|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A "personal" relationship with Jesus
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
While I heard this phrase in the churches of my youth and early 20s, I must say, much like the eternal begotten-ness of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit, it's not something I enquired into too deeply: I simply accepted it without fully understanding it.
From a Protestant point of view [as this is where, until today, I've only heard the phrase], can someone flesh out for me what exactly this means? I would think it a generalisation that it necessarily means, "Me and Jesus alone and that's it", though I don't doubt here are those who think this way, but what does it mean both in words and in practice?
To another church, and everyone's favourite low-church Catholic charismatic Max ![[Biased]](wink.gif) posted here:
quote:
...some of us Catholics are more like Protestants in communion with rome and really do believe that a personal relationship with Jesus and the forgiveness of sins are important things.
(my italics)
I must say I was taken aback by this, though it may be how I am interpreting the phrase. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the corporate nature, the catholic nature, of the Catholic Church and the Sacramental Community were its joy and glory and hope. Or am I splitting hairs needlessly, and you can quite easily have both?
Thanks,
Ian.
[removed superfluous space in thread title]
[ 10. August 2007, 00:07: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I don't know what the heck it means and I never have. To me it smacks of the kind of "Jesus is my best friend" sort of stuff I associate with a certain brand of protestantism.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of the Father &c. I don't have a "personal" relationship with him, and he's not my "personal" savior", because he's everybody's savior.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I find the language unhelpful, both for the reasons you state and because of a conviction that 'personal relationships' between human beings are bodily. Until the Lord returns in glory there is a sense in which he is bodily absent (the doctrine of the Ascension), and we encounter him in a strange and symbolic (though nonetheless Real) fashion. Thus sacraments. There is a powerful 'not yet' element to sacramental Christianity. I think a lot of 'personal relationship with Jesus' though is based on an overly realised eschatology.
That's my thoughts. As for Max; I'm not entirely sure what a low-church charismatic Catholic is. Perhaps he could tell me.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think it means 'meaningful to you' rather than just an anonymous being. But why make such a big deal of it - surely everyone can gauge what is personally meaningful, without someone else deciding for them?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
and we encounter him in a strange and symbolic (though nonetheless Real) fashion. Thus sacraments. There is a powerful 'not yet' element to sacramental Christianity. I think a lot of 'personal relationship with Jesus' though is based on an overly realised eschatology.
That is a really good point, and puts very well what I feel about Jesus. Thank you.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
There's eleven pages on this in Limbo.
Just to save everyone's effort in retyping stuff.....
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
It doesn't matter if a thread's in Limbo. We can still have a discussion.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Well, it's not quite that simple in my view. We, arguably, can't decide what is 'meaningful' outside some linguistic framework we share with others. For all any of us know, it might turn out that it is simply incoherent to speak of a 'personal relationship' with a person outside the spatiotemporal universe.
[ETA: in response to Chorister]
[ 25. April 2007, 22:04: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."
The idea was born at a time when an individual would have been viewed as a Christian simply because his or her parents were Christians.
I am Protestant enough to think that there is something in this.
Another way to put the question might be backwards: Is it possible for a person to say "My mother is a Christian and my father is a Christian, but I repudiate everything that Christianity stands for"? Some people in some cultures would say that such a person was still a Christian.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I find the phrase helpful to a certain extent but overplayed in evo circles. I've never heard of it being expressed as "jus' me an' Jesus". If anything, evangelicals are hotter than most on church attendance and house groups and so on.
I am inclined next time someone asks how my "personal relationship with Jesus" is to respond, "Fine thanks. How's your communal relationship with God?"
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I tried to write up my own response to this, but I actually have this article pinned on my door back in London at University and I don't think it can be worded any better.
quote:
St. Macra, a martyr of the early Church, summed up what it means to relate personally to Jesus in this way. "Jesus Christ is my all in all," she told her persecutors. "He's my treasure, my life, my happiness … and nothing can separate me from Him." Even a Pentecostal evangelist could say a hearty amen to that!
That's what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is.
It's a personal decision, YOU decide at confirmation (and if you're an adult at the time, you do also at baptism) "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, Our Lord to which we respond I do and we reaffirm this everytime we bless ourselves with holy water, reminding ourselves of our baptismal promises, everytime we say the creed at the eucharist and at many other times.
The church as a whole teaches that Jesus Christ is Lord and that we should love him, but in the end The church doesn't force you to follow Jesus, it's a personal decision.
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."
Which just moves the question into new words. What is a personal relationship with Christ? What does that look like? What is my own friendship with God in Christ? What would that look like?
