Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:55 am


Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

A few weeks back I received some mail from the Dimond Brothers and I asked them to answer one question and to please give me permission to quote them.The question was: Do we know anyone in 2012 saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ? (Are these cases visible to us?)

There is no reply. Since they assume that these cases are visible to us in the present times and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they reject these cases even in principle.

Since they assume that these cases are explicit and can be an exception to the dogma on salvation and since they reject these cases even in principle, they call any one a heretic who acknowledges the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

So for them too Vatican Council II has to be a break from the past.They are using the false premise of being able to see the dead and they assume we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc and so these cases have to be an exception to the dogma.

The fault is not with Vatican Council II but their use of the false premise.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  columba on Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:16 am

Lionel,

Have you taken care of an outstanding matter of a public injustice perpetrated against another poster here?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:51 am

Columba,
I thought the injustice was done against me .
I repeat that any one who denies an ex cathedra dogma, in public and after being informed in public on many forums is in public heresy.
Also one cannot deny the dogma knowingly and then criticize women who abort. They could also be aborting to protect their reputation or some interest.
When I mention that someone is in sin or in heresy I am calling attention to the teachings of the Catholic Church and not my personal observations.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  columba on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:04 pm

Lionel,
The poster I refer to had made it clear to all that he was searching for answers and was giving his own understanding as held at that time. The very reason given for his presence on the forum was that he wished to learn, and like everyone else, debated back and forth with other posters, none of whom (including you and I) are infalible.

By your posts I can see that you recognize that their is confussion presently surrounding many issues concerning the Faith. To publically declare an individual a heretic is an injustice for two reasons: Firstly, you do not have the authority to do so. Secondly, The individual concerned aknowledged that he was not 100% confident in the orthodoxy of his own position at that time.

You owe this man an apology Lionel. At the very least you should remove the public acusation (actually it's a declaration) against him from your blog. He already had to go to some lengths to have Youtube remove a video uploaded by you, publically acusing him of heresy.

I actually like your posts Lionel and the arguments they contain so this is nothing personal against you. If you wish to engage in debate, the members here should be confident that if they disagree with you they won't find themselves starring in youtube videos against their will. You need to do the decent thing Lionel and remove from public view whatever calumnious articles you have written against this man.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:57 am

The poster I refer to had made it clear to all that he was searching for answers and was giving his own understanding as held at that time. The very reason given for his presence on the forum was that he wished to learn, and like everyone else, debated back and forth with other posters, none of whom (including you and I) are infalible.

Lionel
The poster had discussed this issue on another forum before Pascendi. Then this issue was discussed at great length on a traditionalist forum and then briefly on my blog.
He holds the same position then as now and still denies the Faith in public.


To publically declare an individual a heretic is an injustice for two reasons: Firstly, you do not have the authority to do so. Secondly, The individual concerned aknowledged that he was not 100% confident in the orthodoxy of his own position at that time


Lionel
The Church says there is sin. It can be material and objective. There can be a mortal sin and this is an objective teaching of the Church. We cannot say that mortal sin does not exist or one should not point it out because 'you cannot judge'.



You owe this man an apology Lionel. At the very least you should remove the public acusation (actually it's a declaration) against him from your blog. He already had to go to some lengths to have Youtube remove a video uploaded by you, publically acusing him of heresy.


Lionel
It is I who have been accused of slander on this board for a year or more and I am not asking you for an apology. When I was accused of slander was it a judgement or just a point of view?
There was no video uploaded in which he was responsible for its removal.



I actually like your posts Lionel and the arguments they contain so this is nothing personal against you.

Lionel
Neither was my comments personal and against him. For me it was an act of charity.I had also asked him not to receive the Eucharist until this issue was settled.It would bring pain to Jesus.



the members here should be confident that if they disagree with you they won't find themselves starring in youtube videos against their will.


Lionel
The members of this board are Catholics. Affirm the faith and discuss it.Acknowledge when you are wrong.
If the Adminstrators are weak and get cowed down then the forum suffers and injustice is allowed to be done.
If the poster is a donor and so is important for this forum then I have nothing more to say.



You need to do the decent thing Lionel and remove from public view whatever calumnious articles you have written against this man.

Lionel
I am calling attention to the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is not just my personal opinion as I have mentioned before.

Also how can one be critical of abortion and call attention to the teachings of the Church on a blog - and then the blogger himself denies an ex cathedra dogma in public and think nothing about it.








Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  columba on Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:17 pm

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Also how can one be critical of abortion and call attention to the teachings of the Church on a blog - and then the blogger himself denies an ex cathedra dogma in public and think nothing about it.

