OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 09:17:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: any good books on papal infallibility and supremacy?  (Read 1298 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
melkite
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic Church
Posts: 25



« on: October 31, 2012, 08:52:35 AM »

Are there any good books that show that papal infallibility and papal supremacy were not part of the early Christian faith, not even in seed form?  I'd like to find something that isn't overly biased towards the Orthodox position, but also makes a "final nail in the coffin" argument against the two doctrines.  Any recommendations?  I'll take several, I'd like to read more than one source.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 08:56:35 AM »

Look at the hymnography for Vespers and Matins for the feasts of any of the Twelve Apostles, especially Sts Peter and Paul, whose joint feast day is June 29. The language used for all of them puts the lie that Peter was above them all.
Logged
melkite
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic Church
Posts: 25



« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2012, 08:42:49 AM »

Actually, I'm looking for books written by historians that can give the account of what the Church believed at the time.  I think hymnography would probably be too myopic.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,623


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2012, 08:47:49 AM »

Hymnography, by definition, reflects and proclaims what the whole Orthodox Church believes. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2012, 08:56:40 AM »

Actually, I'm looking for books written by historians that can give the account of what the Church believed at the time.  I think hymnography would probably be too myopic.

Hymnography of whatever religion would always be used as historical documents of that religions believes. Why wouldn't it in the case of the Church?

Much of the problem with "Church History" today is that they precisely put aside all Church documents and try to "investigate" regardless. It's pretty much like making DNA tests to know if a baby is Pete's child, only that you never use Pete's DNA because he says the baby isn't his and his DNA could lie about that too. Smiley
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
melkite
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic Church
Posts: 25



« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2012, 08:56:50 AM »

Hymnography, by definition, reflects and proclaims what the whole Orthodox Church believes. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

So, in other words, you don't have what I'm looking for?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 08:57:05 AM by melkite » Logged
melkite
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic Church
Posts: 25



« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2012, 08:59:30 AM »

Actually, I'm looking for books written by historians that can give the account of what the Church believed at the time.  I think hymnography would probably be too myopic.

Hymnography of whatever religion would always be used as historical documents of that religions believes. Why wouldn't it in the case of the Church?

Much of the problem with "Church History" today is that they precisely put aside all Church documents and try to "investigate" regardless. It's pretty much like making DNA tests to know if a baby is Pete's child, only that you never use Pete's DNA because he says the baby isn't his and his DNA could lie about that too. Smiley

If the book uses examples from hymnography to paint a picture of what the Church taught, that's fine.  I need to see the history.  I'm looking for a cohesive historical narrative, not disconnected glimpses here and there.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2012, 09:02:43 AM »

Hymnography, by definition, reflects and proclaims what the whole Orthodox Church believes. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

So, in other words, you don't have what I'm looking for?

I, particularly, do not remember any book that is not written from someone somehow involved in the story. Even when the authors are not "Church" people, they always have a political agenda, like proving that Popes are so eeeeeeevil and want to steal kids' lollypops.

Your best shot at "unbiased" comments is with primary sources easily available throughout the Internet: documents by the Fathers of the Church at the time, Justinian laws and so on.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
thismanisdan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 39



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2012, 11:38:22 AM »

'Popes and Patriarchs' by Michael Whelton is a good start.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2012, 11:49:18 AM »

I would suggest a different approach- look at all of the historical arguments made by Roman Catholics for Papal supremacy in their own words. Look at the examples they bring up which supposedly prove Papal supremacy in the early church. Then read about the context of those examples in more general historical sources, and you can determine how well they actually prove Papal supremacy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,698



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2012, 11:57:08 AM »

If you want the RCC's point of view, Adrian Fortescue and Michael Davies are pretty interesting.

Sorry I don't know many Orthodox books on the subject.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 12:00:46 PM by biro » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2012, 01:08:35 PM »

Are there any good books that show that papal infallibility and papal supremacy were not part of the early Christian faith, not even in seed form?  I'd like to find something that isn't overly biased towards the Orthodox position, but also makes a "final nail in the coffin" argument against the two doctrines.  Any recommendations?  I'll take several, I'd like to read more than one source.
Don't know what you intend to mean by "biased."

The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches by M. l'abbé Wladimir Guettée
http://books.google.com/books?id=vxQQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Abbe+Papal&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Abbe%20Papal&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,440


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2012, 08:38:32 PM »

Are there any good books that show that papal infallibility and papal supremacy were not part of the early Christian faith, not even in seed form?  I'd like to find something that isn't overly biased towards the Orthodox position, but also makes a "final nail in the coffin" argument against the two doctrines.  Any recommendations?  I'll take several, I'd like to read more than one source.
Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages  ("There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

As far as I know no major academic historian sees anything like papal infallibility or Magisterium in the first millennium; you won't have to look very hard to find the mainstream academic consensus. This is also widely admitted by serious Roman Catholic historians if maligned by amateur traditionalist apologists as "dissent."

For example Roman Catholic Cardinal Yyves Congar famously opined there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. This question was one of the central areas of Congar's historical research; for years he was forbidden by the Vatican to write or speak on related topics (his loyalty to his vow of obedience was impressive; he was elevated to Cardinal 6 months prior to his death). Cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981).

Any notion that supremacy of one bishop over all others existed in the early centuries of Christianity is pure historical anachronism and/or obscurantism from an academic point of view, questionable prooftexting of amateur traditionalist apologists notwithstanding. The type of structure of office which would allow such a function did not even exist in the early Church before the Nicean age:

Quote from: xariskai

Gradual Historical Progression from Bishops over Elders to Diocesan Bishops, to Metropolitan Bishops, to Patriarchs (381 AD):

1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first semantically identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).

2. 49 AD: Jerusalem Council (Acts 15); leadership of James at Jerusalem; 62 AD: martyrdom of James; martyrdom of Paul (c. 67 AD); 70 AD: destruction of Jerusalem by then general (later emperor) Titus. Book of Romans -no apparent community order with episkopos.

3. Later NT Period: "Early Catholicism," viz. single ruling bishops (Pastoral Epistles/AD 65 and afterward; Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, are told by Paul to ordain presbyters/bishops and e.g. "exhort with all authority" -Titus 2:15). Contra radical local/independent model of congregationalism.

4. Early writings including 1 Clement (c. 90 AD) and the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, variously dated 60-100AD) also speak of two *local* offices (viz. (1) presbyter/bishop and (2) deacon). Ignatius c. 110 AD, defender of the local bishop as an exhortation to the local community of Corinth did not address a bishop of all or Rome any more than Paul did. Only later do we find the local presbyter -as a semantically distinct category from and under the bishop- as a local *prest* (not a mis-spelling) serving locally alongside a deacon or deacons, however it is important to realize that but the actual structure and function described by such terminology existed primitively before the semantic form of how that was described evolved. In Ignatius's letters of circa 107 AD "overseer/bishop" is first found being used of leading presbyter of a city-church. However, since there is indisputable evidence city churches possessed leading presbyters well before Ignatius's letters of 107 AD (e.g. Jerusalem: James; Ephesus: Timothy; Crete: Titus can be viewed as ex-officio presidents and who presided over their fellow presbyters) the new element is *not* structure, but semantics (i.e. there were those presiding over fellow presbyters, with a distinctive function, but they were not yet distinguished by the terminology bishop *versus* presbyter. While some scholars have wished to portray Ignatius as "creating" the monarchical episcopate in his epistles dated c. 107 AD very clearly his epistles address *already existing* monarchical bishops in in each Asian city-church he addressed on the geographical route to his martyrdom. All but one are addressed by name (Smyrnia: Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle and presbyters and deacons (Ig Smyrn 2); Ephesus: Onesimus (Ig Eph 1); Magnesia: Damas, presbyters and deacons (Ig Mag 1); Trallia: Polybius (Ig Trall 1); Philadelphia: unnamed bishop, deacons, and presbyters (Ig Phil). One cannot help but wonder, as Cleenwerk observes, exactly who appointed all those monarchical bishops, especially in places such as Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia, over which the Apostle John himself had so recently wielded authority (over the very same still-living Christians who Ignatius addresses in his epistles). The most likely and sensible conclusion is that St. John himself appointed these bishops to be the leading shepherds of the Asian city-churches in his absence.

5. 142 AD: One Diocesan Bishop (proper) over other Bishops. The first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155). That later official lists of early "popes" (an alternate term for bishop not originally exclusive to the bishop of Rome) actually presided only over a council of elders is the unanimous verdict of all major academic historians (including Roman Catholic historians).

6. 325 AD Metropolitan Bishop over Diocesan Bishops. Metropolitan bishops are first mentioned in the canons of the Council of Nicea. Bishops in the great cities tended to have more education and prestige; country bishops (called chorespicopi) were described as lacking education and more vulnerable to heretical ideas. The colloquial Greek pappa (from which our rendering "pope" derived) was from the beginning of the third century used for Eastern metropolitans, diocesan bishops, regular bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priest. The title of "pope" early on was used by several Metropolitan Bishops at once. Later in the West, after Old Rome had been conquered and ceased to be bilingual, the Greek pappa became more obscure to the Latin speakers in the West and fell into disuse outside of the immediate environment of Old Rome in the West. The term then became increasingly reserved became increasingly reserved for the bishop of Rome until this was made an official demand by Gregory VII in the later eleventh century. The term papacy (papatus) -designed to sharply demarcate the office of the Roman bishop from all bishops also originated at the end of the eleventh century.


As St. Justin explained,  ***levels of bishops*** are in Orthodoxy not a matter of something considered apostolic tradition or divine ordination but of practicality[1] (this is one area where Orthodoxy has never agreed with historically much later Roman Catholic claims about the pope's authority over other bishops). If leading presbyters in certain cities whom we would identify as bishops proper are seen historically in the later NT and early post apostolic period there is nothing whatsoever corresponding to a supreme jurisdiction of any bishop over other bishops before the offices of bishops over other other bishops even evolved (first diocesan over other bishops, then metropolitan over diocesan bishops, and finally patriarchal over metropolitan).

The notion of an early single supreme bishop over all other earthly bishops during the early period of the apostolic fathers is an historical anachronism pure and simple, all amateur apologetic prooftexting to the contrary notwithstanding.  
___________________

[1] "...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church..." (May 7, 1977 Letter of St. Justin to Bishop Jovan).   

above quoted text comes from another thread:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,43289.msg721590.html#msg721590  -S1389

This differentiates the Orthodox from the late Roman Catholic dogma of a divinely instituted supreme papacy/papal over all other earthly bishops. It very smoothly fits contemporary mainstream academic consensus re. church history on the Orthodox side.



« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 07:01:16 PM by serb1389 » Logged

Silly Stars
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2012, 08:41:35 PM »

The Primacy of Peter, by John Meyendorff

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology/dp/0881411256
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,456


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2012, 01:52:06 PM »

Xariskai, you quoted yourself below, but there is no direct link to what you were quoting.  Can you provide some context/link source for where you got your own quote from?  Thanks! 

Are there any good books that show that papal infallibility and papal supremacy were not part of the early Christian faith, not even in seed form?  I'd like to find something that isn't overly biased towards the Orthodox position, but also makes a "final nail in the coffin" argument against the two doctrines.  Any recommendations?  I'll take several, I'd like to read more than one source.
Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages  ("There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

As far as I know no major academic historian sees anything like papal infallibility or Magisterium in the first millennium; you won't have to look very hard to find the mainstream academic consensus. This is also widely admitted by serious Roman Catholic historians if maligned by amateur traditionalist apologists as "dissent."

For example Roman Catholic Cardinal Yyves Congar famously opined there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. This question was one of the central areas of Congar's historical research; for years he was forbidden by the Vatican to write or speak on related topics (his loyalty to his vow of obedience was impressive; he was elevated to Cardinal 6 months prior to his death). Cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981).

Any notion that supremacy of one bishop over all others existed in the early centuries of Christianity is pure historical anachronism and/or obscurantism from an academic point of view, questionable prooftexting of amateur traditionalist apologists notwithstanding. The type of structure of office which would allow such a function did not even exist in the early Church before the Nicean age:

Quote from: xariskai

Gradual Historical Progression from Bishops over Elders to Diocesan Bishops, to Metropolitan Bishops, to Patriarchs (381 AD):

1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first semantically identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).

2. 49 AD: Jerusalem Council (Acts 15); leadership of James at Jerusalem; 62 AD: martyrdom of James; martyrdom of Paul (c. 67 AD); 70 AD: destruction of Jerusalem by then general (later emperor) Titus. Book of Romans -no apparent community order with episkopos.

3. Later NT Period: "Early Catholicism," viz. single ruling bishops (Pastoral Epistles/AD 65 and afterward; Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, are told by Paul to ordain presbyters/bishops and e.g. "exhort with all authority" -Titus 2:15). Contra radical local/independent model of congregationalism.

4. Early writings including 1 Clement (c. 90 AD) and the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, variously dated 60-100AD) also speak of two *local* offices (viz. (1) presbyter/bishop and (2) deacon). Ignatius c. 110 AD, defender of the local bishop as an exhortation to the local community of Corinth did not address a bishop of all or Rome any more than Paul did. Only later do we find the local presbyter -as a semantically distinct category from and under the bishop- as a local *prest* (not a mis-spelling) serving locally alongside a deacon or deacons, however it is important to realize that but the actual structure and function described by such terminology existed primitively before the semantic form of how that was described evolved. In Ignatius's letters of circa 107 AD "overseer/bishop" is first found being used of leading presbyter of a city-church. However, since there is indisputable evidence city churches possessed leading presbyters well before Ignatius's letters of 107 AD (e.g. Jerusalem: James; Ephesus: Timothy; Crete: Titus can be viewed as ex-officio presidents and who presided over their fellow presbyters) the new element is *not* structure, but semantics (i.e. there were those presiding over fellow presbyters, with a distinctive function, but they were not yet distinguished by the terminology bishop *versus* presbyter. While some scholars have wished to portray Ignatius as "creating" the monarchical episcopate in his epistles dated c. 107 AD very clearly his epistles address *already existing* monarchical bishops in in each Asian city-church he addressed on the geographical route to his martyrdom. All but one are addressed by name (Smyrnia: Polycarp, disciple of John the apostle and presbyters and deacons (Ig Smyrn 2); Ephesus: Onesimus (Ig Eph 1); Magnesia: Damas, presbyters and deacons (Ig Mag 1); Trallia: Polybius (Ig Trall 1); Philadelphia: unnamed bishop, deacons, and presbyters (Ig Phil). One cannot help but wonder, as Cleenwerk observes, exactly who appointed all those monarchical bishops, especially in places such as Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia, over which the Apostle John himself had so recently wielded authority (over the very same still-living Christians who Ignatius addresses in his epistles). The most likely and sensible conclusion is that St. John himself appointed these bishops to be the leading shepherds of the Asian city-churches in his absence.

5. 142 AD: One Diocesan Bishop (proper) over other Bishops. The first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155). That later official lists of early "popes" (an alternate term for bishop not originally exclusive to the bishop of Rome) actually presided only over a council of elders is the unanimous verdict of all major academic historians (including Roman Catholic historians).

6. 325 AD Metropolitan Bishop over Diocesan Bishops. Metropolitan bishops are first mentioned in the canons of the Council of Nicea. Bishops in the great cities tended to have more education and prestige; country bishops (called chorespicopi) were described as lacking education and more vulnerable to heretical ideas. The colloquial Greek pappa (from which our rendering "pope" derived) was from the beginning of the third century used for Eastern metropolitans, diocesan bishops, regular bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priest. The title of "pope" early on was used by several Metropolitan Bishops at once. Later in the West, after Old Rome had been conquered and ceased to be bilingual, the Greek pappa became more obscure to the Latin speakers in the West and fell into disuse outside of the immediate environment of Old Rome in the West. The term then became increasingly reserved became increasingly reserved for the bishop of Rome until this was made an official demand by Gregory VII in the later eleventh century. The term papacy (papatus) -designed to sharply demarcate the office of the Roman bishop from all bishops also originated at the end of the eleventh century.


As St. Justin explained,  ***levels of bishops*** are in Orthodoxy not a matter of something considered apostolic tradition or divine ordination but of practicality[1] (this is one area where Orthodoxy has never agreed with historically much later Roman Catholic claims about the pope's authority over other bishops). If leading presbyters in certain cities whom we would identify as bishops proper are seen historically in the later NT and early post apostolic period there is nothing whatsoever corresponding to a supreme jurisdiction of any bishop over other bishops before the offices of bishops over other other bishops even evolved (first diocesan over other bishops, then metropolitan over diocesan bishops, and finally patriarchal over metropolitan).

The notion of an early single supreme bishop over all other earthly bishops during the early period of the apostolic fathers is an historical anachronism pure and simple, all amateur apologetic prooftexting to the contrary notwithstanding.  
___________________

[1] "...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church..." (May 7, 1977 Letter of St. Justin to Bishop Jovan).

This differentiates the Orthodox from the late Roman Catholic dogma of a divinely instituted supreme papacy/papal over all other earthly bishops. It very smoothly fits contemporary mainstream academic consensus re. church history on the Orthodox side.




Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2012, 02:04:38 PM »

oops, already replied to this  Grin
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 02:04:56 PM by choy » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 42 queries.