How can anybody tell by looking at another whether they have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?
How can I tell by looking at myself whether I have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?
If I'm told over and over that I must have this "personal relationship" in order to be saved, but nobody tells me how I can determine whether or not I have it, I'm kind of in a perpetual panic mode. If I don't have it, I won't be saved, but I can never tell if I do have it.
I know there are people who (according to their own reports, which I have no reason to doubt) really feel the presence of God in their lives. I have no such feeling. I have heard many other people, of various levels of devoutness (according, again, to their own reports) say they believe themselves to be Christian, and yet have no such feeling.
It seems to me the language of "personal relationship" does more harm than good. Yes, you're not a Christian just because your parents were. Nevertheless an undefined "personal relationship" is an impossible criterion to apply usefully. Perhaps it's time to put it on the shelf.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Mormons use this language a lot. "Jesus is my personal Savior, my elder Brother, my friend." Etc. I never got any feeling for it. Nothing.
If I am to believe in Christ as a literal manifestation of God as flesh (as oposed to being merely a legendary figure of a successful religion), then I do not have any special relationship. We all have a relationship. Being God, Christ can manifest to ME, and that could conceivably be quite intimate and personal. But I have experienced nothing remotely like that. All such belief in God, for me, remains metaphysical pondering and some vivid dreams. Nothing like a perceived one on one relationship.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Interesting: the evo-esque circles I moved (and still move, in a more open manner) in are very keen on religion as "relationship with God." Reasonable enough - but isn't "relationship" a bit of a metaphor here?
Unless you're a medaeval mystic hearing voices, this relationship doesn't consist of communication or interaction in any of the normal ways. Reading the bible give me as much of a relationship with God as reading tLotR does with JRR Tolkien.
In what sense is it a relationship at all with someone who, in a very real sense, isn't there?
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Interesting: the evo-esque circles I moved (and still move, in a more open manner) in are very keen on religion as "relationship with God." Reasonable enough - but isn't "relationship" a bit of a metaphor here?
Unless you're a medaeval mystic hearing voices, this relationship doesn't consist of communication or interaction in any of the normal ways. Reading the bible give me as much of a relationship with God as reading tLotR does with JRR Tolkien.
In what sense is it a relationship at all with someone who, in a very real sense, isn't there?
- Chris.
For a Catholic in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist... Jesus is very much present in Body, Blood, Soul and divinity in our presence. As a priest put in his sermon a while ago - the Eucharist is not spiritual, but entirely physical.
Unlike eastern religions where one almost wants to seperate mind and body, Christianity UNITES our minds to our bodies and the celebration of the Eucharist unites our souls and our bodies together as both are norished by the Eucharistic meal, Jesus becomes part of our bodies physically and we are healed in both mind and body.
To say that Jesus isn't there is a very grave mistake, because in the Holy Eucharist he certainly is! Physically... not just in spirit!
I don't really know what a non-Catholic answer to your question would be Chris... I won't attempt to answer on behalf of a non-Catholic either - let's wait ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay. I'm one of those who would 'fess up to having a relationship (personal? well, what else could it be?) with God.
I DO NOT think that my salvation depends on it, or that anyone else has to have my particular experience of God in order to be saved. To each his own.
I rather suspect that this talk of needing to have a relationship began as a clumsy attempt to say "More than mere intellectual assent is involved in being a Christian." But what form faith takes probably varies widely, depending on personality and on the gifts God gives each of us.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So our "personal relationship" between Jesus is the same relationship as between an eater and the food he eats? I can go there (grudgingly) but then I fail to see why the adjective "personal". Is it because I am personally eating, and nobody else is eating? But everybody else is eating. When people are at table together, your relationship with the food is not personal, but communal.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
So our "personal relationship" between Jesus is the same relationship as between an eater and the food he eats? I can go there (grudgingly) but then I fail to see why the adjective "personal". Is it because I am personally eating, and nobody else is eating? But everybody else is eating. When people are at table together, your relationship with the food is not personal, but communal.
That's not what I said, in my last post I am responding to Chris' arguement that one cannot really have a relationship with Jesus if he "isn't there"
I'm saying in my last post that the Catholic tradition teaches that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist.
In my first post, I linked to an article which says what it means to have a Personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay. I'm one of those who would 'fess up to having a relationship (personal? well, what else could it be?) with God.
I DO NOT think that my salvation depends on it, or that anyone else has to have my particular experience of God in order to be saved. To each his own.
