Should Christians Reunite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjf150
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
RSiscoe:
I am also curious what you think of this encyclical, which was written in 1928 (not too long ago).

dailycatholic.org/mortaliu.htm

Thank you…
Wow! That is an extrememly powerful statement! I’m assuming no Pope since then has contradicted what Pius XI said therein. So that makes me wonder how those involved in modern inter-faith ecumenical activites would answer this.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
…I suppose discension is human, but why would God allow such confusion?

Frustrating!!
I believe that it is an absolutely fatal flaw on our part to think in terms God allowing such confusion. He does not allow it… we do. In His infinite mercy, He has given us all the tools we need to combat discension amongst ourselves, most important being our free will. We decide whether we employ His tools or not. So far, we’ve not been very good at it. We’ve managed to grasp onto the tools of the evil one instead - pride, fear, ignorance, anger, and so on - and allowed these things to influence the way we think of unity, or our lack thereof. We cannot choose to allow the influences of the evil one to cloud our free will, and then turn around and blame God for our confusion.

Perhaps we need to re-examine what we mean by the word “unity.” We have an existing model of what “unity” can be already in place within our Catholic Church, yet I cannot help but feel that many Catholic faithful don’t truly accept what we enjoy within our Church as being an example of “unity.”

Let me explain…

It’s been pointed out many times over on this forum that the Catholic Church is, in actuality, an assembly of 23 separate Churches, each with its own heierarchy, Code of Canon Law and liturgical rites and traditions. We all share a common theology but differ, sometimes rather greatly, in how that theology is expressed. Despite our differences, we are all unified under the pastoral care of the Successor of Peter, JPII the Pope of Rome. Each member of each of these 23 Churches can legitimately claim to be “just as Catholic” as any other member.

This relationship amongst our own Catholic Churches has been referred to as “unity without uniformity” Unity, in this case, does not necessarily imply “doing things the same way.” It means sharing our core Catholic beliefs within the context of our own liturgical traditions… it means not merely tolerating our differences, but actually relishing them as an example of the true universal nature of our Church… it means abandoning the mindset that “my way is the only way to be a Catholic.”

I’ve noted that more than one response in this thread has referred to the thought that Roman Catholicism and its rites and traditions would be the only acceptable end toward unification efforts. My friends, what does this say about the nature of our Catholic Church today? To me, it implies a belief that those other 22 Churches that call themselves “Catholic” aren’t really Catholic. To me it says we’d be better off without them because they don’t do things the “right” way. To me it says that since there are so many of us and so few of them, they should do things our way if they want to call themselves “Catholic.”

It is utterly preposterous to believe that we will ever be able to achieve true Christian unity without first abandoning this mindset. My friends, if we cannot accept and relish in the diversity already present within our Catholic Church, how can we ever hope to enjoy unity with any of our separated brethren?

If and when unity occurs, it will mean the expanding of the rich liturgical fabric of our Church, not the narrowing down of it to one set of rules and forms of theological expression - it will mean unity without uniformity.

Let me give my Latin brethren a very concrete example…

In the Roman Catholic Church, you recite the filioque as part of the Creed - in my Byzantine Catholic Church I do not, *with the full blessing and approval of Rome! * Now, as contrary to your personal beliefs as this may be, I defy you to tell me that I am not a Catholic! Given this, how will you be able to accept that an Orthodox brother or sister seeking unity with our Church will, in all likelihood, continue to recite the Creed sans filioque when I, who am already a Catholic, do not recite it either?

Please, PLEASE remember, my friends - we’re seeking unity, not uniformity.

a pilgrim
 
40.png
FightingFat:
It’s the thing I struggle with most I think…I suppose discension is human, but why would God allow such confusion?
Frustrating!!
I suppose it is all related to the concept of freewill. God does not force us to follow his will and obey his commands, but wants us to make the decision on our own accord.
 
