would have been right, but MY point was that he merely confirmed a condition that already existed in canon law. Others bring up how the Pauline Rite, when compared to the Pian Rite, is another example of how a pope can be wrong. Hence my citation of previous popes and Vatican I. **

The pope isn’t always right. And preference for the Tridentine liturgy doesn’t make you “unCatholic”. **He absolutely isn’t always right and no one here suggested that a preference for the Tridentine liturgy made one “unCatholic.” One poster stated that he didn’t see how disobedience to the Holy See was different from the Protestants (I see his point), but the TLM wasn’t an issue in this context./**QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
The reason so many have sympathies for the SSPX is because it is not that cut and dry. There are canon lawyers that fall on both sides of this issue and others who have made statements that leave this open as well.

Msgr Perl, most recent letter of September 5, 2005:
‘On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either – the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.’
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html

And again there are the recent comments of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos which can be found here: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

There are also many instances in Church history that can go other way on this issue - of course the one most heard of is St. Athanasius.

As for the Protestant thing, one of the NO Churches closest to me, occassionaly combines services with the local Lutheran church. In the summer they combine VBS for the children - sometimes with the local Lutheran, sometimes Baptist, and sometimes nondenominational. VBS is not even held on the grounds of this Catholic Church it is held at these other non Catholic churches. Appearantly they do not see any problems with Protestants, so why the SSPX?

I also recall a couple years back, hearing something about making Martin Luther a Saint. :eek: If Martin Luther, why not Archbishop Lefebre?
Click to expand...
There are so many red herrings in this post that I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, there is no way that Martin Luther will ever be made a saint. I don’t know where you’re getting that info from. If you rely on the dissenters in the Church, and then prop them up as what the Church actually teaches, then I can see why you would believe this.

You cite one Novous Ordo Parish that has protestant sympathies. So suddenly this is what the Church officially sanctions, as opposed to an abuse? Why do you assume that the actions of one parish shows something that the Church actually condones? Furthermore, the actions of this liberal parish suddenly make the actions of SSPX acceptable? You are introducing Red Herrings that don’t represent what the “Novous Ordo” Church officially believes.

This is exactly what “rad-trads” do: they introduce the most blatant abuses and forms of dissent into their arguments about the problems of the Church today, and try and convince everyone that this is what the Church actually teaches, even though they know that this isn’t the case. Nobody can seriously argue that either John Paul the Great or Benedict XVI has ever seriously considered canonizing Martin Luther, and nobody can seriously argue that the Church condones the kind of liberal indifferentism of the Novous Ordo parish you cited. In fact, in his last encyclica, Ecclesia Dei Eucharista, John Paul the Great specifically addressed this problem and rebuked those who practice it.

I happen to know for a fact that Cardinal Hoyos’s comments have been taken out of context by defenders of SSPX to boost their credibility.

Finally, your argument that lots of canon lawyers disagree over this just further shows the Protestant nature of SSPX. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT CANON LAWYERS MIGHT SAY ABOUT THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS. The Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is the authoritative interpreter of canon law. As Vatican I defined, he is the final authority in matters not only of faith and morals, but of discipline as well. You cannot simply pick and choose which statements of the Pope to obey and which not to obey. This has nothing to do with “papolitry.” He has been empowered by Christ to enforce Church discipline, and his word is final.

By citing those other canon lawyers, you are simply doing what Protestants do–claiming your own, private interpretation is valid rather than the authoritative interpretation of the Vicar of Christ. If this isn’t in the grand tradition of Protestantism, I don’t know what it.

In the words of St. Augustine regarding the canonical status of SSPX–

“Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

I pray for their return to the one true fold.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
This is exactly what “rad-trads” do: they introduce the most blatant abuses and forms of dissent into their arguments about the problems of the Church today, and try and convince everyone that this is what the Church actually teaches, even though they know that this isn’t the case. Nobody can seriously argue that either John Paul the Great or Benedict XVI has ever seriously considered canonizing Martin Luther, and nobody can seriously argue that the Church condones the kind of liberal indifferentism of the Novous Ordo parish you cited. In fact, in his last encyclica, Ecclesia Dei Eucharista, John Paul the Great specifically addressed this problem and rebuked those who practice it.
Click to expand...
No not Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II -

Taken from Berlin greets pope with protest, applause,
Christian Century, July 17, 1996

According to reports in Focus, a magazine published in Munich, John Paul II’s plans to take an historic step to improve relations with Protestant churches during his visit were thwarted by the country’s Catholic bishops. Reportedly, the pope originally wanted to visit one of the historic sites of the Lutheran Reformation, Wartburg castle - the place where Luther translated the New Testament into German - where he intended to announce the cancellation of Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church.

But the plans were dropped, the magazine said, after opposition by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and by three of Germany’s most senior Catholic bishops - Cardinal Archbishop Sterzinsky of Berlin, Archbishop Joachim Degenhardt of Paderborn, and Bishop Karl Lehmann, president of the German Bishops’ Conference. Luther was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1521 after refusing to retract his teachings which the church judged to be heretical.

The magazine quoted an unnamed adviser to the German bishops as saying of the pope’s plans to lift the excommunication of Luther: “For God’s sake, not in the Protestant stronghold of the Wartburg. Is the pope becoming Protestant?”

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n22_v113/ai_18539208
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
No not Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II -

Taken from Berlin greets pope with protest, applause,
Christian Century, July 17, 1996

According to reports in Focus, a magazine published in Munich, John Paul II’s plans to take an historic step to improve relations with Protestant churches during his visit were thwarted by the country’s Catholic bishops. Reportedly, the pope originally wanted to visit one of the historic sites of the Lutheran Reformation, Wartburg castle - the place where Luther translated the New Testament into German - where he intended to announce the cancellation of Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church.

But the plans were dropped, the magazine said, after opposition by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and by three of Germany’s most senior Catholic bishops - Cardinal Archbishop Sterzinsky of Berlin, Archbishop Joachim Degenhardt of Paderborn, and Bishop Karl Lehmann, president of the German Bishops’ Conference. Luther was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1521 after refusing to retract his teachings which the church judged to be heretical.

The magazine quoted an unnamed adviser to the German bishops as saying of the pope’s plans to lift the excommunication of Luther: “For God’s sake, not in the Protestant stronghold of the Wartburg. Is the pope becoming Protestant?”

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n22_v113/ai_18539208
Click to expand...
“Lift an excommunication” (and this article quotes a rumor from another magazine :rolleyes: ) and “declare a saint” are two different things.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
“Lift an excommunication” (and this article quotes a rumor from another magazine :rolleyes: ) and “declare a saint” are two different things.
Click to expand...

Thank you for beating me to that point. Typical EDIT “radical traditionalist” glossing over of what the truth is. Lifting excommunication on someone is far different from canonizing him. I would have thought that someone so devoted to tradition would be able to make that basic distinction, since he claims to follow Church doctrine so closely.

Personally, I don’t see how lifting an excommunication on a dead man affects anything, since eternal judment has already been passed on him.

Second, as JKirk noted, this is just a rumor, without any evidence to back it up. It has about as much evidentiary validity to it as all of the rumors on this very thread about whether Pope Benedict has given the universal indult. We will have no idea until it’s officially announced, or the rumors die down. In the meantime, it’s all mere speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top