What Really Caused the Reformation?

[Contarini]

This is excessive. It is another rabbit chase. I have provided ample links to credible sources.

The CE is a credible source to you, because you are, to put it politely, a fervent, zealous, and old-fashioned Catholic. I do not consider it a credible source on Protestantism, or indeed on anything other than Catholic theology up to the beginning of the 20th century (it’s an excellent source for that). I find it interesting that you mock me for allegedly saying that you should accept my word at face value (though actually I said the opposite), and then you expect me to take the CE’s vague generalizations as gospel truth (they don’t even say quite what you claim they say, but that’s not the main point).

I suggest you start with those. And frankly, Mr Contarini, I am bowled over that you who rarely substantiate your claims and rarely post links are coming down on me who is – if anything – a frequent linker.

This is truly hilarious. You think that the credibility of an argument depends on how many links you provide? I’m happy to give you the Frequent Linker of the Year award, but that doesn’t make any of your claims correct.

If you would like others to provide examples for you,

When you make a generalization, you should be able to point to at least one example to support it, sure. Or the source you cite should do so. Otherwise your claim means absolutely nothing.

then perhaps you would provide us with an ongoing model of what those examples should look like.

They should look like examples of the generalization you made. Since you said Catholics were forcibly converted to Protestantism under pain of death, you need to provide at least one example of a Catholic who was told he or she would be executed if he or she did not become a Protestant. Otherwise your claim is false and the only honorable thing for you to do is to retract it humbly and try to be more respectful of the truth in future.

The links are there. Please be kind enough to read them. The rest is a rabbit chase and has little to do with the points I wished to make.

I don’t care about the points you wished to make. I know what the point you wish to make is–Protestantism Bad, Catholicism Good. Anything that doesn’t point in that direction is, in your view, a “red herring.”

I care about the truth. You made claims you cannot support, and you refuse to be honest about the fact.

Edwin

 

[Dulcimer]

Contarini, responding to Ani Ibi, with my running commentary…because I CAN! (Really, because I’m in agreement…)

…because you are, to put it politely, a fervent, zealous, and old-fashioned Catholic…

Yes, he certainly gives that impression to me…

When you make a generalization, you should be able to point to at least one example to support it, sure. Or the source you cite should do so. Otherwise your claim means absolutely nothing.

Correct, correct, correct!

…the point you wish to make is–Protestantism Bad, Catholicism Good…

This is partly why I’m having difficulty with Catholicism. (And I should note that whenever I’ve heard “Catholicism bad–Protestantism good” I had the same reaction…Any generalization about any people group raises my suspicions.

I care about the truth. You made claims you cannot support, and you refuse to be honest about the fact.

I care about truth too. Let’s see if we cannot all find it together!

 

[Dulcimer]

Contarini, again to Ani Ibi:

Asking you to give one single example to support your generalizations is not a red herring. It’s perfectly reasonable, and your failure to do so demonstrates that you have nothing substantive to offer. All you can do is bluster. You can’t name one Catholic who was forcibly converted to Protestantism under threat of death. You can’t even give a specific example of confiscation of [private] property, though I haven’t denied that this may have happened. I have asked you three times now. You made this claim–you need to support it.

We’re waiting for one example, AI…

 

[qui_est_ce]

because you are, to put it politely, a fervent, zealous, and old-fashioned Catholic.

This is a compliment, but I won’t presume the meaning intended by you

I don’t care about the points you wished to make. I know what the point you wish to make is–Protestantism Bad, Catholicism Good.

Check out the MANY times Catholics have been accused of not being allowed to read Revelation or the Bible. I have been in “non denominational” Bbile studies, and been told that I am going to Hell because I am Catholic. I was also told that Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible (in Bible Study!!) My misinformed fellow Bible studiers knew more about the CC than I did (or so they thought). In truth, throughout 2,000 years, the CC has included Scripture in all her daily and Sunday masses. Only the educated could read, so the HCC church READS Sacred Scripture to the faithful every single day, for over 2,000 years. You must be honest, Contarini, that Catholics have been accused of being ignorant of the Bible ever since the Reformation. This is simply not true. That is why we so adamantly defend our stance.

