Papal Divisions

Writing of the Bible - I, Theological Principle · Papal Divisions · Galileo Revisited

Q

As a Catholic, do I have to accept the current pope?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Catholic-do-I-have-to-accept-the-current-pope/answer/Alex-Pismenny

Answer requested by

Ricky

Alex Pismenny

Catholic Christian.

Sun 15.I.2023

You have to accept that he is the Pope (except in the interregnum).

You do not have to accept everything he says.

You have to reflect on the areas you have a disagreement and try to see his position fairly.

If the Pope makes an infallible pronouncement you have to accept it as a dogma of faith. Few popes made such. This Pope hasn't.

Pray for him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.I.2023

Chair of St. Peter

“You have to accept that he is the Pope”

What about someone in 1400 who believed the Pope was the one in Avignon?

Who is Pope is not as much of a dogmatic fact as it is pushed as ….

Alex Pismenny

18.I.2023

Chair of St. Peter

Back then it was probably an earnestly held belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.I.2023

So, someone who holds Pope Michael (recently died) or “Peter III” (Joseph Odermatt) is somehow not earnestly holding that belief?

Presuming that Bergoglio were Pope Francis as you say, what is on your view the difference between someone holding to Pope Michael or to Joseph Odermatt now and someone holding to an Avignon Pope back then?

Alex Pismenny

19.I.2023

The information about the Conclave held in Rome in 2012(?) was available to the general public.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.I.2023

2013. The ones holding to Avignon papacy weren’t disputing that conclaves had been held in Rome, but that they were valid.

Alex Pismenny

20.I.2023

Those that knew them had no excuse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.I.2023

That would be all, including St. Vincent Ferrer, while he was supporting the Avignon Pope.

You are simply wrong about the theology.

The news that “a conclave took place” is no guarantee that someone was validly elected Pope. There are for instance lots of people who know an emergency conclave took place in 1990, and who still do not accept the late Pope Michael.

Vice versa, David Bawden in 1989, when deciding to hold the emergency conclave certainly knew that a conclave had taken place in Rome in 1978, or rather two of them.

The real issue with Avignon schismatics is, they had some reasons, I do not agree they were the best ones, to consider a Roman conclave invalid.

// Robert of Geneva, (French: Robert de Genève; 1342 – 16 September 1394) elected to the papacy as Clement VII (French: Clément VII) by the cardinals who opposed Pope Urban VI, was the first antipope residing in Avignon, France. His election led to the Western Schism. //

Antipope Clement VII - Wikipedia

// Robert was elected pope at Fondi on 20 September 1378 by the cardinals who opposed the return of the Papacy from Avignon to Rome, and the election of Pope Urban VI in the latter town. //

Note, they did not ignore Pope Urban VI, they opposed him, as invalidly elected. And St. Vincent Ferrer supported that.

Alex Pismenny

20.I.2023

Yes, Avignon Papacy was illegitimate but it was plausible to manyt.

This, with all respect, is not plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.I.2023

On what ground?

Obviousness of a man having convoked Assisi I a few years earlier being Catholic?

And a few months before that even provoking arguably God’s wrath in Chernobyl, by visiting a synagogue as respectful guest?

The visit was on 13 February Gregorian, Chernobyl disaster was 13 February Julian.

Obviousness of a man promoting in CCC, after the emergency conclave, this:

• Heliocentrism
• Deep time
• Evolution
• an unvarying intermediate stage of oral tradition before each Gospel

is nevertheless completely Catholic?

Obviousness of a man provoking the wrath of God in the Balkan war’s worst massacre, Srebrenica, by praying a second time for peace along with inviting non-Catholics and non-Christians to do so? And around that time also making deals with psychiatry, which didn’t cease to be influenced by Sovietic political psychiatry …

I do not find this more obvious than the election of Urban VI, I find it very much less obvious.

Alex Pismenny

20.I.2023

Papacy is not a reward for right thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.I.2023

To a certain extent it is.

Or rather, the reverse is true. Being blocked from it is one of the penalties of false thinking.

A heretic is not eligible as Pope. A conclave voting a heretic into apparent office, has voted sedivacancy into office.

Alex Pismenny

20.I.2023

No. We had notoriously bad popes but papacy persisted. Fraternal correction is the recognized way of correcting heresy.

We don't have a precedent of conclave resulting in empty see.

In any event, self-organized preudo-conclave doesn't cure a sedevacancy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.I.2023

1. Bad Popes were sinners. Not heretics. Even Honorius just favoured heresy indirectly and never came out in direct favour of it.
2. You would have precedents in a conclave resulting in a see vacated at Sutri. It’s doubtful whether the predecessor of Pope St. Leo IX (I think it was) or St. Gregory VII (other possibility) was actually Pope, since invoking Pagan deities would put in question whether he was Christian.
3. What exact part of the procedure would have been impossible on your view even if you had admitted non-papacy of “John Paul II”? What would on such a view have needed to be done instead?
4. As you took this up: “Fraternal correction is the recognized way of correcting heresy.” Well, here you are speaking of Catholics who actually allowed heretical statements to be corrected, like John XXII renouncing the theory of Soul Sleep. I think some issues were very clear already fourth “papacy” after start of V-II, and some issues are sufficiently clear now, like 3rd “papacy” after the early 90’s distance taking from Fundamentalism. Also, St. Robert Bellarmine recognised other ways.

See also:
June '22 Interview Of Pope Michael
6th July 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0UBHcNZu4U

Alex Pismenny

20.I.2023

With all that, self made “papacy' is laughable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21.I.2023

It’s easier for you to laugh than to argue.

Also, apart from some semblance of canonicity, what is not laughable in your line of Popes after 1958 and especially after 1978? Perhaps what’s tragic …

Alex Pismenny

21.I.2023

I love Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. They were great popes and taught solid doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21.I.2023

1. Did they take the option offered as one of two by Pius XII, that Adam biologically had non-human ancestry?
2. When did they place Adam in time? 40 000 - 90 000 - over 100 000 BP? How is Genesis 3 history, then? Or 4000 - 5500 BC, but with acceptance of dates for older human like creatures (that anatomically can often not be distinguished from some men who live now)? How is he then ancestor of all?
3. If Adam had non-human parents, how was he not a feral child who grew up language handicapped? Once you have learned a first language, at the right age, you can learn any other language as second language later on, but if you miss it at the right age, you can’t. This would involve Adam becoming handicapped due to God’s providence, while already the image of God, and before he had sinned, God having in some way to heal him.
4. If you try to solve the problem by saying language evolved gradually, no, it doesn’t. The gradual changes that lead from Latin to French, from Proto-Germanic to English, from Proto-Slavic to Russian only affect very minor detail compared to the gigantic leap between ape communications and human language.

No, their doctrine was very far from solid there.

Other examples, if they believe modern cosmology, where are they placing Heaven? If “not in a place” is the answer, this is against Christ’s Risen Body being, precisely there.

Alex Pismenny

21.I.2023

These are theological hypotheses that are not heretical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.I.2023

Denying the goodness of God or factuality of His promise given to Adam and Eve is.

So is denying significant parts of Eschatology and the Eucharist.

Alex Pismenny

22.I.2023

That is your interpretation of these hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.I.2023

I have gone through each possible interpretation of them and they are all in conflict with Catholic doctrine.

I’m not just making a random interpretation which could be a misunderstanding and basing a conflict thesis on that.

Do you want to try to spell out a scenario where the conflict doesn’t hold? I’d be happy to rip it apart.

Alex Pismenny

22.I.2023

pick one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23.I.2023

Adam not being created de novo.

Alex Pismenny

23.I.2023

I only heard something similar as a theological hypothesis. Who taught that as an approved magisterial doctrine?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23.I.2023

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM]

Alex Pismenny

23.I.2023

That doesn’t teach anything of the kind. Paragraph 283 and following go over various scientific hypotheses, Manichaeism, etc. Read in context:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#283]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23.I.2023

The following, from 285 on, would correspond to what you describe, but the paragraphs 283 and 284 have one message about “the appearance of man.”

1) “ many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge”
2) but the question goes beyond science only, and allots God a place as deliberation behind what the scientific studies tell us.

In other words : “science tells us how, faith tells us why” … if science tells us how man appeared, it implies Adam had non-human ancestry.

IF the beginning of 283 holds, “enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos” either Adam had non-human but anatomically human ancestors or he is not ancestor of all men or he lived so long ago that Genesis 3 is not history.

The statement implies a Cro-Magnon skeleton dated 30 000 years before present is really 30 000 years before present.

If this is before when Adam was created, it means he descended from men or from non-men in human shape, and also makes it highly improbable first nations in pre-Columbian and pre-Cook times descend from him.

If it is after he was created, Genesis 3 is not historically reliably transmitted.

Alex Pismenny

23.I.2023

You speculate about the meaning. Nothing in the plain text negates a single Adam, the first human made by God. That apes resembling humans pre-existed humans is the enrichment of knowledge brought by science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.I.2023

1. I conclude about the meaning (and its further implications) from facts about the scientific ideology referred to. Non-existence of a single Adam was in my analysis not the only possible clearly heterodox implication.
2. You would seem to confirm the meaning in one heterodox implication by calling Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals “apes resembling humans” and “pre-existing humans.”

We have part Neanderthal genomes, and the view you defend implies real humans were mating with “apes resembling humans” … i e, you give as God’s plan (even had Adam not sinned?) for the propagation of mankind, that men should commit a kind of bestiality, unlike the sin normally so called by fertility, but like it in the context of exploiting sexually a being incapable of consenting to marriage.

Before you go on to take another model than “apes pre-existing humans,” or another candidate than Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals for that “slot” - how about exploring why this is contrary to the goodness of God, if true? And also, why it is not true?

1. Some have argued against the fundamentalist model by the fact it implies sibling marriage “therefore incest” … but bestiality is worse than incest. So, you cannot argue your model reflects the goodness of God better than mine if you imply bestiality.
2. It is also not possible that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals are “apes pre-existing humans” because they have shown themselves capable of deliberations that only human minds can make both in toolmaking and in caring for a disabled member of the tribe (the examples involve Shanidar Neanderthal skeleton).
3. Whichever take you make on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals from 30 000 or 40 000 BP, if Adam existed from 7222 BP, and this is later than these skeleta were living creatures, he is unlikely to be ancestor of all men, or to have been ancestor of all pre-Columbians of the Americas when Spaniards arrived or of all pre-Cookians of Oceania when James Cook arrived.

Alex Pismenny

24.I.2023

In short, you read the Catechism as you imagine a heretic would.

The plain text makes it clear that there was one Adam, made by God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.I.2023

The plain text makes it clear that he’s unlike the Biblical Adam not at the beginning of time.

I draw out the logical consequences, and you shirk the issue. You also make a statement how you understand it with heretical conquences, shirking those too.

Alex Pismenny

24.I.2023

Oh. Biblical Adam is from the beginning of time?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.I.2023

Douay-Rheims Bible [Mark 10]
https://drbo.org/chapter/48010.htm

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Our Lord Himself said so. The Word of the Father.

Alex Pismenny

24.I.2023

So Day Six is what?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.I.2023

Conversion of St. Paul

Negligible in relation to the 5229 years between then and when Jesus spoke.

Alex Pismenny

25.I.2023

Conversion of St. Paul

Absurd, my friend. The Six Days of creation is the foundational teaching of the Old Testament. Neglecting it is heresy. Aren't you glad no Pope denied it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.I.2023

Conversion of St. Paul

I cited Jesus.

Six days are certainly all of the distance of the six days or most of the distance of the first seven days.

But it is still just the beginning of the time from Adam’s creation / the world’s creation to when Jesus was speaking 5229 BC.

Alex Pismenny

25.I.2023

Conversion of St. Paul

The point Jesus is making is that people have always been male and female, not that they were made before the stars were made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.I.2023

It is sufficient they are from about the same time as the stars.

Your view of “that” being the “point” depends on what?

EDIT :

Haydock comment has:

Ver. 6. But from the beginning of the world it was not thus; for then God only formed one man and one woman, that they might be exclusively and invariably attached to each other.

Note - “from the beginning of the world” and not “from the beginning of mankind” …

Alex Pismenny

26.I.2023

OK. You think the Catechism denies this view?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.I.2023

“has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos,” (from 283)

And note, this was not among the viewpoints the catechism touched on to reject.

I don’t see how I could honestly think otherwise.

Alex Pismenny

26.I.2023

At worst it requires you as a young Earth Creationist to reconcile your year-counting with astronomical observation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.I.2023

You mean Distant Starlight?

Already solved that in 2001, the night to St. Bartholomew’s, after being confronted with that.

If Geocentrism is true, there is no proof the Bessel phenomenon is parallactic in nature, can be a proper motion performed by the angelic mover of each star (like the retrogrades for planets), and with no parallax, the Cosmic Distance ladder breaks down well before we reach the number of light years that conflict with Biblical chronology.

Alex Pismenny

26.I.2023

Interesting. So how do you know that those wonders of time and dimension contradict Geocentrism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.I.2023

Trigonometry.

I did not state that I knew they contradicted Geocentrism, but they contradict the Bible, however, I said if Geocentrism is true, there is no proof the Bessel phenomenon is parallactic in nature, … and with no parallax, the Cosmic Distance ladder breaks down well before we reach the number of light years that conflict with Biblical chronology.

Heliocentric interpretation of the Bessel phenomenon : we have one distance between two positions of earth and at each position earth has an angle between the star and the other position. One distance and two angles = sufficient to calculate the rest.

Geocentric interpretation of the same phenomenon : we have one angle between two positions of the star and NO distance. One angle = insufficient to calculate the remaining angles or the distances.

Alex Pismenny

27.I.2023

A vague statement about scientific discoveries cannot contradict anything

Answered twice

A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.I.2023

My statement was precisely not vague.

I made it clear why, if the so called “discovery” isn’t one, the trigonometry of parallax isn’t trigonometry.

If you don’t get it, you were sleeping in math lessons.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

Your statement was fine. 283 is vague, intentionally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

Not sufficiently to cloak references to deep time and man “emerging” rather than having a punctual creation.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

Emerging like made from mud. I read that somewhere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

“the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.”

Not clear how many scientific studies can enrich that concept, especially as in the same breath deep space and deep time are mentioned.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

Doesn't contradict your Young Earth theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

You have failed to make it clear how somehow it doesn’t.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

Because 283 does not teach anything about the chronology of creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

While it teaches nothing of the relative chronology, it teaches something of the absolute chronology, and gives “scientific studies” a blank check.

As I know how it is filled in, I know how it contradicts.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

What is absolute chronology and how is it taught?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

The “age … of the cosmos” is referred to as having been enriched by “scientific studies” - as 1992 was before the RATE project and before my own calibration of C14, it would normally refer to the deep time ones.

“many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos,”

As “dimensions” are also mentioned, the author of that part was also into deep space. Ergo, as per Distant Starlight problem, also Deep Time.

And note “enriched our knowledge” - not as if one could call those things bare hypotheses.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

Sound like if the Catechism mentioned that the universe is very large and existed for a long time you would find that heretical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

Basically yes.

By now, the anthropological implications about Adam would be heretical.

Mind you:

• no older than 8000 years
• no wider than on the one hand 8000 light years, but more important, there is a sphere of the unmoved heaven above the stars, if both of these are fulfilled - no problem.

However, fulfilling these two while referring to modern science in basically so many words = denying these caveats. Contradicts.

Continued

below B ...

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.I.2023

Meanwhile, your eagerness of deflecting from Biblical and philosophical reasons (already given) why Adam needs to be at the beginning of time and especially not come after man like apes or things, to the supposed difficulties of holding a YEC position show that you yourself take paragraph 283 as contradicting how St. Thomas or St. Augustine or Historia Scholastica would present the traditional doctrine.

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

No, paragraph 283 doesn't contradict anything you said or St. Thomas might say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

Except by pretending to discoveries about deep time …

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

… which confirms creation ex nihilo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

But the point is, creatio ex nihilo is not the only credendum.

There are points about nature of man, alternatively goodness of God, alternatively both that go to Hell in a handbasket if you admit deep time!

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

No.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.I.2023

Yes, they do.

Continuing A

Alex Pismenny

28.I.2023

It is your problem then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.I.2023

No, you try to make it so.

I have shown how by now it leads to heretical conclusions, with alternative scenario after alternative scenario.

You could say of each as plausible denial, that that scenario is not what the catechism states.

I asked you to show at least one scenario which is compatible with the normal sense that § 283 has and which is also compatible with:

• man being truly different from irrational animals, not just by a shade of degree
• God being truly good to Adam up to when he sinned.

Instead of complying with the request, you deflected to various quibbles if the paragraph really says this or the Bible really says that or whether I’m not reading the paragraph as a heretic would.

You cannot presume in a debate between us that CCC is a document of the Church that Jesus founded, that is precisely in debate. You haven’t shown my statements were heretical. So, that was just deflecting from the issue.

In case you would pretend to dispute this resumé of what we said so far, here is the blogpost where it is mirrored. Don’t worry, I am not trying to monetise it without your getting royalties, this specific blog is not monetised and for editors I give the counsel to check with consent from other copyright holder … if you consider yourself as such.

Papal Divisions
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/01/papal-divisions.html

Alex Pismenny

29.I.2023

Tell your blog I said Hi.

I would agree that if the Catechism consisted of 283 alone, it would be incomplete and people who believe in Kansas popes might even find it contrary to their faith.

But the Catechism knows the proper place of science. See, for example, this collection:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/education/catechism-catholic-church-references-science/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.I.2023

A statement doesn’t* change meaning by being put into its context, and nothing in the quote series you showed on that link has any bearing on changing the meaning of § 283 as I understood it.

My readers on the blog will perhaps appreciate your hi.

*normally

Alex Pismenny

29.I.2023

It teaches that scientism is heretical and man has the universe available for his pleasure.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.I.2023

Teaching verbally that scientism is heretical is somewhat useless if you approach certain questions from a viewpoint of scientism.

It doesn’t teach that Evolutionism is heretical, and it promotes, as mentioned, Evolutionist heresies in § 283. Promoting one heresy is not excused by condemning an other one, even if related.

Patriarch Sergius condemned Monophysitism, but he was a Monothelite.

I already explained why Evolutionism is heretical, how it is taught here, and you are into your umpteenth attempt of deflecting from that.

Alex Pismenny

30.I.2023

God guided evolution theory is not heretical and the Catechism supports that view along with Young Earth theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.I.2023

God guided Evolution theory is heretical, even if Pius XII didn’t see it.

Unlike Wojtyla he didn’t try to define it was OK to believe, but he said it was OK to defend in debate, however, he asked for competence in Bible and sciences. This competence is obviously compatible with coming to the result of the debate that God guided Evolution is heretical, by now we have sufficient data to conclude that with extremely good certainty.

As to “along with Young Earth” you have not shown the CCC supports still accepting that. If it does, it’s not in § 283.

Alex Pismenny

31.I.2023

You can conclude that God did not guide the evolution?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.II.2023

How about ceasing to:

• deflect
• strawman
• otherwise stall?

I have already said what my issue with Theistic Evolution is : it denies God’s goodness to Adam prior to Adam sinning.

Does it do so directly in the immediate formulation of the words? No.

Does it do so in every conceivable scenario that can be proposed, at the very least you have not proposed one.

21.I.2023 I made one comment which you can look up without laboriously going up the thread simply by using the link to the post with our dialogue. I mean the one where I enumerate 4 points, mainly questions. Question number 3 involves how God would have been extremely cruel to a not yet sinful Adam in his small childhood, if Theistic Evolution held true.

For that matter, question number 2 involves whether Genesis 3 is history or not.

It is not just necessary to allow God to be the Creator. As a Christian, I need a God who was good to Adam from the first moment of his as yet sinless existence, and a God who made the promise in Genesis 3:15 within a reasonable time of historic transmission. These things are not covered by your saying “Theistic Evolution leaves God as the creator” - and you have so far not given any other attempt of covering them.

Alex Pismenny

1.II.2023

I deflect nothing. If you can't answer, don't. My time is valuable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.II.2023

So is mine.

You have digged into a strawman to deflect from what I asked you about more than a week ago, if you find Theistic Evolution defensible to defend.

The questions aren’t problems for YEC, they are problems for Theistic Evolution. Your question from six hours ago is a pure strawman.

Alex Pismenny

1.II.2023

It's not the only time when you said something false and got upset when I followed up.

Alex Pismenny

1.II.2023

Matter of fact I see your objections more clearly. I'll write an essay on that and you will comment. You are right that certain way to look at evolution is wholly heretical.

Give me time

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.II.2023

Deal.

C

new thread under his answer ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.II.2023

A friendly reminder that we had a deal you write an essay, and tomorrow you’ve had a week.

If Theistic Evolution is really compatible with all Catholic dogmas, not just God being really creator, how long can it take to refute the contradiction beetween the idea you cherish and for instance God’s goodness to Adam prior to his sin?

In my carreere as a debater, since 2001, Catholic and YEC, and since St. Bartholomew that year also Geocentric, I have never had to take a full week to come up with an at least preliminary reply to a pretended refutation of my position.

Obviously, no criticism if it only takes time to do the research for precise facts … but in certain cases, I just might save you some trouble. If you told me what you were looking for.

Alex Pismenny

7.II.2023

Pressure at work. I have not forgotten.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.II.2023

Is the pressure one of time, or is it peer pressure about the actual issue?

Alex Pismenny

15.II.2023

Almost done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.II.2023

Nice, looking forward to it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.II.2023

“almost done” - ten days ago

Alex Pismenny

25.II.2023

It's been on Faith Nation Beauty for a while now, but I couldn't find this thread to ping you. Sorry.

Faith, Nation, Beauty

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.II.2023

Ah, thank you!

Sorry for missing it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.II.2023

Sorry, again, but our deal involved me making comments, and you have precisely disabled them …