Jump to content

If "Eat My Flesh" Isn't Literal...


soren

Recommended Posts

The almost universal criticism of the Eucharist is to cites instances of figurative language used by Jesus to describe himself. This method of attack is very misguided, because it makes the ignorant and insulting assumption that the reason Catholic take the words of consecration literally is because we haven't thought of the figurative possibilities. In reality, we are perfectly cognizant of figurative language in Scripture, but believe that in the case of key Eucharist passages, a figurative reading does not do the text justice.

In his book The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, John A. O'Brien give one of the many reasons:

It is moreover a law of interpretation, universally recognized by scholars, that a passage is always to be construed in its obvious meaning unless there is some good reason to interpret it figuratively; but the words of Christ "to eat My flesh, and drink My blood," cannot be interpreted figuratively without doing violence to the whole passage. Why? Because the phrase when interpreted figuratively has a meaning which is totally repugnant to the whole context.

Thus, the phrase, "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny of by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense.

I'm not sure I'm entirely persuaded by this argument myself, but I incline to it, and it does puts one thought in my mind: Catholics often claim that the reason many of Christ's followers leave him (the first apostasy) after his Eucharistic discourse in John 6 is that they cannot accept the plainly literal meaning of his words. I have no quarrel with that reading, but has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps they fell away for the opposite reason -- because they took his words figuratively? Only those who were given spiritual eyes could hear the literal meaning of his words were able to continue following him. Thus when Peter says, "Lord you have the words of everlasting life," he means "I understand that you are speaking literally." It may be that the "words" he refers to are in fact "This is my body."

Link to comment

:P

I don't make a big deal out of transubstantiation. It certainly seems biblical to me (though I admit to not having studied this issue much).

Link to comment
:P

I don't make a big deal out of transubstantiation. It certainly seems biblical to me (though I admit to not having studied this issue much).

Transsubstantiation is a primary historical mark that the Catholic Church is true, and that the priesthood was never lost from the earth. The principle activity of a priest is to offer sacrifice for sins. The Catholic mass is just such a priestly offering, which has been practiced through the Church's history, and is easy to document. If what was lost in the Great Apostasy was the priesthood, and if Joseph Smith restored that priesthood, we should expect the external marks of priestly offering to also be restored. And yet, while Catholicism has a central, specifically sacrificial rite at the center of it liturgical and priestly life, Mormonism does not offer any unique sacrifice to rival the mass. If you have really restored a priesthood, what sacrifices do you offer that were not made during the time of the apostasy? When were they restored?

Link to comment
The almost universal criticism of the Eucharist is to cites instances of figurative language used by Jesus to describe himself. This method of attack is very misguided, because it makes the ignorant and insulting assumption that the reason Catholic take the words of consecration literally is because we haven't thought of the figurative possibilities. In reality, we are perfectly cognizant of figurative language in Scripture, but believe that in the case of key Eucharist passages, a figurative reading does not do the text justice.

In his book The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, John A. O'Brien give one of the many reasons:

It is moreover a law of interpretation, universally recognized by scholars, that a passage is always to be construed in its obvious meaning unless there is some good reason to interpret it figuratively; but the words of Christ "to eat My flesh, and drink My blood," cannot be interpreted figuratively without doing violence to the whole passage. Why? Because the phrase when interpreted figuratively has a meaning which is totally repugnant to the whole context.

Thus, the phrase, "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny of by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense.

I'm not sure I'm entirely persuaded by this argument myself, but I incline to it, and it does puts one thought in my mind: Catholics often claim that the reason many of Christ's followers leave him (the first apostasy) after his Eucharistic discourse in John 6 is that they cannot accept the plainly literal meaning of his words. I have no quarrel with that reading, but has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps they fell away for the opposite reason -- because they took his words figuratively? Only those who were given spiritual eyes could hear the literal meaning of his words were able to continue following him. Thus when Peter says, "Lord you have the words of everlasting life," he means "I understand that you are speaking literally." It may be that the "words" he refers to are in fact "This is my body."

I have done no studying of ancient Jewish culture, but one who has, has a different understanding of the figurative usage of eating flesh and drinking blood:

Jesus spoke figuratively on this occasion, and the context of the discourse reveals as much. Elder James E. Talmage (1862â??1933), a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained that â??there was little excuse for the Jews pretending to understand that our Lord meant an actual eating and drinking of His material flesh and blood. The utterances to which they objected were far more readily understood by them than they are by us on first reading; for the representation of the law and of truth in general as bread, and the acceptance thereof as a process of eating and drinking, were figures in everyday use by the rabbis of that time. Their failure to comprehend the symbolism of Christâ??s doctrine was an act of will, not the natural consequence of innocent ignorance.â?
To me, this makes more sense to me than trying to read it literally. When you eat or drink something you ingest it, you take it into yourself...you have accepted it.

However, to literally eat the flesh or drink the blood of another person, was never part of Jewish scripture that I know of, but accepting and obeying the law was.

Link to comment
This is board is being hijacked by Catholics. :P

Hey Fuller,

When you guys stop asking us questions and making observations based on misunderstandings of what we really believe, I'll be happy to settle into a book.

Hey, if you'll second me, I'll make a motion that my faith be an off limits subject of discussion here! Whaddya say?

Link to comment
This is board is being hijacked by Catholics. :P

JLFuller: Sorry. But this is an important issue that needs to be discused. Catholic dogmas must be dealt with or else we run the risk of having the Saints deceived by Catholic evangelism, since many LDS see Catholics as right if LDS are wrong, and there will be a danger of LDS members leaving good ship Zion if Catholics effectively spread their religion without it being counteracted and their claims debated. Therefore, to defend the Saints, we must defend ourselves against the claims of Catholic dogma.

Soren:

I frequently used this argument when I was Catholic with my Baptist friends. But I never found it really convincing, and still don't. Well, Flyonthewall brought up one of the reasons, but also when I became more committed to Catholicism at that point in my life, I was aware of other religions, and had done a lot of reading on Rumi and also the Baha'is and their scripture Kitab-i Aqdas, which contains language that is similar in metaphysical description. I can't recall any exact parts right now, all those notes I took are at my parent's house. However, I did use it to argue for the Catholic magisterium from what at the time were, but I didn't realize, were presuppositional arguments. I went on the basis of all the usual quotes from the ECF's on the Real Presence and then followed Cardinal Newman in the same line of reasoning. Honestly, unless someone accepts Catholicism/Orthodoxy, there is no real argument that I feel appealing solely to scripture can settle in this regard, and you either have to take a development of Catholic dogma approach or just accept that the scriptures do not really comment on the issue of transubstantiation per se (but that communion/sacrament has a real effect on the soul is plain from Paul's statement on partaking unworthily 1 Cor. 11:29, about the only statement that comes close to exploring the "metaphysics" of eucharist/sacrament in the NT).

Link to comment

Soren, I am from Israel, I've grown up around Arabs and among Jews from Arab lands. I have heard the saying I'll drink your blood, but I've never heard eat your flesh. I've also never heard about the slander aspect, but have always taken it to mean that my revenge will be the scariest thing that could happen to you.

I've never heard of a single case when it was applied to one's self.

The hardest part for Christ's followers was the blood, I think, because consuming bllod had been forbidden since Noah.

People seem to have taken Christ's statements literally, rather than figuratively for the most part.

Link to comment
I have done no studying of ancient Jewish culture, but one who has, has a different understanding of the figurative usage of eating flesh and drinking blood:

Jesus spoke figuratively on this occasion, and the context of the discourse reveals as much. Elder James E. Talmage (1862â??1933), a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained that â??there was little excuse for the Jews pretending to understand that our Lord meant an actual eating and drinking of His material flesh and blood. The utterances to which they objected were far more readily understood by them than they are by us on first reading; for the representation of the law and of truth in general as bread, and the acceptance thereof as a process of eating and drinking, were figures in everyday use by the rabbis of that time. Their failure to comprehend the symbolism of Christâ??s doctrine was an act of will, not the natural consequence of innocent ignorance.â?

