I have a church nearby that's has woman clergy. Any advice?

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by BibleHoarder, Oct 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    We only have two 'traditional' Anglican churches where I live, and one has a female deacon. Is this considered orthodox in Anglicanism? Or are women prohibited from all positions of ordination in the church?
     
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Then your tradition is wrong Matt.15:6, and your understanding of Scripture is wrong also 2 Pet.3:16. if you are suggesting that a righteous woman is less approved of by God than would be a 'millstone wearing, child abusing pedophile, Luke 17:2'. I would choose to be baptised by the woman every time and spit in the face of the pedophile priest, however supposedly valid his masses might be deemed to be by men.
    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2018
  3. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    173
    Likes Received:
    116
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican

    Tiffy as usual you twist the Scriptures. I ask you to quote the Scripture that authorizes a priestess or a bishopess. Your quoted Scriptures say nothing of these but warn of twisting Scripture to meet man-made tradition which is exactly what the modernist factions in many churches in the rich Global North do on an annual basis.

    Nowhere in the Old Testament are priestesses authorized, no where in the Book of Acts does it show a priestess or bishopess. Paul's writing in several epistles commands the exact opposite. He does not only do so descriptively but prescriptively.

    Furthermore it is a matter of known history that the early Church consistently interpreted these Scriptures as prescriptive.

    Clement of Rome


    Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men [not women] should succeed them in their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44 [A.D. 95]).


    Tertullian

    It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office (On the Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 207]).

    Hippolytus

    When a widow is appointed she is not ordained but she shall be chosen by name… Let the widow be instituted by word only and let her be reckoned among the widows. But she shall not be ordained, because she does not offer oblation nor has a ministry. But ordination is for clergy on account of their ministry. But the widow is appointed for prayer… (Apostolic Tradition1:4:5 [A.D. 215]).

    The Teaching of the Apostles

    We do not permit our 'women to teach in the Church,' but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. (3:6 [A.D. 225]).

    Firmilian of Caesarea

    But that woman, who previously by wiles and deceitfulness of the demon was attempting many things for the deceiving of the faithful, among other things by which she had deceived many, also had frequently dared this; to pretend that with an invocation not to be contemned she sanctified bread and celebrated, the Eucharist, and to offer sacrifice to the Lord, not without the sacrament of the accustomed utterance; and also to baptize many, making use of the usual and lawful words of interrogation, that nothing might seem to be different from the ecclesiastical rule (Fragment in Cyprian's Letters 74[75]:10 [A.D. 256]).

    Council of Nicea

    Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

    Council of Laodicea

    Presbytides as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

    Epiphanius

    It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of Baptism, or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administrating sacred rites, but by the deaconess (Panarion 79:3 [A.D. 377]).

    John Chrysostom

    [W]hen one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also; and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others, and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature: or rather far more (On the Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 386]).

    Apostolic Constitutions

    I, the same, make a constitution in regard to virgins: A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord; for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but an account of leisure for piety (8:24 [A.D. 400]).

    A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while, and has lived soberly and unblameably, and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna --those women of great reputation--let her be chosen into the order of widows (ibid 8:25).

    A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency (ibid 8:28).

    For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing (ibid 9:3).

    Augustine

    “[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman” (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]).

    Council of Orange

    Female deacons are by no means to be ordained. If there are any who have been already ordained, [illicitly] let them submit their heads to the benediction that is granted to the laity (Canon 26 [A.D. 441]).

    Council of Chalcedon

    A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her (Canon 15 [A.D. 451]).

    Point to a single Scripture or Church Father authorizing a priestess or bishopess. As usual, you cannot and thus are forced to retreat to a point that is both extreme (it assumes that of course every priestess/bishopess is of high moral character ["Bishop" Heather Cook anyone?] and every priest or bishop is an evil child abuser) and, of course, openly heretical (the notion that the efficacy of the sacrament is quite a resurrection of the old Donatist heresy).
     
    Stalwart and Peteprint like this.
  4. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Oh my....Joe! I can't believe how sexist and intolerant you are of the female sex! The world is changing and we need to get with the times! There isn't any room in this day and age for so-called 'orthodoxy'. We should be loving! That is very bigoted of you to denounce women who are probably more holy than you'll ever be! And God is obviously a woman! The Goddess is all and everything that is! How dare you! :o
     
    JoeLaughon, Stalwart and Peteprint like this.
  5. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Doctrines of men, for men by men who claim God is masculine, (some of them even thinking God is a man.) Not biassed or prejudiced at all though.
    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
  6. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    With all due respect, Tiffy:

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Tim 2:12

    "women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." 1 Cor. 14:34

    Is this the "doctrines of men," and, if so, how/who determines what in the scriptures is of man and what is of God?

