Today is the Memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows

Beneath the cross the Mother kept
Bleak Vigil under darkende skies.
Upon the cross her Son hung nailed,
Stabbed through by crowds of hostile eyes.

"And your own soul a sword shall pierce,"
The old man in the Temple said,
The Spirit's Sword, the word of God --
God's word be done was all she said.

Upon the cross the Saviour died;
Beneath the Mother bowed her head;
Above, the storm broke harsh and wild --
God's word be done, was all she said.

A soldier came and thrust him through;
The blood and water proved him dead.
They laid his body in her arms --
God's word be done is all she said.

At vigil's end the Crucified
Arose from death her glorious Lord.
O Father, Son, and Spirit, God
We praise and magnify your Word.

**********

I hope we will all take time to consider the words of this song.

Especially in light of the uproar caused by the unfortunate choice of 'word's' in Germany by Pope Benedict XVI yesterday.

Again and again, I pray,

Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, Have Mercy on Us and On the Whole World.

nell

I must have missed this. Would you mind pointing me to a link that would explain it?

Thank you


truth in mercy

Didn't the Pope basically speak bluntly about Islam? Are these the words you are referring to?

Dave Hartline over at the
Catholic Report has information about it, if this is what Nell is referring to. See the article "Some Prominent Muslims Denounce Pope Benedict's Words About Islam & Jihad & Demand He Apologize "

Our dear Pope in his speech quoted a distant emperor, unfortunately, it has given rise to offended persons as being derogatory.

go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14846353


as with us all, things reponded to before our brains kick in cause so many unreasonalble reactions

We must hope this one does not escalate into extreme violence.

One Church in Gaza has already been damage, perportedly due to these remarks.

pray...

nell

This is the written text of the speech.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

Hmm, so now we can't even give a negative opinion about Islam without fearing riots, anger, and churches being burnt. Of course this is a small minority of Muslims, mainly (from what I understand) unemployed males who have the time to do these sorts of things. However, this sounds like it is the problem of those doing the rioting, not the one speaking. And how sensible is to respond to the suggestion that Mohammed preached violence with acts of violence against others?

You're joking, right? No offense, but the suggestion that the Pope's softpedaling his words and essentially joining the Muslim PC Brigade will make things better is utterly absurd. If you think that playing nice will make things better for Christians in Muslim lands, I know of many Christians with whom you should have a little chat. Worse, it only validates the Muslim strategy that if you browbeat Christians they will fold so fast it'll make your head spin.

Besides, while everyone is getting their panties in a twist over the statement the Pope quoted, I only see a bunch of righteous indigation and violence and not a whole lot of thoughtful rebuttal on their side. Says a lot, don't it?

You know what willy, you are right. Violent Muslims will find any justification they need to harrass Christians, and what the pope says is merely an excuse. I am glad the pope tells it like it is. I will withdraw my suggestion.

David

Nell,

Look back over the last two decades and tell me where a Muslim was NOT offended by something in the "outside" world of the infidels.

Islam IS a vioent religion and the Koran teaches it. If you have ever read the Koran, please explain to me how you can interpret killing those who do not bow the knee to Allah any other way than to do exactly as it says?

Christans and Jews are singled out in the Koran for violence or second level humanity. So how about US being insulted?

No. You have donw the same as the Muslims have done and been offended simply by the pope QUOTING someone else. No good can come from that in any arena.

I am glad he still speaks truth! Were it not for someone speaking truth, none of us would be able to speak out at all! Look at Canada. People are being arrested and tried for simply speaking truth. It is now happening that people that SIMPLY QUOTE THE BIBLE can be arrested and tried for an offense. Is that what you are hoping to see here in America as well?

No, I say stand and be counted. Every Islamic country is living in the 12th century (except perhaps Iran, but it is hard to tell who holds the power there.) Women are subjugated to a lower class, the petty theif pays with a hand, an arm, etc. There is no mercy in Islamic law. If Christians do not stand an say something, who will?? and what of when the Muslims ake over Brittain as they have been steadily working tooward? Then France (if not already), then the USA?? Don't even try to say "it couldnlt happen here" as it is even now under our very noses. Mosques contiinue to rise, and more and more are converting to Islam IN OUR PRISONS every day. Are you ready for a Muslim invasion here? If that were to happen, we would lose ALL our freedoms to pray to anyone BUT Allah - in the Muslim way.

So back to ancient Rome we go where if you don't burn insense to Caesar, you are an infidel and will be executed.

Not a good outcome.

I say, "You go, ++Benedict!!"

