2 Popes ? Part II

 May 24, 2016

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

Francis_Benedict_Bib

In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that “Vatileaks” or other issues had “little or nothing” to do with his resignation in 2013.

Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed by his exceptional pontificate.”

Reflecting on Benedict’s time as Pope, Archbishop Gänswein said that although he was “a classic ‘homo historicus’, a Western man par excellence who embodied the richness of the Catholic tradition like no other,” at the same time he was “so bold as to open the door to a new phase, for that historic turning point that five years ago no one could have imagined.”

Gänswein drew attention to “brilliant and illuminating” and “well documented and thorough” passages of the book, written by Roberto Regoli and entitled Oltre la crisi della Chiesa. Il pontificato di Benedetto XVI — “Beyond the Crisis of the Church, The Pontificate of Benedict XVI.”

The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina” and their adversaries: “the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” — a group Cardinal Danneels referred jokingly to as “a kind of mafia-club,” Archbishop Gänswein recalled. (His reference to that struggle backs up an interview German journalist Paul Badde gave the Register last November and EWTN Germany, during which Badde also mentioned German Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann as being part of the St. Gallen group).

“The election was certainly the outcome of a battle,” Gänswein went on, adding that the “key” to the Conclave was Cardinal Ratzinger’s “dictatorship of relativism” homily that he gave on the first day of the election when he was Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Benedict’s personal secretary then referred to how Regoli highlights the “fascinating and moving” years of Benedict’s pontificate, and his “skill and confidence” in exercising the Petrine ministry. He recalled, in particular, the “black year” of 2010, when Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini consecrated women who assisted Benedict, was tragically killed in a road accident in Rome.

The year, which he attests was a dark one, was further blackened by “malicious attacks against the Pope” and the fallout from Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication on Bishop Richard Williamson who denied the extent of the Holocaust.

But nothing affected Benedict’s “heart as much as the death of Manuela”, whom he considered part of the “papal family” of helpers. “Benedict wasn’t an ‘actor pope’, and even less an insensitive ‘automaton Pope’,” Gänswein said. ”Even on the throne of Peter, he was and remained a man… ‘a man with his contradictions’.”

Then, after having been so affected by the death of Camagni, Benedict suffered the “betrayal of Paolo Gabriele”, his “poor and misguided” former valet who was found guilty of leaking confidential papal documents in what became known as the ‘Vatileaks’ scandal. That episode was “false money” traded on the world stage as “authentic gold bullion” he said, but stressed that “no traitor, ‘mole’, or any journalist” would have caused Benedict to resign. “The scandal was too small” for the “greater, well considered step Benedict made of millennial historical significance.”

Such assumptions that they did have something to do with it, he said, “have little or nothing to do with reality”, adding that Benedict resigned because it was “fitting” and “reasonable”, and quoted John Duns Scotus’ words to justify the decree for the Immaculate Conception: “Decuit, potuit, fecit” — “He could do it, it was fitting that He do it.”

Various reports have suggested that pressure was exerted on Benedict to step down. One of the latest came last year from a former confidant and confessor to the late Cardinal Carlo Martini who said Martini had told Benedict: “Try and reform the Curia, and if not, you leave.”

But in his speech, Gänswein insisted “it was fitting” for Benedict to resign because he “was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, “he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis”, which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein pointed out that the motto is not in the singular but in the plural, and taken from the Third Letter of John, in which it is written in verse 8: “We must welcome these people to become co-workers for the truth”.

He therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.”

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V.

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel,  while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

Source : ncregister.com

My Comment : So is it possible to have 2 Popes ? of course not, Papacy institued by Christ is held by one man and cannot be split between 2 men, thinking the opposite would be heresy, more in the attached videos.

 

May 30, 2016

2 Popes ? Part II

What Is Monsignor Ganswein Up To?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
May 30, 2016

During his recent presentation of the book Beyond the Crisis in the Church: The Pontificate of Benedict XVI, Monsignor Georg Ganswein, who serves as personal secretary to “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI, inexplicably and quite mysteriously provided new depth, and thus new impetus, to the novel idea that Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy was qualified by a “changed understanding” of the papacy, according to which Benedict retained a “passive” aspect of the Petrine office while turning over its active exercise to Francis.