To me, this makes more sense to me than trying to read it literally. When you eat or drink something you ingest it, you take it into yourself...you have accepted it.

However, to literally eat the flesh or drink the blood of another person, was never part of Jewish scripture that I know of, but accepting and obeying the law was.

The fundamental thesis of Catholic sacramental theology is that the things contains figuratively in the Old Law are contained literally in the New. Thus, the sacrifice and consumption of the Paschal lamb figuratively represented redemption in Christ. The consumption of the Eucharist, therefore, fulfills the promise of the Passover by containing the sacrificed body of Christ, the new paschal lamb, literally. It is also to be noted that Christ personally is the New Law, which is why Mary when pregnant with Christ is compared by Elizabeth to that Ark of the Covenant: She carries the law within herself. For these reasons, Talmage's reading does not pose any problem for a Catholics, but fits easily into our understanding of the Eucharist. It is not an alternative, but complimentary exegesis, unless one assumes falsely that there is a conflict between identifying the bread as Christ or as the Law. We can see from Luke that no such conflict exists. Rather, receiving the flesh of the Law himself in the Eucharist is the highest expression of accepting and living the Law.

I should also point out that I am not saying that Christ's words offended people due to "innocent ignorance," it offended them because their unbelief darkened the understanding of their minds. If they had accepted Christ as the Law, then they would have understood why it is appropriate for him to be bread. If they had believed that he was God, they would have known that such a thing is possible.

Link to comment

Soren,

Given what little I know about language, I suspect that back in the time of Christ, as today, there were more ways than one to figuratively interpet Christ's declaration about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. So, interpreting his statement figuritively does not necessitate slandering Christ (as you suggest). In fact, the way I and others figuratively interprete what he said, is with profound and deepest respect.

This isn't to suggest that it is unreasonable to interpret his words literally. I think the languages of the Bible provide sufficient latitude to reasonably interpret him both literally and figuratively (at least in the way I and others figuratively interpret him).

However, if it is true that the Bible languages enable multiple ways to reasonably interpret Christ's declaration (in ways not slanderous, but deeply respectful, of Christ), then the question may be asked: which of the reasonable interpretations may make the most sense in the broad context of things and lend itself best to enabling its adherents to become more like Christ (which, as I understand things, is the essential purpose of the gospel).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Soren,

Given what little I know about language, I suspect that back in the time of Christ, as today, there were more ways than one to figuratively interpet Christ's declaration about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. So, interpreting his statement figuritively does not necessitate slandering Christ (as you suggest). In fact, the way I and others figuratively interprete what he said, is with profound and deepest respect.

This isn't to suggest that it is unreasonable to interpret his words literally. I think the languages of the Bible provide sufficient latitude to reasonably interpret him both literally and figuratively (at least in the way I and others figuratively interpret him).

However, if it is true that the Bible languages enable multiple ways to reasonably interpret Christ's declaration (in ways not slanderous, but deeply respectful, of Christ), then the question may be asked: which of the reasonable interpretations may make the most sense in the broad context of things and lend itself best to enabling its adherents to become more like Christ (which, as I understand things, is the essential purpose of the gospel).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is part of why I wrote that I am not perfectly persuaded myself by O'Brien's argument, which volgadon has also called into question reasonably. The central point I intended to make it, however, is to challenge the consistent assumption, that Catholics often fall into, that reading the text literally somehow makes it harder to believe. If Jesus was God, and if his purpose is to bring men into union with the divine nature, and if God himself did something like becoming a man, we should expect more miraculous things from him, not less miraculous things. If you don't believe that Jesus is God, then when he says "I am the bread of life," you will think he must mean something figurative, but you will be offended that he makes such a big claim about himself. If you think he is God, you will be open to the other possibility; it will not be scandalous in the least to believe he really has the words of everlasting life, and that those words express a remarkable bodily idea. A literal interpretation is different from a figurative precisely because it presupposes that Jesus is divine. Faith in Christ is inherent in such a reading.

The purpose of the Gospel is not just to become Christlike, but to become Christ. That is, to join one's own nature to the Father by offering to him the sacrificed Jesus, of whose body and whose offering the believer has become a part. A physical ingestion of the sacrificed Jesus ties man both bodily and spiritually to the very sacrifice that joins us to God. That is the most Christlike action of which man is capable, becasue it imitates the central action of Christ's life. This is why Catholics pray, "Almighty Father, I offer you the body, blood, soul, and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world." Furthermore, all Christian ethics is based on the imitation of Christ's sacrificial self-giving, as Paul teaches in Philippians 2 and all throughout 1 Corinthians.

Link to comment

" Thus, the phrase, "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny of by false accusation"

In order for this argument to have any force, he needs to demonstrate that such was commonly the case in Jesus' day.

Link to comment
Soren, I am from Israel, I've grown up around Arabs and among Jews from Arab lands. I have heard the saying I'll drink your blood, but I've never heard eat your flesh. I've also never heard about the slander aspect, but have always taken it to mean that my revenge will be the scariest thing that could happen to you.

I've never heard of a single case when it was applied to one's self.

The hardest part for Christ's followers was the blood, I think, because consuming bllod had been forbidden since Noah.

People seem to have taken Christ's statements literally, rather than figuratively for the most part.

I would have to agree with volgadon here in that the drinking of another's blood would, at least to a Jew, be reprehensible. Blood meant life and therefore taboo. Since the gospels were written so much after the life of Jesus it is difficult to wonder what exactly he meant when he did pronounce the sacramental creed. One author Hyam Maccoby has suggested that the Eucharistic saying was not meant to be an annual or seminal event, but a single moment of instruction between Jesus and his disciples. In fact, it is not even mentioned in the gospel of John. Paul later, in his epistles (I Cor. 11:23-30) saw the salvific significance of the Eucharist and was therefore the author of the event.

I wonder, aside from my Christian and Mormon roots, how much of this is representative of a later addition of the mystery religion practices of Mithraism and Attis where the consumption of the god through a ritual meal is present.

Link to comment
" Thus, the phrase, "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny of by false accusation"

In order for this argument to have any force, he needs to demonstrate that such was commonly the case in Jesus' day.

Alas, O'Brien provides no documentation for the claim, but seems very confident that it is true. Already, volgadon has called it into question, so I will withhold that point until I do further research myself. However, despite the title of this thread, that was not really the principle point I was making in the OP.

Link to comment
I would have to agree with volgadon here in that the drinking of another's blood would, at least to a Jew, be reprehensible. Blood meant life and therefore taboo. Since the gospels were written so much after the life of Jesus it is difficult to wonder what exactly he meant when he did pronounce the sacramental creed. One author Hyam Maccoby has suggested that the Eucharistic saying was not meant to be an annual or seminal event, but a single moment of instruction between Jesus and his disciples. In fact, it is not even mentioned in the gospel of John. Paul later, in his epistles (I Cor. 11:23-30) saw the salvific significance of the Eucharist and was therefore the author of the event.

I wonder, aside from my Christian and Mormon roots, how much of this is representative of a later addition of the mystery religion practices of Mithraism and Attis where the consumption of the god through a ritual meal is present.

Considering that those cults post-date Christianity, I would have to say that it is a case of Christianity influencing them.

Link to comment
This is part of why I wrote that I am not perfectly persuaded myself by O'Brien's argument, which volgadon has also called into question reasonably. The central point I intended to make it, however, is to challenge the consistent assumption, that Catholics often fall into, that reading the text literally somehow makes it harder to believe. If Jesus was God, and if his purpose is to bring men into union with the divine nature, and if God himself did something like becoming a man, we should expect more miraculous things from him, not less miraculous things. If you don't believe that Jesus is God, then when he says "I am the bread of life," you will think he must mean something figurative, but you will be offended that he makes such a big claim about himself. If you think he is God, you will be open to the other possibility; it will not be scandalous in the least to believe he really has the words of everlasting life, and that those words express a remarkable bodily idea. A literal interpretation is different from a figurative precisely because it presupposes that Jesus is divine. Faith in Christ is inherent in such a reading.