PLease be blessed Nell, but don't be hoodwinked by the PC crowd (that's Politically Correct...but now that I think of it, it could mean Patriarch's Council)

"He who stands for nothing, will fall for anything."

This is rediculious. How does a comment by Pope Benedict make him responsible for violence?

Personal Responsibility! Personal Responsibility! Personal Responsibility!

It is not the Popes fault when people commit violence! Its their fault for committing violence.

UHHHHHGGGGGGGGG

ev :blink: :blink:

I know I'm not the moderator, but I think this conversation is straying way off topic from the present discussions concerning the CEC.

The title of this thread is THE POPE AND ISLAM.

How is talking about the Pope and Islam straying off the topic's stated intention?

Discussions concerning the CEC are in other forums/threads. Perhaps it is easy to forget which thread one has clicked onto.

Mary Katherine

It's not. The post from Loose Canon was moved here. This IS the place to discuss the Pope and Islam!

Blessings,

Thanks for the explanation!

It APPEARED that he/she had clicked on the wrong thread.

Have a great weekend!

Well, I apologize if I sounded sounded a bit sharp. IMHO once you get into the position of modifying the truth so it doesn't offend anyone, it ultimately isn't the truth anymore.

Meanwhile, as we speak, the Vatican has already started softpedaling to appease Muslims. Sigh.

It would be cumbersome to research on this, but it is beyond anyone's comprehension as to why the Holy Father has chosen to do say such a thing but I believe that the Holy Father equating the word 'jihad' to violence when saying that violence should never be a part of religion, I have to agree that he was mistaken.

Thanks to Osama and co., we have been led to think that 'jihad' equates "holy war". This is wrong, according to a Jesuit priest pursuing his PhD in Islam in Oxford University. "Jihad" means "struggle", similar to how we would view bearing the Cross. Jihad can therefore mean daily struggles for the betterment of the Muslim community etc. The word for 'jihad' as we know it, is actually 'qittal'. 'Qittal' is meant to defend the faith when the faith is threatened, and armed struggle is usually, the last resort.

Of course, comparing this to Christianity, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church but nevertheless, it is their religion, it has a different understanding, so leave them be.

On a personal note, I am very thankful that no one in Malaysia has said anything so far, as Malaysia is slowly becoming an Islamic state in nature, with the Government's inability to decide on whether the Syariah (Islamic law) court or Federal Court is more authorative in the governance of this country. If this gets blown out of hand, this will further affect the chances of a Malay - Muslim girl who converted to Catholicism many years ago to have her religious status as Islam to be deleted from her IC. Please pray for us in Malaysia, a pseudo - Islamic state. Amen.

It would not be cumbersome at all, and it is within - not beyond - comprehension as to why the Pope made the remarks. All one has to do is read the text of the Pope's statement and note the context of the comments; it would also help to note the context of Islamic philosophy toward forced coversion today. e.g. Sudan.

What I'm finding far more bothersome than the Islamic world's rather standard reaction to the Pope's out-of-context statement is how so many Christians are rushing to apologize without even bothering to find out what the Pope actually said in context. They are ultimately being used to validate the "fact" that the Pope insulted the Muslim world. The Pope must have been wrong because, after all, look at how many Christians are rushing to condemn him and apologize on his behalf? And if these apologist Christians think they're making friends in the Islamic world, they're ridiculously mistaken.

No offense, but that is an absurdly simplistic definition of jihad which totally ignores the fact that there are different types of jihad, some of which are definitely not in line with the concept of bearing the Cross, and implies that there is some clear distinction between 'jihad' and 'qital' (not 'qittal') when there actually is not, depending on the context, the scholars to whom you speak, and whether the discussion progresses beyond an elementary level. If this "stuff" is taught in a PhD program then it is clearly less an academic program than a propagandistic one, which is hardly a surprise considering its probable source of funding.

So let's say "regardless", accept that definition of 'jihad' and 'qital,' and accept that Osama & Co. are waging qital, not jihad, on those parts of both the West and Islamic world that won't cave in to them. So now that we call it 'qital,' that changes things ... how?

Where would we be?

Where would we be, if our Lord had have thought better of His words before He spoke to the Pharisee's or the Sadducee's?

Where would we be, if Jesus would have toned down His appearence in the Temple, when He overturned the money changers tables?

Where would we be, if He had said to all gathered around, " No I didn't really mean that I shall give my flesh and blood for you to eat and drink, it was just a metaphore?"

Where would we be, if He had not said I am the Way and the Truth and the Life?

Where would we be, if He wished not to offend any one with His words?

Where would we be, if He had thought the Cross was too scandalous to mount?

Where? Lost and without Hope, thats where!

