Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 10 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:54 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
The Shepherd of Hermas is Hermas of Rome's account of his visions of Christ in the form of a shepherd. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans addresses a Christian named Hermas, and the Shepherd of Hermas says to have Clement send the document's copies abroad. Origen thought that the document was written under Clement's papacy (88-99 AD). But the Muratorian Fragment (c.200 AD) says that it was written under the papacy of Pius I, the brother of Hermas, in 140-155 AD. The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the reference to Clement is probably a literary fiction used to portray the document as older than it really is.

The text can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html In the course of reading the Shepherd, questions arose in my mind about it and I would like to ask them below.

(Question 1) Does the Shepherd of Hermas teach a heresy that Christians cannot successfully repent of severe sins committed after their baptism?
According to an article on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website:
Quote:
Some passages, such as 2.4.3 ["if any one... sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once..." etc.], can easily be taken in a Donatist sense. When the Shepherd says that there is but one chance to repent after baptism, it is uncertain whether this is to be taken in the sense we expressed above (i.e., that it was common for the Sacrament of Penance to be administered only once, and after that, sins had to be atoned by extended durations of penitence) or rather in the absolute sense the Donatists inferred - that there is no repentance or penitence that can atone for certain serious sins committed after baptism.
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/hi ... ermas.html

Here is the full passage (2.4.3), with the most relevant section in bold:
Quote:
And I said to him, "I should like to continue my questions." "Speak on," said he. And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins."

He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Since, however, you inquire diligently into all things, I will point this also out to you, not as giving occasion for error to those who are to believe, or have lately believed, in the Lord. For those who have now believed, and those who are to believe, have not repentance for their sins; but they have remission of their previous sins. For to those who have been called before these days, the Lord has set repentance. For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail; for with difficulty will he live."

Brian Fitzgerald, in his study on the document, notes:
Quote:
The discussion in Mandate Four... came later and indicates some development in Hermas’ thought, i.e., what happens in case of multiple acts of repentance.

Frequent alternations between sinning and repentance apparently render such occasions of repentance void. Yet where those who do not repent die, those who repent often might live, albeit with difficulty. ... Although severely discouraged, repenting often might still save, if only barely. This last point is left rather vague, however.
http://www.st-philip.net/files/Fitzgera ... hermas.pdf


(Question 2) The Shepherd (Christ) says that grief is good to the extent that it brings repentance:
Quote:
grief enters into the heart of the man who was irritated, and he is grieved at the deed which he did, and repents that he has wrought a wicked deed. This grief, then, appears to be accompanied by salvation, because the man, after having done a wicked deed, repented.
Book II, Commandment 10

Next it says that:
Quote:
every cheerful man does what is good, and minds what is good, and despises grief; but the sorrowful man always acts wickedly. First, he acts wickedly because he grieves the Holy Spirit, which was given to man a cheerful Spirit. Secondly, Grieving the Holy Spirit, he works iniquity, neither entreating the Lord nor confessing to Him. For the entreaty of the sorrowful man has no power to ascend to the altar of God." "Why," say I, "does not the entreaty of the grieved man ascend to the altar?" "Because," says he, "grief sits in his heart. Grief, then, mingled with his entreaty, does not permit the entreaty to ascend pure to the altar of God. For as vinegar and wine, when mixed in the same vessel, do not give the same pleasure [as wine alone gives], so grief mixed. with the Holy Spirit does not produce the same entreaty [as would be produced by the Holy Spirit alone]. Cleanse yourself from this wicked grief, and you will live to God; and all will live to God who drive away grief from them, and put on all cheerfulness."
What do you think about its claim that if you are in sorrow and grief your prayer doesn't go to God?
How about John 11, on Jesus' mourning over Lazarus, "34. “Where have you laid him?” He asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they answered. 35. Jesus wept. 36. Then the Jews said, “See how He loved him!”
And Luke 19:41, "As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it"?


(Question 3) The document has numerous commandments like cleansing oneself from grief. Do you agree that Christians, who are fallible, can succeed in keeping all the Shepherd's commandments such that they won't need to repent of violating them?
In Book II, Commandment 12, Hermas has this discussion with the Shepherd:
Quote:
I say to him, "Sir, these commandments are great, and good, and glorious, and fitted to gladden the heart of the man who can perform them. But I do not know if these commandments can be kept by man, because they are exceeding hard."

He answered and said to me, "If you lay it down as certain that they can be kept, then you will easily keep them, and they will not be hard. But if you come to imagine that they cannot be kept by man, then you will not keep them. Now I say to you, If you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not be saved, nor your children, nor your house, since you have already determined for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man."
Isn't it true though that people can sometimes keep the commandments but that as humans in a fallen world no one can perfectly? Paul takes the view in his correspondence that no one can keep the commandments always and that this is why we need the Atonement, right? I guess the Shepherd takes a different view and proposes that after baptism you can definitely keep all the moral rules.