Lionel,
You could have it out with him on his blog where he is in a position to defend himself, but rule #9 on this forum states:

#9 Those who engage in antics of denouncing members of this forum on blogs, other forums, youtube, or any other website will be banned from the forum until they desist from such actions, remove all such posts, and offer a public apology.

The rule hasn't changed since you were last here. It was precisely because of your actions that the rule was put in force and all who join the forum agree to stick by the rules. The forum isn't heavily moderated and so most of us try to keep within those rules when posting.

I for one don't wish you to be banned but the offending blog entry hasn't, to date, been removed.


avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:28 am

Columba
You could have it out with him on his blog where he is in a position to defend himself, but rule #9 on this forum states:

#9 Those who engage in antics of denouncing members of this forum on blogs, other forums, youtube, or any other website will be banned from the forum until they desist from such actions, remove all such posts, and offer a public apology.

Lionel
There was no denouncing of a member on any blog. The report on my blog said that he was rejecting an ex cathedra dogma.This was something factual.

Now you are ordering me to remove that post. Why, has the teachings of the Catholic Church changed ?.Is the denial of the dogma in public not a sin?

Do you think if you ban me a third time I will change my religious views?
The poster was a 'universal moderator' on Michael Voris' forum and we discussed this issue at length before Pascendi. He removed the entire discussion. The contents were difficult for him. Then on Pascendi he was asking his friend Paul, the Administrator, to have been removed or he was leaving.This is familiar among the leftists and liberals.

I can understand that what I write must be difficult expecially for the sedevancatists on this blog.

However I repeat the poster denies the Catholic Faith still. So what I have written is a fact.
If he would issue a denial and say that what I had written on my blog was not correct and that he affirms the Faith, I would post the denial.I would even make a new report on my blog with his new position.

But if he does not issue a denial what am I to do?

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  columba on Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:42 am

Now you are ordering me to remove that post.

Lionel, I'm not ordering you to do anything. I don't have any authority over you.

Why, has the teachings of the Catholic Church changed ?.

Of course not. The teachings on faith and morals always remain the same even though some imagine they can change.

Is the denial of the dogma in public not a sin?

Yes, objectively speaking. Subjectively there may be no sin at all.

Do you think if you ban me a third time I will change my religious views?

I'm a mere poster like yourself Lionel. I can't ban anyone and No; you should not change your religious views because of persecution; you should change them only if you discover they are wrong. I don't expect you to change your religious views for any other reason, nor would I, even if I got banned because of those views.

The poster was a 'universal moderator' on Michael Voris' forum and we discussed this issue at length before Pascendi. He removed the entire discussion. The contents were difficult for him. Then on Pascendi he was asking his friend Paul, the Administrator, to have been removed or he was leaving.This is familiar among the leftists and liberals.

If you've ever read my posts you'll know I'm not a leftist or liberal. Whether the person involved was a liberal or not is not the concern. The concern is that he was publically denounced, by name, as a heretic. Not only that; even if he was what you say, you have on your blog not only a photograph of the man himself, but also members of his family who have no involvement in the matter.

I can understand that what I write must be difficult expecially for the sedevancatists on this blog.

To my knowledge we only have one declared sedevancatists on the forum and thus far, that member has neither agreed nor disagreed with your views. The issue isn't sede vs non-sede, it's a simple matter of justice vs injustice.

However I repeat the poster denies the Catholic Faith still. So what I have written is a fact.

Look at it this way Lionel. The brothers Dimond for example, could come on here and debate their position in the sedevantist sub forum. They could do that; but if they were to publically denounce everyone who disagreed with them, a heretic; they would be banned. One has a right to say that from my understanding a particular view is heretical. It doesn't follow automatically that the one who holds that view is a formal heretic, especially when that person is holding what he believes to be true Catholic teaching.

A formal heritic usually rejects the Catholic Church and believes that it's claim to be the one, true Church founded by Christ, false.

If he would issue a denial and say that what I had written on my blog was not correct and that he affirms the Faith, I would post the denial.I would even make a new report on my blog with his new position.

It logically follows, Lionel, that if you are actually holding the true understanding of Catholic doctrine (and there are members here who disagree that you are), those in disagreement with you are heretics and they too should be publically denounced as such on your blog, and if not, why not?

But if he does not issue a denial what am I to do?

You believe that the present magisterium is legitimate. Write and ask them if the views of the man in question are heretical. If they don't reply you can't automatically assume that they agree with your verdict but you would still be free to hold your opinion privately. In the meantime you could take down the family photo. In doing so you would definately not be committing any sin. You can't be so sure the other way.

Lionel, I don't know all the details concerning the matter. It could well be the case that unknown to you his position has in fact changed. If that were the case then your blog verdict concerning him would definately be false. Like I said earlier, I have no authority on this forum and I'm only stating my opinion as from one Catholic to another. To me it's a simple matter of justice. If we must err, why not err on the side of caution.




avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:30 am

The Catechism defines heresy. It is not believeing in a teaching of the Catholic Faith which is obligatory.In this sense the poster is in heresy.

He does not deny this.

He does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and assumes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradicts the dogma with reference to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. This would mean that those who are dead and saved in invincible ignorance are walking on the earth. So they are exceptions to the defide teaching.

I could do another piece. Something like, Medical doctor can see the dead move in the morgue' .

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:59 am


Columba
Lionel, I'm not ordering you to do anything. I don't have any authority over you
.

Lionel
Does the poster phone you or does he call up Rasha who then contacts you.

Lionel
Is the denial of the dogma in public not a sin?

Columba
Yes, objectively speaking. Subjectively there may be no sin at all.

Lionel
Is it objectively a sin in this case ?

Columba
If you've ever read my posts you'll know I'm not a leftist or liberal. Whether the person involved was a liberal or not is not the concern. The concern is that he was publically denounced, by name, as a heretic. Not only that; even if he was what you say, you have on your blog not only a photograph of the man himself, but also members of his family who have no involvement in the matter.

Lionel.
Denounce?
The Catechism refers to heresy and the conditions.In this sense a Catholic who is in heresy is a heretic.
Ask him to issue a clarification and then I will change the report and use the same picture.Or I can use another one.

Columba
It logically follows, Lionel, that if you are actually holding the true understanding of Catholic doctrine (and there are members here who disagree that you are), those in disagreement with you are heretics and they too should be publically denounced as such on your blog, and if not, why not?
Lionel
We can disagree on some aspects of the faith.However there are a hiearchy of truths.When the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is denied it is a denial of an ex cathedra dogma. It is also a denial of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It is a denial of the Nicene Creed in which we say I believe in one baptism for the forgivess of sin.

With the poster assumes that cases of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible, he is assuming that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him the Council would be a break with Tradition. Recently the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said those who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, are heretical.He referred to traditionalists and progressives.


Columba
Lionel, I don't know all the details concerning the matter. It could well be the case that unknown to you his position has in fact changed. If that were the case then your blog verdict concerning him would definately be false.

Lionel:
If his position has changed then he must make it known. Presently he still holding the same position and issuing threats as usual.

Columba:
Like I said earlier, I have no authority on this forum and I'm only stating my opinion as from one Catholic to another. To me it's a simple matter of justice. If we must err, why not err on the side of caution.

Lionel:
Ask him how can a professional media assume that the dead are visible? If the dead are not visible to him then why does he suggest that there are known exceptions to the dogma ?

There have been saints gifted with the charism to see the dead. For instance St.Faustina Kowalski and Padre saw Catholics who were dead and for whom they prayed and made sacrifices, leave Purgatory for Heaven. They would thank him for their prayers.

Here there is a medical doctor rejecting the dogma because of alleged known visible cases who are exceptions to the dogma. Since they are exceptions for him these cases must be visible to him ? Would you send your children to be treated by such a doctor? Could you ask him these questions?

On Pascendi he told you about his office and the picture he had placed there and about the Traditional Latin Mass which he attends. How can you separate extra ecclesiam nulla salus from the TLM ?


Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  columba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:19 pm

Lionel
Does the poster phone you or does he call up Rasha who then contacts you.

I can't speak for Rasha but I haven't heard from him since Pascendi closed down.

Lionel wrote:

Lionel
Is the denial of the dogma in public not a sin?

Columba
Yes, objectively speaking. Subjectively there may be no sin at all.


Is it objectively a sin in this case ?

Yes. In all cases it would be a sin. God can judge the culpability of the sinner.

Lionel.
Denounce?
The Catechism refers to heresy and the conditions.In this sense a Catholic who is in heresy is a heretic.
Ask him to issue a clarification and then I will change the report and use the same picture.Or I can use another one.

Regardless of the heretical belief, does the Catechism say anything about who has the power to publically declare someone a heretic?


Lionel
We can disagree on some aspects of the faith.However there are a hiearchy of truths.When the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is denied it is a denial of an ex cathedra dogma. It is also a denial of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It is a denial of the Nicene Creed in which we say I believe in one baptism for the forgivess of sin.

This forum exists precisely because of the many varying opinions concerning the interpretation of the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I am in agreement with what you say above, but to single out as a public heretic, a particular individual who doesn't believe it the same way as you and I is IMO unjust. The real blame for the confussion goes much higher than this particular individual who himself is most likely a victim of that confussion. The real heretics are those agenda-pushers who know exactly what they're doing with the dogmas of the faith and why.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
W[hen] the poster assumes that cases of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible, he is assuming that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him the Council would be a break with Tradition. Recently the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said those who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, are heretical.He referred to traditionalists and progressives.

I see Vatican Council II as a break with the past; I too then must be a heretic.
You see, unlike you Lionel, I don't believe their are invisible members of the Church saved by baptism of desire. You claim there is no contradiction to the dogma because the baptism of desire saved cannot be known to us. So what happens if/when we should be so fortunate as to make it to heaven, and we actually do see all those who were saved through baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance; they will then be visible to us and therefore exceptions to the dogma. I believe we won't see any such souls in heaven, for all who are there will have received the waters of Baptism, just as Our Lord said. "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless a man be born again of WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Lionel:
If his position has changed then he must make it known. Presently he still holding the same position and issuing threats as usual.

I'm assuming threats of legal action. Well, if you're in the right you've nothing to fear from legal action.

Lionel:
Ask him how can a professional media assume that the dead are visible? If the dead are not visible to him then why does he suggest that there are known exceptions to the dogma ?

You should ask him for the names of those known cases. If he can't produce them then he has proved himself wrong. The best he could say then would be that such cases are known only to God. That would place you and him in total agreement, but to me it would still be heretical.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Here there is a medical doctor rejecting the dogma because of alleged known visible cases who are exceptions to the dogma. Since they are exceptions for him these cases must be visible to him ? Would you send your children to be treated by such a doctor? Could you ask him these questions?

Lionel, I'm not taking this man's part because of a personal friendship. I know him only through brief correspondence on Pascendi forum and my involvement in the case is not personal. No matter who the individual happened to be I would be of the same mind, i.e, that a rectifiable injustice has been done.

On Pascendi he told you about his office and the picture he had placed there and about the Traditional Latin Mass which he attends. How can you separate extra ecclesiam nulla salus from the TLM ?

I can't, but many can. How they can remains a mystery but I don't consider them all to be formal heretics. Misled, is my verdict.








avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:51 pm

Columba
Regardless of the heretical belief, does the Catechism say anything about who has the power to publically declare someone a heretic?

Lionel
The report does not use the word heretic. It does not mention that he is a 'heretic'.

Lionel
If his position has changed then he must make it known. Presently he still holding the same position and issuing threats as usual.

Columba
I'm assuming threats of legal action. Well, if you're in the right you've nothing to fear from legal action.

Lionel
I am referring to the familiar removal of all posts and a ban.
Legal action ?
I have quoted something from Pascendi. It is factual. The poster does not deny it.
I have offered to post a clarification or correction.

Columba
I see Vatican Council II as a break with the past; I too then must be a heretic.

Lionel
As I have mentioned earlier according to the Prefect of the CDF's recent public statement your view would be heretical too.
On this forum over time Vatican Council II has been seen as a break with the past.I did try to correct this but I don't see any of those reports of mine on the forum.

Columba
I don't believe their are invisible members of the Church saved by baptism of desire.

Lionel
We do not know any case.

Columba
You claim there is no contradiction to the dogma because the baptism of desire saved cannot be known to us. So what happens if/when we should be so fortunate as to make it to heaven, and we actually do see all those who were saved through baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance; they will then be visible to us and therefore exceptions to the dogma.

Lionel:
In Heaven I hope we can know. On earth since we do not know any case there are no exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Church for salvation in 2013.

Lionel:
Ask him how can a professional media assume that the dead are visible? If the dead are not visible to him then why does he suggest that there are known exceptions to the dogma ?

Columba
You should ask him for the names of those known cases. If he can't produce them then he has proved himself wrong. The best he could say then would be that such cases are known only to God. That would place you and him in total agreement..

Lionel
If he does not know any case then there are no exceptions to the dogma as he originally thought.Otherise a medical doctor would be saying that implicit cases of salvation are explicit to him; the dead are visible.This would not be professional - at least.

So if he agrees that there are no known exceptions then I could make a change in that report.

I would like the report to be positive.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Peter and Michael Dimond still mulling over question

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum