Author Topic: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?  (Read 740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lastdays

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 496
  • Reputation: +68/-120
  • Gender: Male
Theologians can have an erroneous opinion favoring BOD and BOB and still be made Saints and Doctors of the Church as I will hopefully show. The concept of BOB and BOD does not claim to deny of the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. This is primarily why Popes tolerated and even favored this speculation. This is why the idea was not an obstacle to certain theologians being made Saints and Doctors of the Church. For there are two concepts here. First, "the necessity of the Sacrament" (which is de fide) and second, "how the Sacrament can be received". It is this second concept (invisible reception) which pertains to BOB and BOD and which certain theologians and Doctors taught, and certain Popes tolerated or possibly alluded to in a fallible capacity. Some have also distinguished between "necessity of means" and an "absolute necessity of means" in reference to the visible reception of water. I will now give you some supporting examples...


"We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, Denzinger 388 )

A fallible letter.

and...

"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."(The Seven Books of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, Ch 22)

Augustine retracted this opinion later on.

Another example would be Ludwig Ott who on pg. 356 of his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he states...

Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation (De fide)

then he says...

In case of emergency Baptism of water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood (Sent. fidei prox.)

How can he say this, however, after stating that it is "de fide" that Baptism by water is necessary for all men without exception, for salvation? He just stated that water was absolutely necessary for salvation and that it was de fide! He would be condemning himself here!

This is because, in the warped mind of scholastic theologians they are not denying the necessity of water baptism without exception, for salvation. They are merely saying that the Sacrament can be RECEIVED "invisibly". This "replacement" spoken of by Ott, is merely a replacement of the visible Sacrament (water) with the invisible Sacrament. This invisible reception is not considered to be de fide by Ott, however.

But how do they explain this Canon from the Council of Trent?...

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 7)

They merely say that true and natural water is of necessity (as opposed to some other liquid), but not necessary as per the VISIBLE reception of such.

So the Popes who tolerated or supported BOD and BOB and proponents of these errors are mistaken in regards to the reception of the Sacrament (water Baptism), and not its necessity (it seems). The point of doctrine in regards to the invisible reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is still up for debate according to the Popes who tolerated it. It is a distinction which has not yet been postively condemned.

Also, it is important to note, that in regards to BOB and BOD for Catechumens, little changes in the practice of the Church in regards to baptism. The Church has always delayed the administration of water baptism for certain individuals. In case of emergency, water baptism was always supposed to be given. This is because according to theologians who held the false theory of BOD, perfect contrition would also be one of the requirements for salvation in those desiring baptism. The Church does not presume to know who is perfectly contrite and who isn't. I am not making an excuse for BOD, but am merely showing how a given Pope may be inclined to tolerate the false opinion or even teach it fallibly when it applies to Catechumens.

The problem occurs, when holders of this false theory try to figure out exactly how a Catechumen becomes part of the ecclesiastical body of the Catholic Church and one of the faithful. For one, it can't be done with contradicting Catholic teaching. One cannot be part of the soul of the Church without being part of the body. One cannot be saved unless he has remained in the unity of the body (Pope Eugene IV-ex Cathedra). One cannot be on the porch and be in the house (at the same time). One cannot be a Catechumen and be one of the faithful. Catechumens beg for the faith that bestows life everlasting (Trent). They do not have it. They only have human faith (belief), which is required to dispose a person to recieve justification, but does not justify. They recieve it in the Sacrament of Faith (water Baptism). You need to be BORN AGAIN to be justified and attain salvation. BOD does not produce this effect. It does not regenerate. Secondly, once you have devised a way (a doctrine of man) to admit Catechumens into the Church, you potentially open up the same possibility for Pagans, Jews, heretics etc., which is exactly what has happened. This is why we can't make excuses for not fighting against BOB and BOD. Unfortunately, theologians (even Doctors) can err in these matters. Particularly scholastic theologians, doctors and Popes who love to speculate on how things may be possible. Doctors are not infallible. Popes are not infallible in their opinions and inaction.



Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Offline Lastdays

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 496
  • Reputation: +68/-120
  • Gender: Male
Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2017, 02:40:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correction: Where it is said, "For one, it can't be done with contradicting Catholic teaching" it should read, "For one, it can't be done without contradicting Catholic teaching.

    I'm sure you knew that already. ;)
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #2 on: November 12, 2017, 04:02:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The initial post should also answer comments of certain supporters of BOB and BOD that go something along these lines...

    "Name a single saint - if you can, then we'll raise the bar to doctor - who was publicly teaching material heresy in the face of a solemnly declared dogma of the Church? "

    As my initial post pointed out, these theologians made doctors were not teaching heresy in direct opposition to solemnly declared dogma. They accepted the necessity of the Sacrament Baptism. It can certainly be said, however, that they denied dogma implicitly or indirectly, by teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism could be received invisibly. This can happen when one is caught up in speculative theology such as are the scholastics. They introduced a distinction in regards to the reception of the Sacrament which was erroneous. I do not recall a solemnly declared dogma that specifically said that the visible Sacrament of Baptism must be received with no exceptions or that specifically condemned the invisible reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.  Popes allowed the theory of invisible reception since the time of Augustine (at least), even though St. Augustine RETRACTED his own opinion.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #3 on: November 13, 2017, 02:52:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lastdays,


    Quote
    I do not recall a solemnly declared dogma that specifically said that the visible Sacrament of Baptism must be received with no exceptions or that specifically condemned the invisible reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.

    It will be interesting to see how those who agree with you on the absolute necessity of water baptism react to this. Your reading of Canon 2 of Trent is unique to say the least. 

    Quote
    But how do they explain this Canon from the Council of Trent?...

    CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 7)

    They merely say that true and natural water is of necessity (as opposed to some other liquid), but not necessary as per the VISIBLE reception of such.

    So this canon doesn't say that the receipt of water baptism is necessary? I agree with you, but, as I said, that's a unique reading for a "Feeneyite." 

    Are you saying that the water is received "invisibly"?

    Neither St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine nor any post-Tridentine theologian I know of spoke of baptism being received "invisibly." They affirmed that BOD was not a sacrament - the "sacrament" is not received, not visibly nor invisibly, but the grace of the sacrament, for which BOD is said to "substitute."

    The "necessity" of the sacrament is maintained in its necessity for the voto, without which it is impossible. 

    No need to concoct an "invisible" reception. Well, no need for someone not trying to justify Feeneyism as opposed to maintain the necessity of the sacraments. 
     

    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3156
    • Reputation: +3848/-157
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #4 on: November 13, 2017, 02:55:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank God for the Internet.  Who can imagine the sort of havoc that would have ensued if Catholics were left learning only from approved teachers.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13527
    • Reputation: +6985/-1713
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #5 on: November 13, 2017, 05:09:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You need to be BORN AGAIN to be justified and attain salvation. BOD does not produce this effect. It does not regenerate.

    Nobody knows whether BoD can produce this effect.  It's all speculation.  BoD itself is nothing but speculation.  If you posit that it does have regeneration effect, then you don't violate this requirement to be born again.  We've already discussed this on the other thread.  Indeed, to hold that there's a BoD after which temporal punishment remains (as St. Alphonsus does) is an error.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13527
    • Reputation: +6985/-1713
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #6 on: November 13, 2017, 05:14:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The problem occurs, when holders of this false theory try to figure out exactly how a Catechumen becomes part of the ecclesiastical body of the Catholic Church and one of the faithful. For one, it can't be done with contradicting Catholic teaching. One cannot be part of the soul of the Church without being part of the body. One cannot be saved unless he has remained in the unity of the body (Pope Eugene IV-ex Cathedra). One cannot be on the porch and be in the house (at the same time). One cannot be a Catechumen and be one of the faithful. Catechumens beg for the faith that bestows life everlasting (Trent). They do not have it. They only have human faith (belief), which is required to dispose a person to recieve justification, but does not justify.
    ...
    Secondly, once you have devised a way (a doctrine of man) to admit Catechumens into the Church, you potentially open up the same possibility for Pagans, Jews, heretics etc., which is exactly what has happened. This is why we can't make excuses for not fighting against BOB and BOD. Unfortunately, theologians (even Doctors) can err in these matters. Particularly scholastic theologians, doctors and Popes who love to speculate on how things may be possible. Doctors are not infallible. Popes are not infallible in their opinions and inaction.

    Yes, it can be done without contradicting Church teaching.  One way is to say that they are indeed part of the ecclesiastical body, albeit imperfectly, by virtue of their profession of faith and in voto reception of the Sacrament.  And no, you needn't open the door for Pagans, Jews, heretics, etc. to be part of the Church -- since these do not profess the Catholic faith as Catechumens do.

    Your logic is faulty.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13527
    • Reputation: +6985/-1713
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #7 on: November 13, 2017, 05:18:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neither St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine nor any post-Tridentine theologian I know of spoke of baptism being received "invisibly." They affirmed that BOD was not a sacrament - the "sacrament" is not received, not visibly nor invisibly, but the grace of the sacrament, for which BOD is said to "substitute."

    The "necessity" of the sacrament is maintained in its necessity for the voto, without which it is impossible.

    No, to say that the votum subsitutes for the Sacrament is Pelagianism.  It's the Sacrament, and not the votum which must be posited in BoD to be the instrumental cause of justification.  Post-Tridentine theologians spoke of receiving the Sacrament in voto and did not use the term "substitute".  To have a "substitute" immediately undermines Baptism being necessary by necessity of means and would be a grave error.


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #8 on: November 13, 2017, 05:41:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No, to say that the votum subsitutes for the Sacrament is Pelagianism.  It's the Sacrament, and not the votum which must be posited in BoD to be the instrumental cause of justification.  Post-Tridentine theologians spoke of receiving the Sacrament in voto and did not use the term "substitute".  To have a "substitute" immediately undermines Baptism being necessary by necessity of means and would be a grave error.
    Ladislaus,

    That is what I meant: the votum would be impossible without the sacrament. It was the wording. The sacrament is necessary to the votum. 

    As to "substitute," the word is used, only in the sense of something in place of something else: BOD in place of the receipt of water baptism. 

    Here's the CE by way of example:

    Quote
    Substitutes for the sacrament

    The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the gracewhich remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
     
    . . .

    The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect . . . 

    I think St. Alphonsus says something like, "takes the place of," which is the same thing - a substition.  

    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #9 on: November 14, 2017, 02:20:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lastdays,


    It will be interesting to see how those who agree with you on the absolute necessity of water baptism react to this. Your reading of Canon 2 of Trent is unique to say the least.
    Quite frankly this was how it was described to me by most supporters of BOD who I asked. How else do you get around that Canon without contradicting it? Trent also taught that the instrumental cause of justification was the Sacrament of Baptism.

    Quote
    Are you saying that the water is received "invisibly"?
    I'm showing that it was an opinion held within the Church. I'm saying that the Popes who tolerated BOD and BOB probably held that opinion, so as to be able to tolerate BOD.


    Quote
    Neither St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine nor any post-Tridentine theologian I know of spoke of baptism being received "invisibly." They affirmed that BOD was not a sacrament - the "sacrament" is not received, not visibly nor invisibly, but the grace of the sacrament, for which BOD is said to "substitute."
    I don't have every work on the above theologians. They may have mentioned it somewhere. If they are saying that one can receive the grace of the Sacrament without the Sacrament (at all) and they said this explicitly, then they are contradicting dogma and are heretics. Please note that Ludwig Ott also said that Baptism of Water was replaced by desire for it, right after he said that Baptism of Water was neccessary without exception for salvation, and said it was de fide. It certainly can be said that he was saying the Sacrament was not neccessary. He would then, however, be condemning himself. There is simply no way around this. We don't have all the information on every theologian and know exactly what they believed.

    Quote
    The "necessity" of the sacrament is maintained in its necessity for the voto, without which it is impossible.
    Unfortunately desire "voto" is merely a pre-dispostion for the Sacrament. There are other pre-dispositions which also must be present. A mere desire for the sacrament would not even be enough to pre-dispose one to receive the sacrament no less maintain the necessity for it. This is just outright heresy.

    Quote
    No need to concoct an "invisible" reception.
    I didn't concoct anything. I provided examples from a Doctor of the Church and a Pope. I guess you don't know how to read.

    No need to concoct a mere "desire" maintaining the necessity of the sacrament and becoming a heretic in the process.

    Quote
    Well, no need for someone not trying to justify Feeneyism as opposed to maintain the necessity of the sacraments.
    Why would I wan't to justify Feeneyism anyway? Feeney believed one can be justified without the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, I am not opposed to maintaining the necessity of the Sacraments. On the contrary, I'm trying to show the necessity must be maintained. YOU are the heretic saying that a mere desire for the sacrament can maintain the necessity for it. Learn how to read and get your facts straight before you post nonsense.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #10 on: November 14, 2017, 02:41:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nobody knows whether BoD can produce this effect.  It's all speculation.  BoD itself is nothing but speculation.  If you posit that it does have regeneration effect, then you don't violate this requirement to be born again. 
    You know that example you provided me from Innocent III was heretical do you not? In order for BOD to be viable, one cannot be regenerated at the point of death. Cantate Domino and the Athanasian Creed reject that idea. If you claim God would regenerate a person before death through BOD, then why would God not just send someone to baptize him with actual water? God does not command impossibilities.  Also, this person regenerated invisibly would actually be one the faithful (unbeknownst to himself and the Church)! If he committed any sins before he died, he could not go to confession or receive the last rites, nor would anyone in the Church have prayed for him or said Mass for him (if he happened to live during the early years of the Church).
    Quote
    We've already discussed this on the other thread.  Indeed, to hold that there's a BoD after which temporal punishment remains (as St. Alphonsus does) is an error.
    Depending on his overall knowledge of Trent, it would be heresy. Trent taught the necessity of being born again for justification. No temporal punishment remains in those born again as you know.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #11 on: November 14, 2017, 02:59:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, it can be done without contradicting Church teaching.  One way is to say that they are indeed part of the ecclesiastical body, albeit imperfectly, by virtue of their profession of faith and in voto reception of the Sacrament. 
    You can say a lot of things. If those things contradict Catholic teaching, that's where the problem occurs. There is no such thing (in reality) as "imperfect communion". You speak like a heretical Vatican II theologian. "Imperfect Communion" provides "membership" in the Novus Ordo Church NOT the Catholic Church. You are either in communion or you are not.  Let your yes be yes and you no be no. 
    Quote
    And no, you needn't open the door for Pagans, Jews, heretics, etc. to be part of the Church -- since these do not profess the Catholic faith as Catechumens do.
    You open up the door by precisely what you said in your opening comment. You create a man made concept called "imperfect communion" or "soul of the Church" or some other nonsense. Once a faulty concept is created, then liberal theologians can seize upon that concept and lead souls astray, which is exactly what has happened. God will allow these things by developing itching ears and REJECTING HIS TRUTHS.
    Quote
    Your logic is faulty.
    Coming from a liberal, I'll take that as a compliment.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15679
    • Reputation: +7696/-411
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #12 on: November 14, 2017, 04:12:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Why is this theological speculation so important to you?
    .
    As Ladislaus said, rightly:
    .
    Nobody knows whether BoD can produce this effect.  It's all speculation.  BoD itself is nothing but speculation.  
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #13 on: November 14, 2017, 06:44:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Why is this theological speculation so important to you?
    It's important, because most supporters of BOD fall into heresy trying to defend it, and it's a completely useless theory. There is no benefit to holding it and many reasons for not holding it. One of the biggest obstacles for supporters of BOD in embracing the Catholic position is the topic of this thread. I had difficulty with it myself, and the question is frequently brought up. I actually don't believe in any of this BOD speculation (including an invisible reception of the Sacrament of Baptism). I am merely trying to show supporters of BOD how an erroneous opinion of BOD would not necessarily be an obstacle in canonizing a theologian or making him a doctor. 
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2931
    • Reputation: +736/-774
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: How Can Theologians Who Taught BOD and BOB be Made Doctors of the Church?
    « Reply #14 on: November 15, 2017, 02:34:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It would be far better, were it useless.
    "Lord, have mercy".

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16