The purpose of the Gospel is not just to become Christlike, but to become Christ. That is, to join one's own nature to the Father by offering to him the sacrificed Jesus, of whose body and whose offering the believer has become a part. A physical ingestion of the sacrificed Jesus ties man both bodily and spiritually to the very sacrifice that joins us to God. That is the most Christlike action of which man is capable, becasue it imitates the central action of Christ's life. This is why Catholics pray, "Almighty Father, I offer you the body, blood, soul, and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world." Furthermore, all Christian ethics is based on the imitation of Christ's sacrificial self-giving, as Paul teaches in Philippians 2 and all throughout 1 Corinthians.

That is one reasonable way of looking at it.

For my part, I don't consider the literal ingesting of Christ body and blood as making me any more Christ than my ingesting literally injesting pork would make me a pig. As I understand it,, the human digestive process just doesn't work that way--though I can respectfully understand that you might think it works that way miraculously in the case of Christ.

To me, another reasonable way of looking at it is, the way we become like Christ, or one with Christ, or become Christ (however one may wish to phrase it), is by injesting and fully living his gospel and by receiving his promised Spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Considering that those cults post-date Christianity, I would have to say that it is a case of Christianity influencing them.
Yes, I would agree, but prior to Christianity they had some influence within their respective countries and only with Christianity did they formalize to some degree their teachings. In any case the sacrifice of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection was unique among any ancient beliefs.
Link to comment
Transsubstantiation is a primary historical mark that the Catholic Church is true, and that the priesthood was never lost from the earth. The principle activity of a priest is to offer sacrifice for sins. The Catholic mass is just such a priestly offering, which has been practiced through the Church's history, and is easy to document. If what was lost in the Great Apostasy was the priesthood, and if Joseph Smith restored that priesthood, we should expect the external marks of priestly offering to also be restored. And yet, while Catholicism has a central, specifically sacrificial rite at the center of it liturgical and priestly life, Mormonism does not offer any unique sacrifice to rival the mass. If you have really restored a priesthood, what sacrifices do you offer that were not made during the time of the apostasy? When were they restored?

Oh, my bad. I thought this thread was about defending Catholicism, not attacking Mormonism. :P

Link to comment
Oh, my bad. I thought this thread was about defending Catholicism, not attacking Mormonism. :P

How long a stay does it take for a guest to forget that he is a guest and think himself the master?

Link to comment
How long a stay does it take for a guest to forget that he is a guest and think himself the master?

I was just a little surprised by soren's reaction to my response.

Link to comment
The fundamental thesis of Catholic sacramental theology is that the things contains figuratively in the Old Law are contained literally in the New. Thus, the sacrifice and consumption of the Paschal lamb figuratively represented redemption in Christ. The consumption of the Eucharist, therefore, fulfills the promise of the Passover by containing the sacrificed body of Christ, the new paschal lamb, literally. It is also to be noted that Christ personally is the New Law, which is why Mary when pregnant with Christ is compared by Elizabeth to that Ark of the Covenant: She carries the law within herself. For these reasons, Talmage's reading does not pose any problem for a Catholics, but fits easily into our understanding of the Eucharist. It is not an alternative, but complimentary exegesis, unless one assumes falsely that there is a conflict between identifying the bread as Christ or as the Law. We can see from Luke that no such conflict exists. Rather, receiving the flesh of the Law himself in the Eucharist is the highest expression of accepting and living the Law.

This is not how many early Christians understood the Eucharist. They consistently call it a "spiritual sacrifice." Clear statements about transubstantiation are not found in early Christian texts, which develops in the Middle Ages.

In Hebrew, leḥem can mean bread or meat (Ps 147:9, Lev 3:11, 16, Num 28:24, etc.); manna is also called leḥem (Ps 105:40, 78:25). Blood, damm, can mean blood or wine (the "blood of the grape" Gen 49:11, Dt 32:14.) Thus, the Hebrew/Aramaic original was probably much more ambiguous than the Greek. Jesus picks up the bread and says "this is my leḥem." Does he mean bread or flesh? Or both?

Link to comment
Oh, my bad. I thought this thread was about defending Catholicism, not attacking Mormonism. :P

Sargon, you need to understand that Catholics see any attack against another religion as a defense of Catholicism. Why do you think they worked so diligently in the Dark Ages to undermine rulers first and then wipe out the lowerclass pagans if they didn't get baptized?

Link to comment
This is not how many early Christians understood the Eucharist. They consistently call it a "spiritual sacrifice." Clear statements about transubstantiation are not found in early Christian texts, which develops in the Middle Ages.

In Hebrew, leḥem can mean bread or meat (Ps 147:9, Lev 3:11, 16, Num 28:24, etc.); manna is also called leḥem (Ps 105:40, 78:25). Blood, damm, can mean blood or wine (the "blood of the grape" Gen 49:11, Dt 32:14.) Thus, the Hebrew/Aramaic original was probably much more ambiguous than the Greek. Jesus picks up the bread and says "this is my leḥem." Does he mean bread or flesh? Or both?

Wow...the ambiguity of the meaning of bread volumes. It gives a new perspective to the situation.

Link to comment
Oh, my bad. I thought this thread was about defending Catholicism, not attacking Mormonism. :P

I am weary of defending and do not know how to attack.

I appreciated your remarks about how transubstantiation could not be refuted with Scripture. I'll bet soren did too and did not intend to plunge headlong into what might be thought to be an attack.

I just read what notquiteyet wrote. I am so discouraged. As a hobby this is too time consuming. As a "ministry" it is unproductive. You are one of the rare few who merely listen. I can't help what the rest of Mormonism believes about Catholicism. Its not my fault. I am tired of trying to help.

God Bless,

Rory

Link to comment

I suppose that if someone is raised believing in a doctrine like transubstantiation, it can seem like a reasonable practice, but Catholics should remember that to those of us not so raised, the doctrine sounds a bit...okay, more than a bit...strange. When Jesus holds up bread and wine and tells them to partake, and to "do this in remembrance" of his body and blood it's like the Passover to us. It doesn't make sense for God to use symbolism for more than four thousand years and then, BING!, it's suddenly literal.

It's also disgusting to many people. The scriptures actively teach against consuming blood. In the Mosaic Law, the blood was drained away first. To do this, the animal's throat was cut and the heart pumped the blood out. Then it was hung by the feet until the draining was complete. Jews and Christians are, therefore, forbidden to partake of blood pies and blood meals. The idea of drinking human blood and eating human flesh is disturbing on so many levels that it's difficult to put into words. As one author notes, "When Catholicism loses its magic, its core doctrine of transubstantiation flies out the stain-glassed window. Transubstantiation is what makes Catholics different from everyone else. Transubstantiation is not metaphor; it is not symbol. The magic word hocus-pocus is witchcraft's ridicule of the Latin words the priest says to transubstantiate the bread into Christ's body: 'Hoc est enim corpus meum.'"

It makes sense that to be effective, that Christ's blood be shed. And shed means to put off or put away. It makes little sense to many Christians that Jesus would have the blood and body consumed. What purpose would it serve? It even sounds morbid, not mysterious and wonderful.

Another Catholic author writes: "The doctrine of transubstantiation has not become easier to believe with time. A 1993 Gallup poll Gallup Poll revealed that only 30 percent of American Catholics believe that they are actually receiving the body and blood of Christ The Blood of Christ in Christian theology refers to (a) the physical blood actually shed by Jesus Christ on the Cross, and the salvation which Christianity teaches was accomplished thereby; and (b) the Eucharistic wine used at Holy Communion Salvation."

Hello!

It probably should help that the blood and flesh of the Lord is the blood and flesh as it was in the resurrected state; but then flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, so one wonders how it does in this case.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...