quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
My comments about my mother relate directly to the OP. The OP was created because I was raised Catholic, and didn't understand what the Baptist church was telling me about salvation. Now that I better understand, the Baptist attitude is something I embrace. Had I stayed in the Catholic faith, I may have better understood through their doctrine. The Baptist doctrine seems more approachable to me; less nuanced.

It was a "bummer" for me to hear her answer, because it implies that she is not currently saved. If you "truly believe", the answer to the question posed is "yes". John 3:16-18 says as much.

I was raised a Catholic as part of my family. As a matter of fact, if I was sharing my faith with a non-believer, I can confidently say I am a Catholic because "you're born a Catholic, you'll die a Catholic."

I have also come to a full assurance that when I die, I'm going to heaven, not because of anything that I have done but because I believe Jesus died for my sins and I am saved by grace through faith.

So I understand what you're going through about your mother or anyone else that you care about. I'm going to share my position and I'll be the first to say I don't know if my position is right but it stands to reason with what I've come to know and it does involve even the discussions in this thread that seems tangential to your original purpose.

First, we start with the quote "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." It's attributed to St. Augustine.

It captures the idea that there are essentials in Christianity that without it or if you hold to a belief contrary to it, then you are not a Christian. For example, it is essential to believe that Jesus did rose from the grave. Without that belief, you are not really a Christian and are not saved.

The non-essential portion captures the idea that reflects the different kinds of Christians there are. There are some Christians who don't believe in using instruments to worship, others believe in using only the King James Version, others believe you have to speak in tongues, and others believe in once saved always saved. These are controversial divisions and those who for or against these issues can be obstinately adamant about their positions. But, as you get to personally know these different people, you can also conclude that these people with their differing opinions are also Christians and are going to heaven.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him. We also know He is the narrow door.

But when we come to Jesus, it does seem He accepts us even when we say, "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to use only the King James Version." or "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to speak in tongues." They may acknowledge that Jesus and Jesus alone is who saves them and they don't realize their practice says otherwise. But that's because they're imperfect people.

I would suggest that the group of imperfect people who are saved are those who say, "I am saved by Jesus but I am not sure if I am going to heaven." I know that sounds heretical because if you know, you know. But I remember the first time someone asked me that question after getting saved and I had to work out my reasoning on the spot. I remember Jesus said, "I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also (John 14:2-3)" And that was how I was able to answer in the positive.

Since you're speaking with your mother on these issues, you might share with her that passage along with many other passages about the surety of salvation in Christ.

You might say, "But what about the statues of Mary, the sacraments, etc." All I know is that Jesus accepted the thief on the cross with all his ignorance. Catholics may say, "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to do Catholic things." I think the important thing is to be sure they do have a personal relationship with Jesus and Jesus can deal with the stuff of their life including their religion. Even the father wanting a miracle confessed, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief (Mark 9:24)."

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Does your church have any of the following:
Crucifix
Cross
Venerable paintings
Statues
Xmas trees
Steeple
Baal staff

Does your church celebrate any of the following:
Spring rites
May Day
Valentine’s Day
Love month
Mardi Gras
Lent
Ash Wednesday
Palm Sunday
Good Friday
Easter
Saints day
Halloween
Christmas

I'm going to allow you to take another shot at that. Be informed that you don't understand what you're asking, and even though I told you, you also don't understand who your asking it of.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take another shot at. I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m asking yes or no questions.

Alright then.
Cross - Yes, the same way any synagogue will have the star of David, or mosque will have the Star and Crescent.
Xmas trees - in the season of advent
Steeple Yes
Easter - Yes, it's the Resurrection
Halloween - They do a trunk or treat in the afternoon.
Christmas - Yes, it's Advent.

-----------
Crucifix - No, I'm not Catholic
Venerable paintings - No, I'm not Catholic
Statues - No, I'm not Catholic
Baal staff - No, I'm not Catholic

Does your church celebrate any of the following:
Spring rites- No, I'm not Catholic
May Day - No, I'm not Catholic
Valentine’s Day- No, I'm not Catholic
Love month- No, I'm not Catholic
Mardi Gras- No, I'm not Catholic
Lent - No, I'm not Catholic
Ash Wednesday- No, I'm not Catholic
Palm Sunday- No, I'm not Catholic
Good Friday- No, I'm not Catholic
Saints day- No, I'm not Catholic


as you can see most of your questions show your ignorance of what I've already told you. Your decision to virtually attend an independent church, and not take communion amongst your fellow Christians is all I really need to know about your theology.

quote:

But when we come to Jesus, it does seem He accepts us even when we say, "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to use only the King James Version." or "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to speak in tongues." They may acknowledge that Jesus and Jesus alone is who saves them and they don't realize their practice says otherwise. But that's because they're imperfect people...."But what about the statues of Mary, the sacraments, etc." All I know is that Jesus accepted the thief on the cross with all his ignorance. Catholics may say, "I am saved by Jesus but I also have to do Catholic things."

Well said, Rey. Thank you to all, for the thoughtful replies.

I am still thinking on your reply, Reloader. The scripture says salvation is assured if we believe in the truth of Christ. We can therefore be sure of it, if we believe the truth. Uncertainty implies potential unbelief. Though, like you said, the belief can be there, but veiled by different doctrine. So, when interrogated on the spot, someone may find fault in their response, like Rey suggested.

I am also still curious about everyone's opinions on the other two notions I mentioned.

A few things that have been in my heart and mind lately:

The "problem" with Catholicism.
-The Catholic doctrine has the potential to dilute, distract from, and, at worst, pollute the truth. The transformative nature of true acceptance of the truth of the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ and the associated repentance should be the priority. That is the jumping-off point in which God can begin working through us as his instruments in this world. In my Catholic experience, I can't recall, at any point, understanding what Jesus was trying to give me, or why I needed it. Of course this could be because I just wasn't paying attention. I asked my mother recently, if I ever talked about Christ outside of the Lutheran preschool I attended. She said no. She added that I never talked about Him outside my formal Catholic education either. I can't recall every REALLY talking about him inside the circumstances of that Catholic education either. Maybe my church did a bad job; maybe my parents did a bad job. My four-year-old daughter has a lot to say about Christ; I admire her.

Miracles (and sorcery).
-It seems the "big ones" were shut-off after Christ: sighting of the blind, paralytics walking, resurrection. "Lesser" miracles seem to persist, but are sparsely documented, and difficult to research. The "Lourdes Shrine" in France has played host to 72 "official" healing miracles, but they are difficult to research. The website for the religious site merely provides the healed persons name and the date of the miracle's certification; it doesn't even say what they were healed of.

-Sorcery is another matter of curiosity. Pharaoh's magicians replicated some of God's miracles in Exodus. It is speculated that their powers were derived either from the devil, or from God himself. God wanted to harden Pharaoh's heart, so it is entirely possible that he permitted them a degree of success in their lifetimes, so that they'd be convincing in that moment. In either case, it seems this phenomenon has been shut-off as well. You can bet your butt, just as we'd be eager to enable the salvation of observers by granting sight to a known-blind person in Jesus' name, all these self-professed contemporary sorcerers and satanists would certainly publicly display their magical prowess to win more souls for the devil, if they could (they can't).

(unfulfilled) Prophecy
Jews and skeptics like to point to a lack of world peace, as prophesied in Isaiah 2, as a bit of messianic prophecy that Jesus failed to fulfill. I argue the opposite. He gave us the formula for world peace; he fulfilled that prophecy. God isn't known for interfering in the world in a "snap his fingers" sort of way. He requires our participation. He wants to see us grow to our full inherent potential. Jesus shows us the way, and stands ready to help us in every step. A world full of Christians is a world at peace. A world where everyone knows the truth, and repents, is a peaceful place indeed.

Prayer
God is the master of the universe. He made us and everything we know. Do we pray in a way that expresses adoration, respect, gratitude, trust, and love? Do we pray with the frequency and the intensity that He deserves? Do we make praise and worship a greater portion of our prayers than requests and thanks for ultimately worldly outcomes? Do we pray for spiritual growth? Do we pray for peace and comfort found in confidence in Him? Do we pray for the motivation and strength to try and share the gift of His truth with others as often as we can? Do we pray for constant conviction?

What are your "prayer lives" like?

Thanks for listening, men. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. These themes are in no way concluded; I have not arrived at definitive ends in any of these lines of thought. None of them are matters of salvation. Further development or an "answer" to any of these discussions doesn't stand to change the truth.

Another fun topic: Homosexuality

A couple months ago, I had a conversation with a homosexual woman. She said something that hinted at a Christian faith, so I inquired further. She said she is/was a "minister". She also looks-after a young boy whose mother is unfit; she teaches him to believe-in Christ. Obviously, there is a conflict here. I didn't inquire about reconciliation of the apparently conflicting ideas.

Also, a relative of mine has been revealing himself as homosexual, over the past couple years. He has reportedly struggled with it, having been raised in a Christian family. I asked him about it at a recent family gathering (not the faith aspect, but merely to confirm his homosexuality). I hope to steer the conversation into faith at my next opportunity.

In considering things, in the wake of my interaction with both of these people, I came to the conclusion that someone can be saved "and" be homosexual. I put and in quotes because it would only outwardly appear that they are both. You can't actually be both. Well, but you can; it's not exactly cut-and-dried.

I asked my preacher about it, and what he told me makes sense.

He said a homosexual can, in a moment of surrender, clarity, conviction, and repentance (to include the sin of sexual immorality that is homosexuality), accept Christ's gift of salvation by believing-in Him. In the same way an alcoholic or womanizer may backslide later, someone who struggles with homosexuality may do the same.

The key word is "struggle". You cannot be willingly engaging in sin, in belief that it is not sinful, and accept salvation as offered by Christ. You must acknowledge your sinfulness.

The preacher also did say that, if a homosexual has been saved before ever succumbing to that sin of sexual immorality, they are still saved. They, like my relative, compelled by the Holy Spirit, will inevitably face conviction and be waging war, with varying degrees of success, against their flesh.

In various ways, we all eat the Apple, every day.

Similarly, we all reject Christ, every day.

We drive in the nails, we pierce His side, we take the scourge to Him.

Every day.

And He still loves us.

The only particular offense of homosexuality, is that is a sin Satan is trying to normalize.

I think polyamory will be the next goal.

The overarching one, of course, to turn man into a beast.

quote:

"you're born a Catholic, you'll die a Catholic."

I've heard that before. I don't guess it causes me much struggle or loss of sleep, but I do find it difficult to wrap my brain around it. I can only surmise it would be akin to me saying "I'm a Texan and I'll die a Texan" 'The Church' as I'm taught, isn't a building or a place to go and gather (but who doesn't love a good revival?). The Church are simply ALL of us who are saved by the Trinity's Great Mercy. Texan or not, I find much more comfort and understanding just simply knowing that Jesus paid the price in full for our sin and I am a child of God, and I will die a child of God.

Indeed, Aglifter.

On Catholicism: I have enjoyed recent posts by Cous2492, in the new pope thread. I feel underserved by my Catholic upbringing. The things Cous2492 and other mature Catholics have had to say in these various threads is compelling. I think that many Protestants get hung-up on two or three pieces of Catholic doctrine that they choose to take issue with, and therefore neglect to learn any more.

A common theme in my church is considering the attendees who are not saved. Those who are there every Sunday, but don't truly believe and accept the gift of salvation. It is understood that this group represents a not-insignificant portion of the congregation.

Is it the same in the Catholic church? Is there a large portion of the congregation that is "going through the motions"; that doesn't have the same depth of understanding that some of you do?

I maintain my position that much of the doctrine can be distracting. Evidently, there is no shortage of Catholics who see past or through it.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Indeed, Aglifter.

On Catholicism: I have enjoyed recent posts by Cous2492, in the new pope thread. I feel underserved by my Catholic upbringing. The things Cous2492 and other mature Catholics have had to say in these various threads is compelling. I think that many Protestants get hung-up on two or three pieces of Catholic doctrine that they choose to take issue with, and therefore neglect to learn any more.

A common theme in my church is considering the attendees who are not saved. Those who are there every Sunday, but don't truly believe and accept the gift of salvation. It is understood that this group represents a not-insignificant portion of the congregation.

Is it the same in the Catholic church? Is there a large portion of the congregation that is "going through the motions"; that doesn't have the same depth of understanding that some of you do?

I maintain my position that much of the doctrine can be distracting. Evidently, there is no shortage of Catholics who see past or through it.

Thank you for your kind words, Aglifter. I think one thing that I can relate to the anti-Catholics on is that I have been there, made those arguments, and seen the hypocrisy of many Church leaders first hand. As a short back story, I was born and raised Catholic, went through the motions and graduated Catholic HS to think that I would never look back. As a young adult, I found many protestant theologians to be interesting. I met my now wife, who was a practicing Baptist and started going to church with her and her family. The pastor was charismatic and often had touching and relatable messages. However, in all protestant denominations (including those that claim to be "Christian" and not protestant) there is an underlying anti-Catholicism that is the basis for much of their doctrinal beliefs... if they have any at all. The last straw was when I heard the baptist preacher say verifiably false things about the Catholic Church. We had just been married at that point and were expecting our oldest son, Jack. I knew that this moment could very well be a defining moment in our lives here on earth and our eternal lives as well. A heavy weight for a 25-year-old man to bear. I started out with a blank notebook, a bible, and a laptop. Setting out to use my negative reasoning to determine what I could disprove, first. Over the course of many months, endless hours of prayer and consideration, I made one determination: I couldnt disprove the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. I couldnt imagine a scenario in which someone in the middle ages could have faked it. I could relate it through blood typing to the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo , and other Catholic relics. I found that all of my protestant inspired arguments were easily shot down by, not just modern apologists, but real life Saints from history. Sure, there were things I didnt like. I found myself uncomfortably close to some really bad stains on the Catholic Church. Maybe most of all, I was disappointed in my Catholic education. Preschool to 12th grade and I didnt know much about the faith. That stung. But through all the bad, through all the disappointment, and through all the confusion, I realized that He was there.

So I get many of the arguments, but I know that the Church has the answer. I get the dislike of many people in the church, but they are still God's children. I get the mentality of "I know better," but I dont. Being Catholic is hard. Being Catholic is a humbling experience. Being Catholic kills you. But being Catholic means you are born again in Christ, through Baptism, and helped along the was by the sacraments, the Saints, and the Church.

If any of you doubt it, just do this... Every Catholic Church on the planet has a tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament and a little red candle next to it that burns perpetually, signifying His presence. Go to a Catholic Church, and just go in and sit or kneel somewhere in the church. It doesnt have to be busy or during a Mass. Just sit and pray. Ask the Lord if thats really Him in there. Pray. Tell God that you mean no disrespect in being in this place and that if its idolatrous nonsense, that you were just seeking Him. But ask and you shall be answered. Seek and you will find. God speaks to people when they honestly seek the truth. I know a few people who have actually done this, and they found the answer. It takes humility, faith, hope, love, and a child-like wonder to let down the guard that has been built up in all of us since the time of Adam and Eve.

We should strive to be like Clopas on the road to Emmaus. He thought that he knew Jesus because he knew all about him. "...Haven't you heard what has happened?" Clopas thought that he knew all about Jesus. But he knew not who he had been walking with. It wasnt until the breaking of the Bread that their eyes were opened. What a powerful and thought provoking verse. You to could known Him the way the very first Christians new him. In the breaking of the Bread.

Another thing I like to point out to those who dont believe the the Catholic Church is them one true church that Crist founded is this:

The New Covenant (or Testament) was a Sacrament before it was a document... according to the document! As Jesus said in the upper room on the night before he was to suffer, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Christ didn't leave a book. He left a Church. He left the New Covenant, the Eucharist. He left a Church in the hands of the Apostles, led by Peter. There is only one church that can be traced back to Peter through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church. All of the arguments against it eventually fall apart and the Church stands as a beacon for hope, a hospital for sinners, and the pathway to God.

quote:

Maybe most of all, I was disappointed in my Catholic education. Preschool to 12th grade and I didnt know much about the faith. That stung.

That is my feeling about the Catholic education, and it sounds like yours was much more extensive than mine.

I believe in the blood and the body - it’s one of the reasons I became a Lutheran.

It’s in Scripture, and I do not think I am intelligent enough to argue with Scripture.

I have yet to meet anyone I consider intelligent enough to do so.

I think Rome is horribly corrupt, because it has taken on a burden no mortal entity can bear, and is to arrogant to admit its own failings.

So, the Eucharist is the seemingly pivotal aspect here.

Brief research indicates that it was an observed tradition in the early church (first few centuries). It is biblical, and was practiced by the Apostolic church. They didn't necessarily perform the ceremony as the Catholic church does today, and it was likely performed during shared meals as opposed to over an altar. Much like a blessing before the meal, but with an emphasis on the bread and wine being the body and blood "in remembrance of me".

I wonder, then, why the Eucharistic tradition is not ubiquitous.

I suppose I also need an education in Sacraments. What defines a Sacrament? Yet another example of my Catholic education leaving me wanting. The word Sacrament got plenty of lip service, but I didn't take-away what it actually means.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
So, the Eucharist is the seemingly pivotal aspect here.

Brief research indicates that it was an observed tradition in the early church (first few centuries). It is biblical, and was practiced by the Apostolic church. They didn't necessarily perform the ceremony as the Catholic church does today, and it was likely performed during shared meals as opposed to over an altar. Much like a blessing before the meal, but with an emphasis on the bread and wine being the body and blood "in remembrance of me".

I wonder, then, why the Eucharistic tradition is not ubiquitous.

I suppose I also need an education in Sacraments. What defines a Sacrament? Yet another example of my Catholic education leaving me wanting. The word Sacrament got plenty of lip service, but I didn't take-away what it actually means.

The Eucharist is the turning point. Specifically research
1. Transubstantiation (Catholic)
2. Consubstantiation (Lutheran)
3. Nonsubstantiation (pretty much everyone else)

As to the drawn out prayer of consecration, there has been some change in the rubericanof the Mass, but not many. The Mass has always consisted of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Basically, the reading of the word of God and then the consecration prayers. Many were done in small groups, homes, and clandestine locations due to early persecution. Especially in this time, the Mass was still forming in its traditions and practices as the whole of what we now call the New Testament had yet to be compiled. It came together eventually and we got the tridentine mass and eventually the controversial norvos or so.

Please, please, please look up the Eucharistic Miracles of Lanciano. And please disprove it. The issue hinges on the Eucharist. It's either the real presence or it's not. It's not a small issue.

Edit:
The sacraments are
Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Sacrament of the Sick / Last Rites

I am not eager to disprove anything. I am familiar with Eucharistic miracles, and have done abbreviated research on them in my (still admittedly abbreviated) research of the broader miracle phenomenon. I will specifically search those phrases you mentioned. Thank you. I did specifically look-up the Lanciano miracle as well, after your initial mention of it.

In either case, I don't think validity of Eucharistic miracles would make or break the Catholic Church as a whole. As stated in other discussions, there are other things about Catholicism that people find more objectionable than the Eucharistic Sacrament.

It seems the key phrase, when it comes to understanding sacraments, is imparting divine grace.

The misunderstood aspect, in my experience in the Catholic, and now Southern Baptist, churches is the presence of sincere belief and faith. I think this is the pivotal aspect of many folks' beef with some Catholic doctrine.

I received the first four sacraments in the Catholic church, but in an absolute absence of actual belief and faith. That makes them, in my mind, meaningless. As in there could not have been any divine grace imparted (aside from perhaps the baptism) because the Holy Spirit was not actually present in me at all.

Is that the case? Does a Sacrament "work" if there is an absence of faith in the participant?

I am not seeking a debate; only understanding. Thank you for the good conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I am not eager to disprove anything. I am familiar with Eucharistic miracles, and have done abbreviated research on them in my (still admittedly abbreviated) research of the broader miracle phenomenon. I will specifically search those phrases you mentioned. Thank you. I did specifically look-up the Lanciano miracle as well, after your initial mention of it.

In either case, I don't think validity of Eucharistic miracles would make or break the Catholic Church as a whole. As stated in other discussions, there are other things about Catholicism that people find more objectionable than the Eucharistic Sacrament.

It seems the key phrase, when it comes to understanding sacraments, is imparting divine grace.

The misunderstood aspect, in my experience in the Catholic, and now Southern Baptist, churches is the presence of sincere belief and faith. I think this is the pivotal aspect of many folks' beef with some Catholic doctrine.

I received the first four sacraments in the Catholic church, but in an absolute absence of actual belief and faith. That makes them, in my mind, meaningless. As in there could not have been any divine grace imparted (aside from perhaps the baptism) because the Holy Spirit was not actually present in me at all.

Is that the case? Does a Sacrament "work" if there is an absence of faith in the participant?

I am not seeking a debate; only understanding. Thank you for the good conversation.

In response to your question on the sacraments, yes they do "work" in an absence of faith. It's a complicated issue, but I think that I can shed some light on the matter. As an example, take Baptism. The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is a rebirth in Christ. Baptism is a washing away of sin, a regeneration into the family of God. Infant Baptism is the norm in the Catholic Church. The infant has no understanding of the sacrament, obviously, but the faith and prayers of the infant's parents, Godparents, and the whole church bestow upon the infant the readiness and desire for the sacrament. Same often goes for the sacrament of the Sick. Many times the gravely injured or sick cannot request or accept the blessings and grace bestowed upon them in the sacrament.

Personally, I'd say that I'm in a similar boat as you. I received baptism, reconciliation, First Communion, and Confirmation while in grade school, but I didn't get it and I fell away from the Church. Upon returning the the Catholic Church, I was so glad to have received those sacraments as a kid and felt totally renewed in each and every one of them.

To the topic of homosexuality, as I understand it, one can have same sex attraction and enjoy salvation. The homosexual act is the sin. As described in scripture. What one does with that sin is the critical point.

Sin is sin and no unclean thing can dwell with God. Which dooms mankind without the gospel of repentance and Christ’s sacrifice pay the price of sin.

Some believe that repentance is a one time confession and surrender while others believe it is a continual process of refinement resolution to abandon the sin. I am of the latter.

I sin. We all do. Some of mine are nearly insignificant. Others have been grievous and some still are. Can I become sinless of my own effort one day? No. But to stop trying is sinful. So, after all I can do, Christ compensates and His gospel refines my nature.

Typically I keep these things to myself.

quote:

Some believe that repentance is a one time confession and surrender while others believe it is a continual process of refinement resolution to abandon the sin. I am of the latter.

I agree. I pray for conviction every day, so that I may daily repent.

The sin of homosexual attraction is fornication.

It’s the same as when a straight man lusts after a woman, other than his wife, in his heart.

Broken people have sinful impulses. The key is to fight against them/not to indulge in them, even mentally.

(Sadly, this includes day dreams about lynching politicians.)

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I am not eager to disprove anything.

And you have no obligation to disprove anything.*

It is a fundamental logical argument fallacy to claim that someone who doubts an unlikely occurrence (and by definition a miracle is extremely unlikely) must disprove the stories or other supposed evidence that support it in order to question whether it’s true. We may believe what we want on whatever bases we deem sufficient, but my believing something does not obligate anyone else to demonstrate that the reasons for my beliefs are wrong.

These discussions continue to be very enlightening, so thanks to everyone who has contributed to them.

* Pertaining to the subject being considered in this thread, of course. There are countless claims pertaining to our secular lives that must be disproved by the person who disputes them if they expect their counterclaim to be accepted. I am also not suggesting that KSGM doubts the miracle. I am only saying that no one is required to be able to disprove the story of the miracle in order to have a reasonable and legitimate doubt that it occurred as reported.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund, May 11, 2025 03:10 PM