Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: How did Early Fathers interpret Prodigal Son?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:53 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:26 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Portland OR area
Religion: Catholic
I'm wondering if anyone knows how the Early Fathers interpreted the parable of the Prodigal Son, seeing as I have learned it is apocalyptic?

Of course, the Father is God, and the two sons are the Jews and Gentiles, respectively. Of course, the Jews are the elder son and the Gentiles are the younger son because the Jews are "born" into Covenant with God first through Abraham and the Gentiles later through Christ.

But then, if the clear symbolism of the "birth" of the respective sons is about entering into Covenant, how does one then escape a postmillennial interpretation of the text? Specifically, the younger son must first be "born" into Covenant with God and then, at some later time, fall away, and then, be restored to Covenant. Clearly, then, at a bare minimum, the Gentiles do not become "born" until Christ comes and forms the Church and not really in a major way until Constantine. Hence, the younger son's disowning of the Father must occur after this, which would really be the last 500 years, or even 1000 years if we include the Great Schism. It would seem to me that the Fathers would consider the inheritance of the Father to be the fullness of spiritual goods in Catholicism. Hence, the younger son "demands" the inheritance and goes off to squander it, symbolizing the gradual casting aside of the truths and graces that we have in the Church, until he has spent everything, symbolizing a full apostasy. But then comes the famine, a symbol of the Minor Chastisement, which brings about the return of the son to the Father and the great celebration, which would clearly be the "Millennium" or "Age of Peace."

But if the Fathers only had either premill or amill as their options prior to St. Augustine, this doesn't gel in either case, as in either scenario, the Gentiles are not restored from the apostasy, for in either scenario, there is only one apostasy in Church history and it is destroyed by Christ's Coming. That is, there is no re-conversion of the Gentiles.

Could someone help my confusion?

Thanks,
Scott

_________________
O, SAINT Kateri, Pray for us!
http://www.catholicmeditations.org
"Five have fallen. One is. And the other has not yet come...and the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:16 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 5794
Location: Germany
Religion: Catholic
Scott,

The parable of the prodigal son is not apolacyptic. The "birth" of the two sons has nothing to do with entry into the convenant. The parable is about God's mercy. Birth is not even mentioned in the parable, least of all covenant. How can this be "clear symbolism"? The whole point of the parable is the mercy of the Father, not some future Gentile apostasy and return. You could just as easily (and incorrectly) interpret the passage to refer to the Catholic Church (elder son) and the protestant sects (younger son).

Just look at the context of Luke 15. First, the parable of the lost sheep, next, the parable of the lost coin, and finally, the parable of the lost son. This last parable furthermore can't refer to the Jews and the Gentiles because the Father divides up the inheritance to give the second son his share. This has no parallel in covenant history. Did the Church only get part of the inheritance, or all of it?

The only ECF that postmillenialists even dare to cite is St. Athanasius, who writes somewhat optimistically, let's say, on the on the effect of the Logos in the world. But it is a stretch to call this a postmillennial theology. Besides Athanasius, there aren't any ECFs who come remotely close to espousing postmillenialism.

As I have told you before, you are barking up the wrong tree by pursuing postmillennialism instead of the Church's amillennialism. In fact, the Holy Office in the 1940s issued a notification declaring it was not permitted to hold even a modified millennial view (this did not distinguish post and premill).

Actually what you will find in the ECFs before Augustine was a certain amount of both amillennialism and premillennialism, though it is important to note that premillennialism did not have its origin in Apostolic teaching, rather from the Rabbinic schools which held that the Messiah would reign on earth for the last 1,000 years of the 7,000 years of creation.

I know what you are going to say in reply, that the visions of the saints seem to indicate postmillennialism. However, the Tradition of the Church indicates otherwise. It's a case of big "T" Traditon outgunning small "t" tradition.

cheers,
seanie

_________________
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:20 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:26 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Portland OR area
Religion: Catholic
seanie wrote:
Scott,

The parable of the prodigal son is not apolacyptic. The "birth" of the two sons has nothing to do with entry into the convenant. The parable is about God's mercy. Birth is not even mentioned in the parable, least of all covenant. How can this be "clear symbolism"? The whole point of the parable is the mercy of the Father, not some future Gentile apostasy and return. You could just as easily (and incorrectly) interpret the passage to refer to the Catholic Church (elder son) and the protestant sects (younger son).




But, seanie, do you know for certain that the parable is not apocalyptic? I could have sworn that I heard from a Jewish convert to Catholicism on Steve Wood's Faith and Family radio program that this parable is apocalyptic, with the associated symbolism. Of course, your initial objection is invalid because I am not contesting that on one level, even, perhaps, the literal sense, it is just a parable about God's mercy. Of course, that's probably it's primary meaning. But again, Scripture can have multiple layers of meaning by the principle of polyvalence.

For example, I have definitely heard on EWTN radio that the parable of the Good Samaritan fits this type of genre as well. That is, again, it is not merely a parable about helping people on the side of the road. It is also apocalyptic in scope: the man who is wounded is Adam, or, associatedly, the human race, the robbers are the demons, and the robbery is the Fall. Both the Levite and the Priest pass him, as the Old Law cannot save. The Good Samaritan is Christ, who, like the Samaritans, was rejected by His own People. Christ pours oil and wine on the wounds of the man, symbolizing the Sacraments of Catholicism which heal him. The Inn Keeper is the Pope, who has "keys to all the rooms," the Inn is the Church, and, as Christ will "pay him back when he returns," so the Pope dispenses the graces and merits in the treasury of merits until the Second Coming, because, ultimately, Christ is the strict meriter of all the graces spent.

Hence, it seems to me quite likely that the parable of the Prodigal Son could have similar levels of fulfillment.

Also, seanie, this is not to mention Christ has said, "every jot and tittle will be fulfilled." Therefore, if God was able to convert the Jews back from a falling away in their intermediate history through the Babylonian Exile, a chastisement, why would God not predestine similarly a reversion of the Gentiles to the New Covenant in an intermediate apostasy of their history? I mean, what sense does it make that God was able to convert the Jews back from a falling out with the Old Covenant, when the Jews didn't even have the fullness of the Redemption, and yet, in the New Covenant, when we DO have the fullness of the truth and graces, God will not be able to, and, for that matter, has not predestined, a redemption of the Gentiles from an apostasy in their history. That wouldn't make sense: it would imply that God could not do as much in the New Covenant as what He did in the Old. I've already submitted to you the argument there is a direct parallel between what the Jews went through in the Old Covenant with what the Gentiles go through in the New Covenant if we take a postmillennial view of Church history. I don't recall you ever responding to it.

seanie wrote:
This last parable furthermore can't refer to the Jews and the Gentiles because the Father divides up the inheritance to give the second son his share. This has no parallel in covenant history. Did the Church only get part of the inheritance, or all of it?


Well, all the symbolism doesn't need to be perfect, does it?

seanie wrote:
The only ECF that postmillenialists even dare to cite is St. Athanasius, who writes somewhat optimistically, let's say, on the on the effect of the Logos in the world. But it is a stretch to call this a postmillennial theology. Besides Athanasius, there aren't any ECFs who come remotely close to espousing postmillenialism.

As I have told you before, you are barking up the wrong tree by pursuing postmillennialism instead of the Church's amillennialism. In fact, the Holy Office in the 1940s issued a notification declaring it was not permitted to hold even a modified millennial view (this did not distinguish post and premill).


Can you make up your mind? Last time we discussed this, you admitted that the Church still allows postmill. Also, I'm not sure, but I think the postmill of certain Prots believes that there will not a be another apostasy at the end of the Millennium and that Christ will return to a world that will be at peace with God. That's not my view. In mine, there is a second apostasy at the end of the Millennium, where the Antichrist comes and the Great Tribulation.

Also, Father Echert, the EWTN Scripture and Divine Revelation expert confirmed to me that postmill, or, associatedly, a special, spiritual reign of Christ in the era of peace is tenable in the Church.

Quote:
Actually what you will find in the ECFs before Augustine was a certain amount of both amillennialism and premillennialism, though it is important to note that premillennialism did not have its origin in Apostolic teaching, rather from the Rabbinic schools which held that the Messiah would reign on earth for the last 1,000 years of the 7,000 years of creation.


