Author Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 8014 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #165 on:** August 16, 2025, 08:37:24 PM »

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

The Council of Trent defined that the seven sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ (Sess. VII, can.i). This settles the question of fact for all Catholics. Reason tells us that all sacraments must come originally from God. Since they are the signs of sacred things in so far as by these sacred things men are sanctified (Summa Theologiæ III:60:2); since the external rite (matter and form) of itself cannot give grace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in Divine appointment. "Since the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies", writes St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III:60:2), "it is not in the competency of man to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution". Add to this that grace is, in some sense, a participation of the Divine nature (see GRACE) and our doctrine becomes unassailable: God alone can decree that by exterior ceremonies men shall be partakers of His nature.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #166 on:** August 16, 2025, 08:48:40 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 16, 2025, 07:54:54 PM

No silly, we are talking about the type of Matter and Form you claim Christ instituted for the other five sacraments. May I have them and your source of reference.

What do you mean by "type"? The matter is the matter and the form is the form for each sacrament. These are essential to the sacraments, as taught by Florence. Meaning the sacrament does not exist without them. Christ instituted all of the sacraments, as taught by Trent. Therefore, Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament, as there is no sacrament without matter and form. When Christ instituted the sacraments requiring holy oils as matter, He defined what oil to be used..because that is essential to the sacrament.

There is no simpler way to put this. What do you not understand?

You are unable to provide any evidence that the Church either, A) decided one day to use exclusively Olive oil, or B) ever used any oil other than olive oil. This is because the Church has always taught that olive oil is required for holy oils. That is called Tradition. That is Divine Revelation. This is because the sacraments were divinely instituted by Christ, and not the Church, and the Church has always upheld what Christ taught and established

Benedikt · « **Reply #167 on:** August 16, 2025, 09:05:57 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 16, 2025, 08:18:50 PM

Quote from: Boru
At last, yay! No one is denying that Christ instituted the Sacraments so no fear of being anathematized, and yes, the Church cannot altar the substance as laid down in scripture. All seven Sacraments are divinely fixed - thumbs up - and again, yes, Scripture explicitly attests two, and the Church safegaurds the others. Another thumbs up. My question to you: Who decided the Form and Matter of these other five?

Christ willed that His Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, would establish and safeguard the matter and form of Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Scripture does not give the precise matter and form of these sacraments, but the Church, acting under Christ’s authority, ensures they are divinely fixed, valid, and binding. Trent, Session VII, Canons 1 and 13, Denz. 844, 856, affirms that Christ instituted all seven sacraments. +Pius XII confirms in Sacramentum Ordinis, para. 5, that the Church cannot alter sacramental substance. Christ commanded that the Church preserve these sacraments exactly as He intended, even where Scripture does not specify the precise matter and form, guaranteeing the faithful that all seven sacraments are instituted, divinely safeguarded, and eternally efficacious.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #168 on:** August 17, 2025, 07:45:36 AM »

Quote

You are unable to provide any evidence that the Church either, A) decided one day to use exclusively Olive oil, or B) ever used any oil other than olive oil. This is because the Church has always taught that olive oil is required for holy oils.

Correct. Olive oil goes back to the Old Testament rituals. The Apostles and Christ, as Jews, would’ve continued to use the same olive oil as the Israelite religion.

The Garden of Eden and Liturgical/Symbolic Connections

Biblical Symbolism: In the Bible and Catholic tradition, the olive tree is deeply symbolic, representing God's covenant and unity with humanity. There's a tradition holding that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden might have been an olive tree. The Garden itself is sometimes seen as a foreshadowing of the Temple and liturgy, representing a place where the earthly and divine realms meet and where humanity can reconnect with God.
The Garden of Gethsemane: This significant biblical location is an olive grove where Jesus prayed before his crucifixion. The Franciscans continue to cultivate and harvest olives there, with the oil being blessed and used in the Chrism Mass.

Secrets of Gethsemane
Immediately after the Last Supper, Jesus and his friends walked about a half mile outside the city walls to the Garden of Gethsemane located at the foot of the Mount of Olives. On that first Holy Thursday night, he went there to pray as was his custom but that night was different. The choice Jesus made in that garden changed everything!

As archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “Eden and Gethsemane were the two gardens around which revolved the fate of humanity."

He chose Gethsemane for two reasons:

1. Because it was a beautiful garden reminiscent of Eden and Jesus was there to begin a reversal what the first Adam had done in Eden.