RSiscoe said:
4Marks,

You seem to have a different idea of unity than myself. I’m curious, what do you think of John Paul II’s form of ecumenism? In your opinion, is he seeking the type of unity you desire, or is he seeking the kind of unity I desire, which is that that all non-Catholics must return to the Roman Catholic Church “outside of which is not salvation”.

This is not a sarcastic post, I am really serious. Do you read many of the writings of John Paul II. If so, is that where you are getting your view of unity.

I am also curious what you think of this encyclical, which was written in 1928 (not too long ago).

dailycatholic.org/mortaliu.htm

Thank you…

I read the Bible which is God’s word. While I respect the teachings and opinions of theologians and leaders such as Popes, I do not embrace them as the word of God. The Scriptures have the final say over all else for this evangelical Protestant/Catholic Christian.
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
Why not? For a Catholic, that should be the final aim, though it may take centuries to see it grow and bear fruit. One cannot deny that the Church, after all is said and done, after all the lofty phrases about Christian ecumenism and dialogue has died down, is still primarily tasked to evangelize, which should never be sacrificed, nor watered down nor abandoned, for the sake of some “unity”.

Gerry 🙂
I consider myself to be both a Catholic and an evangelical Protestant Christian. When I evangelize, I share Jesus with others. I tell them about a personal/communal relationship they can have with the Risen Lord. I invite them to accept Jesus as their personal/communal Lord and Savior. I encourage them to read and study the scriptures.
 
This relationship amongst our own Catholic Churches has been referred to as “unity without uniformity” Unity, in this case, does not necessarily imply “doing things the same way.” It means sharing our core Catholic beliefs within the context of our own liturgical traditions… it means not merely tolerating
our differences, but actually relishing them as an example of the true universal nature of our Church… it means abandoning the mindset that “my way is the only way to be a Catholic.”

I’ve noted that more than one response in this thread has referred to the thought that Roman Catholicism and its rites and traditions would be the only acceptable end toward unification efforts.

It is called Roman Catholicism because Rome is the principal See that unites the various Rites of the Church – it is the center and heart of the Church. You may be confusing Roman Catholicism with “Roman Rite Catholicism”. The Roman Catholic Church consists of the Roman Rite and other Rites in union with Rome.
My friends, if we cannot accept and relish in the diversity already present within our Catholic Church,
how can we ever hope to enjoy unity with any of our separated brethren?

If and when unity occurs, it will mean the expanding of the rich liturgical fabric of our Church, not the narrowing down of it to one set of rules and forms of theological expression - it will mean unity without uniformity.

Please, PLEASE remember, my friends - we’re seeking unity, not uniformity.

a pilgrim

Let me explain the very serious and deadly flaw in your reasoning: The Catholic faith is the revelation of God to mankind. Certain doctrines contained in this revelation have been defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas which all must submit to. If anyone, or any group, does not accept these dogmas, which have been revealed by God through the Church, they are heretics, and have excommunicted themselves by rejecting a truth revealed by God.

You seem to be confusing the various Rites of the Church, which have certain slightly differing practices, but who all accept the dogmas of the faith, with Protestants and other heretics who reject infallible dogmas that have been revealed by God. You seem to be saying that, just as the Church embraces small variations between practice in the various Rites, so too should the Church embrace the heresy of heretics who reject the truth God has revealed. That is a completely false conclusion.

Read the encyclical I linked to in post #13. If you are truly a Catholic, you will submit your entire intellect and will to what that encyclical says, since it forms part of the magesterium of the Church.
 
4 marks:
If unity means that all Christians should re-vert and become Roman Catholics, then a definite “NO!!!” If unity means that all Christians should unite around points of agreement and work together, and not against one another, then a definite “YES!!!”
.
4 Marks,

If I would have known you were a Protestant I would not have answered you the way I did.

Actually, what you wrote above IS what Catholics believe. The “points of agreement” that you mentioned, are what we call dogmas of the faith. The problem with us uniting with non-Catholics is that they reject the dogmas of our faith. We cannot set aside what we believe to have been revealed by God, for the appearance of “unity”. That would be like you setting asside your belief in the Divinity of Jesus to unite with the Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. That would be to chose unity over the truth.

Unity is good, but not at the expense of truth. I do not want to be united with a person who denies that Jesus is God. If they convert and accept that teaching, then we can have unity. Similarly, I do not want to be united with those who reject any dogma of the Catholic Faith, because those dogmas - or “points of agreement” - have been revealed by God as true. If someone choses to reject any of those dogmas I do not want to be united to them, since they have rejected God.
 
40.png
Curious:
I would love that. But it won’t happen.
Hi Curious,I disagree, There will be a day when this earth is occupied with christians only. I dont know when but it will. 😉 God Bless. P/S I understand you want to join us for some tea. That would be great. Dont forget to bring the crumpets. 😃
 
When I said YES I desire Christians to reunite, I wasn’t meaning to water down the truth of our Faith to create a false ecumenism, but I desire all Christians to unite in Heart and Mind, meaning everyone will come to know and accept the truths of the Holy Eucharist, and our Mother Mary, and all of the other Sacraments that Jesus Christ Instituted! That is unity to me, when everyone will be brought to the fullness of the Truth and we will worship together around one Single Tabernacle, with love filled in our Hearts. There are Catholics inside the church who I would say are divided from the Church.

When this happens, this reuniting of Christians, it will be a great Miracle and it will happen, because Our Lord Desires it to. ANd the two keys to reunite are Humility and Love, without that there will be no uniting, until we all die to our egos and lower our heads so Christ’s can be seen, and that means all churches have to go through an unceasing repentance and in this repentance will bring reconcilation and love!

May this day come Soon!
Kaily
 
40.png
Kaily:
When I said YES I desire Christians to reunite, I wasn’t meaning to water down the truth of our Faith to create a false ecumenism, but I desire all Christians to unite in Heart and Mind, meaning everyone will come to know and accept the truths of the Holy Eucharist, and our Mother Mary, and all of the other Sacraments that Jesus Christ Instituted! That is unity to me, when everyone will be brought to the fullness of the Truth and we will worship together around one Single Tabernacle, with love filled in our Hearts. There are Catholics inside the church who I would say are divided from the Church.

When this happens, this reuniting of Christians, it will be a great Miracle and it will happen, because Our Lord Desires it to. ANd the two keys to reunite are Humility and Love, without that there will be no uniting, until we all die to our egos and lower our heads so Christ’s can be seen, and that means all churches have to go through an unceasing repentance and in this repentance will bring reconcilation and love!

May this day come Soon!
Kaily
** AMEN**
 
2 Corinthians 6:14-16:
14 Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For** what participation hath justice with injustice?** Or** what fellowship hath light with darkness?** 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: 18 And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Is the Faith being put into obscurity by Ecumenism for the sake of a worldly “unity”?
In 26 years, has JPII issued an encyclical on the need to convert to the Catholic Church? Like popes before who had similar longevity?
If he has not then I propose that he has put the Faith into obscurity for mere human social unity.
World wide human unity can ONLY take place under a common and compeling Authority. IT will either be the Kingship of Christ, or a manmade World Government. There is no other choice. NO such unity would EVER be secularly spontaneous in the Human race, and never has been. If the world rejects one it will necessarily receive the other.
1 John 5: 43 I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.
So, when has JPII issued an encyclical on the absolute need for the Reign of Christ the King for unity to succeed?
Has he mentioned it to the Jews, Muslims, Hindus? Maybe at Assisi on 2 occasions?
Has he praised the Kingship of Christ in a way similar or superior to his praises of the UN? (Belial, 20th century style)
SOMEONE must know where he has issued such an encyclical without ambivolence, obscurity or ambiguity. Let us here from you, please.
JPII needs some specific encyclical defenders on this Forum.
 
RSiscoe said:
4 Marks,

If I would have known you were a Protestant I would not have answered you the way I did.