In the course of the book presentation Ganswein made remarks that surely reflect Benedict’s own understanding of his situation, including the precise meaning of the text of the renunciation, carefully phrased to refer to “the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter”. It is inconceivable that Ganswein would merely have offered his own opinion on the matter without having consulted Benedict.

According to Ganswein, while “there are not two Popes” as a result of the renunciation, there is nevertheless “a sort of exceptional state willed by heaven” according to which “the papal ministry is no longer what it was before…” Rather, Benedict “has profoundly and lastingly transformed it” such that “he has not abandoned the office of Peter [but] has instead innovated this office” so that there is “de facto a broadened ministry — with an active member [Francis] and a contemplative member [Benedict].”

Antonio Socci notes that only two conclusions are possible here: one nonsensical and the other of momentous significance. The first conclusion, as Socci writes, is that Benedict has created a “momentous turning point that in fact involves a radical mutation of the papacy, which today has become a collegial organ (but this is impossible according to Catholic doctrine).”  Indeed, it is impossible, and so the very contention is absurd. No matter what Benedict thinks he has done, no Pope has the power to change the nature of an office established in perpetuity by God Incarnate. That is, no Pope has the power to alter the divine constitution of the Church.  As even John Paul II remarked when he was about to undergo major surgery:  “You have to cure me because there is no room for a pope emeritus.”

The other conclusion, says Socci, is that “this discourse [by Ganswein] brings into view the ‘nullity’ of the renunciation by Benedict XVI.”  Indeed, if Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy was premised on his false opinion that he would remain a “contemplative member” of a “broadened” Petrine office by way of an innovation he himself had just originated, then how could the validity of that qualified renunciation not be called into question?  Is it not the case that Benedict still regards himself as the Pope in some sense?  And if that is so, how can he be said to have renounced the papacy unequivocally?

Indeed, as Ganswein observed: “For this reason, Benedict has renounced neither his name, nor the white cassock. For this reason, the correct appellation by which he refers to himself, even today, is “Holiness”; and for this reason, moreover, he did not retire to a remote monastery, but within the Vatican…”

I offer no answer to the question how this utter novelty affects Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy.  That is something history will have to judge — if indeed there is anything to judge.  I offer only another question:  Why is Monsignor Ganswein pressing this point now, three years into the tumultuous pontificate of Pope Francis?  Surely these remarks were well considered beforehand.  So what is he up to?

A clue is found in Ganswein’s startling reference to the treachery at work in the conclave of 2005, during which the so-called “St. Gallen mafia,” including the infamous Cardinals Danneels and Kasper, contrived to elect Cardinal Bergoglio.  Amazingly, Ganswein refers to this development as simple historical fact, observing that the 2005 conclave involved “a dramatic struggle between the ‘Salt of the Earth’ party [of Ratzingerian orientation], revolving around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela and Medina, and the ‘Saint Gallen group’, revolving around Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini and Murphy-O’Connor…”

Ganswein then ties the struggle at the conclave to two other telling facts: First, Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily at the conclave’s inception wherein he decried the “dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and views as the ultimate measure its own self and its own will.” Second, Pope Benedict’s request, immediately after his unexpected election, that the faithful pray for him that he not “flee in fear of the wolves.”

This is really quite remarkable: All in all, Ganswein’s remarks suggest that Benedict’s papacy was under attack by evil forces from beginning to end.  He makes that clear when he scoffs at the idea that anything as trivial as “Vatileaks” could have forced Benedict out of office:  “That scandal was too small for a thing of that kind and something much greater [prompted] the carefully considered step of millennial historic importance that Benedict took.”

Make of it what you will.  But do not underestimate the significance of Ganswein’s remarks in the midst of what is clearly the most disturbing papacy in the living memory of the Church: that of Benedict’s successor under mysterious and unprecedented circumstances.

Source : Fatima.org

 

 

Aviso

27 thoughts on “2 Popes ? Part II

  1. The conclusion that I have drawn from the current state of the Church is that when I say my rosary and conclude it with prayers for the Pope, I do not name the pope because only Almighty God in His Wisdom knows who that it. There is sufficient reason for a knowledgeable Catholic to wonder about the circumstances of the resignation on February 11, 2013 and the ensuing conclave and what friends of Pope Francis have divulged about his election. Yet in the end we have to just submit to the current situation and say, “Lord, I do not know what is going on in Your Church, but You know and that is good enough for me. In due time we will understand more so I will continue to pray and hope for better days ahead.” Have a blessed Corpus Christi Feast day.