    As with the passages on homosexuality, we either have to accept them in their plain, grammatical sense, or explain them away by claiming they don't really mean what they say, or that they are not God's words, just those of the human writers.
     
    JoeLaughon and Stalwart like this.
  7. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    So if a woman agrees to be baptised by a man, how does she and any female God parent remain silent and complete their responses as given in my copy of the B.o.C.P. (1660).
    Was Paul also referring to just the Corinthians and not churches in general? And if Paul says "as the Law says" what law was he referring to in this pre Gospel era?

    How does a woman having no authority over men square with the Queens position within the Anglican world?
     
  8. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    Hello Agnostic.

    A couple of your questions are obviously meant facetiously and don't merit a serious response. As to the Queen, as Governor of the Church of England, she does not have the ability to act as a member of the clergy, nor can she administer the sacraments. Her role is not one of spiritual leadership.

    I certainly agree that there are parts of scripture that are problematic to us today, and these include those which deal with women and homosexuals. The point I was trying to make is that we have to accept what scripture states on these subjects, and not simply try to blow the passages off as misinterpretations or the "doctrines of men."

    Those who oppose women in holy orders have not only tradition on their side, but scripture as well. I know that those who support WO will not agree, and that is what it is.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  9. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    This is only generally true, but the Anglican church has royal peculiars , of which Westminster Abbey is probably the most famous , these churches are not subject to a bishop but to the sovereign, who acts as the bishop including visitation rights. The Queen in these cases has "authority over men"
    If you don't think women can have authority over men there is something wrong with the Anglican church at the highest level!
     
  10. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Ahh yes. The role of women in ministry, the forbidden subject. (And let no man suggest that servanthood, 'ministry' is restricted only to men. We are all The Lord's servants.) It seems like some male servants reserve to themselves the roles of honour and privilege leaving the drudgery to the female servants.

    The way I see it, the issue hangs on how we interpret scripture. Some interpret according to what the Word of Truth says, others according to what the words of scripture literally say. Both are truth but scripture can be misunderstood, particularly when historical context is ignored and the possibility of interpolation is denied on grounds of 'a superstitious theory of Biblical inerrancy' resulting in a slavish, pedantic, scriptural literalism, spiritually similar to the ancient Pharisaism which Jesus condemned.

    We will hear The Truth speak directly to us, face to face eventually, then we will know exactly what The Truth will say in either our support or condemnation. Until then we just have to do according to what we 'believe' to be true, because to do otherwise we go against our own conscience and our own understanding of The Truth, (which may be either right or wrong, when compared with the mind of Christ, rather than our own interpretation of the words of scripture taken literally, propping up our own cherished doctrines).

    I support women's ministry because I believe it is supported by The Word but the word of scripture, when taken in totality, seems ambiguous on the matter, so for me The Word takes precedence.

    "All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom.14:20-23.

    So I see women's ordination as an issue which is divisive for similar reasons to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, in as much as, those with weaker faith tend to call the shots on whether it be acceptable, because those with the stronger faith should desist out of concern for offending the weaker in faith. Nevertheless, I do not believe the weaker in faith should overrule the church, as it tries to discover 'the mind of Christ' on any serious matter concerning church praxis, and I believe Paul thought likewise.

    His advice in the above passage conflicts with other key passages regarding eating of meat sacrificed to idols. Nevertheless, his reasoning is sound. Idols are nothing, neither is the meat sacrificed to them 'tainted', it all goes eventually 'down the toilet'. This meat was probably the only meat affordable by Christian slaves in Rome. It was sold off cheap because it was originally 'donated' at no cost to the shrine management, but it still had to be disposed of before it became noisome to the devotees. Christian slaves could 'pick it up cheap'.

    "Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” Matt.15:17-20.

    I think this principle of faith is much more widely applicable than merely to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Otherwise this passage in Romans is pretty much an anachronism, now just sitting there taking up space in Holy Writ and being ignored by the church as apparently an irrelevance.

    Is it an irrelevance, or a guiding principle in understanding the voice of the Holy Spirit to each generation of the church severally?