I rather suspect that this talk of needing to have a relationship began as a clumsy attempt to say "More than mere intellectual assent is involved in being a Christian." But what form faith takes probably varies widely, depending on personality and on the gifts God gives each of us.
You have spoken my mind on this matter, but I'l add just a bit.
The way I encounter God (in prayer, in life, in the presence of others) is unique to me and my development as a person of faith.
Of course, I share some traditions with others, but even so, within those traditions, my way of experiencing them is going to be different than the person next to me from time to time.
I don't believe my salvation (or anyone else's) depends on this--but I do strongly believe that the vibrancy with which we live our spiritual lives will be enhanced if we can access something personal along with something communal.
sabine
[ 25. April 2007, 23:00: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."
There's a problem with this, though. Those of us who don't usually use the "personal relationship" terminology don't think a person is a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. We (or most of us) think a person is a Christian because she has been baptized.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."
There's a problem with this, though. Those of us who don't usually use the "personal relationship" terminology don't think a person is a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. We (or most of us) think a person is a Christian because she has been baptized.
But in the end it becomes a personal decision, one eventually has to confirm that decision when one reaches an age of reason or in other traditions when one is confirmed.
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
It's definitely Protestant language (evangelical language) but I don't think it's a Protestant concept. I think lots of people have a "personal relationship with Jesus" who would never use that term to describe it. Certainly lots of the saints and mystics of the church. Gee, Catherine of Siena believed that Jesus had (in vision) given her a ring of flesh from His foreskin as a wedding band to seal their marriage. If that's not a personal relationship, what is? (and it certainly belies the belief that "Jesus is my boyfriend" theology is a product of modern evangelical protestantism).
To me, the "personal" in that phrase (which, yes, I would use) isn't opposed to "corporate," it's opposed to "impersonal." Impersonal in a Deist sense, God as a distant character who doesn't really know us or care about us, and with whom we can't communicate. For me, the idea of "personal relationship" is linked to the belief that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit knows me as an individual and cares what happens to me, and that I respond to this by trying to communicate with God through prayer, Bible reading, worship, etc. Obviously for someone in a more sacramental tradition the sacraments would be a more central part of how that relationship is expressed.
I can understand why the language make some people uncomfortable but I think what they are responding to is something that's not necessarily there in the minds of those of us who say we have a "personal relationship with Jesus." I would say that any Christian who prays regularly and believes that God knows them and cares about them, has a personal relationship with Jesus -- regardless of what branch of Christianity they belong to.
[ 25. April 2007, 23:12: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
Well, OK, for another point of view:
If it were not for the fact that I was claimed personally by Him in a "road to Damascus" experience" when I was 24, and by that experience know Him to be live, immediate and real, then I would not claim the label "Christian". And I know that if I didn't have this personal, intimate and immediate relationship with Him, nobody would believe my profession of faith.
Certainly, my beliefs by themselves do not qualify me for any kind of credibility or membership in any church congregation that I know of.
I feel it's only my deep, abiding, and ecsatatic enthusiasm that comes out of having intimate acquaintance with Him as my dear Lord, Master, Physician and Friend that qualifies me for membership in the corpus of Christ.
This relationship was not looked for or hoped for, but fell on me out of a clear blue sky. He called me, I didn't call Him. It's partly because I feel I am the least deserving of His flock that I cleave so completely to Him in love, loyalty and friendship.
There is no kinder judgment, no gentler ear, no more comforting breast than His to lay my troubles on because when I do, they are lifted completely from me. No other friend on earth can do this for me. For the sake of no other friend do I want to be healed in order to be fit to bring Him joy in celebration of my successes.
I don't know how else to describe my Christianity, but suffice it to say, it would not exist if this very personal and intimate relationship didn't.
Shalom
LAFF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
I've always hated the "personal" relationship language. The question is highly nosey and akin to asking if you are having an affair with thy neighbor's wife. I know that's not what they mean.
I haven't been asked that question in years, (thank God!) but if asked, I would ask them what they mean by that. If there answer is based on feelings and emotions, then I obviously do not nor do I think such things are necessary. But, I probably would otherwise agree with them based on one category or another. I could scare them off with quoting
quote:
O res mirabilis!
manducat Dominum
Pauper, servus, et humilis
but that would totally freak them out. Cannabalism! Gross! Yuck!
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
But in the end it becomes a personal decision, one eventually has to confirm that decision when one reaches an age of reason or in other traditions when one is confirmed.
