Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

[Xavier]

One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.

Gerard, why don't you try answering these questions: and I note you and those who agree with you are the only persons who argued with and did not believe what the Popes, Saints and Doctors said about approved apparitions and public miracles, not Mikemac or anyone else.

You adduce so many captious objecions and such absurd alleged problems with Our Lady of Fatima's apparition and requests that one has to seriously wonder whether you actually believe them or not!

Bogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.

Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.

Bogus objection #2 - kings are obliged to obey God because God is the source of their authority. Popes, however, are not because, er...

Response/rebuttal: This ridiculous objection, which is really the heart of your whole novel claim, unknown for some 90 years while the whole Catholic world accepted Fatima, rebuts itself! Firstly because (1) everybody is always obliged to obey God, and secondly (2) the Pope is even more obliged than others to consult God and discern His will and do it than ordinary people are. Who has received more must give more and the Pope has received more than kings have from God. And that answers fatuous objection #2.

Bogus objection #3 - but, but if something happens only in an internal apparition to a seer, the Pope cannot verify that it was from God.

Response/rebuttal: (1) the Pope verified it was from God. (2) Pope Pius XII personally witnessed again the miracle of the sun from the Vatican, and credited Our Lady of Fatima. (3) And the original miracle was visible anyway. Therefore, you are going against the Popes. Not us.

Bogus objection #4 - but, but Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation and uncovered Her Immaculate Heart covered with thorns.

Response/rebuttal: this objection, also repeated by AC, has to be the most impious and Protestant of all the objections. It would logically end in the destruction of all Catholic piety and the complete loss of awareness of the necessity of reparation.

And again I ask: the Sacred Heart spoke in almost identical terms about how His Heart was suffering because of the lukewarmness and the coldness of men toward His Sacrifice. And asked for reparation. So, are you prepared to discard that as well? Either answer this, or you give the impression that you are indeed ready to reject the Sacred Heart as well.

Bogus objection #5- but anyway, what has happened just because people prayed the Rosary?

This final question/objection also betrays a lack of a supernatural spirit and also Protestant and even worldly naturalistic thinking. But in real point of fact, beside many other tangible benefits, whole nations - like Poland and the Philippines - have demonstrably been freed from Communism by devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, Her Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart. There was hardly a serious anti-Communist in recent times in the Church who was not also a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima.

Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?

[Vetus Ordo]

Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?

I guess they could ask the same in reverse.

What good fruits has Fatima brought to the Church? It's an ecumenical center right now, mind you.

[Quaremerepulisti]

One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.

Why don't you grow up.

We simply don't accept your worldview.  Deal with it.

[mikemac]

So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.

"cease offending God"

"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."

"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."

You actually believe that the devil would say these things?

You guys have lost your collective minds.  This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum.  Even more ridiculous than Impy.

Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.

If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.

From the Raccolta, prayer 84.

http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm

84.  PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.

Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.

PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.

Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.

Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.

[Gerard]

One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.

Ah...right...to be anti-Fatima is to be Anti-Catholic.  Amazing how you don't actually explain that and when people ask you simple questions about the deposit of faith being closed, you don't respond. 

Gerard, why don't you try answering these questions: and I note you and those who agree with you are the only persons who argued with and did not believe what the Popes, Saints and Doctors said about approved apparitions and public miracles, not Mikemac or anyone else.

Find me one infallible and binding statement that I've contradicted and I'll retract my position.  Otherwise, saints and doctors have made statements that just because the majority is wrong doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.  They don't' become right by fact of their authority or titles. 

You adduce so many captious objecions and such absurd alleged problems with Our Lady of Fatima's apparition and requests that one has to seriously wonder whether you actually believe them or not!

They exist in and of themselves whether I believe them or not.  I didn't make anything up.  The fact that no one has actually made a substantive rebuttal in lieu of ranting is telling. 

Bogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.

Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.

A Pope is not a King.  A King is a man-made office on earth.  The Pope is the only Divinely instituted office in the World.  Huge difference.   So, your analogy fails. 