    Surely scripture is there to lead us into greater understanding of the will and mind of Jesus Christ Our Lord, not to constrain the church within a rigid rule system interpreted exclusively by male clerics from positions of authority, and imposed by the letter of their interpretation of the Biblical text.
    .
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  11. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    I think it is a fallacy that the Queen has no spiritual powers . I'm sure I have read that she has (in the royal peculiar cases), in a book I read years ago called "How the Queen Reigns"

    Facetious or not I would still like to know what Law Paul was referring to when he wrote " They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." (1 Cor. 14:34)
     
  12. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    This must also be the one and only time in any of Paul's epistles that he appeals to , (in fact imposes), the law, to support an edict on conduct within the church. His line of reasoning is usually that we are no longer under Law and should live by The Spirit. Oddly, it seems only women are under a Law. All other appeals by Paul to his churches are based upon spiritual principles, never imposition of 'a law', particularly one not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Why the anomaly, we might ask? Particularly since this text is suspect, and has been since the first copyists wondered where it should go. In some ancient manuscripts it appears at the end of Ch. 14. It also contradicts 1 Cor.11:4-16. "Women must have their heads covered when speaking in church" does not make a whole lot of sense if they are to remain silent as well. :laugh: There is something funny going on here but it is no laughing matter. :confused: :hmm:
    .
     
  13. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    There are abundant reasons too numerous for me to go into that question whether 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus were actually written by St Paul. Suffice it to say: (1) The writing style is significantly different from any other undisputed Pauline letters. (2) The vocabulary is distinctively different. No less than 305 words appear in these three epistles which appear nowhere else in any other of Paul's epistles. Of these no less than 175 appear nowhere else in the New Testament, and 130, although found in the New Testament are not found in the Paulines. (3) They are nigh on impossible to fit into what we know for certain of Paul's movements on his missionary journeys or imprisonments. (4) The language used is indicative of a later time in church history, with 'ecclesiastical' terms that only came into use at a later period than the New Testament Apostolic Church.

    While there is doubt about authenticity, regarding who the 'I' might have actually been who wrote this, I am not going to adopt a less charitable attitude to women's 'ministry' than did our Lord himself, who revealed himself first to women after his resurrection and sent them as the first bearers of the Good News of his appearance, though they were not believed by unbelieving men.

    There IS no Law forbidding women to speak in church, either in the Torah or in the Old Testament. There are however abundant examples of women speaking, prophesying and leading worship in the Old Testament Assembly of the people.

    If the law referred to is the unwritten law of the Pharisees, then that was roundly condemned by Jesus Christ, and later by Paul, in his tirades against Judaisers infiltrating the churches. See Gal.

    Here is an article explaining the difficulties involved in placing a definite meaning on this text:

    This question presupposes that voice of The Holy Spirit in our regenerated conscience, is less trustworthy than a literal and legalist reading of the written word. The written word is of course the church's backstop on issues of doctrine, but it was not ever said by Christ: "But the Doctrine, contained in the Bible, which the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever you read shall be contained in it. Peace I leave with you, in the book, my peace I give unto you: in the book, not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Read my book and obey it literally to the letter.

    He actually said: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

    "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:27

    This leaves the full responsibility upon each of us within the church to understand what Christ himself, through the Holy Spirit, reveals to us from scripture, from the historic tradition of the church. (which is not infallible), and common sense, (which is often lacking).

    We should therefore not regard scripture as the Pharisees did, (as the final say on what is and is not allowed to the people of God). It is our responsibility to seek the will of Christ through the power of The Holy Spirit, not slavishly strain gnats from the scripture but swallow camels whole.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  14. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    So…

    1 Timothy is spurious and can be disregarded. Check.

    1 Corinthians………. what Paul is referencing is actually condemned by both Paul and Jesus. Check.

    Regarding the scriptures, it is The Holy Spirit who guides us, not the written word. Therefore, each of us can determine the truth ourselves, with the Spirit’s assistance. “We should therefore not regard scripture as the final say on what is and is not allowed to the people of God.”

    In other words, what the Church teaches regarding human behavior, right and wrong, true and false, can change, even if it contradicts what the scriptures say. That is even broader in scope than the Roman Catholic Church’s development of doctrine theory.