  2. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will keep an open mind and be watchful in prayer, “by their fruits shall (we) know them.”

    God bless you Joe and all those you love

    Kind regards
    Pete

    • Fine but please why staying Anonymous ? please Brothers, at least take a internet name then post your comment, my name is not Aviso but I am known with this name for years now, I mean try to give us some name then we will remember you, thank you again for your understanding.

  3. Hi my good Friend Joe, hopefully I did not hurt you yesterday evening with my last comment, you know my way to talk, as usual directly not loosing time turning around a point without being clear, some might think this way could be uncharitable but be sure that it’s not the case, I respect Joe as he knows but let me insist a little bit more, trying to understand why despite many evidences, you still keep defending this Pontificate, probably one of the worst for centuries, using your own comments :

    “Pope Francis believes in a God not limited by human construct. We were made for God not God for us. God is God. Jesus is God from God not God from Catholic God. We are Catholic because of God. God is not God because of the Catholic Church. God is the supreme Spirit who alone exists of Himself and is infinitely perfect. He does not need The Catholic Church. He wants it and uses it to bring souls to heaven to be at home with Him our Eternal Father”

    Joe : Pope Francis believes in a God not limited by human construct

    Aviso : Which God Pope Francis believes ? who is this God not limited by human construct ? this is not Catholic Joe but Buddhism, the only God known to us, Christians, is the Trinity God, this is our Catechism, sure The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith but the Holy Trinity is a Catholic dogma, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…..this is the only God, so Pope Francis should say « I beleive in the Trinity God » as taught by the Catholic Church, the word « Catholic » should not be a shame but as we know is the only possible Salvation, Catholic means universal, de facto God is Catholic.

    Joe : We were made for God not God for us. God is God. Jesus is God from God not God from Catholic God. We are Catholic because of God. God is not God because of the Catholic Church.

    Aviso : please Joe, Revises your Creed

    Joe : God is the supreme Spirit who alone exists of Himself and is infinitely perfect. He does not need The Catholic Church. He wants it and uses it to bring souls to heaven to be at home with Him our Eternal Father

    Aviso: Of course God needs the Catholic Church, what are you talking Joe ? outside the Catholic Church, there is no Salvation, no soul can go to Heaven outside the Catholic Church, if you believe that God does not need the Catholic Church then you are not Catholic my Friend and now I am really worried, maybe I did not got your point and will wait from you more détails.

    I will Pray for you, thanks.

    • Well Joe, you know me quite well, I can be very kind and Respectful but will not hesitate to tell you face to face if necessary what I am thinking, I know your way to talk even if my English is limited, you are talking nicely and you are probably from a Blessed Family, may all of those who are with God now, to Pray for us but my friend, your reply as usual is quite long but was not necessary, by experience I am use to be very cautious with people who are talking too much, Nothing about you just my opinion only, as you know I am also quite busy, I will read each line carefully and respectfully and will reply to you soon.

      For the others, Joe is a good Friend even if I never met him, my last child, Baptized in Garabandal a year ago has a beautiful gift from Joe sent to her in Garabandal from this great Man but do not think a second that I will not correct him if necessary as I will accept any correction from him in the same way, thanks again Joe for your long reply, we keep in touch..

    • Well Joe, I have read carrefuly your 2 comments and understood now quite well why you keep defending this Pontificate, you are what we call a Catholic Modernist, they are often recognized due to these principal errors, God cannot be known,, the essential structure of the Church can change, the Church’s dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can change from meaning one thing to meaning another, the only knowledge we can have of God is subjective, Scripture is not free from human error and contains much symbol, all Christian denominations are equal with the Catholic Church even non-Christian religions are valid expressions of man’s religious yearnings, the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution and so on, of course then you finally end with God is not Catholic, so below the Nicene Creed, in short the end of our Creed is my final reply to you, thanks again.