Max
This is certainly not the case in either the Catholic Church or in Orthodoxy. "Confirm" has an English use meaning to ratify, give assent to. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation. The Sacrament of Confirmation or Chrismation is about being sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. From the latin: confirmare = to strengthen. There is no Catholic Rite of making the promises that were made for you at baptism your own personal ones.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
In my first post, I linked to an article which says what it means to have a Personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I'm afraid that article raises more questions than it answers.
He first tells us to Know, Love, and Become Like God (or Jesus).
What does it mean to "know" Jesus Christ? I can know about Jesus Christ. I pray fervently that He knows me. But how can I know Jesus? I am reminded of the conversation between Pole and Scrubb behind the gym at their school. Scrubb tries to tell Jill about Aslan, and she says, "Do you know him?" and Scrubb answers, "Well, he knows me."
What exactly does it mean to "know" Jesus? I assume you (and Mr Thigpen) mean more than simply knowing facts about Him. I need somebody to flesh this out.
I think maybe he means to flesh this out in the next section, entitled "Lord, Saviour, Friend".
To accept Him as Lord Thigpen says to acknowledge His sovereignty over the universe, as well as his authority over my personal life, and to attempt to obey Him. This seems to be a combination of intellectual assent, and action which could devolve into "going through the motions." Nothing at all personal here.
Secondly accept Him as Savior, which is glossed as accepting his role in our salvation (an intellectual and not personal requirement), and to look to him to personally save me. But surely that's an attitude, and not a relationship?
Finally I must accept Him as Friend. Thankfully he goes into great detail to describe what this means:
(1) Read the Bible and be familiar with the teachings of the church. Surely this can be an automatic thing, devoid of personal relationship.
(2) Go to confession: ditto.
(3) Receive the eucharist. Way ditto, as any anti-Catholic low-church protestant will tell you.
(4) Act in love, justice and mercy towards others. Again, actions, not relationship with Jesus.
This seems like it could devolve into a mechanical "going through the motions" but at least it tells me which motions I need to go through. But if I go through those motions, do I then have a "personal relationship" with Christ? This is stretching the meaning of the term "personal relationship" beyond all reasonable limits. It's like saying you have a personal relationship with somebody who never returns your phone calls or text messages, never answers your emails, and is never home when you drop by to visit. You can call that a personal relationship, I suppose. But you're kidding yourself.
I can do all the things he suggests, and never in any real sense "know" Jesus. I can Love him (in the abstract), and I can try to become like Him (by doing the sacraments and following the other things he mentions); but do I thereby "know" Him? Again this is stretching the word beyond normal limits.
In the end I am left not understanding what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Adding "personal' to relationship seems a bit redundant. If we are in relationship to God, and we are people, and he is rightly described as personal, then we have a personal relationship. If God is not rightly described as a person, then we do not have a personal relationship.
I would ask questions instead about the quality of the relationship. Can I call God "Father"? If yes, the relationship is perfect. If no, the relationship is one where I must deal with a wrathful and angry God, which I suppose you might characterise as a "bad" relationship.
[ 26. April 2007, 00:01: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There is no Catholic Rite of making the promises that were made for you at baptism your own personal ones.
But we reaffirm our baptismal promises at Confirmation? (and when we bless ourselves with Holy Water and when we say the creed at mass)
Isn't that basically making those promises once again?
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
But in the end it becomes a personal decision, one eventually has to confirm that decision when one reaches an age of reason or in other traditions when one is confirmed.
Max
This is certainly not the case in either the Catholic Church or in Orthodoxy. "Confirm" has an English use meaning to ratify, give assent to. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation. The Sacrament of Confirmation or Chrismation is about being sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. From the latin: confirmare = to strengthen. There is no Catholic Rite of making the promises that were made for you at baptism your own personal ones.
True, but I would argue that if one does not at some point make these promises personal then it is possible to go through life in ignorance of the faith in which we are confirmed.
I received the sacrament of confirmation at age 11, and did not fully understand the meaning of it. At 16 I was asked by a Baptist friend "Do you know Jesus?" to which my reply was "Yes, of course, I'm a Catholic." Actually I didn't know Jesus in any sense other than "He's our Saviour" until about 2 years later when I realised that He is my Saviour, then the renewal of my baptismal vows was a significant turning point for me.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I would think it a generalisation that it necessarily means, "Me and Jesus alone and that's it", though I don't doubt here are those who think this way, but what does it mean both in words and in practice?
To another church, and everyone's favourite low-church Catholic charismatic Max posted here:
quote:
...some of us Catholics are more like Protestants in communion with rome and really do believe that a personal relationship with Jesus and the forgiveness of sins are important things.