Second, Do I have to point out that no Catholic is obliged to believe in the apparitions of the Sacred Heart nor the visions of St. Margaret Mary.  And even if they do believe in the one, they aren't obliged by their belief in any one apparition to believe in Fatima. 

Third, the letters of St. Margaret Mary do not contain a threat if the King of France did not do the consecration.  It is Sr. Lucy who uses the consecration of France as a threat against the papacy. 

Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition. 

Bogus objection #2 - kings are obliged to obey God because God is the source of their authority. Popes, however, are not because, er...

Response/rebuttal: This ridiculous objection, which is really the heart of your whole novel claim, unknown for some 90 years while the whole Catholic world accepted Fatima, rebuts itself! Firstly because (1) everybody is always obliged to obey God, and secondly (2) the Pope is even more obliged than others to consult God and discern His will and do it than ordinary people are. Who has received more must give more and the Pope has received more than kings have from God. And that answers fatuous objection #2.

Like all Catholics, Catholic Kings are not obliged to obey apparitions. 

You're rebuttal automatically assumes that God and not the Devil or a mental illness is the source of the apparitions.  This is not only foolish but dangerous. 

We don't start by assuming that every and any apparition is automatically true or that it in any way has the authority to usurp a Divinely established hierarchical chain of authority. 

When it comes to the Church on earth, the Pope, not an apparition is Supreme.  He is the holder of the Keys.  It would constitute a new revelation to claim that Popes are bound to put their power into the service and subservience of new revelations from Heaven (or anywhere else) 

For all you know, any number of the Popes have discerned God's will and decided NOT to bow to the threat and do the consecration as demanded. 

You go on about Popes and theologians believing in Fatima all you want, I agree with the Popes who for whatever reason ultimately decided NOT to do the consecration.  Who are you to know better?  I can play that game if you want. 

Bogus objection #3 - but, but if something happens only in an internal apparition to a seer, the Pope cannot verify that it was from God.

Response/rebuttal: (1) the Pope verified it was from God. (2) Pope Pius XII personally witnessed again the miracle of the sun from the Vatican, and credited Our Lady of Fatima. (3) And the original miracle was visible anyway. Therefore, you are going against the Popes. Not us.

The Pope can't bind anyone to the belief that it's from God.  It's his personal opinion.   Pius XII was a good Pope who did a number of good things and a number of bad things.  Whether he really saw anything or was deceived or mistaken is anybody's guess.  I'm not obligated to believe any vision of Pius XII just as nobody is obliged to believe in Leo XIII's vision. 

Bogus objection #4 - but, but Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation and uncovered Her Immaculate Heart covered with thorns.

Response/rebuttal: this objection, also repeated by AC, has to be the most impious and Protestant of all the objections. It would logically end in the destruction of all Catholic piety and the complete loss of awareness of the necessity of reparation.

That's not one of my complaints about Fatima, but if I recall, the discussion was about the state of souls who are beholding the beatific vision.  Catholic doctrine teaches that souls in Heaven are in a state of eternal and perpetual happiness. 

So, the contradiction is in the images of ticked off Jesus and weepy, miserable Mary.  They are either perpetually happy or not.  I'll stick with Catholic doctrine over contradictory imagery. 

And again I ask: the Sacred Heart spoke in almost identical terms about how His Heart was suffering because of the lukewarmness and the coldness of men toward His Sacrifice. And asked for reparation. So, are you prepared to discard that as well? Either answer this, or you give the impression that you are indeed ready to reject the Sacred Heart as well.

Show me the quotes and I'll let you know.  I have no problem jettisoning any optional apparition (which means any apparition)  if it contradicts the deposit of faith.  Even if I'm wrong on a detail, it's still safer to ignore the apparition and stick with the faith and taught by the Church. 

Bogus objection #5- but anyway, what has happened just because people prayed the Rosary?

This final question/objection also betrays a lack of a supernatural spirit and also Protestant and even worldly naturalistic thinking. But in real point of fact, beside many other tangible benefits, whole nations - like Poland and the Philippines - have demonstrably been freed from Communism by devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, Her Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart. There was hardly a serious anti-Communist in recent times in the Church who was not also a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima.