The words of Christ are offensive! They are offensive to me!

The words of Christ are sharp as a two edged sword! They cut me deeply whenever I read them!

The words of Christ are not politcally correct! They tell me I am not my own!

But they also tell me He loves me! That He died for those who found and find His words offensive still!

He died for the Muslim's of the world and every other religious company in the world and they need to hear it!

If we fear of making waves, fearing we will upset some, what good is the Gospel?

Do we remain silent in hopes of not stirring up the locust nest?

Or do we abandon ourselves to our Lord and Savior, no matter the cost to us?

Jesus did not hesitate to speak the truth in love, He spoke it from the cross as His broken body was nearing it's end. When the nails were ripping His flesh as He slowly slid down the cross to His death, flesh that was given to Him through His Mother who watched with pierced heart, having all of those things She had kept there, spilled forth from the thrust of the sword. He spoke it as the crown of thorns given Him by the world pierced His scalp and hung from Him as a mockery, though He wore it proudly, for He knew that it would conquer the world.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

What will we do?

Da

Willy and Da,
You guys rock! Thank you. ;)

The simple truth, which I would love to see addressed by a Muslim, is that the Mediterranean was basically a Christian sea before the 7th century. The holy land, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, northern Africa--all Christian. Until the sword of Islam conquered these areas one by one and forced them into submission.

Yes, there was misuse of the sword among some later Christians--the defensive and well-meaning Crusades were overtaken by violence against Jews and Muslims, and the inquisition did hand over heretics to be burnt. But Jesus taught none of that. The difference is that Islam spread by the sword from the beginning, even in the days of the "prophet".

so the Pope apologizes.Will the Muslim world now be mollified?

Of course NOT.They will ask for nothing but the humiliation of the Pope in the public eye. Now that they've taken hold of an inch of his garment, they will strip him naked before the world.What arrogance...

Did the Muslim world apologize for the thousand dead in 9/11? No, the Muslim Palestinians rejoiced and danced in the streets!!!

What about the skyrocketing number of the dead and the maimed in Iraq and Afganistan and Thailand?Where's the apology?

Catholics should apologize for offending their sensibilities? Come on...what about them apologizing to those they have widowed and orphaned by their suicide bombers?

I too am offended by their wanton disregard of life and limb and property.

I am offended by those extremist who spoke in front of the camera and said-"The West should turn to Islam or we will bomb you to kingdom come...."

But i will not ask them to apologize. They did not even know i existed.

Catholics are not cowards...as our catholic brothers in the forum flaunt and boast.
Catholics are not cowards...we just turned the other cheek when slapped.

But until when?

An eye for an eye will surely turn the whole world blind.. but what good is your eye if you will just close it when someone pokes his finger on it...

After much reflection and reading of the whole text, the whole context was simply on 'logos'. The part where Islam was evil and inhuman was merely an example of dialogue or 'logos' in itself. Nevertheless, Muslims tend to see things at face value and think that their religion is so perfect.

After much reflection on what I said earlier, and after reflecting on the Gospel, I believe that I shouldn't have been like Peter, rebuking Jesus for what He said. Lord have mercy.

As for the Muslims who riot, burn effigies, call for holy war and kill, I am only sorry and sympathise with you for your immaturity, your lack of knowledge of other religions, your insensitivity, your intolerance and your ego. You boast about being civilised but the attitudes are far from civilised, acting more like barbarians.

You riot so much at an intellectual discourse, but did you fail to realise that you offended the Buddhists when you destroyed 3 of their ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan 5 years ago?

Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Friends,

The option of the Brazilian Church is the most viable. The humble, compassionate, pastoral charism passed on from this body stands in stark contrast to the excesses and megalomania my dear beloved in Christ have laboured under for too long. Please contact me at paxdeao1@yahoo.com.

Friends,

Forgive my lack of Portugese fluency - that's paxdeo1@yahoo.com.

Homeward Bound

Moderator's Note:

Brothers and sisters, we are shutting down early today. We were open last weekend -- and I'm not sure that was such a good idea.

For the love of God, we need to remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus -- and that all of us (myself included) -- need to make sure that we remember this, especially when our mouse is pointed to the "add reply" button.

I often ask my classes a question something like this: "Do you believe that the Father hears the prayers of the Son?" They answer in the affirmative. I then ask "Do you want to see Jesus return?" Again, they answer in the affirmative. I then point to St. John, chapter 17, and share Jesus' prayer for unity. A prayer which, as of yet, has not been fulfilled. I then ask my classes "Do you think that Jesus is all that eager to return for a broken and divided Church"? Dead silence reigns.


Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity.


Have a great weekend!