(my italics)
I must say I was taken aback by this, though it may be how I am interpreting the phrase. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the corporate nature, the catholic nature, of the Catholic Church and the Sacramental Community were its joy and glory and hope. Or am I splitting hairs needlessly, and you can quite easily have both?
I think it's both, and I grew up (liberal) Methodist and was there at the founding of the Vineyard (pre-Wimber).
"Personal relationship with Jesus" means to me that Jesus knows me personally, I'm not simply one more generic 'soul' He saved; He knows me and it is my goal to know Him (Matt.7:23).
The modern protestant failing is to then take is as "me, my Bible, and Jesus." No no no, anybody who's reading his/her Bible eventually notices Hebrews 10:24-25: and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Christianity is something that must be practiced in community. Yes, there are times we go off alone to worship and pray (as did Jesus) but that's not the bulk of our time. The model of Jewish worship is within community and Jesus comes very much from that community: "salvation is of the Jews."
IOW, yeah, it's both/and, not either/or.
For myself, I do have a very personal relationship with Jesus; it's not where I'd like it to be but it continues to grow. But I've come to recognize not everybody has (or maybe even wants) that kind of relationship (there was a Purgatory thread when I first came onboard which was instructive to me in helping me understand how much natural variance there is between Christians in our individual faith walk and experience of God.
quote:
Mousethief said:
How can anybody tell by looking at another whether they have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?
How can I tell by looking at myself whether I have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?
I don't think you can tell by looking at another whether they have a personal realtionship with Jesus (and I don't think that's our job). As for yourself, 2 Cor.13:5 says Test yourselves {to see} if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?
That's something to grapple with (so much of what St. Paul says is something to grapple with; what a mind!) - we don't want to have the Lord say to us, "go away from Me; I never knew you." It's not healthy to turn that into perpetual paranoia but it is wise to take a step sideways, from time to time, and examine our hearts and practice.
quote:
sanityman said:
In what sense is it a relationship at all with someone who, in a very real sense, isn't there?
But Jesus is there, He's here, He's more present than any of us. He's simply not manifesting in His physical, resurrected human form. But it is He in whom we live and move and have our being.
I believe many Christians can learn how to practice an awareness of the presence of Christ (shoot, Brother Lawrence wrote a great little book about it, The Practice of the Presence of God). But this may be one of the places that divides those with a mystical inclination from those without; I dunno.
Well said, Trudy.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't think you can tell by looking at another whether they have a personal realtionship with Jesus (and I don't think that's our job).
Agreed.
quote:
As for yourself, 2 Cor.13:5 says Test yourselves {to see} if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?
Beautiful words, but what do they mean? By what criteria do I test myself to see whether I am in the faith? How do I recognize that Jesus is in me, if I can't see or feel Him? How do I know whether or not I indeed fail the test?
[cleaned up attribution for clarity's sake]
[ 26. April 2007, 03:02: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I should have a personal relationship with Preview Post, but alas I do not. Everything after "I indeed fail the test?" should be ignored. Sorry!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Max and C - I am not in dispute with you about the need to say "I believe". I am simply pointing out that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not some kind of Rite of Passage when we get to say "I believe" for ourselves. The Sacrament of Confirmation is tied to the Sacrament of Baptism, but not in that way.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
Perhaps if it was a requirement to say "I believe" before receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation then the Church would not lose so many young people?
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
It is a requirement
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
But in practice in Catholic schools it's usually "You're in year 5/6/7 so you're all going to be confirmed." Most of the children stop attending mass as soon as they leave primary school, especially as most of the parents don't come to mass either. Somehow the message isn't getting through; it seems to be just lip-service.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
But in practice in Catholic schools it's usually "You're in year 5/6/7 so you're all going to be confirmed." Most of the children stop attending mass as soon as they leave primary school, especially as most of the parents don't come to mass either. Somehow the message isn't getting through; it seems to be just lip-service.
This might be a pond difference, and I'm no expert on matters Catholic, but I have Catholic friends and have gone to mass with them on several occasions. Not only are there many families in church, there is a special service just for families with children. At all services, children leave for religious education half way through and return when it's time for communion.
I take a neighbor to Midnight Mass sometimes (or to an earlier Christmas Eve mass sometimes) because she can't get there on her own--I see quite a few teenagers and single young adults in the congregation.