But don't you think it would be odd that you have two factions in the Early Fathers, one of which is completely wrong and another completely right. It seems to me to suggest that the solution is probably somewhere in the middle? As I've pointed out, the RCC is a middle-road religion, not going to extremes. It doesn't fully agree with conservatives and it doesn't fully agree with liberals. hence, if the first half of Genesis is not full allegory or literal history but rather partially allegorical history, don't you think the solution to Revelation would be a middle-road way as well, that is, partial allegory, so that the great controversial Millennium text has a partially allegorical solution instead of either of the fully literal or fully allegorical solutions?

Quote:
I know what you are going to say in reply, that the visions of the saints seem to indicate postmillennialism. However, the Tradition of the Church indicates otherwise. It's a case of big "T" Traditon outgunning small "t" tradition.

cheers,
seanie


but I think there is much more evidence than the mystics. I will try to start posting some of these arguments when I get a chance. God Bless you, seanie.

Scott

_________________
O, SAINT Kateri, Pray for us!
http://www.catholicmeditations.org
"Five have fallen. One is. And the other has not yet come...and the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:33 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 5794
Location: Germany
Religion: Catholic
Scott,

we are never going to agree on this are we? :)


If the parable is indeed apocalyptic, it is up to those who say so to prove it. But the only proof is rabbinical, and that is worthless.

As regards "every jot and tittle" being fulfilled, you seem to be making up interpretations and then subsuming them under "every jot and tittle" to make them infallible certain of coming to pass.

In 1949 (0r 48, must check) the Church ruled out any form of modified millennialism. I hadn't been aware of this previously. Hence I said postmill hadn't been excluded.

You say as well that it
Quote:
be odd that you have two factions in the Early Fathers, one of which is completely wrong and another completely right.


Well, no, it's not odd at all, especially if one of the viewpoints is simply a rehash of rabbinical Judaism, and not Divine Revelation.

God bless you too,
seanie

_________________
Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:55 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:00 am
Posts: 4668
Location: Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Religion: Catholic
Here are some selections of commentary from the Fathers on the parable of the lost sons, commonly though misleadingly called the parable of the prodigal son:


Luke 15:1-3, 11-32

Then all the tribute collectors and sinners drew near to listen to Him, and the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." So to them He addressed this parable: . . . . And He said, "A certain man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of your estate that will come to me.' So he divided the property between them. After a few days, the younger son sold his part of the property, collected all his belongings, and set off to a far country, where he lived as a spendthrift and squandered his inheritance. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens, who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the husks on which the swine fed, but no one gave him anything. Thinking of his own interests, he said, 'How many of my father's hired workers have food enough to eat, and to spare, but here am I, dying from hunger! I will get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son. Treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."' So he got up and went back to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was filled with compassion, and ran to him, embraced him, and kissed him. The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son.' But the father ordered his servants, 'Bring now the finest robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us eat and celebrate, because this son of mine was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found!' Then their celebration began. Now the older son had been out in the field, and on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, 'Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf, because he has him back safe and sound.' He became angry, and refused to go in. So his father came out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in reply, 'Look, I serve you all these years, and not once did I disobey your orders; and yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours returns, who has swallowed up your property with whores, for him you slaughter the fattened calf!' He said to him, 'Son, you are here with me always, and all that I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.'"


Cyril: "But some say that by the elder son is signified Israel according to the flesh, but by the other who left his father, the multitude of the Gentiles."

Augustine: "This man then having two sons is understood to be God having two nations, as if they were two roots of the human race; and the one composed of those who have remained in the worship of God, the other, of those who have ever deserted God to worship idols. From the very beginning then of the creation of mankind the elder son has reference to the worship of the one God, but the younger seeks that the part of the substance which fell to him should be given him by his father. Hence it follows, And the younger of them said to his father, Give me the portion of goods which falls to me; just as the soul delighted with its own power seeks that which belongs to it, to live, to understand, to remember, to excel in quickness of intellect, all which are the gifts of God, but it has received them in its own power by free will. Hence it follows, And he divided to them his substance."

Chrysostom: "The younger son set out into a distant country, not locally departing from God, who is every where present, but in heart. For the sinner flees from God that he may stand afar off."

Bede: "But to feed swine is to work those things in which the unclean spirits delight. It follows, And he would have filled his belly with the husks which the swine did eat. The husk is a sort of bean, empty within, soft outside, by which the body is not refreshed, but filled, so that it rather loads than nourishes."

Augustine: "The husks then with which the swine were fed are the teaching of the world, which cries loudly of vanity; according to which in various prose and verse men repeat the praises of the idols, and fables belonging to the gods of the Gentiles, wherewith the devils are delighted. Hence when he would fain have filled himself, he wished to find therein something stable and upright which might relate to a happy life, and he could not; as it follows, And no one gave to him."

Basil: "There are three different distinct kinds of obedience. For either from fear of punishment we avoid evil and are servilely disposed; or looking to the gain of a reward we perform what is commanded, like to mercenaries; or we obey the law for the sake of good itself and our love to Him who gave it, and so savor of the mind of children."

Augustine: "But whence could he know this who had that great forgetfulness of God, which exists in all idolaters, unless it was the reflection of one returning to his right understanding, when the Gospel was preached. Already might such a soul see that many preach the truth, among whom there were some not led by the love of the truth itself, but the desire of getting worldly profit, who yet do not preach another Gospel like the heretics. Therefore are they rightly called mercenaries. For in the same house there are men who handle the same bread of the word, yet are not called to an eternal inheritance, but hire themselves for a temporal reward."

Chrysostom: "For what else means it that he ran, but that we through the hindrance of our sins cannot by our own virtue reach to God. But because God is able to come to the weak, he fell on his neck. The mouth is kissed, as that from which has proceeded the confession of the penitent, springing from the heart, which the father gladly received."

Theophylact: "By the servants (or angels) you may understand administering spirits, or priests who by baptism and the word of teaching clothe the soul with Christ Himself. For as many of us as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ."

Chrysostom: "The father does not direct his words to his son, but speaks to his steward, for he who repents, prays indeed, but receives no answer in word, yet beholds mercy effectual in operation. For it follows, But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him."

Augustine: "Or the best robe is the dignity which Adam lost; the servants who bring it are the preachers of reconciliation."

Ambrose: "Or the robe is the cloak of wisdom, by which the Apostle covers the nakedness of the body. But he received the best wisdom; for there is one wisdom which knew not the mystery. The ring is the seal of our unfeigned faith, and the impression of truth; concerning which it follows, And put a ring on his hand."

Bede: "That is, his working, that by works faith may shine forth, and by faith his works be strengthened."

Augustine: "Or the ring on the hand is a pledge of the Holy Spirit, because of the participation of grace, which is well signified by the finger."

Chrysostom: "Or he orders the ring to be given, which is the symbol of the seal of salvation, or rather the badge of betrothment, and pledge of the nuptials with which Christ espouses His Church. Since the soul that recovers is united by this ring of faith to Christ."

Augustine: "But the shoes on the feet are the preparation for preaching the Gospel, in order not to touch earthly things."

Chrysostom: "Or he bids them put shoes on his feet, either for the sake of covering the soles of his feet that he may is walk firm along the slippery path of the world, or for the mortification of his members. For the course of our life is called in the Scriptures a foot, and a kind of mortification takes place in shoes; inasmuch as they are made of the skins of dead animals. He adds also, that the fatted calf must be killed for the celebration of the feast. For it follows, And bring the fatted calf, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he calls a calf, because of the sacrifice of a body without spot; but he called it fatted, because it is rich and costly, inasmuch as it is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. But the Father did not Himself sacrifice the calf, but gave it to be sacrificed to others. For the Father permitting, the Son consenting thereto by men was crucified."

Ambrose: "But the younger son, that is the Gentile people, is envied by Israel as the elder brother, the privilege of his father's blessing. Which the Jews did because Christ sat down to meat with the Gentiles, as it follows; And he was angry, and would not go in, etc."

Augustine: "He is angry even also now, and still is unwilling to enter. When then the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, His father will go out at the fit time that all Israel also may be saved, as it follows, therefore came his father out and entreated him. For there shall be at some time an open calling of the Jews to the salvation of the Gospel. Which manifestation of calling he calls the going out of the father to entreat the elder son. Next the answer of the elder son involves two questions; for it follows, And he answering said to his father, Lo these many years do I serve you, neither transgressed I at any time your commandment. With respect to the commandment not transgressed, it at once occurs, that it was not spoken of every command, but of that most essential one, that is, that he was seen to worship no other God but one, the Creator of all. Nor is that son to be understood to represent all Israelites, but those who have never turned from God to idols. For although he might desire earthly things, yet sought he them from God alone, though in common with sinners. Hence it is said, I was as a beast before you, and I am always with you. But who is the kid which he never received to make merry upon? for it follows, You never gave me a kid, etc. Under the name of a kid the sinner may be signified."

Ambrose: "The Jew requires a kid, the Christian a lamb, and therefore is Barabbas released to them, to us a lamb is sacrificed. Which thing also is seen in the kid, because the Jews have lost the ancient rite of sacrifice....But we ought to favor forgiving sin after repentance, lest while grudging pardon to another, we ourselves obtain it not from our Lord. Let us not envy those who return from a distant country, seeing that we ourselves also were afar off."

_________________
I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen. -- St. Polycarp's prayer of thanksgiving at his martyrdom, 156 A.D.

Baby No. 8 is on the way!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:49 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:26 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Portland OR area
Religion: Catholic
Ok, so it seems that there is a basis for seeing the two sons as the Jews and Gentiles respectively, as polycarp has helped out (BTW, thank you, Polycarp, for the quotes from the Fathers on this parable) with some EF treatment, but it seems that they see the return of the younger son as the initial conversion of the Gentiles and not a second conversion after an apostasy. So maybe I have to renig my interpretation.

thank you, polycarp.

Scott

_________________
O, SAINT Kateri, Pray for us!
http://www.catholicmeditations.org
"Five have fallen. One is. And the other has not yet come...and the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:11 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:26 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Portland OR area
Religion: Catholic
seanie wrote:
Scott,

we are never going to agree on this are we? :)


Well, who knows, I don't want to go against the Church because I know it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but it. But I still can't help but think that macro-historical postmill interpretations of Revelation are so much more interesting than amill partial-preterism. It is difficult for me to accept that that is all there is to Revelation.


Quote:
If the parable is indeed apocalyptic, it is up to those who say so to prove it. But the only proof is rabbinical, and that is worthless.


Well, again, polycarp has demonstrated that there is a tradition that associates the two sons with the Jews and the Gentiles, however, you are right, my argument seems to fail in their witness, as they seem to assume that the younger son's return to the Father is the Gentiles' first conversion.

Quote:
As regards "every jot and tittle" being fulfilled, you seem to be making up interpretations and then subsuming them under "every jot and tittle" to make them infallible certain of coming to pass.


Well, again, I don't argue that it will infallibly come to pass but that it is likely to come to pass in light of not only the mystics scenario but also what I think are very good reasons to believe it will happen. Many of the reasons are based on appropriateness.


Quote:
In 1949 (0r 48, must check) the Church ruled out any form of modified millennialism. I hadn't been aware of this previously. Hence I said postmill hadn't been excluded.


Could you please refer me to this document? I would definitely like to read it in detail. Is it online or at the library? If you could help, I would appreciate it. However, a few other words. Here is what Father Echert said to me in the EWTN Q&A:

Fr Echert wrote:
So far as I know, nothing would preclude a spiritual reign of one thousand years; in fact, many Catholics believe that this will happen, especially in light of Marian apparitions and the promise of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Church does condemn a view that there will be a physical reign of Christ on earth for one thousand years, of course, which is similar to the mistake made by many Jews in the time of the first coming of Christ, who expected an earthly kingdom to be established.
Thanks, Scott

Father Echert



But again, he says, "so far as I know," hence, he may not be the expert I have assumed he was. But even Catholic Answers site, which argues against postmill, does not seem to absolutely exclude it: it states, similar to your reference above, that the Church in the 1940's condemned chiliasm, but the article no where states that the Church did so for postmill. In fact, it seems to imply that postmill is possible, although only held in minority in the Church, when it says:

CA wrote:
As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.


Hence, as it says we "tend" to agree with amill, it seems to imply that we do not have to be exclusively amill. It is only premill that we cannot be. But perhaps Catholic Answers is unaware of the document that you mention from '48 or '49 that condemns any modified forms of millennialism. Again, if you could let me know where such the document is, I would appreciate it. I don't have time now, but I will try to get more reasons posted later. May God Bless you again, seanie.

Scott

_________________
O, SAINT Kateri, Pray for us!
http://www.catholicmeditations.org
"Five have fallen. One is. And the other has not yet come...and the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth..."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Jump to:  
cron