Proving Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rafik_Gabriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite simply, if one still clings to the failed man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, little can be accomplished as far as a meaningful exchange.
Sola scriptura. I’ve heard it described as “simplistic answers to deep and complex questions.” And whether or not a Bible verse taken out of context really applies to a given question, the sola scriptura tactic is to repeat, repeat, repeat!
 
My disagreement is with the teaching that we must believe in transubstantiation if we want to get to heaven. My contention is that it has nothing to do with our salvation. To believe in Christ is what is required.
In John 6 Christ explains the Real Presence in His own words, which are life and spirit. He specifically states that salvation depends on eating His body and drinking His blood. The only way this can occur is if the consecrated bread and wine are the Real Presence of Jesus Christ- how else can we eat His body and drink His blood? If we do not believe in transubstantiation, we are denying Christ’s own words. Can we deny even one of Christ’s own words, and still claim that we believe in Him?
 
I have answered it. Based on the Scriptures forbidding the consumption of blood in the OT and NT, Galatians 3:10 says those who claim to follow the law but do not are cursed and James 2:10 says breaking one part of the law violates the whole of the law. Since Jesus can not violate His own law and since He was not cursed He could not have given flesh and blood to the apostles.
You are the first person who claims to be Christian who believes that there is something that our Lord could not do. The prohibition is against animal blood, Steve! Animal blood! Is not the Blood of Christ, which we are commanded to drink, somehow different? We don’t take it from an animal! We receive it from Christ!

The world’s Christians had been doing this for 1850 years before your denomination existed. Does that mean anything at all? For all of Christian history, the vast majority of the world’s Christians have believed in the true presence in the Eucharist. Paul taught that communion was a participation in the Body and Blood. Do you declare Paul to be in error?

The hurdle that you cannot clear is the existence of an authoritative Church. Yet, the bible itself says that Jesus left us a Church with authority. If you enjoy reading, By What Authority? written by evangelical vconvert Mark Shea has some questions that it behooves you to ponder, I would think. But, only if you seek the truth. And I think you do.
 
In John 6 Christ explains the Real Presence in His own words, which are life and spirit. He specifically states that salvation depends on eating His body and drinking His blood. The only way this can occur is if the consecrated bread and wine are the Real Presence of Jesus Christ- how else can we eat His body and drink His blood? If we do not believe in transubstantiation, we are denying Christ’s own words. Can we deny even one of Christ’s own words, and still claim that we believe in Him?
He rejects the biblical reality of an authoritative Church. He believes in privately interpreting scripture, which is a violation of a core biblical principle. Yet, he loves Christ - this we know.
 
I have answered it. Based on the Scriptures forbidding the consumption of blood in the OT and NT, Galatians 3:10 says those who claim to follow the law but do not are cursed and James 2:10 says breaking one part of the law violates the whole of the law. Since Jesus can not violate His own law and since He was not cursed He could not have given flesh and blood to the apostles. Unless you count the Scriptures as no authority.
How tragic that, while you insist on propagating your own private (mis)understanding/(mis)interpretations of (the Catholic Church’s) Book of Scripture, you don’t even seem capable of differentiating/distinguishing between the blood of a mere ANIMAL (the consumption of which the old Law forbade - for reasons I had amply explained in an earlier post) and the redeeming, life-giving Blood of our Jesus, our Savior. The saving Blood of the Son of God, Who was made flesh, and sent by the Father as man’s true “Bread of LIfe” from heaven. Consequently you launch into a totally irrelevant argument about the most moot possibility of “Jesus violating His own law”, “part of the law”, “all of the law”, etc… As if! Do you really imagine that Catholics would even countenance such an impossible and blasphemous proposition? Then why even bring up such a ridiculous notion? As a Christian, are you obliged to eat only halal meat (drained of blood) - as prescribed by the Old Law? If not, why not? If that old law has indeed passed away, who dispensed with it and exactly when? Just curious.
 
Originally Posted by stevekehl
I have answered it. Based on the Scriptures forbidding the consumption of blood in the OT and NT, Galatians 3:10 says those who claim to follow the law but do not are cursed and James 2:10 says breaking one part of the law violates the whole of the law. Since Jesus can not violate His own law and since He was not cursed He could not have given flesh and blood to the apostles. Unless you count the Scriptures as no authority
Oh dear Lord! Steve the OT forbidding blood refers to ANIMAL BLOOD! Show me where it refers to HUMAN BLOOD? If you cannot make the distinction between ANIMAL BLOOD & the BLOOD OF GOD,then this discussion is going no where!