[tangent] Wow, is it hard to get up for Meeting on Sunday after having been out to Midnight Mass, but you know, it's a wonderful service and I enjoy it very much. [/tangent]
So the impression I have formed is that in this city in this country, children attending mass with their parents is characteristic of the worship life of Catholics.
sabine
[ 26. April 2007, 02:45: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
But in practice in Catholic schools it's usually "You're in year 5/6/7 so you're all going to be confirmed." Most of the children stop attending mass as soon as they leave primary school, especially as most of the parents don't come to mass either. Somehow the message isn't getting through; it seems to be just lip-service.
In RC thought, this wouldn't render the sacrament invalid though, would it? My understanding of Roman Catholic thinking is that the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient. If true, this would help explain why the idea of a personal relationship with God is downplayed within the Roman tradition.
Happy to stand corrected here.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In RC thought, this wouldn't render the sacrament invalid though, would it? My understanding of Roman Catholic thinking is that the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient. If true, this would help explain why the idea of a personal relationship with God is downplayed within the Roman tradition.
Happy to stand corrected here.
This might be a possible tangent, but I think it relates to the OP....I just don't get the sacrament thing. Does the fact that a church engages in sacramental rituals mean that those same churches do not believe that there can be a personal relationship with God until those sacramental rituals have been performed? Or are the sacraments meant to recognize that the person has achieved a personal relationship with God (and if so, how can anyone know?)? Or is it assumed that the people have a personal relationship and the sacraments are a recognition of fellowship with others who have a personal relationsip?
Friends have traditionally said there is no outward test of one's inner relationship with God; that relationship is strictly personal. Certain spiritual gifts might be apparent and even recognized semi-formally, but no one has the right to say that a person is or is not a Christian or a believer in God except the person him/herself.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient
Gordon, where on earth do you get information like that? You know it is not accurate.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ozowen
Shipmate
# 8935
|
Posted
I like the term on the one hand and never use it on the other.
I think it sums up the intimacy that God shares with His own, but OTOH it sums up a kind of bleak, meaningless mindset promulgated by tele-evangelists and well meaningbut blank faced enthusiasts.
--------------------
Without stupid people we would have no one to laugh at, so take time to thank a creationist for their contribution.
Posts: 2933 | From: The Never Never, Australia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient
Gordon, where on earth do you get information like that? You know it is not accurate.
Again, I am happy to be corrected. However this statement, from here contains within it a degree of ambiguity:
quote:
1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation 49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
I note the last statement that there is a degree of dependence "on the disposition of the one who receives them" (which sounds semi-Pelagian if you ask me, but that is another thread). However if kids are being pushed through confirmation by the teachers at their school or by parental expectation, that is neither here nor there as far as the "disposition of the one who receives them" goes.
Oh, and I also wonder to what extent Roman Catholicism views the disposition of the receiver as a product of God's grace anyway? This makes the question even murkier.
[ 26. April 2007, 03:26: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I, on the other hand, cringe slightly at the phrase but ultimately would accept it as meaningful and its intent as important.
For Friends, the relationship with Christ is both personal and corporate. George Fox, during his spiritual crisis, sought advice from the supposed experts (Anglican priests and "separate preachers", i.e. Puritans and other dissenters), and found no satisfaction. Then he heard a voice saying "There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition." Meaning that Jesus (the Light who enlightens everyone) does have a direct relationship with each of us individually and with all his people as a body. Not necessarily voices and visions (though those happen sometimes, they're not the most common or even a specially privileged format--they've never happened to me, but that doesn't make it less personal), but the promptings of the Inward Light, the "still small voice," etc. It's personal in that it's not mediated by books, rituals, or hierarchies, but it's not purely individualistic--it is that "Christ is come to teach his people himself."
It's not a phrase I use, but if asked point blank whether my relationship with God is personal, I'd have to say yes.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My understanding of Roman Catholic thinking is that the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient. If true, this would help explain why the idea of a personal relationship with God is downplayed within the Roman tradition.
On the contrary, it doesn't explain anything at all: surely you would be first to say that salvation isn't a function of worthiness of the recipient, yet I doubt you would see this as leading to downplaying the idea of a personal relationship.
Happy to be corrected, of course.
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ozowen
Shipmate
# 8935
|
Posted
Gordo
I rather liked a sentence in a book on catholicismI read some while ago.
It said something like;
The idea of the liturgy is to take the communicant from a shared place with his brothers to a solitary place, alone with Jesus.
I think that many (most) of the canonised saints exhibit a very real one to one relationship with Jesus. They are, according to doctrine, to be emulated.
St Therese de Liseaux, for example, had amost intimate and personal relationship with Jesus. One I fear I shall not get close to in this life.
--------------------
Without stupid people we would have no one to laugh at, so take time to thank a creationist for their contribution.
Posts: 2933 | From: The Never Never, Australia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ozowen:
I think that many (most) of the canonised saints exhibit a very real one to one relationship with Jesus. They are, according to doctrine, to be emulated. St Therese de Liseaux, for example, had amost intimate and personal relationship with Jesus. One I fear I shall not get close to in this life.
Yeah, but the difference is, when she talked to God, God talked back. If God talks back when I pray, it's in a language I can't understand, or at a volume I can't hear. (And please no nonsense about stilling the inner whatsit -- when I still the inner whatsit (and I have), I don't hear God, just my tinnitus.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
Gordon, you quoted the answer:
quote:
Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
Back to the OP, I find almost without exception, those who use that phrase--and there are seem to be--millions who equate "being a Christian" with those who "accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour" to be social conservative, reactive types who try to find justifications for their "dislike" of women and gays by quoting Bible verses.
Also, I dislike the term because AFAIK, it comes from American evangelicalism, and is too ruggedly individualistic for a Church to exist as a body.
I have honestly heard many times of people who "don't need to go to Church to be a Christian" and "you can be a Christian and not go to Church"--they justify this because they "have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and that's it. Once saved, always saved. Can backslide, but can't lose salvation, so why go to Church if you have Jesus and a Bible?
This "personal saviour" business comes from a flawed ecclesiology, one that fails to see the liturgical and sacramental nature of Christianity as being primarily corporate, to quote from the BCP beloved by " quote:
ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee...who have duly received...the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us...that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people
If one wants to base Anglican theology on the BCP, it would be nearly impossible to extract American/Australian evangelical Protestant doctrine from the same source.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prudentius
Shipmate
# 11181
|
Posted
I think that the term "personal relationship" with God, or God in Christ, actually goes back to the Reformers and the concept is certainly reflected in the great prayers of the Fathers of the Church, the chorale texts of Pietism and later in the hymns of Watts and Wesley.
The Reformers were reacting against what they perceived as a professional clericalism in the religious practice of the time which became a detriment to the laity believing that they were capable of having their prayers heard or of feeling the presence and inspiration of the Divine. Erik Routley often described it in his writings on historical liturgy and theology as a sense, on the part of the flock, that they weren't holy enough, since not consecrated celibates with an education and ability to read the sacred texts (remember it was forbidden to translate them into the vernacular before Luther) and practice the lex orandi and meditation and prayer regime of the professionally religious. In a largely illiterate society, how could hoi polloi be ecpected to do such things when the Church had not yet felt a calling to educate the middle and lower classes? (Luther began parochial schools before the Roman Church took up the cause in the Counter-Reformation.) Many sent out their prayers to be said for them, much as we would send out our shirts to be laundered and starched.
People felt that their prayers were so inadequate that they paid the professionals to pray on their behalf. This was when stipends and gifts to religious houses began to be abused -- leading, eventually to the vulgarity of the selling of indulgences. To a medieval Christian, a personal relationship was something that Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross and other mystics had with God. Luther, in his championing of the priethood of the laity and the right of the faithful to be able to participate in corporate prayer by translation to the vernacular was an Earth-shaking departure from the prevailing atmosphere of the time.
By the definition of the Reformers and since, a personal relationship with God means not having awe for some abstract being that is out there some place and only makes Himself known through annointed authorities. It means making the effort, through prayer, meditation and study, to personally communicate with the Deity as a Divine Triune Person. It is the difference between knowing what others have told you about God and the great minds have taught on the subject, and knowing God in the sense that you as a believer (having made the leap of faith) can see the epiphanies in your own life and sense the presence of God. It is believing and knowing from the personal experience of having a love relationship with God that He will never let us down or abandon us. Reflect on the text of Georg Neumark 1657. [Wer Nur den Lieben Gott - trans. by Catherine Winkworth 1855. Pietism in one of its most beautiful expressions:
quote:
If Thou but trust in God to guide thee,
With hopeful heart through all thy ways.
God will give strength, whate'er betide thee,
To bear thee through the evil days.
Who trusts in God's unchanging love
Builds on the Rock that nought can move.
Only be still, and wait God's leisure
In cheerful hope, with heart content
to take whate'er thy Keeper's pleasure
And all-discerning love hath sent.
No doubt our inmost wants are clear
To One who holds us always dear.
Sing, pray and swerve not from God's ways,
But do thine own part faithfully;
Trust the rich promises of grace,
So shall they be fulfilled in thee.
God never yet forsook at need
The soul secured by trust indeed.
Having a personal relationship with God was certainly not foreign to earlier giants. Look at Augustine at prayer. Even those who are put off by his sending little babies to hell in his theology can not resist wanting this sort of direct relationship to God. His spirituality is sublime and personal rather than theoretical: quote:
Late have I loved You, O Beauty so ancient and so new;
Late have I loved You.
For behold: You were within me, and I outside;
And I sought You outside –
And in my own unloveliness,
I fell upon those things that You have made.
You were with me, and I was not with You.
I was kept from You by those things,
Yet had they not been in You,
they would not have been at all.
You called and cried to me to break open my deafness,
And You sent forth Your beams,
And you shown upon me and chased away my blindness.
You breathed fragrance upon me,
And I drew in my breath and do now pant for You.
I tasted You, and now I hunger and thirst for You.
You touched me, and now I burn for Your peace.
Augustine
That is an expression of a personal relationship with God, as is Ignatius in his magnificent Suscipe:
quote:
Take, Lord, receive all my liberty, my memory, understanding, my entire will.
All that I am and all that I possess
You have given me:
I surrender it all to You
to be disposed of wholly according to Your will.
Give me only Your love and Your grace;
that’s enough for me.
Your love and Your grace:
with these I will be rich enough
and will desire nothing more.
The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius, as well, are meant to be ways of opening one's soul to an awareness of God's presence in the individual's life without intermediary. One who talks to God from the heart as Healer, Shepherd, Friend, Lover of My Soul (Crashaw and Wesley) is going straight to God with his/her prayer. The veneration of the saints and the cult of the Virgin --- as beautiful as they are in proper perspective --- had become stumbling blocks to many. The poor slob in the crowd (they didn't have benches for the laity before the Reformation -- only the stalls for the monks, seperated from the riff raff by the Rood screen) did not feel that he was adequate to approach God in prayer on his own. Because these feelings of inadequacy were encouraged, and the religious education of the non-noble layity was almost nonexistent, the Reformation was desperately needed.
When someone asks "Do you have a personal relationship with God?" what is being asked is "Do you have an abstract, conceptual, or intellectual understanding of a Supreme Being, or have you ---through prayer and meditation -- developed your spirituality to the point where you know as a certainty that God loves you and hears your prayers and allows you to feel His presence in your life at your finest moments of openness to God?"
--------------------
The truth shall set us free. In the end, there can be no healing without justice; no justice without the truth; no truth without full accountability. We’re not there yet!
Posts: 317 | From: NY | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bush baptist
Shipmate
# 12306
|
Posted
Some posters have suggested that they don't like the phrase 'personal relationship' because of it's used by other Christians whose ideas on other issues they disagree with -- 'yuk! wouldn't want to sound like one of them'. But it seems a pity to let ourselves be cut off by language from other parts of the church just where we might find an agreement, since (as several persons have pointed out, most recently Prudentius) the idea of a personal relationship is not by any means confined to those conservative Protestants who are at the moment using it the most.
And taking it further, if the use of this phrase or idea is boycotted by sections of the church who use it sloppily or shallowly, then it's ceded to them -- an analogy could be the cession of the use of the national flag to anti-immigration groups, because they are the ones who have been splashing it around lately.
Posts: 1784 | From: drought-stricken land | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boviwanjoshobi
Shipmate
# 11206
|
Posted
Interesting the NT speaks very little about having a personal relationship with Jesus. Not that Christians don't - they certainly do. But Jesus commands people to take up their cross and follow him (Luke 9:23 for example). Peter in his sermon in Acts 2 exhorts his listeners to "repent and be baptized everyone of you". In Acts 16 when Paul and Silas were asked "What must I do to be saved?" they said "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
I just think it is interesting that nowhere in the NT does anyone say to people, "you must have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus".
My take is that this change of terminology has come due to a several influences:
1) the Feminisation of the church - there are heaps more women in church than men, and often Christianity is expressed in feminine terms
2) our culture with its emphasis on feelings and emotions
3) the church selling out to marketing, pop-psychology (examples such as Saddleback and Willow Creet)
4) The Charismatic movement and their emphasis on exegeting experience; the lyrics of their songs, etc.
5) Evangelicals using this term in order to differentiate those who are not Christians(but think they are).
thoughts?
--------------------
Romans 1:16 Absolutely
Posts: 166 | From: Lake Macquarie | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