You made claims you cannot support, and you refuse to be honest about the fact.

Al cares about the truth, the links he provides support his claims. You do not accept Al’s sources as credible.

What is happening here is a lawyer battle where winning arguments is more important than finding truth. It is a battle of which sources you are willing to accept. Read the Church Fathers. You will find that transubstantian and other Catholic practices were in effect since the at LEAST the 4th century AD. The Miracle of the Eucharist at Lanciano in the 8th century is proof of this. Even if you want to believe the miracle is just a legend, it shows that the Christians of that time believed in Transubstantian. (by the way, these elements can be viewed today), see therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
I won’t provide any more links, they are too many and would make this post tedious. You can find them in Googling or even in this forum, ask an aplogist. These fellows are very well informed. Many of them are from Protestant backgrounds, some even pastors in their Protestant church before coming home to Rome, ref Dr. Scott Hahn.

 

[Contarini]

This is partly why I’m having difficulty with Catholicism.

Well, don’t be put off by the well-intentioned but over-zealous folks on this board. Most of them are quite far toward one end of the Catholic spectrum. They do not represent Catholicism as a whole.

Have you read Fr. Louis Bouyer’s The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism? For a thoughtful, respectful Catholic critique of Protestantism, I think that’s the best place to start (Bouyer was a Lutheran pastor, I believe, before converting to Catholicism).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Check out the MANY times Catholics have been accused of not being allowed to read Revelation or the Bible.

But that’s irrelevant. I defend Catholics when they are unfairly attacked. People on this board who have known me for a while will testify to that. The fact that Protestants make unfair accusations against Catholics does not justify Catholics in doing the same thing. My calling is to teach people about church history, and part of that involves refuting misrepresentations of history, no matter who engages in them.

Al cares about the truth, the links he provides support his claims.

No, they don’t, first of all because they don’t say precisely what he claims, and secondly because they don’t provide substantiation for their vague generalizations (speaking of the CE here–the problem with his use of the Canadian Jewish publication is a bit different).

You do not accept Al’s sources as credible.

I am reluctant to accept any source’s generalizations without supporting examples and documentation. But if I were going to accept some such source, it would be a contemporary work by an expert in the subject, not a polemical article in a confessional publication nearly a hundred years old (doesn’t matter whether Catholic or Protestant–I’d actually accept the CE before equivalent Protestant publications of that era). But even in the case of a contemporary work, I’d look at bias. For instance, Diarmaid MacCulloch is the author of a recent general history of the Reformation. I’d trust him as soon as anyone about the basic facts of the Reformation. But when it comes to complex theological ideas, I’d want to verify his claims for myself, and on the whole he has a Protestant bias (though he’s no longer a Christian of any sort), so I certainly wouldn’t trust generalizations about Catholic theology (one poster on this board caught him making a mistake about Purgatory, I believe). I’d trust the CE for that (for official Catholic theology, that is).

What is happening here is a lawyer battle where winning arguments is more important than finding truth.

That may be what AI is doing. It’s not what I am doing. I saw a post that seriously misrepresented history and I called him on it. If he comes up with examples of forcible conversion (whatever that might mean in the context of early Lutheran state churches!), I’ll feel embarrassed, but I’ll be happy that I’ve learned something. This has happened to me before. It’s how I learn.

It is a battle of which sources you are willing to accept. Read the Church Fathers.

I fail to see how any of the rest of what you post is relevant. For what it’s worth, I agree that a “metabolic” view of the Eucharist (essentially transubstantiation without the Aristotelian terminology) was the norm from the fourth century on, although rather different “sign-signified” language was also used without anyone in the Western Church apparently perceiving a conflict until the Carolingian era.

The problem with having a decent discussion of church history on this board is that many of you see everything as a global battle for the credibility of Catholicism. So if I criticize a Catholic poster for making untenable historical claims, suddenly I’m being hit with arguments about the patristic support for a metabolic view of the Eucharist–something I find both (mostly) uncontroversial and (wholly) irrelevant to the matter at hand!

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Contarini, again to Ani Ibi:

We’re waiting for one example, AI…

n

Well lets see:

St thomas Moore and St jJhn Fisher were both executed for NOT converting to protestanism. Thousand more English changed their faith to avoid this fate. the idea that not one protestant was forced to convert from catholicism is specious

 

[po18guy]

I can’t add much, except to say that the body of satan is unified, while the Body of Christ is shattered into 29,000+ pieces (Protestant denominations). Is it any wonder why evil reigns in this world?

Let’s pray over it.

 

[Contarini]

n

Well lets see:

St thomas Moore and St jJhn Fisher were both executed for NOT converting to protestanism.

You missed the context. I specifically said “Lutheranism.” Ani Ibi was speaking about Luther and the state churches that followed his teachings. I am aware that this happened in England. I am unaware of anything of the sort happening in Lutheran territories.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Beware of the use of ‘but’ in a sentence, Mr Contarini. ‘But’ operates to negate the clause which precedes it.

No, it doesn’t. That’s really all that can be said.

If I say to someone who offers me a meal: This meal is very tasty, but I had a big lunch and am not very hungry, I am not denying that the meal is tasty. I am explaining to my host why I am acting in a way that might indicate that I don’t think the meal is tasty.

Strawman. Who says I have to prove that Luther’s attitude to the Jews was new and different?

Anyone acquainted with historical methodology. If his attitude was simply part of the Christian tradition of anti-Judaism, then you have no case that Luther bears some special responsibility.

I made no claim *vis *‘new and different’

Then why single Luther out?

I posted information to raise the possibility in some folks’ eyes that the Reformation was not all about good Luther against bad Church.

I entirely agree with you. But you would serve your admirable purpose better if you posted accurate information, and if you had not quoted MLK to say that “the ends are inherent in the means” (I tend to agree, by the way, which is one reason I’m not a Catholic–I think all churches are sinful and we should all repent rather than claiming any kind of perfection). That reasonably implied that you thought Luther’s behavior discredits Protestantism. If his attitudes and behavior were also characteristic of Catholicism, then Catholicism is equally discredited and you have no case. If you were simply saying that Protestantism has its flaws too, then your use of the MLK quote makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Red herring. The point being whether or not Hitler had an anti-Catholic bias?

No–I’m just trying to establish credibility.

And if Luther had not written his anti-Jewish propaganda, what would Hitler have latched on to then? Charlie Chaplin?

continued…

He would have latched onto the Catholic tradition of anti-Judaism, as in fact he did as well.

Had Luther broken with the anti-Jewish tradition, Hitler’s job would indeed have been much harder.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In your opinion. And Hitler’s ideology would have taken root just as easily, had the Reformation never happened? Is that what you are suggesting?

I think Hitler’s anti-Jewish propaganda would have found equally receptive hearers, yes. Other aspects of Hitler’s ideology–particularly the exaltation of the State–would not have taken root as easily, I believe, although Nazism got its start in Catholic Bavaria, and Croatia saw an equally vicious fascist movement heavily involved with Catholicism, so perhaps I’m giving Catholicism too much credit there.

The importance of Luther is that if Luther had not so prominently and viciously reiterated the tradition, it might have been harder for Hitler to get Protestants on board. There Luther does bear a huge responsibility. If that’s all you are saying, we agree.

Edwin

 

[Axion]

You missed the context. I specifically said “Lutheranism.” Ani Ibi was speaking about Luther and the state churches that followed his teachings. I am aware that this happened in England. I am unaware of anything of the sort happening in Lutheran territories.

Edwin

You do realise that in Lutheran territories the Catholic churches were seized and the Catholic Mass was forbidden by state power?

I know that in most Calvinist countries the Mass was forbidden on pain of death. In Lutheran countries was it different?

 

[Contarini]

Occam’s Razor, my friend. And a big red herring.

You know, using terms like this has no weight at all. If it’s fun for you, keep on doing it. But don’t delude yourself that you are accomplishing something by throwing this language around.

You are attempting to detour attention from the fact that Luther wrote that nasty little tract against the Jews

I have no desire to do so.

by unilaterally ‘assigning’ me a rabbit chase on the entire background of attitudes to the Jews.

Nothing can be rightly understood out of context. By mentioning Luther alone, you imply that he was somehow different from his contemporaries in this respect. If all you mean is that he shared the prejudices of sixteenth-century Christians generally, you should word it that way to avoid confusion.

What would finding the entire background of attitudes prove?

That Luther was a fairly normal sixteenth-century Christian in that respect, remarkable only because he was very influential, expressed himself vehemently, and broke with the Catholic tradition in other respects.

Um, Luther was a monk, wasn’t he?

A friar, technically. See Cohen again–the friars (not Luther’s order so much, admittedly) were movers and shakers in the development of a harsher anti-Judaism in the later Middle Ages.

Was he not supposedly a man of God? Was he not supposedly a very educated man, a Biblical scholar in fact?

He was a Doctor of Theology, sure.

So brilliant that he rose rapidly in the ranks of the Church until the Wittenburg Plague saw him go over the edge?

I think this “Wittenburg Plague” (the 1516 plague, I assume?) business is being grossly exaggerated by you and some of your friends for polemical purposes. I know of no evidence that this played some huge role in Luther’s psychology (as it did for Zwingli).

So let’s say that posting the 99 theses took integrity and courage of purpose . Why would that integrity and courage of purpose stop at the gates of the Jewish ghettos?

Why are most people imperfect? It’s a silly question. You could apply to other people–why did St. John Chrysostom say nasty things about the Jews, for instance? Or St. Bernardine of Siena? I am not claiming that Luther was perfect or even that he was particularly holy. I have very mixed feelings about the man. I’m just contending for historical accuracy and for an attention to context.

However, the business about Luther’s education really is a red herring. Educated people were by no means free from anti-Jewish prejudice.

In fact, if you read on in the linked material I have provided, you will find that Luther tried to convert the Jews to the new religion but they wouldn’t budge.

I am quite aware that he hoped they would come around once he “purified” Christianity. (By the way, for the general subject I recommend Heiko Oberman’s The Roots of Antisemitism–he actually debunks the claim that Luther was benevolent toward the Jews early on, arguing that there is quite a bit of continuity between his earlier and later attitudes.)

It was then that he unleashed a rage and a persecution on them so disproportionate as to stagger the imagination.

Disproportionate to what? And just how did Luther “unleash a persecution” (other than by providing Hitler with handy propaganda material 400 years later)? Luther wasn’t a government official. Just what government actions resulted from Luther’s writing in his own day?

And no, this is not a red herring. These are all relevant questions–if Luther simply shot his mouth off and confirmed people’s existing attitudes about the Jews, this is reprehensible but not as significant as your language implies (he didn’t “unleash” a persecution). Martin Bucer, about whom I wrote my dissertation, did in fact advise Philip of Hesse to implement harsh policies against the Jews in his dominions, and I believe some of these policies were implemented. Bucer did not use Luther’s vicious language, but in practical terms in his own day he probably made more of a difference in terms of harsher treatment of the Jews.

Red herring. Nice try though. I had only to go as far as Luther and his friends.

Then your claims lack all credibility, because you are simply selecting the material that proves your point. There’s no reason anyone should listen to you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Red herring. Please, Mr Contarini, can you refrain from this flagrant condescension for a bit? Can you not give it a rest? There are very educated folks on this forum, Sir. Not everyone is lacking in the literary graces.

I apologize–I did not intend to sound condescending. However, it is not a red herring–it is what you asked for.

Are you suggesting that Luther used ‘literary allusions’ in publishing his pamphlets?

No, just giving you what you asked for–evidence that this style of expression was typical of the period (admittedly, Rabelais and Luther are the two giants in terms of scatological rhetoric).

