DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 30, 2022, 01:11:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
286228 Posts in 27567 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  Debate (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  The Lord's Supper.
« previous next »
Poll
Question: Can you partake of the Lord's Supper with Catholics?
Yes - 4 (28.6%)
No - 10 (71.4%)
Total Voters: 11

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Lord's Supper.  (Read 8096 times)
Tibby
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2004, 10:50:05 AM »

HopeAndFaith- While the bible is the true word of GOd, it cannot be read out of concect. The writings of the Early Church are meant to complament it. If you believe lies to "Sola Scriptura," Which can't even be proven with the bible alone, then stop wasting my time by trying to debate.

tony350- What is your point? Everyone makes mistakes. Hitler? A Christian? Lets think about that for a second...  Roll Eyes

Besides, you haven't even cited that quote. You can just as easily have made it up. Now, Hitler did pledge to care for the Christain Churches only a few weeks after becoming chancellor (March 23, 1933) because he considered the Churches, Protestant and Catholic I might add, to be the most crucial elements in the preservation of Germany's national heritage.

The Catholic Church was opposed in principle to the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party. As a result, many clergy in Germany were arrested, brutalized, and even sentenced to concentration camps for refusing to accept Nazi policies. Ofcourse, I cannot revise history, so you have to keep in mind that some clergy were cowed into submission and said nothing when arrests and oppression were committed before their very eyes. Silence is different from approval, despite the obvious moral implications of both.

There were, as well, very significant efforts on the part of the Church to speak out against Nazi policies. Pope Pius XI issued in 1937 the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, smuggled into Germany and read from every Catholic pulpit in March 1937. This condemnation of the Nazis provoked Hitler's anger, but an even more stinging denunciation was in the works when Pius died on February 10, 1939. Over the next six years, hundreds of German priests and nuns were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Other heroic German figures were Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, archbishop of Munich, Father Rupert Mayer, and Canon Bernhard Lichtenberg. The last two died in concentration camps. Faulhaber survived several assassination attempts and never ceased to condemn Hitler for his atrocities against Christians and Jews.

While the evangelicals where enjoying their comfort and peace, millions of Catholic nuns and priests died in concentration camps or Nazi prisons. Catholics and other Sacramental Churches where being brutally murdered. All that I said above can be proven, if you ever bother to look it up. None of these Rome and Hilter conspericy theory lies.

I have not double checked this fact, but it has been said that Rome saved more Jews then the Allies. Of course, don't quote me. Look it up for your self! The Vatican churches, basilica, and Church properties were opened to give shelter; there were fifteen thousand Jews at Castel Gandolfo alone, and thousands more at nearly two hundred different sites!
Logged

Was there ever a time when Common sence was common?
tony350
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2004, 08:47:06 PM »

Hello Tibby,

I am not trying be mean. Let that be known now ok?
I know everyone makes mistakes, thats a fact of life.
That quote you wanted is from "The Nazi Persecution of the Churches" by J. S. Conway, pgs. 25,26 and 162.

The Catholic Church was opposed in principle to the policies of Hitler and the Nazi Party?

The three big defenders of the Roman Catholic faith were Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All three had concordates with the Vatican. When the Nazi war machine swept through the Balkans on the way to attack Russia, Yugoslavia had become a Nazi occupied country. The Pope despised the Russian Orthodox members. They were called Serbains and they were
marked for death in Yugoslavia. They were giving one choice,
to convert to Catholicism or die. The communist party was created by the Vatican to destroy one of her greatest enemies, the Russian Orthodox Church. The communist had double-crossed the pope and refused to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church members and at last, Pope Pius XII had created a machine to do what the communists had failed to do, butcher every Orthodox Church member and their clergy.
The Catholic priests changed their robes for the uniforms of the dreaded Ustachi killer squads and led the most barbaric, brutal raids upon the people and practiced satanic torture never before known in this century. We are not talking 800 years ago. We are talking 1940.

The whore of Revelation showed her fangs, tore her enemies to shreds and clevery covered up her crime. All this is documented in many books, including Catholic Terror Today by Avro Manhattan.

next page.....
Logged
tony350
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2004, 09:31:11 PM »

Franz Von Papen, another powerful Nazi, who was instrumental is setting up the concordat between Germany and the Vatican had this to say " The third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy."

Signing the concordat is cardinal pacell (later to become Pope Pius XII) by 1933 he was the Vatican secretary of state.
Franz Von Papen, a sinister Nazi and devout Roman Catholic who was Hitlers ace diplomat and the Vaticans agent in helping to bring Hitler to power.

The little known Vatican prelate, Montini, later to become Pope Paul VI.
all those were in the signing.

Look at the past, and now. Has Rome changed?

When the RCC dumps the mass, the veneration (of worship) of Mary, when they throw away their rosaries and repent from claiming that Mary was free from original sin, when they admit they cooked up the idea of purgatory, and when the priest of Rome concede to the priesthood of all believers,and tons of other false teachings......

then maybe we can believe they have changed.

When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side. General Eisenhower saved his neck. Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremburg.

Too many people knew that the Vatican was responsible for World War II so it was time for a face lift. The Vatican II Council came into existence and they put on a new face lift. She wiped her mouth with her bloody hands and said "I've changed. Now I like the Protestants. I'm not going to call them heretices any more but searated brethren, she told the Protestants to forget the past.........just like in France and Ireland remember?
Logged
Tibby
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2004, 10:47:20 PM »

J. S. Conway? Jack Chic uses this guy as a source.

So then, tell me, if what J. S. Conway says is true, then why did the Nazis murder countless Catholics for being Catholic? He is making a mockery of the death of countless Christians and Jews with these Asinine conspiracy theories. You think Rome helped the Nazis? Well, they Jews Rome aided in freeing disagree. Pope Pius XII deplored the Nazi belief, and clearly stated that. I have given you dates and times. Conway has given you a few guesses formed out of Circumstantial evidence and his anti-catholic bias
Logged

Was there ever a time when Common sence was common?
tony350
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2004, 11:11:28 PM »

J. S. Conway? Jack Chic uses this guy as a source.

So then, tell me, if what J. S. Conway says is true, then why did the Nazis murder countless Catholics for being Catholic? He is making a mockery of the death of countless Christians and Jews with these Asinine conspiracy theories. You think Rome helped the Nazis? Well, they Jews Rome aided in freeing disagree. Pope Pius XII deplored the Nazi belief, and clearly stated that. I have given you dates and times. Conway has given you a few guesses formed out of Circumstantial evidence and his anti-catholic bias

I give up.  Huh Embarrassed

Believe what you want.

Just read history and you will know.

But how can you be a part of the Lord's Supper and part of the RCC at the same time? One cannot!

Half of the stuff in the RCC is man-made and not in the Bible.

But again, believe what you want friend.

God's Word....every word is true, now put  the Bible against the RCC and you will see.

Im done on this topic.
Logged
Tibby
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2004, 11:18:46 PM »

I do read history. Church History, modern history, and everything in between. I would suggest you do the same before you start attacking your brothers in Christ again.
Logged

Was there ever a time when Common sence was common?
tony350
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2004, 01:11:36 AM »

I do read history. Church History, modern history, and everything in between. I would suggest you do the same before you start attacking your brothers in Christ again.


I was not attacking you. I was trying to show you. Smiley
Are you a RC?
If so, you still can't see it's a cult?

Can you serve God and the RC at the same time?

Logged
ebia
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 981


umm


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2004, 01:33:09 AM »

Tibby, you seem to be forgetting; you should only believe "history" that supports your preconcieved prejudices.  Forget common sense and academic credentials - go for the conspiracy theory every time.
Logged

"You shall know the truth, the truth shall set you free.

Christ doesn't need lies or censorship.
Tibby
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2004, 08:49:27 AM »

I was not attacking you. I was trying to show you. Smiley

Your heart is the the right place. But I have seen what you are showing me, and I have reseached it from both sides.


Quote
Are you a RC?
If so, you still can't see it's a cult?

I am not Roman Catholic, Iím a member of a separate rite. But, being from South Louisiana, and knowing the history of the Church (the true history, not the revisionist garbage) I hold a special place for the RCC.


Quote
Can you serve God and the RC at the same time?

Of course. Why shoulding you be able to, Tony?


Tibby, you seem to be forgetting; you should only believe "history" that supports your preconcieved prejudices.  Forget common sense and academic credentials - go for the conspiracy theory every time.