Actually, what you wrote above IS what Catholics believe. The “points of agreement” that you mentioned, are what we call dogmas of the faith. The problem with us uniting with non-Catholics is that they reject the dogmas of our faith. We cannot set aside what we believe to have been revealed by God, for the appearance of “unity”. That would be like you setting asside your belief in the Divinity of Jesus to unite with the Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. That would be to chose unity over the truth.

Unity is good, but not at the expense of truth. I do not want to be united with a person who denies that Jesus is God. If they convert and accept that teaching, then we can have unity. Similarly, I do not want to be united with those who reject any dogma of the Catholic Faith, because those dogmas - or “points of agreement” - have been revealed by God as true. If someone choses to reject any of those dogmas I do not want to be united to them, since they have rejected God.

That’s why a respectful diversity, rather than a strict unity is called for. When I speak of unity, I don’t speak of it strictly. I do not want protestants to convert and become Roman Catholics, nor do I desire Roman Catholics to convert and become protestants.

I regularly attend a Catholic church, but I have not officially joined the parish. In fact, I really don’t want to. My wife and I choose to remain generic Christians. We are not anti-Catholic. We are not anti-Protestant. For that matter, I am also not anti-Mormon or anti-JW. I know that neither is considered orthodox by mainstream Christians, but I respect these people. My brother is a JW elder. He and his family are very happy in that religion. More power to them.
 
Hi, Rsiscoe!

I appreciate your response to my post! If I may, let me respond to some of the points that you’ve attempted to make:
It is called Roman Catholicism because Rome is the principal See that unites the various Rites of the Church – it is the center and heart of the Church.
Our faith is oficially called “Catholicism,” not “Roman Catholicism.” The adjective “Roman” is only appropriate when referring to the practices of the Church of the West. As I said in my post, there are also 22 Churches of the East, each one in full communion with the See of Peter, for which the term “Roman” does not apply. To imply that all Catholics must be Roman Catholics is simply untrue.
The Roman Catholic Church consists of the Roman Rite and other Rites in union with Rome.
Again, this is incorrect. A more accurate rewording of this statement would be “The Catholic Church consists of the Roman, or Latin, Catholic Church and 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome.” Please note that I specifically use the word “Church” as opposed to the word “Rite.” The word “rite” refers to the individual liturgical tradition by which each of the 23 Catholic Churches express their faith. While many of these Churches may share a common “rite,” each is a distinct “Church” in union with the See of Peter.
Let me explain the very serious and deadly flaw in your reasoning: The Catholic faith is the revelation of God to mankind. Certain doctrines contained in this revelation have been defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas which all must submit to. If anyone, or any group, does not accept these dogmas, which have been revealed by God through the Church, they are heretics, and have excommunicted themselves by rejecting a truth revealed by God.
I humbly ask that you re-read my post. No where within it do I propose the watering down or outright abandonment of the dogmas of our Church. Quite the contrary! Our Church is already an example of how we, as Catholics, can be wholly faithful to these dogmas, yet express our faith in differing ways. The very point of my post that you may have missed is that there is not one fixed way in which to express a given dogmatic belief. Many who would seek unity may wish to continue to express their beliefs and acceptance of the Church’s dogmas in a format that is consistant with their own liturgical heritage - to force them to abandon their own expression of the same dogma in favor of a more “Roman” expression is wrong. This very point was confirmed by our Holy Father, John Paul II, in his encyclical Orientale Lumen (1995).

(continued)
 
You seem to be confusing the various Rites of the Church, which have certain slightly differing practices, but who all accept the dogmas of the faith, with Protestants and other heretics who reject infallible dogmas that have been revealed by God. You seem to be saying that, just as the Church embraces small variations between practice in the various Rites, so too should the Church embrace the heresy of heretics who reject the truth God has revealed.
I am frankly at a loss to understand how you could possibly infer anything remotely akin to what you are saying from the words of my post. I again ask you to re-read what I’ve written. Note carefully that my references were to terms like “liturgical fabric” and “forms of theological expression.” To stretch my words to the point of suggesting that I espouse that the Church “embrace the heresy of heretics who reject the truth God has revealed” is, quite honestly, insulting, irresponsible and inflammatory.
Read the encyclical I linked to in post #13.
Thank you for the link. As I am currently at work, I cannot read it now. I did, however, print it out and will read it this evening. In return, I ask that you read this one…

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

…to better understand what I am saying.
If you are truly a Catholic…
I assure you that I am, indeed, a Catholic… every bit as Catholic as you. You and all Catholics, Roman or otherwise, are absolutely free to partake of the Sacraments (Holy Mysteries, as we refer to them) in my Church, just as I am free to partake of them in yours, with absloutely no risk at all to the welfare of your eternal soul! I accept the same dogmas of faith as do you. I accept John Paul II as the successor of Peter and the pastoral shepherd of all Catholics, myself included. I am not, however, a Roman Catholic; I am a Byzantine Catholic, and I express my faith and beliefs… OUR faith and beliefs… in the tradition of my Byzantine heritage. The Catholic Church is much, MUCH more than just the Roman Catholic Church!

The riches of the liturgical traditions that my Church brings to our Holy Catholic Church are the same sort of riches that other of our separated brethren may very well bring, should they seek unity with us. To suggest that they abandon their liturgical heritage in favor of a more “Roman” perspective as a condition of unity will do nothing but perpetuate the disunity that we are currently plagued with.

a pilgrim
 
a pilgrim:
I am frankly at a loss to understand how you could possibly infer anything remotely akin to what you are saying from the words of my post. I again ask you to re-read what I’ve written. Note carefully that my references were to terms like “liturgical fabric” and “forms of theological expression.” To stretch my words to the point of suggesting that I espouse that the Church “embrace the heresy of heretics who reject the truth God has revealed” is, quite honestly, insulting, irresponsible and inflammatory.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. It sounded as if you were saying we needed more diversity in order to unite with the Protestants.

Glad to hear that is not what you meant.

God Bless,
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
It is called Roman Catholicism because Rome is the principal See that unites the various Rites of the Church – it is the center and heart of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church consists of the Roman Rite and other Rites in union with Rome.
a pilgrim:
"Our faith is oficially called “Catholicism,” not “Roman Catholicism.” The adjective “Roman” is only appropriate when referring to the practices of the Church of the West. As I said in my post, there are also 22 Churches of the East, each one in full communion with the See of Peter, for which the term “Roman” does not apply. To imply that all Catholics must be Roman Catholics is simply untrue… I accept John Paul II as the successor of Peter and the pastoral shepherd of all Catholics, myself included. I am not, however, a Roman Catholic; I am a Byzantine Catholic,
You sounded so certain that I had to double check to make sure I wasn’t mistake. I will give a few definitions, taken from all of the sources I have at my house. :

Webster’s Dictionary: Roman Catholic Church: “the Christian church of which the pope, or bishop of Rome, is the supreme head”.

Webster’s Dictionary: Roman Catholocism: “the fiath, practice, and system of government of the Roman Catholic Church”.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John Hardin, S.J.: Roman Catholicism: “The faith, worship, and practice of all Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome, who they acknowledge as the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church founded by Christ. The term ‘Roman Church’ and ‘Roman Catholic Church’ date from at least the early Middle Ages, but the stress on these terms became prominent after the Protestant Reformation. The reason was to emphasize the distinctive quality of being not only a Christian, because baptized, but of being a Catholic, because in communion with the Pope”.

Every source I looked up agreed with what I wrote; and I found none that agreed with you. Roman Catholic simply refers to all Catholics of whatever Rite, that are in union with Rome. So, if you “accept John Paul II as the Pope” as you said, then, like it or not, you are a Roman Catholic.
 
Here is what St Paul says about the Roman (catholic) Church:
I paraphrase from the Epistle to the Romans:
  1. that the Roman Church’s faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world;
  2. that the Roman Church is filled with all knowledge;
  3. that she is respected and saluted by all local churches of Christ;
  4. that her obedience to the faith is known to all;
  5. that under the feet of the Church of Rome God will crush Satan;
  6. that the Roman Church is the apostolic center for the world-wide (i.e., Catholic) Church.
  7. that it is from the Rome Church where the Gospel reached the ends of the earth.
    Ergo, The Roman Catholic Church is Biblical.
    For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
    Besides, high-church Anglicans on this forum call themselves “catholic” all the time…but never Roman Catholic.
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
Every source I looked up agreed with what I wrote; and I found none that agreed with you. Roman Catholic simply refers to all Catholics of whatever Rite, that are in union with Rome. So, if you “accept John Paul II as the Pope” as you said, then, like it or not, you are a Roman Catholic.
No, my friend, I am not. This from EWTN…
Many Roman Catholics are barely aware of the presence in their midst of Catholics who are not of the Latin or Roman liturgical tradition. These Catholics constitute a small percentage of the 1 billion Catholics in the world, which accounts for their relative anonymity. However, such Eastern Catholics are a vibrant part of the Church and represent the ancient traditions of the Christian East which were largely lost to the Catholic Church in 1054 AD. In that unfortunate year Eastern Orthodox Christians, in the person of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Latin Christians, in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, broke their ecclesiastical communion. With the exception of Maronite Catholics, Eastern Catholics are Christians who at some point in history returned to communion with the Holy See from the traditions and Churches of the East. They are thus usually identified along national or ethnic lines, as are the Eastern Churches from which they came. (see FAQ “Catholic Rites and Churches”) As bridges to the Christian East not in communion with Rome, the Church places great value on the ecumenical role which Eastern Catholics can play. The Second Vatican Council, the ecumenical documents of the Holy See, and the writings of the Holy Father, call on Eastern Catholics to preserve their own traditions, both for their own sake and for the ecumenical value they represent in relations with the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches. The Holy See has also taken care to speak clearly of the status of Eastern Catholics, preserving both their freedom of governance and their necessary submission to the supreme authority of the Apostolic See.

Churches. Every Catholic belongs to a specific ritual Catholic Church, with an identifiable hierarchy, at the head of which is usually a Patriarch. Membership is accomplished at the time of baptism. According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Pope John Paul II, 1990) canon 27, A group of faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris (of its own right) is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.
One can thus speak of the Roman or Latin Church. It has a hierarchy, its own mechanisms of governance under the Patriarch of the West, laws set out in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and is ultimately subject to the Supreme Pontiff, who in this case is also Patriarch. Likewise, one can speak of an Eastern Catholic Church, such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which has an identifiable hierarchy under the Patriarch of Lvov, Ukraine, is governed by its own law, under the aforementioned Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches,and is ultimately subject to the Supreme Pontiff*, *as every Catholic Church is (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canons 43-48). Thus, when speaking of Eastern Catholics it is correct to speak of them as belonging to Eastern Catholic Churches, and as individuals to specific Eastern Catholic Churches.
(continued)
 
Please read what I’ve cut and pasted, especially the last paragraph. In the example cited in this paragraph, reference is made to the Ukranian Catholic Church (NOT the Ukranian Roman Catholic Church)… this same nomenclature can and should be applied to my Church sui iuris, the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. And, yes, I do accept John Paul II as Pope. In his role as Supreme Pontiff, he is the pastoral shepherd of all of us Catholics, regardless of which of the 23 Churches sui iuris we belong to. He is not, however, my patriarch, as he is yours (I assume you are a member of the Latin Church). In addition to his role as Pope, JPII also serves as Patriarch of the West; my Church, my CATHOLIC Church, is one of the 22 Churches of the East.

FYI - Here’s the link the above article is taken from…

ewtn.com/expert/answers/churches_rites_or_sisters.htm

You are certainly free, my friend, to call yourself whatever you wish, and as a member of the Latin Church, I do not deny that the term Roman Catholic is applicable in your case. Speaking for myself and my Eastern Catholic brethren, however, I respectfully ask that you stop trying to force the term “Roman” onto our Catholicism, and that you refer to us by the proper name(s) that our Holy Mother Church has approved of and requested be used.

a pilgrim%between%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top