You are the one who asked “how Renaissance is that?” And the answer is “very Renaissance indeed.” Rabelais is one of the greatest prose writers of the Renaissance. It was a literary style (though it certainly fit both men’s personalities as well!). Another good source is Heiko Oberman’s article “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old’ Luther,” Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988) : 435-450. In looking for the precise reference for this, I found a worthile Internet article that summarizes scholarship on the subject (and from which it appears that I was mistaken in saying that Luther didn’t repeat the “blood libel” in “On Jews and Their Lies”–he said that the "history books" report that Jews have killed Christian children, and that even if they aren’t true the Jews are capable of doing that kind of thing!).

In summary, you keep making statements that imply context (“how Renaissance is that?”) and then when I call attention to the context, you accuse me of a “red herring.” This will not work.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[johnshelby]

Luther was not the father of the Prostestant movement…

the 95 thesis was nailed to the door in 1517…

John Wycliffe, the “Morning Star of the Reformation” and the Lollards were around in the 1380’s… and they produced dozens
of english language ‘manuscripts’ of the bible…

John Hus was burned at the stake in 1415… Wycliffe bibles were
supposedly used to start his fire… it’s also said, his last words
were, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.”…

and yes, i know the difference between reform and separation…
but, the beginnings were 130+ years before Luther made his
contributions to reformation.

as for what caused it, i don’t believe it was Satan’s doing… he
might have cheered it, but it wasn’t a victory for him…

any more than i believe the abuses going on in the Catholic
church were all Satan’s doing…

we do have ‘free will’, and this free will and our own desires
and weaknesses, lead most of us to do the things we do…
Satan can tempt us, but he can’t “make us do it”, regardless
to what Flip Wilson said…

so, we are left with the original question… what really caused
the reformation…

human weakness caused it… just as human weakness caused
the sexual scandals that have hurt the Church so much recently.

but, this weakness and these mistakes or ‘sins’, are only on
the ones who committed them… and the sin of pride for a
reformer, is no more damning than the sin of pride for a good
Catholic, for God can forgive even this… but, the ones who come
after, have no fault…

CC 818
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

CC 819
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

i know all this has probably been said before, BUT… being a
convert, my whole family was, and is, Protestant… so, i love
the faith, and know that my family members that have died,
are in heaven… i also know that my Church, the Catholic
Church, recognizes this fact…

there will never be a right side of this discussion, as we
are all on the same side, even if we don’t know it… or act
like it… and once again, it goes back to human weakness…
and pride…

bless us all…

john

 

[Contarini]

You do realise that in Lutheran territories the Catholic churches were seized and the Catholic Mass was forbidden by state power?

Yes, I do know that. That is in fact what the CE says–Ani Ibi leaps from this to the claim that individual Catholics had their property confiscated.

I know that in most Calvinist countries the Mass was forbidden on pain of death.

I don’t know this. Which Calvinist countries do you have in mind? In the Netherlands the Mass was generally allowed as long as the churches were unobtrusive (according to an article I read some years ago on the subject). Most other territories did not allow the Mass, but I am not sure that the death penalty was affixed to it (speaking of the Continent here, not Britain). I am unaware of Catholic efforts to establish an “underground church” in Germany, though that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I know that St. Francis de Sales is said to have reconverted many people in rural areas in the diocese of Geneva, but I think these areas were controlled by the Catholic duchy of Savoy and not by the city-state of Geneva . I know that Geneva tried to clamp down on people going outside the city for Mass or other Catholic practices (remember that Protestant and Catholic territories formed a complex patchwork throughout Germany and Switzerland–counting Geneva anachronistically as part of Switzerland–and that it was often quite easy to find a Mass within walking distance of a Protestant city). Many German cities, whether Catholic or Protestant, allowed members of the other group to attend church services outside the city, as long as they did so unobtrusively (to avoid riots between large groups of conflicting worshippers, and to preserve the appearance of civic unity).

In Lutheran countries was it different?

Generally Lutheran territories were gentler in their approach than Calvinist ones, but I don’t know the details of the legislation. I would be surprised to learn that anyone on the Continent was executed for attending Mass (bear in mind that this did not happen in England until Elizabeth was excommunicated and Catholics were seen as traitors), but I’ve been surprised before. That is one reason I’m pushing Ani Ibi so hard–I’m genuinely interested to see if any such example turns up.