(Question 4) What kind of salvific luxury is the Shepherd talking about in Book III, Similitude VI?:
Quote:
there are also acts of luxury which save men; for many who do good indulge in luxury, being carried away by their own pleasure: this luxury, however, is beneficial to the servants of God, and gains life for such a man; but the injurious acts of luxury before enumerated bring tortures and punishment upon them; and if they continue in them and do not repent, they bring death upon themselves."
Is this like taking a vacation when someone is overstressed from work?

(Question 5) According to the Seventh Similitude (below), does God punish innocent heads of households for their children's sins and not the other way around? And meanwhile God must afflict the penitent and doesn't altogether remit their sins? Does that sound right?
The Shepherd says:
Quote:
"...your household has committed great iniquities and sins, and the glorious angel has been incensed at them on account of their deeds; and for this reason he commanded you to be afflicted for a certain time, that they also might repent, and purify themselves from every desire of this world. When, therefore, they repent and are purified, then the angel of punishment will depart." I said to him, "Sir, if they have done such things as to incense the glorious angel against them, yet what have I done?" He replied, "They cannot be afflicted at all, unless you, the head of the house, be afflicted: for when you are afflicted, of necessity they also suffer affliction; but if you are in comfort, they can feel no affliction."

"Well, sir," I said, "they have repented with their whole heart." "I know, too," he answered, "that they have repented with their whole heart: do you think, however, that the sins of those who repent are remitted? Not altogether, but he who repents must torture his own soul, and be exceedingly humble in all his conduct, and be afflicted with many kinds of affliction; and if he endure the afflictions that come upon him, He who created all things, and endued them with power, will assuredly have compassion, and will heal him; and this will He do when He sees the heart of every penitent pure from every evil thing: and it is profitable for you and for your house to suffer affliction now. But why should I say much to you? You must be afflicted, as that angel of the Lord commanded who delivered you to me. And for this give thanks to the Lord, because He has deemed you worthy of showing you beforehand this affliction, that, knowing it before it comes, you may be able to bear it with courage." I said to him, "Sir, be thou with me, and I will be able to bear all affliction." "I will be with you," he said, "and I will ask the angel of punishment to afflict you more lightly; nevertheless, you will be afflicted for a little time, and again you will be re-established in your house. Only continue humble, and serve the Lord in all purity of heart, you and your children, and your house, and walk in my commands which I enjoin upon you, and your repentance will be deep and pure; and if you observe these things with your household, every affliction will depart from you. And affliction," he added, "will depart from all who walk in these my commandments."


Last edited by rako on Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:24 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81004
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
With respect to the point concerning keeping the commandments, it's a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church (I realize you aren't Catholic) that:

    CANON XVIII.-If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Session VI.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:53 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
With respect to the point concerning keeping the commandments, it's a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church (I realize you aren't Catholic) that:

    CANON XVIII.-If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Session VI.

This is certainly an on-point answer for Question number 3 as far as the Catholic teaching is concerned.
Personally for me it's a tough issue. On one hand, if God makes good commandments, I would expect that pious, righteous people should be able to keep them. Plus, there must be people, like some elderly people in nursing homes who have lived their lives piously and don't interact much with others due to their health, who are able to follow them.

But on the other hand, I remember reading in Paul's epistles the idea that in effect no one can realistically meet all the demands that the Mosaic Torah demanded, and that this is why we need to live by faith and grace. I don't remember where I read this. Maybe I read this idea into Gal. 3:10: <<All who rely on works of the Law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”>> In the Council of Jerusalem, the apostle James commented that he decided to release the gentiles from the ritual requirements of the Torah because of how difficult it was even for Jews to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:59 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81004
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The positive way of stating the teaching of Trent given above is that God gives the justified sufficient grace to keep the commandments--not that they can do it on their own, but that they can, by the grace of God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:42 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Here is the answer to Question 4 (<<What kind of salvific luxury is the Shepherd talking about in Book III, Similitude VI?>>)
K.Lake’s translation in the Loeb series is put next to the Greek and says: "But there are also luxuries which bring men salvation, for many who do good luxuriate and are carried away with their own pleasure."
Lightfoot's translation of the entire verse says: "But there are habits of self-indulgence like-wise which save men; for many are self-indulgent in doing good, being carried away by the pleasure it gives to themselves. This self-indulgence then is expedient for the servants of God, and bringeth life to a man of this disposition; but the harmful self-indulgences afore-mentioned bring to men torments and punishments; and if they continue in them and repent not, they bring death upon themselves."
Roberts and Donaldson's translation has a footnote to these Psalms:
Quote:
Psalm 4:6-7: There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us. Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.

Psalm 119:14: I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches.

Psalm 84:10: For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10441
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Well, if that is true, then I'm screwed.

What does that do to the old saying of the monk, who when asked what they do at the monastery, replied "We fall down, we get up."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
I think that I've found the answer to Question 1 ("Does the Shepherd of Hermas teach a heresy that Christians cannot successfully repent of severe sins committed after their baptism?")

It says that the sinner has only one repentance after the baptism, and that further repentance will be of no "avail" (Lightfoot's translation) or won't be "profitable" (Lake). This implies a potential contradiction between (A) there being no repentance after the first one, and (B) repentance beyond that being unprofitable/to no avail, since statement (B) implies that futher repentance exists, but is unprofitable. The resolution in terminology must be that there are two definitions of repentance (A) "profitable" repentance, and (B) repentance that may or may not be profitable.
The Shepherd's evidence for this is that after their first post-baptismal repentance they will have difficulty living.
This is in Book II, Commandment IV, Chapter 3. I previously quoted Lightfoot's passage.
Lake's translation says:
Quote:
"I will yet, sir," said I, "continue to ask."
" Say on," said he.
"I have heard, sir," said I, " from some teachers that there is no second repentance beyond the one given when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins."
2. He said to me, " You have heard correctly, for that is so. For he who has received remission of sin ought never to sin again, but to live in purity.
3. But since you ask accurately concerning all things, I will explain this also to you without giving an excuse to those who in the future shall believe or to those who have already believed on the Lord. For those who have already believed or shall believe in the future, have no repentance of sins, but have remission of their former sin. 4. For those, then, who were called before these days, did the Lord appoint repentance, for the Lord knows the heart, and knowing all things beforehand he knew the weakness of man and the subtlety of the devil, that he will do some evil to the servants of God, and will do them mischief. 5. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, had mercy on his creation, and established this repentance, and to me was the control of this repentance given. 6. But I tell you," said he, "after that great and holy calling, if a man be tempted by the devil and sin, he has one repentance, but if he sin and repent repeatedly it is unprofitable for such a man, for scarcely shall he live."
7. I said to him, " I attained life when I heard these things thus accurately from you, for I know that if I do not again add to my sins I shall be saved." "You shall be saved," said he, "and all who do these things."

Lake's footnote says that this passage might refer to Hebrews 6:4-6. But the passage in Hebrews is specifically referring to the difficulty in repenting for those who "fall away", ie. apostasize.
B. Fitzgerald's observation about the Shepherd's message implies that actually repentance after repeated combinations of sinning and repenting could still have some benefit, since the result is different from no repentance at all: "Yet where those who do not repent die, those who repent often might live, albeit with difficulty. … Although severely discouraged, repenting often might still save, if only barely. This last point is left rather vague, however." (st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/shepherd_of_hermas.pdf)
That is, since he is at least still living, then it seems that his repentance gives him some "profit"/"avail" over those who don't repent at all after repeated sinning, since they die. But then how can the Shepherd both say that the person won't be availed of the repentance, and then state that such a person still lives in connection with this (albeit with difficulty, in contrast to someone who never repented and died)? Could it mean that the recidivist's repentance would not be of the saving kind of profit/avail (ie. that the penitent recidivist still lives on earth, but he lost his eternal salvation)? If that is what he means, then it looks like his quote doesn't leave room for doubt as to whether the repeat penitent can get real salvation.
Maybe his phrase "for he will scarcely leave" is meant as proof that the penitent hasn't been forgiven. But even then you can say that the author has admitted, unwittingly perhaps, that there is room for doubt- since the penitent's status is better than had he never repented in his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:29 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
I would answer Question 2 (What do you think about its claim that if you are in sorrow and grief your prayer doesn't go to God?) this way:
The author doesn't actually say that if you are in sorrow that God won't hear your prayer or won't fulfill your request. Rather, he says that your prayer won't go to the altar and that it is weak.
The author seems to base his assertion on James 1, which says to count tribulation all joy, knowing that your testing produces patience. He also bases it on Rev. 8:3, which describes prayers of holy people going to the altar.
Based on these verses, the author's unstated logic appears to be that saints count tribulation all joy and their prayers go to the altar, therefore those who don't count tribulation a joy are in sorrow and are not saints, and therefore the prayers of the sorrowful are not the prayers of saints and therefore those prayers don't go to the altar.
I think that this is weak reasoning. The reality of suffering can make even holy people mournful since after all they are humans, even if they understand the concept of counting tribulation a joy (eg. They know that in the story of Job, Job remained patient and God rewarded him.). Further, the Messiah is prophesied as being afflicted or grieved in Isaiah 53:3:
Quote:
"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of maḵ-’ō-ḇō-wṯ (sorrows/griefs/pains), and acquainted with ḥō-lî (affliction/sickness/grief): and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

Consider also Psalm 51, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
With this kind of wording, calling the broken spirit a "sacrifice", the language in the Psalm is certainly indirectly associating the image of a broken spirit with the image of what is put on a sacrificial altar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:26 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Quote:
CANON XVIII.-If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, let him be anathema.