      We believe in one God,
      the Father, the Almighty,
      maker of heaven and earth,
      and of all that is, seen and unseen.
      We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
      the only Son of God,
      eternally begotten of the Father,
      God from God, Light from Light,
      true God from true God,
      begotten, not made,
      one in Being with the Father.
      Through him all things were made.
      For us men and for our salvation,
      he came down from heaven:
      by the power of the Holy Spirit
      he was born of the Virgin Mary,
      and became man.
      For our sake he was crucified
      under Pontius Pilate;
      he suffered died and was buried.
      On the third day he rose again
      in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
      he ascended into heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
      He will come again in glory
      to judge the living and the dead,
      and his kingdom will have no end.
      We believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the Lord, the giver of life,
      who proceeds from the
      Father and the Son.
      With the Father and the Son
      he is worshipped and glorified.
      He has spoken through the Prophets.
      We believe in one holy
      catholic and apostolic Church.
      We acknowledge one
      baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
      We look for the resurrection of the dead,
      and the life of the world to come.

      Amen.

  4. By the way, no news of Deacon John from whatisgarabandal.com, his last article (mine) is from February 08 only, John was not used to leave his wonderfull blog without any update or news about Garabandal so long, if anyone has any news from him, please contact me, thank you.

    • Done Joe, your reply is published, a good friend and a Brother will always tell you the Truth, do not forget it, I belt that you will be back to your good friend Aviso quite soon, I will Pray for you and you will Pray for me.

    • Joe, please continue to share your insights, I think good fruit can come when we challenge one another, so long as it is in the Spirit of Love. We are all at different places on our faith journey. Sharing, even if we have disagreements can often be the only way some of us arrive at a clearer understanding of what we believe and need to deepen or reject. I don’t know you but your words speak for you, I don’t believe your good name is at risk. You have both been a help to me on my journey. Aviso I would hope agrees with these sentiments and does not write to offend but only from a heart of best intentions.

      Kind regards
      Pete

    • I got some news from Deacon John via a reader of the Blog, which I thanks again, it looks that all is fine.

      Also and with all the humility (yes it’s possible :)), let me confirm according to the statistics of the Blog, you are more and more to follow me at garabandalnews.org as on YouTube, thanks again for your confidence.

      Please check online the year 2018 as indicated via this blog as a Possible warning year to be a fact slowly and surely around the net.

  5. My conscience assures me that Benedict XVI is our Pope. How much he must be suffering under the weight of the decision to relinquish the Seat of St. Peter to the elected ‘Bishop of Rome.’ Is it not a scandal that ALL his brothers, (under the gaze of a watchful World), did not surround him with their presence of love and prayers to support, strengthen and encourage him to steady the Barque of Peter through the turbulent seas of our times? How the Church would shine today had they gathered around him, to hold him firm until the Lord Himself called him to lay down his cross so he could join Him in Eternity. Why did not the Conclave stand united before Pope Benedict XVI and say? “No dear brother we will not accept your resignation, we will stand beside you, to the end, we will be united in sharing your cross, we are compelled by Love and you are not, nor will you ever be alone!” Instead, did too many simply chose to seize the moment of his great weaknes and abandonment to further their own ambition?
    The opportunity is lost to them and now we in charity must pray with sincerity for Francis, the ‘Bishop of Rome.’ The Cardinals, Bishops and Preists as counciled by the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Mnt Carmel. We should also pray that our reflections are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit and are not in conflict with Holy Obedience and the Providence of God.

    Regards
    Pete

    • Hi Joe, I respect your choice to defend the current Pope despite all the evidences since 3 years, heresies after heresies Nothing will change your opinion, probably Something in your life must match Pope Francis Pontificate, by experience I know when someone keep defending the indefensible, it’s most of the time the case, I am your friend and quite worry for you, let me give you a simple example of heresy from the Pope which a child of 4 years of Catechism would understand himself :

      Pope Francis : ” I believe in God, not in a Catholic God”, this is the summum of heresy, if you can’t understand even that then my friend, no one can do anything for you.

    • Hi Joe, I have read many of your reflections and quite clearly you have a wealth of knowledge and a very deep and well informed faith. I unfortunately cannot say the same for myself as I have no theological or canonical dialect at my disposal. This said, I will try to explain my self, but first let me ask you a question. Does a Priest, a Bishop or Cardinal cease to be a Priest, a Bishop or a Cardinal because they declare “I am weak, I no longer have the mental capacity, the physical strength or power of will to legitimately remain in Office?”