Now, question to the anti-Fatimists: what good fruits have come from your crisis-itis and from your 5-10 year old anti-Fatimist movement?

[/quote]

Whole nations are freed from Communism?  That's great! Seems we didn't need the threat against the papacy for a consecration after all to defeat communism. 

Last time I checked, Fatima didn't invent devotion to the BVM, it didn't establish the Rosary and our Lady had a long track record of intercession before Fatima. 

I don't know anything about a "movement."  In May 2017, I simply noticed something.   I pointed it out and other people have agreed and reinforced the position with their arguments and presentations from their research. 

Pope St. Pius X and Leo XIII and billions of others in history lived saintly lives and were devoted to the Catholic faith and Fatima didn't exist, so it is possible to live a good Catholic life, be devoted to the BVM without Fatima, with its hand-wringing and threats and this-world political promises and false dilemmas and demands. 

Maybe we should do a Rosary Crusade for our Lady of Lourdes to free the Church from the grip of the Fatima deception. 

[awkwardcustomer]

Bogus objection #1 - Our Lady of Fatima made a "threatening" request at Fatima to Sr. Lucia. Therefore, it was not Our Lady.

Response/rebuttal: Our Lord made an equally "threatening" request in France to St. Margaret. So, according to you, the Sacred Heart was not Our Lord either, or you are mistaken in captious objection #1.

Taking your points one at a time, this one regarding the King of France is a classic example of the Fatimist way.

Firstly, you are suggesting that devotion to the Sacred Heart depends on believing locutions made to St Margaret Mary Alacoque. 

Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says -

(a) Historical foundations

In approving the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the Church did not trust to the visions of St. Margaret Mary; she made abstraction of these and examined the worship in itself. Margaret Mary's visions could be false, but the devotion would not, on that account, be any less worthy or solid. However, the fact is that the devotion was propagated chiefly under the influence of the movement started at Paray-le-Monial; and prior to her beatification, Margaret Mary's visions were most critically examined by the Church, whose judgment in such cases does not involve her infallibility but implies only a human certainty sufficient to warrant consequent speech and action.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart has a long tradition in the Church and does not depend on a locution given to any particular Saint.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains -

It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that we find the first unmistakable indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart. Through the wound in the side the wounded Heart was gradually reached, and the wound in the Heart symbolized the wound of love. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or were its first votaries. To St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the "Vitis mystica" it was already well known. We cannot state with certainty to whom we are indebted for the "Vitis mystica". Until recent times its authorship had generally been ascribed to St. Bernard and yet, by the late publishers of the beautiful and scholarly Quaracchi edition, it has been attributed, and not without plausible reasons, to St. Bonaventure ("S. Bonaventura opera omnia", 1898, VIII, LIII sq.). But, be this as it may, it contains one of the most beautiful passages that ever inspired the devotion to the Sacred Heart, one appropriated by the Church for the lessons of the second nocturn of the feast. To St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1302) it was a familiar devotion which was translated into many beautiful prayers and exercises. What deserves special mention is the vision of St. Gertrude on the feast of St. John the Evangelist, as it forms an epoch in the history of the devotion. Allowed to rest her head near the wound in the Saviour's she heard the beating of the Divine Heart and asked John if, on the night of the Last Supper, he too had felt these delightful pulsations, why he had never spoken of the fact. John replied that this revelation had been reserved for subsequent ages when the world, having grown cold, would have need of it to rekindle its love ("Legatus divinae pietatis", IV, 305; "Revelationes Gertrudianae", ed. Poitiers and Paris, 1877).

No Catholic is obliged to believe private locutions, and devotion to the Sacred Heart does not depend on believing them either.





http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm#II

[awkwardcustomer]

Third, the letters of St. Margaret Mary do not contain a threat if the King of France did not do the consecration.  It is Sr. Lucy who uses the consecration of France as a threat against the papacy. 

Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition. 