Edwin

 

[Dulcimer]

Contarini;2513310:

I don’t care about the points you wished to make. I know what the point you wish to make is–Protestantism Bad, Catholicism Good.

Check out the MANY times Catholics have been accused of not being allowed to read Revelation or the Bible. I have been in “non denominational” Bbile studies, and been told that I am going to Hell because I am Catholic. I was also told that Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible (in Bible Study!!) My misinformed fellow Bible studiers knew more about the CC than I did (or so they thought). In truth, throughout 2,000 years, the CC has included Scripture in all her daily and Sunday masses. Only the educated could read, so the HCC church READS Sacred Scripture to the faithful every single day, for over 2,000 years. You must be honest, Contarini, that Catholics have been accused of being ignorant of the Bible ever since the Reformation. This is simply not true. That is why we so adamantly defend our stance.

As a newcomer to this thread, I see a lot of accusations and defensive stances. It is not my intent to applaud one side or the other, as I’m trying to get at the FACTS, not various opinions.

When one side appeals to emotion, fails to support their assertions, etc., I call them on it, because the facts are not being provided, which was the whole point of me asking the question in the first place.

You will find that transubstantian and other Catholic practices were in effect since the at LEAST the 4th century AD. The Miracle of the Eucharist at Lanciano in the 8th century is proof of this. Even if you want to believe the miracle is just a legend, it shows that the Christians of that time believed in Transubstantian. (by the way, these elements can be viewed today), see therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Thank you for providing the link! I will read it.

 

[Contarini]

Luther was not the father of the Prostestant movement…

the 95 thesis was nailed to the door in 1517…

John Wycliffe, the “Morning Star of the Reformation” and the Lollards were around in the 1380’s… and they produced dozens
of english language ‘manuscripts’ of the bible…

John Hus was burned at the stake in 1415… Wycliffe bibles were
supposedly used to start his fire… it’s also said, his last words
were, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.”…

Of course it depends on what you mean by Protestantism. Generally speaking, historians avoid using the term for the pre-16th-century movements, because this obscures how different they were from Luther et al. (Luther himself highlighted one important difference by saying that Wycliffe and Hus had attacked moral abuses but had not seen the basic doctrinal roots of the problem.) The whole “Morning Star of the Reformation” business is 19th-century Protestant triumphalism, in my opinion.

Heiko Oberman edited a helpful volume called *Forerunners of the Reformation, *which includes not only a collection of primary sources but Oberman’s musings on just what it means to be a “forerunner of the Reformation.”

Edwin

 

[qui_est_ce]

I fail to see how any of the rest of what you post is relevant. For what it’s worth, I agree that a “metabolic” view of the Eucharist (essentially transubstantiation without the Aristotelian terminology) was the norm from the fourth century on, although rather different “sign-signified” language was also used without anyone in the Western Church apparently perceiving a conflict until the Carolingian era.

Dulcimer brought up his doubts about transubstantian on this thread. You’re way over my head in the rest of your paragraph. For what it’s worth, it’s all verbiage I don’t need to know in order to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist.

The problem with having a decent discussion of church history on this board is that many of you see everything as a global battle for the credibility of Catholicism. So if I criticize a Catholic poster for making untenable historical claims, suddenly I’m being hit with arguments about the patristic support for a metabolic view of the Eucharist–something I find both (mostly) uncontroversial and (wholly) irrelevant to the matter at hand!

See above for Eucharist. Read Church Fathers (you know, the patristic suppport), for discussion of church history. I would suggest that Catholics see the global battle for the credibility of Catholicism as having already been established in the patrisitic writings, St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine, St. Clement of Rome, St Thomas More, et al. Many of us are studying them. We love to discuss them and affirm our faith through them. I don’t see how one could study the church fathers and not be Catholic, but that’s just me and my limited intelligence

Then remember, you are on a Catholic forum, our monetary donations both direct and indirect are paying for your opportunity to come here and challenge us…

So lighten up you’re our guest!

Edwin