 Wink Grin Grin Thats right, I totally forgot  Grin Sorry guys, I was looking at all the angles. My bad... Wink
Logged

Was there ever a time when Common sence was common?
Allinall
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2650


HE is my All in All.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2004, 09:21:27 AM »

My ever-lovin'-word!  Can we get more biased?  Each portion posted here, though biased, is nonetheless based upon historical truth.  Were there members of the Nazi elite that were Catholic?  Yes.  Did the Catholic church support the Nazi regime.  Initially, yes.  Were there priests and supporters of catholicism persacuted under Nazi rule?  Yes.  

So what have we learned?  We're all human.  What may begin with good intent, may not end up in a good way.  Like the old adage says, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  Hitler was a sinner.  The Pope is a sinner.  I am a sinner.  Same boat.  Different prognosis of outcome.  
Logged



"that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death"
michael_legna
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2004, 09:28:38 AM »


Quote
Nope, give me one scripture from the early Church that says that?

1Co 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

If the bread and wine are mere symbols we would have Paul here professing idolatry in that we could be damned by treating a mere symbol unworthily.  We know Paul did not practice idolatry andf we know that only by treating God unworthily are we at risk of damnation so the Jesus the Christ must be truly present in the bread and wine, or as He referred to them - His body and blood.

Here are some others from the early Church to show that was their understanding too.

"They (heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
 
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
 
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119
 
"He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.
Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
 
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:352
Logged

Matt 5:11  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
michael_legna
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2004, 09:34:34 AM »

To those RCC members:

Have you read the RCC history?
 
how about on August 22, 1572 The bloody St. Bartholomew
massacre?

or

the 1641 Ireland massacre-October 23.

What about the sacrament, do you kneel before the sacrament? I didn't ask if you believed I asked do you kneel before it?

I have read the history of the Church and yes there were some mistakes made by members of the Church.  All that proves is that men sin.

But there are mistakes made by the members of all Churches and considering the Catholic Church has been around between 4 times and 100 times longer than most Protestant Churches the number of errors is relatively small.

Still those errors should be denounced and corrected and the Church does attempt this throughout it's history.  The thing to remember is that alot of the errors spread around by others are in fact not true, as in the case of your story of the relationship with Hitler you post below.  I will post the truth to disporve that old myth in another post directly answering yours so look for it to learn the truth.
Logged

Matt 5:11  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
tony350
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2004, 09:47:22 AM »

I was not attacking you. I was trying to show you. Smiley

Your heart is the the right place. But I have seen what you are showing me, and I have reseached it from both sides.


Quote
Are you a RC?
If so, you still can't see it's a cult?

I am not Roman Catholic, Iím a member of a separate rite. But, being from South Louisiana, and knowing the history of the Church (the true history, not the revisionist garbage) I hold a special place for the RCC.


Quote
Can you serve God and the RC at the same time?

Of course. Why shoulding you be able to, Tony?


Tibby, you seem to be forgetting; you should only believe "history" that supports your preconcieved prejudices.  Forget common sense and academic credentials - go for the conspiracy theory every time.

 Wink Grin Grin Thats right, I totally forgot  Grin Sorry guys, I was looking at all the angles. My bad... Wink

I just don't see how a God fearing Christian can do the ones below:

the mass,
the veneration (of worship) of Mary,
when they throw away their rosaries and repent from claiming that Mary was free from original sin,
purgatory,
and when the priest of Rome concede to the priesthood of all believers etc...

And serve God too.
Yeah we all sin. But once that person knows its wrong they shouldn't do it anymore. Yet the RCC has/still does those above. They still do it today. In plain view.
Logged
Allinall
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2650


HE is my All in All.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2004, 09:51:29 AM »

Michael,

You have taken the passage you use for support out of context.  Consider the passage in full here:

Quote
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.  For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."  In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.  But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.  So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


You said:

Quote
1Co 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

If the bread and wine are mere symbols we would have Paul here professing idolatry in that we could be damned by treating a mere symbol unworthily.  We know Paul did not practice idolatry andf we know that only by treating God unworthily are we at risk of damnation so the Jesus the Christ must be truly present in the bread and wine, or as He referred to them - His body and blood.

The unworthy treatment isn't of the elements of the Lord's Supper (and the subsequent transubstantiation belief that you would come from), but of the body of Christ - the Church.  Contextually, you have people treating the rememberance of Christ's payment for our sin through the broken body and shed blood, as though it were simply a Baptist Fellowship!  Which, of course, always has food!  What's worse, is that they would do so when they were ready.  If a member of that local body came late, he had nothing with which to share because they'd ate it all already.  One was hungry, and another drunk.  Point being, Christ's body is not to treat it's members thusly!  Doing so, makes one unworthy of the sacrifice they claimed to be remembering when they ate those meals.  They then, profaned the blood and body of Christ, not only by incorrectly approaching that rememberance, but by doing so knowingly and without care by excluding members of that body from participating.  

Unfortunately, you will not agree with this.  Namely because the basis of your arguement is catholic dogma, tradition, and the quotes of those men you posted.  You can't twist the scriptures, my friend, to fit this teaching.
Logged



"that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death"
michael_legna
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2004, 10:03:16 AM »


Quote
You are right every Church has some hurror stories.
But why did the RCC side with Hitler?

They didn't that is an old wives tale told by Catholic haters and anyone who knows history doesn't believe it.

I notice that none of your quotes have a reference to where they come from.  How is that you can trust that they are not made up?  How do you know that Hitler really said those things?  You don't unless you can verify the source.

Read the following and get a true representation of what was going on back then from an unbiased source.

++++++

Blaming the wartime pope for failing to stop the Holocaust from the Vatican is a neat bit of revisionist history.
Newsweek, March 30, 1998: By Kenneth L. Woodward
"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all." --Editorial, The New York Times, Dec. 25, 1941

"A full exploration of Pope Pius's conduct is needed.... It now falls to John Paul and his successors to take the next step toward full acceptance of the Vatican's failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe." Editorial, The New York Times, March 18, 1998

How the times--and the Times--do change. During the second world war, Pope Pius XII was lauded for his singular efforts to halt the carnage. And for years after, he was praised for the church's efforts in saving an estimated 700,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps--mainly by issuing false baptismal certificates to Jews, disguising some in cassocks and hiding others in cloistered monasteries and convents. But last week, after the Vatican issued its long-awaited mea culpa for failing to do more, critics of the church greeted the Vatican's statement with the sound of one hand clapping. As the Times's editorial suggests, they are demanding nothing less than a moral outing by the Vatican of Pius XII.

Something shameful is going on. That Pius XII was silent in the face of the Holocaust; that he did little to help the Jews; that he was in fact pro-German if not pro-Nazi; that underneath it all he was anti-Semitic--all are monstrous calumnies that now seem to pass for accepted wisdom. Most of these accusations can be traced to a single originating source: "The Deputy," Rolf Hochhuth's 1963 play that created an image of Pius as moral coward. That Golda Meir, later a prime minister of Israel, and leaders of Jewish communities in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Romania and the United States thanked the pope for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews is now considered irrelevant. That he never specifically condemned the Shoah is all that seems to matter.
In fact, Pius XII was neither silent nor inactive. As the Vatican's secretary of State in 1937, he drafted an encyclical for Pope Pius XI condemning Nazism as un-Christian. The document was then smuggled into Germany, secretly printed there in German and read from Roman Catholic pulpits. The Nazis responded by confiscating the presses and imprisoning many Catholics. In his 1942 Christmas message, which The New York Times among others extolled, the pope became the first figure of international stature to condemn what was turning into the Holocaust. Among other sins of the Nazis' New Order, he denounced the persecution "of hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction."

The Nazis understood the pope only too well. "His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for," declared the Gestapo. "Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews. He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

In February 1942, Protestant and Catholic leaders of Nazi-occupied Holland prepared a letter condemning the deportation of Jews to death camps in "the East." But only the Catholic bishops, "following the path indicated by our Holy Father," read the letter aloud from the pulpit despite threats from the Nazis. As a result, occupation forces swept Holland's Catholic convents, monasteries and schools, deporting all Jews who had converted to Christianity--something they had not done before. When word of this reached Rome, the pope withdrew a four-page protest he had written for the Vatican newspaper and burned it. As the 11 volumes on the war years published by the Vatican archives make clear, Jewish as well as Christian groups pleaded with the pope not to make a public protest because it would only intensify the Nazi persecution.

Logged

Matt 5:11  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media