    On any issue, our discernment (that overused word) regarding what the Spirit thinks, trumps whatever the scriptures say on the matter. Ergo, ongoing revelation. Got it.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    A royal peculiar does not change anything on the ecclesiastical level. It still has the Dean, and Chapter. A Queen has visitation rights to every parish Church in Great Britain. And she has civil authority over men, no doubt. But she does not have spiritual authority over men.


    It means, they must not preach; on Church grounds, and in a liturgical context, they must accept themselves in submission. This is the revelation from God.


    Here is the game:

    Whatever the atheist morality invents tomorrow, the Scripture shall be judged by it; we shall redefine God, and virtue, and the hierarchy, and natural law; just so long as those atheist meanies don't yell at us. I mean sure St. Bartholomew was skinned alive for our beliefs, but to us, being mean to is the top cruelty in the world, and so long as the atheists act totalitarian towards us, we will submit and revise our supernatural religion exactly as they require.
     
  16. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Yes; but lets not forget the elephant in the room. What law was Paul using to justify his claim? This may have just been a local rule, that is no longer valid.
    You can't just use the "keep quiet" bit and ignore the "what law " bit
     
  17. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    126
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    It is my understanding that the Queen chooses to subcontract this job out to Deans etc. But perhaps I should bring this up in a different thread so to not clog up this one.
     
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Subcontracting means that they're doing her job for her. No, she literally cannot step into the chancel and conduct holy communion.
     
  19. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian

    Hi Agnostic. I wasn't trying to turn the whole thread into one about WO. Even without this particular verse, there are others that can be cited, as well as tradition, but there is no need to get into that.

    My bigger issue is with Tiffy's apparent claim that being led by the Spirit trumps what is written in the Bible. I am no fundamentalist, and I practice biblical criticism myself. I do not believe that the bible is inerrant. The being said, it is fairly clear on certain issues, and if we allow ourselves to jettison anything we dislike, then we may as well toss the bible out the window.

    Paul himself, at times, distinguishes between his teachings and those from God, but when we say that we reject Paul's teaching on one subject or another, we have to be careful not to reach the point where we arbitrarily pick and choose what we want to accept when it is not clear if it is from Paul or from God. It is a slippery slope. The Bible is not a vague guide book, it is the foundation of our faith, as it contains the Gospel and the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
     
  20. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    1 Tim. is scripture. Scripture is inspired. Inspired means we must bear it serious due consideration when considering church doctrine and praxis affected by it. Including considering what it might mean to us and Church praxis if the 'I' in "I do not allow", was not actually Paul. If not then this may be 'inspired' scripture, but it might not be 'Apostolic' scripture. Even Paul, as you pointed out made statements of personal opinion, not claiming to be divinely inspired. If this is indeed not Paul then we may question in what way is it 'inspired', but not the fact that it is.

    1 Cor. If there is a Law, which is being referred to, the specific text is either not penned by Paul, (he nowhere else appeals to Law to regulate christian conduct), or Paul is directly quoting one of the false suppositions or Laws that the Corinthian Judaisers had imposed upon the Corinthian women and had informed him of their action in a previous letter to him, which we don't have. All we know is that there were serious problems in Corinth and they were reported to him by 'Chloe's people, the house-church members of Chloe, a woman.

    If it was Paul quoting a Pharisaical edict, then certainly Paul would have opposed it, and Jesus would too, if it was an unjust law in opposition the The Holy Spirit, as most Pharisaical laws were.

    The Church has always had ongoing revelation, but it also now has the scriptures. The scriptures are a product of that ongoing revelation, particularly the letters of Paul. The Holy Spirit has not abandoned the church leaving only a Book to go by. From 'Eating with Gentiles', to 'unclean foods' to 'Sunday worship and infant baptism', the Church has been directed by The Holy Spirit, to write and compile the New Testament, and subsequently to be guided and instructed through the Bible, by The Holy Spirit.

    The Church is not a product of the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church, inspired by God. It is not a book of rules for slavish obedience. It is an Apostolic and Prophetic record of Godly advice on how to be reconciled to God.

    The question we should always be asking ourselves when considering these difficult verses of Paul, (or perhaps not Paul), is "How well does this edict stack up against the rest of what Paul wrote on the subject of women in the Church?" Taking a couple of texts and building an entire ecclesiastical edifice upon them which establishes a male only privileged priestly elite, (a bit like that applauded by the Pharisees), should strike us as being at least suspect, and probably against the general thrust of the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page