      For my part I know that I can never cease to be a son, a husband and a father no matter what my mental and physical capacity. My choosing not to be such, nor any attempt at my redifining who I am, no matter how erudite or intellectually reasonable will change what cannot be changed.

      Since his election, Pope Benedict cannot be anyone other than Pope Benedict, no human power can redact the office of him whose election is the fruit of Divine Providence, pronounced through the Conlave of Cardinals and Magisterium of the Church. If it were otherwise, what then defines the legitimacy of the Church’s authority? It’s legitimacy is surely reduced to a form of church politique rather than the Primacy of Christ.

      I cannot reconcile Pope Benedict legitimising his resignation and the election of another Pope because it is simply irreconcilable. Nor am I an opponent of Pope Francis, he is my elder brother in Christ who, as I have said in other reflections, is pouring out his life in the service of Christ, the poor and the Church. I am nothing before him, my hands are empty of good works. I am however becoming deeply concerned, (as are many others including respected Church leaders) regarding the merits of Amoris Laetitia, it’s ultimate consequences and a rise in controversy and confussion concerning communion for those in irregular relationships (whatever that actually means) and those that are divorced and remarried.

      Finally, is it not the case that Francis sees himself first and foremost as the Bishop of Rome? His own words, unless of course he has been miss quoted or misrepresented in the media.

      Kind Regards
      Pete

    • If I may also add Joe, Pope Benedict decided to no longer exercise his Ministry as Pope giving the Church a dilemma to address. Our Cardinals had two choices, elect a Brother Cardinal to exercise the Pastoral duty of a Pope, or do everything they can in their power to lift the weight of his cross so he can rise and continue as the elected Vicar of Christ. They chose the former, so now we are at risk of schism, “I am for Francis,” “I am for Benedict.” Why did Pope Benedict step aside? I don’t suppose we will ever truly know. Why did the Cardinals not chose the latter course of action? Again I guess we will never truly know? I am not in to conspiracy theories but it seems to me the final decision was the lesser of the two . if St Peter had stepped aside on hearing Our Lord say a time will come when others will take you by the belt and lead you where you would rather not go, where would we be today? Had he grown faint of heart, which he surely would have, would the Apostles have encouraged him to to remain steadfast with their help or with their help step aside and allow another to take the journey to Rome?

      Best regards
      Pete

  6. I read recently about one saint that God showed her a true picture of her soul. She saw a slight sin ( i think a white lie or small lie or something) she nearly died from a shock. It gave me an idea about The Great Warning.. I may die from it. I may despair from offending God and I have abused His great graces and His great love for me.

  7. It´s about time the Russian Bear got down to business!!!
    What´s become of the Pope Benedict XVI´s resistence to all these pernicious changes or should I rather say to these “evolvement of dogmas” as some high-ranking prelates like to put it?

  8. Hi Joe, Papacy is not a job but an institution, so no Pope has authority or power to abdicate some of the Papacy as indicated by Archbishop Ganswein, this is an heresy and the opinion of the Archbishop only, very Strange from the Archbishop however a doctor of Canon Law and a former official of the CDF, he should be aware that this is not possible, The papacy is the pope and the pope is the papacy so therefore, Benedict the XVI is either the pope, or he is not, the same goes for Francis, both cannot share the Papacy between active and contemplative ministry, here we are in trouble but in my opinion something is wrong, or it’s a message between the lines from Ganswein or the Archbishop has lost his Catechism, which I cannot believe, in short or the True Pope is Benedict or Francis but both, impossible, simple as that.

  9. From Keeping it Catholic :

    MISLEADING TITLE: The heretical opinions expressed in this article are those of Archbishop Gänswein—*not* Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI.

    In effect: Gänswein is stating that Benedict’s resignation was only a way of *redefining* the papacy. For example, Gänswein dared to say: “Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and LASTINGLY TRANSFORMED by his exceptional pontificate.” [Emphasis added.]

    NO. The office of the papacy, instituted by Christ, is held by *one* man. The papacy *cannot* be split between two men—one in “active” ministry and another in “contemplative.”

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s