Jesus COULD NOT have given His Flesh and Blood? I asked you once and I’ll ask again:

Who are you a mere FINITE,FALLBLE creature to declare with ABSOLUTE TRUTH God COULD NOT gives His Flesh and Blood?

Scripture is “A” authority,not “THE” authority.
 
Steve, can it be possible that one man and his bible really more enlightened as to doctrine than:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul :eek:

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Monsignor, Priest, Abbot, Mother Superior, Monk, Religious Brother, Religious Sister, Nun, Deacon, sub-Deacon, 1.2 Billion living Catholic laity, and…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox and additional tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East Christians, Martin Luther :eek: John Wesley, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?**

It appears to me that you are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of them teaches and believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The last One named reveals this to all creation by His presence, from which I have just come, rejoicing.

What now?
 
Steve, can it be possible that one man and his bible really more enlightened as to doctrine than:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul** :eek:

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Monsignor, Priest, Abbot, Mother Superior, Monk, Religious Brother, Religious Sister, Nun, Deacon, sub-Deacon, 1.2 Billion living Catholic laity, and…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox and additional tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East Christians, Martin Luther :eek: John Wesley, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?

It appears to me that you are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of them teaches and believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The last One named reveals this to all creation by His presence, from which I have just come, rejoicing.

What now?
Steve suffers from spiritual pride!
 
If His followers had to eat His flesh and drink His blood why didn’t Jesus offer it to them right there?
What meaning do you apply to the fact that he didn’t do it immediately? He didn’t immediately rise from the dead – does that mean something?
If this was His literal intent, why didn’t He give the apostles actual flesh and blood at the last supper?
He did.

I realize that I did not answer all your questions. I have my own reasons for examining this thread and I’m afraid, at this time, I am only studying certain objections. Please do not infer that because I gave no answers to some of your questions, there are none.

I simply needed to point out what was obvious to me.
 
A sacrifice ALWAYS involves “feasting” - eating the flesh of the victim. No sacrifice is ever complete without this step. Read Exodus. Read Deuteronomy.
THANK you!!! (What a big help to me that observation is!).
 
How would you explain to a nonCatholic “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26)” means more than just recalling, preaching, teaching, or speaking about the Lord?
I see that this has become a Steve-centered thread, but I wish some of you who are clearly well-read on this subject would address this question.

I can come up with a basic response, but the more info, the better.
 
A sacrifice ALWAYS involves “feasting” - eating the flesh of the victim. No sacrifice is ever complete without this step. Read Exodus. Read Deuteronomy. This is why the Body and Blood of Jesus - our sacrificed Paschal Lamb - has to be EATEN.
THANK you!!! (What a big help to me that observation is!).
From the online Jewish Encyclopedia (section on “Passover Sacrifice”):

The lamb was set on the table at the evening banquet, and was EATEN by the assembled company… The sacrifice had to be consumed entirely… While eating it, the entire company of those who partook was obliged to remain together (think: “sacrament of unity”), **and EVERY participant HAD to take a piece of the lamb at least as large as an olive. Women and girls also might take part in the banquet and EAT of the sacrifice.

The paschal sacrifice belongs to the “shelamim,” thus forming one of the SACRIFICES in which the MEAL is the PRINCIPAL part and indicates the COMMUNITY between God and man (think: “Holy Communion”). It is really a house or family sacrifice, and each household is regarded as constituting a small community in itself, not only because the lamb is eaten at home, but also because every member of the family is OBLIGED to PARTAKE of the meal, on PAIN OF EXCOMMUNICATION (“karet”), **(think: the Church’s requirement that every Catholic must receive Holy Communion at least once a year - preferably during the season of Easter - the Paschal season) although each man must be circumcised and all must be ritually clean (think: the Church’s requirement to receive the Eucharist in a state of grace and St Paul’s admonitions about receiving unworthily - i.e. without discerning the Body and the Blood… which was causing some of the early Christians to become “sick and dying”).

Although the initial Passover of the Jews involved the sacrifice and eating of a lamb, the Essene way of celebrating it involved consumption of Mazzah - the “Bread of Affliction” - and wine. Pope Benedict XVI opined recently that Jesus was most likely celebrating “the” Passover (the “Last Supper”) that way - with bread and wine. This reminded me of something I had noticed a while back - that in almost all the classical paintings of the Last Supper, there is no lamb on the table! Then it struck me: there is no lamb ON the table, because THE LAMB OF GOD was AT the table - giving His people His own flesh to eat!!! Yes, at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the supreme Passover Sacrifice is indeed made present to us, so that we too can partake of the Body “given up for you and for many” (to “take, eat”) and the “cup of the New Covenant” (to “drink, all of you”). Yes, we ARE indeed “there” “when they crucified my Lord”. And yes, it does cause us to “tremble, tremble, tremble”.

When Mazzah (the “Bread of Affliction” used in the Passover feast) was baked, it not only contained no leaven (symbolic of sin) but it was also pierced during the baking to ensure that it did not rise like leavened bread (symbolically become inflated with pride, which is the genesis of all sin). It was also baked on a grill to impart to its surface stripes from browning, to remind the people of God of the “stripes” (lashes) they had once received while in bondage to the Egyptians. But this sacrificial bread was always only an Old Testament TYPE for the True Bread which would one day come down from heaven, our real “Bread of Life”, Who Himself was to be “PIERCED for our transgressions” and by Whose “STRIPES we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

The traditional blessing said over every passover meal (which Jesus Himself said at the Last Supper) was: *“Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha-olam, hamotzi lechem min ha’aretz. Amein” * (“Blessed be thou, O Lord, our God, King of the world, who has caused bread to come forth out of the earth. Amen.”) Now ask yourself: what, or rather Who, in fact, is the True Bread that God has “caused to come forth out of the earth” (eucharisted for man), after being “baked” (buried) in the ground for three days? Behold the mighty works of God: He was getting generations of Jews to testify to the risen bread of the Eucharist, each time they said their grace before a meal - without even knowing it! 🙂

What clinches the reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice for me is God’s own decree that the Passover was to be a sacrifice IN PERPETUITY. “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants" (Exodus 12:27). However, the Jewish temple is no longer, and their sacrifices have ceased (stopped by God for a very good reason, one could rightly argue).

Hence, in the book of Malachi, we find God confirming that this ETERNAL sacrifice is eventually to be offered to Him by people “descended from the Jews” in another way, in a spiritual way… Gentiles… us… Christians! “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, (think: to the end of the age) my name is great among the GENTILES, and in EVERY PLACE there IS SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a CLEAN OBLATION: (think: what, or rather Who, is the only “clean oblation” acceptable to God?) for my name is great among the GENTILES, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Mal 1:11).

There you have it: the absolutely undeniable reality of God’s own eternal sacrifice - and the Real Presence of its sacred Victim, whose flesh and blood must be eaten and drunk for the validity of the sacrifice and the attainment of eternal life.

“Unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you have no life within you!”
 
Bravo!!! fxcc Bravo!!!
This is way we sheep come to this sight and discuss our understanding of the Lord. To get turned around and back on the striaght and narrow. To become better gathers for our Lords souls. Bravo!!!
 
Although the initial Passover of the Jews involved the sacrifice and eating of a lamb, the **Essene **way of celebrating it involved consumption of Mazzah - the “Bread of Affliction”
I this regard, Fr. Mitch Pacwa points us to Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10. As they sought the place to eat the Passover with Jesus, He told them to enter Jerusalem and they would meet “a man carrying a jar of water.” But, by which gate would they enter the city, and where would they find this man? Jerusalem was not small. OK, so what? In that culture, men did not carry the water - women did. Well, the upper room was in the Essense section of Jerusalem and the Essenes were celibate men. They had no women to carry theri water. The upper room, and the Church since built over the spot are in the section of town occupied by the Essenes. So, there is even more to the Essene connection than first appears.

Yet, one can never know this from the bible alone. Sola scriptura is both a spiritually and intellectually crippling doctrine.
 
I this regard, Fr. Mitch Pacwa points us to Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10. As they sought the place to eat the Passover with Jesus, He told them to enter Jerusalem and they would meet “a man carrying a jar of water.” But, by which gate would they enter the city, and where would they find this man? Jerusalem was not small. OK, so what? In that culture, men did not carry the water - women did. Well, the upper room was in the Essense section of Jerusalem and the Essenes were celibate men. They had no women to carry theri water. The upper room, and the Church since built over the spot are in the section of town occupied by the Essenes. So, there is even more to the Essene connection than first appears.

Yet, one can never know this from the bible alone. Sola scriptura is both a spiritually and intellectually crippling doctrine.
Thank you for that! Isn’t that observation/clarification interesting? As is the “sheer co-incidence” of course, that our Lord chose to establish the ministerial priesthood and celebrate the first Eucharist in an environ characterized by male celibacy! 😃

Every day we blessed Catholics help ourselves to another glittering gem from the infinite treasury of God’s great wisdom and breathtaking works, prised open with the Keys which He Himself has entrusted to His one true Church. Praise God! It is truly right and just!
 
I appreciated the video!! How would you explain to a nonCatholic “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26)” means more than just recalling, preaching, teaching, or speaking about the Lord?
I would say tell them, as they are usually misinterpreting the bible ferverantly, and will be familiar with John ^…time times it’s spoken 6 time, and in the Gnostic gospel, so no parables.

I was always latin rite, but I am in the process of adult catechesis for adults for Eastern . Particularly Byzantine Church. There have been great statements rearding the sacrament, but I wonder how do Latin and speech on it as it is in Leavened bread (new life) and in a tincture of the precious blood. You go up to the priest…no Eucharistic ministers, which there are just too many In my opinion. It’s a priest job.Then you go up, give your name the priest repeats it back and takes a little brass spoon into the mouth. I must say…the But those Eastern rites have full submerssion baptism, confirmation and don’t have anything befor first penence. How do we explain tha to our non Catholic believers. afterall, they ARE in line with Rome. I guess I’ll finally figure it all out with the catechesis:)🙂
 
I appreciated the video!! How would you explain to a nonCatholic “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26)” means more than just recalling, preaching, teaching, or speaking about the Lord?
… I wish some of you who are clearly well-read on this subject would address this question. I can come up with a basic response, but the more info, the better.
Jupiter/Lisa,

Proclaiming the Lord’s death (“preaching Christ crucified”) does involve recalling, preaching, teaching and speaking about the passion, death and resurection of our Lord. We Catholics can agree with our separated brethren about that. BUT there is a VITAL difference in how we understand the meaning and purpose of “recalling” (or “remembering”) versus how they understand it (merely superficially).

Many non Catholic Christians “play” at the “Lord’s Supper” with crackers and grape juice, totally unaware of the ghastly mimicry that that constitutes against the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Passover, which He commanded us to celebrate “in remembrance” (or “in memory”) of Him. That is because they are tragically un-tutored about the deepest meaning, significance and purpose of “remembering” in Scripture.

In Scripture, “remembering”, insofar as it involves a transcendant being or event, actually means, at a deeper level, to make that being or event present again, in current time and space. For most people, “remembering” simply means “calling to mind” or “thinking about” someone or something. But not so with those who understand the full import of the word as it is used in certain places in Scripture.

When we celebrate the Eucharist, and the duly ordained ministerial priest repeats (*in persona Christi *- in the person of Christ our High Priest Himself) the words of consecration which He spoke at that definitive and ETERNAL Passover sacrifice, “in remembrance” of Christ’s very own words and actions, that time-transcending sacrifice (and Christ Himself) once again become truly PRESENT on the altar.

Here are a couple of analogies which might help to clarify the phenomenon.

When the good thief on the cross (St Dismas) said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom,” Jesus didn’t say in reply, “Sure, I’ll remember you in heaven… I’ll keep you in mind… I’ll think about you…” No, Jesus, responded with a very telling and intriguing assurance: “This day you shall *be with me *in paradise!” Yes, Jesus was saying, I will indeed “remember” you - by making you PRESENT to Me in heaven!

When we (Catholics) pray at Mass for the souls of the departed, we say, “Lord, remember those who have died, and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith…” By praying thus, what are we asking God to do? Are we simply asking Him to “think about” our deceased brothers and sisters or simply keep them in His mind? Of course not! What we’re asking is that they be given to enjoy the Beatific Vision, be brought into His PRESENCE, before His throne of glory! That is why we add, “May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace.”

This “actualizing” (re-"present"ing) aspect of “remembering” a transcendent person or event comes to us from a deep sense of time-and-space-transcendent divine mysteries within Judaism itself. So, when Jesus says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” what He is really saying is “Celebrate the Eucharist as a ‘remembrance’ of all that I have done for you and given (up) for you. And each time you undertake that act of “remembering”, I will really and truly be present to you in the bread and the wine, just as I am offering my body and blood right here and now to you, to partake unto eternal life! In and through the Eucharist, *all *of my disciples, unto the end of time, will have this *same *Gift, of Myself… will have me fully present to them, just as I am here fully present to you! For indeed, this is why I came: that they (all my disciples) might have LIFE (i.e. have Me, who, in myself, **am **The Life!) and have “it” to the FULL (i.e. have Me in my fullness - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!)”

*“Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.” *- Catechism of the Catholic Church #1104

Here’s an interesting tidbit to conclude: The very word “god” is derived from an ancient Teutonic (Germanic) expression which means “to invoke (the presence of a deity) with sacrifice”. Go figure! :rolleyes:

God bless y’all. And 'ave a good Son-day, won’t you?
Francis
 
Francis, this is excellent. I would like to add:

“Do This In Remembrance of Me” (Luke 22,19)
In memory of His redemption and of His love. In remembrance of Christ’s obedience even to death which is the price of sin. That they who live in Christ, may no more live in themselves, but in Him who died for them, and rose again.
Blessings, Rafik Gabriel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top