Well now, this has taken me aback, although I'm not surprised.  You mean Sr Lucy is the only source for this threat?

So much for the warning to the King of France. The Fatimists must now demonstrate that St Margaret Mary recorded that locution.

Maybe we should do a Rosary Crusade for our Lady of Lourdes to free the Church from the grip of the Fatima deception.

An excellent idea.  Something has to be done. How is a Rosary Crusade organised?

[Miriam_M]

Devotion to the Sacred Heart has a long tradition in the Church and does not depend on a locution given to any particular Saint.

Indeed, and as you well cite.

But so has the devotion to Our Lady, regardless of the faults and sins of those who receive locutions at whatever time and place through the eras.  Regardless of any misplaced zeal, faulty memories, what have you, do you not think that maybe Our Father in Heaven prefers that we concentrate on the general messages and not the details of them? 

In the Gospels, Our Lord speaks in broad terms about the End Times. In Revelation, John recounts his vision of the Apocalypse -- the bad with the good. In that vision, images are conveyed which are symbols.  In neither case are the particulars important.

The messages, combined:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart;
Devotion to Our Lady, including her general warnings about the sinful trends of mankind in the 20th century and the need for prayer;
The disruption and tumult accompanying the end of this world and the definitive separation of the good from the bad;
The triumph of the forces of good (God, Our Mother, the Saints)

Details are prone to error when relayed by human beings.  The Church does not recommend a fixation on details, or a discernment of the validity of a repeated message (from Our Lord or Our Blessed Mother) based on incomplete or weak details.  No one's spirituality -- in favor or against a particular private revelation -- should rest on details, whether those are contradictory or whether those have never been challenged.

We don't owe any allegiance whatsoever to Sr. Lucy, which is why I care not whether she's "a liar," had dementia, was confused, or has been misinterpreted or maligned.  It doesn't matter.  For what it's worth, I do believe that both Our Lord and Our Lady have made numerous appearances to various people throughout the centuries -- to Saints, to ordinary laypeople who will never be declared saints, etc.  There is a danger, yes, in turning private revelation not only into a centerpiece of one's Catholic spirituality (against what the Church recommends) but also in making any private revelation into a cult (in the bad, not the good sense of cult).

For example, some modern Catholics are persuaded by The Divine Mercy devotion (Faustina); others vehemently oppose it, based (again) on particulars.  So the particulars are not important, nor, by itself, is saying The Chaplet.  But we have no reason to doubt Divine Mercy as a dogma.  It is a centerpiece of public revelation, and since that Mercy is so evident in so many other events and writings (including Scripture), I don't "need" to focus on Faustina at all to recollect the Mercy of Jesus Christ. 

But we also must be careful not to discourage others in their own private devotions, because for them, those devotions (Fatima, Faustina) may be a lifeline of hope.  Hope is an important theological virtue that is not spoken of enough, not preached about enough, i.m.o., given the many temptations to despair in the modern world.  It's important (charitable) just to affirm people where they are in their private spiritual lives, trusting that God knows what He's doing and is sending His Holy Spirit to them to shoulder them through trials, however much they need to grasp onto something.  He's not going to let them rest on a devotion; He is much stronger than any attachment to a devotion, but He will use whatever the soul is capable of at any moment in human time.

[TheReturnofLive]

That's not one of my complaints about Fatima, but if I recall, the discussion was about the state of souls who are beholding the beatific vision.  Catholic doctrine teaches that souls in Heaven are in a state of eternal and perpetual happiness. 

So, the contradiction is in the images of ticked off Jesus and weepy, miserable Mary.  They are either perpetually happy or not.  I'll stick with Catholic doctrine over contradictory imagery. 

There - right there is what I was trying to get at during the half of my post. I guess I'm not criminally insane and did, in fact, see Gerard post such nonsense.

First off, Gerard, do you believe that we should pray to the Saints for our own problems? If it's the case that the Saints have no reason to care about the Earth or it's inhabitants, praying to them is either pointless - or if you believe that some kind of grace can come from their own personal being, as if they were a cause of grace that doesn't ultimately come from God - it's pure idolatry.



Your problem is that your viewing eternal bliss and concern for humanity is something as a strict dichotomy, when it can't possibly be. After all, God got jealous, wrathful, upset towards the ways the Israelites behaved - but to say that God is anger, God is jealousy, God is sadness is blasphemy.

Indifference towards the concerns of others is not happiness, and if you can't see that, you should start by praying the Our Father twice a day.

[TheReturnofLive]

Fourth, If I'm wrong and it turns out that there is a threat against the King of France similar to that of Fatima. I'll conclude that it was also a false apparition. 

Who do you think you are? Emperor Justinian, who saw the Byzantine Empire and the Church as one?

God can make threats against earthly empires all he wants, as the Power of Binding and Loosing is exclusive to the Hierarchy of the Church, and no other organization.

Even in Russian Orthodoxy, there are Elders, decades before 1917, who warned people that if the Russian people didn't stop being hedonistic, materialistic, and godless, God would take away the Russian Empire and submit the Russians to a period of mass persecution, by watering the country with the blood of Martyrdom to eventually renew it (some have even said to make it a place of refuge during the Reign of the Antichrist)

After all, what sense does it make that God can allow the nation of Israel - the one he made a Covenant with - to be destroyed, when he can't do it likewise to nations which have no such Covenant?

[Traditionallyruralmom]

One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.

Why don't you grow up.

We simply don't accept your worldview.  Deal with it.

well, that was rude and devoid of charity.

Xavier, should you make it to the seminary, based on your responses to this thread, I think you have the makings of a fine vocation. 

[Gardener]

One does not know whether to indulge anti-Fatimists in their anti-Catholic Protestant behavior or to leave them at it. Even Protestants may not be so reckless in attributing Fatima to the devil as you are.

Why don't you grow up.

We simply don't accept your worldview.  Deal with it.

well, that was rude and devoid of charity.

Xavier, should you make it to the seminary, based on your responses to this thread, I think you have the makings of a fine vocation.

It's equally devoid of charity (and prudence) to insist that people who do not believe in something, when not obligated to believe in it, are anti-Catholic Protestants.

He needs to learn that before he can learn, preach, and teach doctrinal matters.

I'm on the fence about Fatima, but man alive the pro-Fatima folks ain't helping when they get all stupid like MikeMac and Xavier are doing.

[TheReturnofLive]

I think that Xavier just has a fear of the slippery slope fallacy; not only when other apparitions have very questionable elements to them as well (like the open heart surgery of St. Mary Alacoque to literally, physically receive Jesus's heart, such that she had to "bleed out" the pain of it), but especially when the questioning of a very major one such as this can undo the minor, unconfirmed ones which Xavier has heavily obsessed over in his spiritual life as I can tell from reading his postings on this forum (I can't speak about him, but for me, obsessing over Fatima even caused a lot of spiritual darkness for me, because I stopped praying and started obsessing).

[King Wenceslas]

I think that Xavier just has a fear of the slippery slope fallacy; not only when other apparitions have very questionable elements to them as well (like the open heart surgery of St. Mary Alacoque to literally, physically receive Jesus's heart, such that she had to "bleed out" the pain of it), but especially when the questioning of a very major one such as this can undo the minor, unconfirmed ones which Xavier has heavily obsessed over in his spiritual life as I can tell from reading his postings on this forum (I can't speak about him, but for me, obsessing over Fatima even caused a lot of spiritual darkness for me, because I stopped praying and started obsessing).

Or even the transverberation of St. Teresa of Avila. Oops. Can't verify that. She must be from the devil also.

Our Lady of the Snows. Romans on mushrooms. More medieval fakery.

Our Lady of La Sallette. Only two children saw that. Oops. From the devil again.

Our Lady of Lourdes. Oops. Bernadette having hallucinations from lack of food.

St. Joan of Arc.  Wearing pants, dressing like a man. Ooops. From the devil again.

[Gardener]

King of the Strawmen.