2. Because it was at Gethsemane (which means 'olive press') where olives were crushed to extract olive oil and now where Jesus would be crushed by sin so much that sweaty blood would exude from his body.

You can read more…

https://www.catholic365.com/article/38182/secrets-of-gethsemane.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #169 on:** August 17, 2025, 11:55:19 AM »

Quote from: Boru on August 16, 2025, 05:20:26 PM

You do an injustice to the Pope. He made an exception in a case of necessity. Perfectly allowable. And within his authority. And yet it has been blown up as if he had blown the Church up. To my mind, this very example amplifies the Sede-vacantist position. Super reactive and fear based. You look for any change at all and then, recoil in horror, crying 'Heretic, heretic!' You do not consider the teachings of the Church as a whole, but rely on a mysterious free-range priest (Hesse) and a former Jєωιѕн Hindu (Coomaraswamy) to scare you into renouncing your allegiance to the Pope. Certainly these two men seem to be a major early source for all these Sede beliefs and I intend to do a lot more research into their background.

I think the main argument should be whether Pope Paul IV went too far in his modifications, whether these modifications destroyed the validity of the rites or not, and was it Pope Paul's intent to do this.

Well, he is only a mysterious priest to you, a priest that you would do good familiarize yourself with.

You are still in the same mindset as NOers - who went NO because the pope said so, or on the other end, sedes, who dethrone him believing that popes cannot do such a thing.

The pope can no more change the matter of the sacrament - even in an emergency - than he can change the sabbath day, which btw was already changed by a previous pope to Sunday from Saturday.

You need to remove from your mind this false idea of extending the popes' authority to be without limit because it is wrong and does no one any good.

The pope's duty as this world's representative of Christ, is to preserve what has been handed down, even if that means dying a martyr's death to preserve it, not change for no reason that which has been handed down. Canon law says in an emergency, either olive oil may be diluted with unblessed olive oil, or unblessed olive oil may be used - that is what the Church already decided for emergency situations. No pope can change the matter of the sacraments, he does not possess that authority.

Benedikt · « **Reply #170 on:** August 17, 2025, 12:18:38 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 17, 2025, 11:55:19 AM

Quote from: Stubborn 2025-08-17, 9:55:19 AM
Well, he is only a mysterious priest to you, a priest that you would do good familiarize yourself with.

You are still in the same mindset as NOers - who went NO because the pope said so, or on the other end, sedes, who dethrone him believing that popes cannot do such a thing.

The pope can no more change the matter of the sacrament - even in an emergency - than he can change the sabbath day, which btw was already changed by a previous pope to Sunday from Saturday.

You need to remove from your mind this false idea of extending the popes' authority to be without limit because it is wrong and does no one any good.

The pope's duty as this world's representative of Christ, is to preserve what has been handed down, even if that means dying a martyr's death to preserve it, not change for no reason that which has been handed down. Canon law says in an emergency, either olive oil may be diluted with unblessed olive oil, or unblessed olive oil may be used - that is what the Church already decided for emergency situations. No pope can change the matter of the sacraments, he does not possess that authority.

We must pray for Boru. She is getting close, but like many of us once were, she stands at the crossroads. If she does not decide, as St. Jerome warns, one wakes up one day and finds oneself Arian. In the same way, Boru will one day find herself conciliar or sedevacantist if she does not abandon the now Neo-SSPX and stand with the true resistance. And what is this resistance? It is nothing new, nothing extreme. It is simply the position of the Society before 2012, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the position of eternal Rome, the position Christ gave to Peter and handed down without compromise.

Twice dyed · « **Reply #171 on:** August 17, 2025, 12:25:28 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 17, 2025, 07:45:36 AM

Correct. Olive oil goes back to the Old Testament rituals. The Apostles and Christ, as Jews, would’ve continued to use the same olive oil as the Israelite religion.

The Garden of Eden and Liturgical/Symbolic Connections

Biblical Symbolism: In the Bible and Catholic tradition, the olive tree is deeply symbolic, representing God's covenant and unity with humanity. There's a tradition holding that the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden might have been an olive tree. The Garden itself is sometimes seen as a foreshadowing of the Temple and liturgy, representing a place where the earthly and divine realms meet and where humanity can reconnect with God.
The Garden of Gethsemane: This significant biblical location is an olive grove where Jesus prayed before his crucifixion. The Franciscans continue to cultivate and harvest olives there, with the oil being blessed and used in the ..."

https://ofonetree.com/the-life-and-legacy-of-pope-gregory-xv/

"...
1621AD.
The election of Gregory XV was seen as a pivotal moment in the Church’s history, with hopes that he would lead the Church towards unity and renewal.

The papal coronation itself was a grand event, filled with centuries-old traditions and symbolism. The newly elected Pope, dressed in elaborate vestments, was anointed with holy oils and presented with the papal tiara..."

****
I love special Traditions!

Stubborn · « **Reply #172 on:** August 17, 2025, 12:29:03 PM »

Quote from: Benedikt on August 17, 2025, 12:18:38 PM

We must pray for Boru. She is getting close, but like many of us once were, she stands at the crossroads. If she does not decide, as St. Jerome warns, one wakes up one day and finds oneself Arian. In the same way, Boru will one day find herself conciliar or sedevacantist if she does not abandon the now Neo-SSPX and stand with the true resistance. And what is this resistance? It is nothing new, nothing extreme. It is simply the position of the Society before 2012, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the position of eternal Rome, the position Christ gave to Peter and handed down without compromise.

I think she simply believes that the reason for the supreme authority of popes is so that they may change whatever they want at any time and for any or no reason at all. She cannot grasp that's exactly contrary to the actual reason God gave them the authority they have.

Boru · « **Reply #173 on:** August 17, 2025, 08:46:20 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on August 16, 2025, 08:48:40 PM

What do you mean by "type"? The matter is the matter and the form is the form for each sacrament. These are essential to the sacraments, as taught by Florence. Meaning the sacrament does not exist without them. Christ instituted all of the sacraments, as taught by Trent. Therefore, Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament, as there is no sacrament without matter and form. When Christ instituted the sacraments requiring holy oils as matter, He defined what oil to be used..because that is essential to the sacrament.

There is no simpler way to put this. What do you not understand?

You are unable to provide any evidence that the Church either, A) decided one day to use exclusively Olive oil, or B) ever used any oil other than olive oil. This is because the Church has always taught that olive oil is required for holy oils. That is called Tradition. That is Divine Revelation. This is because the sacraments were divinely instituted by Christ, and not the Church, and the Church has always upheld what Christ taught and established

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.

With regards to Olive Oil: There is no doubt that the Church always used olive oil for Holy oils and has decreed that this is the oil to be used in Sacraments. Pope Paul VI states this to be so himself. So this is not the argument;
Pope Paul VI did not discard Olive Oil. Nor did he teach that another oil could be willy-nilly used instead.
The debate arises because Pope Paul inserted an exception to the rule that if Olive Oil cannot be found, a another plant-based oil could be used in the case of necessity.

Yet, without clarifying that this was an exception to the rule, Fr. Hesse implied that Pope Paul changed the use of olive Oil to vegetable oil - which is outrageously misleading if not a bold faced lie - and that this change of oils rendered the sacrament invalid.

So the million dollar question is: does this exception to the rule, as instituted by Pope Paul VI, render the sacrament invalid as Fr. Hesse claims?

In James 5:14-15 it reads: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." Clearly this a template for Extreme Unction however the exact matter and form are not specified. It alludes to oils, but it was the Church that decided that these oils (and yes, St. Thomas Aquinas states this meant olive oil) would actually confer the sacrament via the Form. It was the Church that "fixed" (commanded) the Matter and Form.

Pope Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis the principle: "Ecclesiam quod statuit etiam mutare et abrogare valere - that which the Church has established she can also change and abrogate." This Pope further explained that where the instruments of the matter are determined by the Church, they can be changed. This is supported by his changing of the matter in Holy Orders that had been set down by the Council of Florence - he declared that the only Matter necessary was the imposition of the hands, and that the passing of the Chalice - traditio instrumentorum - was no longer required.

Emphasizes Pius XII speaking of the Matter: "If it was at one time necessary, even for the validity by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." SO, 42.

Where the Council of Trent teaches that the Church has no power to change "the substance of the sacraments" it means that the Church cannot change the Form and Matter of what Christ precisely instituted via Divine Revelation (Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

WorldsAway · « **Reply #174 on:** August 17, 2025, 09:23:33 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 17, 2025, 08:46:20 PM

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.

This is very, very simple. I have already posted what Trent and Florence taught several times. Christ instituted all seven Sacraments, and the sacraments consist of three essential elements: form, matter, intention.

As Christ instituted all seven Sacraments, He also defined the essential matter and form. This is because in order to institute a sacrament, the essential parts of said sacrament must be defined. If they are not defined, then the sacrament is not instituted. As Christ, and not the Church, instituted every sacrament, it was Christ, and not the Church, Who defined the essential matter and form for every sacrament.
You may not have the scriptural references for all of these things because not all of them are related in Scripture. However, we, as Catholics, believe in sacred Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation as well. The Church has always taught, and always used, olive oil as essential for holy oils. That is Tradition

Benedikt · « **Reply #175 on:** August 17, 2025, 09:58:17 PM »

Fr. Hesse’s teaching on the holy oils and the sacraments is fully consistent with the Church’s perennial doctrine. Olive oil is the proper matter for Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Baptism, and the Church alone determines the instruments and words through which the sacraments are validly conferred. Any allowance for another plant-based oil in cases of necessity does not in any way invalidate the sacrament, because, as +Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis (SO 42), the Church has the divine authority to dispense from instruments she herself has established without altering the substance instituted by Christ. Scripture provides the template—James 5:14-15 for Extreme Unction—but does not fix every detail of Matter and Form; it is the Church, guided by Tradition and the Holy Ghost, that defines these elements precisely. Fr. Hesse’s statements highlight this truth faithfully: he upholds the Church’s authority, preserves sacramental integrity, and clarifies the proper understanding of the oils without asserting any doctrinal error. Any claim that he misled or erred is entirely unfounded. The sacraments remain fully valid, the Church’s authority is absolute, and fidelity to Christ’s institution is perfectly maintained.

Now, positive doubt regarding the Novus Ordo Mass is an objective, well-founded reality arising from docuмented alterations to the traditional Roman Rite. The words of consecration, particularly over the wine, have been altered or rearranged, the Canon omits or modifies prayers historically essential to validity, and key rubrics including the epiclesis, the orientation of the priest, and the manner of consecration have been changed. These are not subjective opinions; they are verifiable liturgical facts. Classical sacramental theology teaches that any change to the matter, form, or essential words of a sacrament that is not clearly equivalent produces positive doubt regarding validity. +Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly affirmed that these modifications generate legitimate uncertainty about the confecting of the Eucharist. Therefore, faithful Catholics are fully justified, in conscience and in truth, to question the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, and no appeal to mere custom or pastoral convenience can override this objective doubt.

Stubborn · « **Reply #176 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:15:44 AM »

Quote from: Boru on August 17, 2025, 08:46:20 PM

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.

With regards to Olive Oil: There is no doubt that the Church always used olive oil for Holy oils and has decreed that this is the oil to be used in Sacraments. Pope Paul VI states this to be so himself. So this is not the argument;
Pope Paul VI did not discard Olive Oil. Nor did he teach that another oil could be willy-nilly used instead.
The debate arises because Pope Paul inserted an exception to the rule that if Olive Oil cannot be found, a another plant-based oil could be used in the case of necessity.

Yet, without clarifying that this was an exception to the rule, Fr. Hesse implied that Pope Paul changed the use of olive Oil to vegetable oil - which is outrageously misleading if not a bold faced lie - and that this change of oils rendered the sacrament invalid.

Here is the pertinent decree:

Quote

Pope Paul VI
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture...."

Fr. Hesse is speaking truth. In keeping with the ambiguity of all things V2, the pope said; "according to the circuмstances," which literally means anything anyone wants it to mean, including "use whatever plant based oil you want." In doing so, he breaks from Scripture and tradition because he decides it's good as long as it only resembles the oil used in Scripture, much the same as the new mass only resembles the True Mass.

Consider one reason for this change from using only blessed olive oil is that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction itself was changed, actually it was altogether replaced with the sacrament of "Anointing of the Sick," which is something else he could not do - but did anyway. So with the new sacrament comes new oil.

Think about it.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #177 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:23:18 AM »

Quote

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Agreed. Now you state "Christ defined the matter and form for each sacrament." So, what I'm asking is, if CHRIST defined the Matter and Form of all the sacraments, may I have the scriptural references to all these Matter and Forms. Don't worry about Baptism or Holy Eucharist because I already know these; just the other five.

CONDEMNED ---

39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity .

40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circuмstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.

44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.

-- Condemned by Pope St Pius X in "Lamentabili Sane"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #178 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:39:08 AM »

(5) May we then say that Christ instituted some sacraments in an implicit state?

That Christ was satisfied to lay down the essential principles from which, after a more or less protracted development, would come forth the fully developed sacraments? This is an application of Newman’s theory of development, according to Pourrat (op. cit., p. 300), who proposes two other formulae; Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately, but did not himself give them all to the Church fully constituted; or Jesus instituted immediately and explicitly baptism and Holy Eucharist: He instituted immediately but implicitly the five other sacraments (loc. cit., p. 301). Pourrat himself thinks the latter formula too absolute. Theologians probably will consider it rather dangerous, and at least “male sonans”. If it be taken to mean more than the old expression, Christ determined in genere only the matter and the form of some sacraments, it grants too much to development. If it means nothing more than the expression hitherto in use, what is gained by admitting a formula which easily might be misunderstood?

------

This is referring to Cardinal Newman, the english Anglican-convert, a Modernist. His "theory of development" is heretical garbage, and that's why new-rome loves him. His idea that doctrine can change over time as we understand it in a "deeper way" was used at V2 to explain all their heretical changes. This is also why Newman is set to be canonized by new-rome.

------

Orestes Brownson, one of America's most voluminous writers, wrote much concerning Newman's errors. Here's a few parts:

Now, in regard to all this, we simply ask, Does the Church herself take this view? Does she teach that she at first received no formal revelation, – that the revelation was given as “unleavened dough,” to be leavened, kneaded, made up into loaves of convenient size, baked and prepared for use by her, after her mission began, and she had commenced the work of evangelizing the nations? Does she admit her original creed was incomplete, that it has increased and expanded, that there have been variation and progress in her understanding of the revelation she originally received, and that she now understands it better, and can more readily define what it is than she could at first? Most assuredly not. She asserts that there has been no progress, no increase, no variation of faith; that what she believes and teaches now is precisely what she has always and everywhere believed and taught from the first. She denies that she has ever added a new article to the primitive creed; and affirms, as Mr. Newman himself proves in his account of the Council of Chalcedon, that the new definition is not a new development, a better understanding of the faith, but simply a new definition, against the “novel expressions” invented by the enemies of religion, of what, on the point defined, had always and everywhere been her precise faith. In this she is right, or she is wrong. If right you must abandon your theory of developments; if wrong, she is a false witness for God, and your theory of developments cannot make her worthy of confidence. If you believe her you cannot assert developments in your sense of the term; if you do not believe her, you are no Catholic. This is sufficient to show that Mr. Newman cannot urge his theory as a Catholic, whatever he might do as a Protestant.

Boru · « **Reply #179 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:00:13 AM »

Quote from: Benedikt on August 17, 2025, 09:58:17 PM

Fr. Hesse’s teaching on the holy oils and the sacraments is fully consistent with the Church’s perennial doctrine. Olive oil is the proper matter for Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Baptism, and the Church alone determines the instruments and words through which the sacraments are validly conferred. Any allowance for another plant-based oil in cases of necessity does not in any way invalidate the sacrament, because, as +Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis (SO 42), the Church has the divine authority to dispense from instruments she herself has established without altering the substance instituted by Christ. Scripture provides the template—James 5:14-15 for Extreme Unction—but does not fix every detail of Matter and Form; it is the Church, guided by Tradition and the Holy Ghost, that defines these elements precisely. Fr. Hesse’s statements highlight this truth faithfully: he upholds the Church’s authority, preserves sacramental integrity, and clarifies the proper understanding of the oils without asserting any doctrinal error. Any claim that he misled or erred is entirely unfounded. The sacraments remain fully valid, the Church’s authority is absolute, and fidelity to Christ’s institution is perfectly maintained.

That's exactly what I said. Exactly. So on this point we agree. The Pope can "bind and loosen" anything that the Church itself has instituted.

Fr. Hesse, however does not faithfully uphold this truth. From his own mouth, in the first video that Stubborn posted, he states: "...there is reason to doubt nowadays with a few sacraments that involve oil because, unfortunately, Pope VI has given the permission to use vegetable oil instead of olive oil...which would make the sacrament invalid." This is a direct quote. So, yes, he has misled and erred.

Author Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 8014 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

WorldsAway

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Benedikt

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Stubborn

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Benedikt

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Twice dyed

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Stubborn

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Boru

Re: Universal doubtful intention

WorldsAway

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Benedikt

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Stubborn

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Boru

Re: Universal doubtful intention