Council of Trent, Session VI.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
The positive way of stating the teaching of Trent given above is that God gives the justified sufficient grace to keep the commandments--not that they can do it on their own, but that they can, by the grace of God.

Obi Wan,
Thank you for pointing to this part of Trent, which is certainly relevant. I believe that this Canon is not wrong, but rather that it leaves more to be said and explained about it.

Did you understand what I was referring to about Paul's skepticism that the faithful would succeed in fulfilling all of the law? I had in mind verses like Galatians 3:10 ("For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.")

It looks like the New Testament sometimes implies that a person can keep all the commandments, since Paul characterizes himself “as touches righteousness in the Law, blameless” (Philippians 3:6). This seems in tension with the verse in Galatians 3:10. Perhaps the issue could be explained by saying that Paul does not rely on the works of the law, but rather he became blameless in the Law via Christ.

The dynamic in the Shepherd seems out of keeping with the New Testament and Church fathers' writings, when in it Christ gives new commandments, like not to grieve, and then says:
Quote:
"If you lay it down as certain that they can be kept, then you will easily keep them, and they will not be hard. But if you come to imagine that they cannot be kept by man, then you will not keep them. Now I say to you, If you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not be saved, nor your children, nor your house, since you have already determined for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man."

The teaching that if you don't keep the commandments that you won't be saved because you have determined that the commandments cannot be kept by man seems much more in keeping with the Old Testament way of talking about Law. It seems that Paul and the New Testament deliberately present a reply to this kind of thinking by saying that Christ can save us due to our failure to keep "the commandments".

CANON XVIII of Trent, which you cited, seems to be directed at some Protestant polemic about Justification by Grace Alone, because my understanding is that this was the context for this section of Trent's Anathemas. I wasn't able to find what was the Polemic though.

Brian Killian notes about this Canon, XVIII, that it is followed by Canon XX, which seems to address this issue. Killian writes:
Quote:
Right after it is affirmed that observing the commandments is indeed possible, the text explains itself like this:
  • “For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able;”
Here is the recognition that there can be, in one and the same subject, both something that is possible (“what thou are able”), and something that is impossible (“what thou art not able to do”). There are areas where our will is truly free, and there are areas where our wills may be weak and perhaps in bondage to forces we cannot easily control. For those things that we are not able to do, we are commanded to pray so that God may turn our impossibility into possibility, weakness into freedom. This brings us to the next point, bridging this chasm between what is possible and impossible.
https://wherepeteris.com/with-man-all-t ... -possible/

This could mean that while the rules are possible, some people aren't practically able to meet them and should pray to be able to meet them. Or maybe the answer is that in rare cases some people do succeed to meet the rules, but in general people fail (as 1 John says) and so we repent and get absolution when we fail.

Can you please write some more on this topic?

I am skeptical that it's realistic to say like the Shepherd does that people must follow all the moral rules and never to break them and that if they break them, they don't get saved. It seems like the normal Christian commentary regarding this topic is that Yes, one must follow the moral rules, but Christ is there because we can anticipate our failures. OK, I know that sometimes in the Gospels Christ talks like the Shepherd does, saying about the rich man, that with God all things are possible. Further, I am even more skeptical in the case of the Shepherd of Hermas, because some of his commandments seem extreme or very questionable from a Christian POV, like not grieving. I mean, how about the so called "gift of tears" or Jesus' tears at foreseeing Jerusalem's calamity? And on top of it, the document says people only get one chance at repentance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (1st - mid 2nd century) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan,
feel that Brian Killian’s commentary is good regarding the issue of whether people can always go without sinning. I think that it’s possible, but it doesn’t seem usually realistic for people in general, because it seems like extreme achievement, like always getting a perfect score on SATs taken 20 years in a row, or climbing Mount Everest with no fractures or passing out 50 times in 50 years. There are so many challenges that people face in the real world due to outside forces like problems in one’s upbringing, miseducation, hostility and aggression from one’s opponents, that it doesn’t seem realistic to expect a normal healthy person born into the world and baptised as an infant to live their whole life without ever sinning with no 3rd or 4th chances at repentance. Anyone who really knows children well should understand this. And then you put in a normal natural healthy lifespan of 70-80 years. It doesn’t look realistic. Maybe there are some child prodigies or more likely people born into very rare circumstances where they would not sin like a special sanitorium, but typically in such cases one of the factors is that they are not given as many opportunities or temptations to sin.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 10 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: