perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We can also see there is a word for “cousin” in the Greek that was not used.
But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them. Adelphoi covered all possibilities; anepsios would not.
Again, I understand tradition doesn’t hold to the perspective I have.
Correct. So, you’re pretty much out there all on your own here.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day.

The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
.

Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

So, even though many Protestants can agree that Mary remained a life-long virgin…for some reason you can’t. Or won’t.

Hang your reasoning on a personal interpretation of one Psalm if you wish, but the preponderance of the evidence is against that line of thinking.
 
Yada, anyone that has interacted on here with me could hardly accuse me of trying to “educate the ignorant Catholics.” This is the Non-Catholic forum and this particular thread is asking for different protestant perspective. You can accuse me if you like, that’s your right.
I had actually logged off, but a thought occurred to me, so I came back to post it, I then I saw your comment above. What perfect timing. What I had planned to say is this:

This is a Catholic forum, and all Catholic theology is assumed to be correct by default. If you disagree with something (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary), then your contrary position becomes the resolution to be argued and defended, and the burden of proof is upon you. Of course, if I were on a non-Catholic board, the roles would be reversed, and I would be asked to prove that Mary did remain perpetually virgin, agreed?

With that said, I believe you, pocohombre, et al. have failed to make your case beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary had other children, and if this were a court of law, the jury would not find in your favor. For every argument or verse that you have presented, Catholics have a reasonable explanation; in fact, the scriptural and historical evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the Catholic position. You’ll disagree, naturally, but I have countered each of your attempts to prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters with an equally impressive explanation, and reasonable doubt that Mary was the mother of many has been created. You have even conceded that Tradition holds this doctrine as true.

Consequently, because you have failed to “prove” your case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary will remain accepted by Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants alike.

Case dismissed.
 
Actually that is explained in scripture. His family rejected what He was teaching until after the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus taught blatantly that only those who were doing the will of His Father were brother, sister, mother. He would not have given her over to James because James was not a believer at the time, and hence not one that Jesus considered brother even though related.
Where is the logic here? Mary knew Jesus was the Son of God. Joseph knew Jesus was the Son of God. If Mary & Joseph did have other children, then why would they not believe their Mother and Father. Furthermore, Mary’s sister, Elizabeth knew that Jesus was the Son of God. If they had other children, why would they not believe any of their elders?

Mary could not have other children because she is the New Ark of the Covenant, the Vessel of God. The Gate was closed after the Lord passed through it.
 
Where is the logic here? Mary knew Jesus was the Son of God. Joseph knew Jesus was the Son of God. If Mary & Joseph did have other children, then why would they not believe their Mother and Father. Furthermore, Mary’s sister, Elizabeth knew that Jesus was the Son of God. If they had other children, why would they not believe any of their elders?

Mary could not have other children because she is the New Ark of the Covenant, the Vessel of God. The Gate was closed after the Lord passed through it.
Oh I wish it were true that as the father and mother’s faith go , there go the children. I wish there were no prodigals, Absoloms, Cains etc etc. I wish Jesus did not foretell of division amongst brother and sister (cousins ?), mother father over Himself… And as for Elizabeth’s son, the greatest ever born of a woman per the words of Jesus, in a weak moment, even after baptizing and professing the Messiah correctly, had to ask, “Are you the one ?”… I love and am drawn to superior saints that were imperfect, like myself.
 
Oh I wish it were true that as the father and mother’s faith go , there go the children. I wish there were no prodigals, Absoloms, Cains etc etc. I wish Jesus did not foretell of division amongst brother and sister (cousins ?), mother father over Himself… And as for Elizabeth’s son, the greatest ever born of a woman per the words of Jesus, in a weak moment, even after baptizing and professing the Messiah correctly, had to ask, “Are you the one ?”… I love and am drawn to superior saints that were imperfect, like myself.
👍
 
So … you never address the fact there are two James listed in the Scriptures - followers of Jesus and whose parents are named for us and who are neither Mary or Joseph - and who by virtue of their faith and discipleship are rightly referred to as the brethren of Jesus …

And yet many of you are convinced that the head of the Jerusalem Church is James - the blood brother of Jesus who once thought Jesus was a heretic crazy zealot … and who at some later time - though there is no record of this recorded anywhere - had some great conversion to the Truth of their brother’s Godhead - such that during the earliest formation of the Church [before the Council recorded in Acts] this James had risen to be selected the leader of the Jerusalem Church above all the other faithful disciples …

Where is this great conversion story you are so convinced took place recorded?

Where are all the other descendants of these blood relatives - why is there no mention of them in any of the early writings of the Church?

Where is this tradition of the siblings of Jesus found …

I ask - because - obviously - the Greek term for brother and the plural brothers can mean more then just siblings - either blood, half or step … you must admit that it can mean coreligionist, Uncle, cousin, kinsman, etc …

Where is the absolute reference to Mary as the mother of these siblings? Are any of them called the sons or daughters of Mary? …After all the one passage many of you hang your hat on refers to Jesus as the son of the carpenter … was Jesus the son of the carpenter - Joseph?

You discount tradition - saying that it is inharmonious with the Scriptures - but you have not proven that to be the case … and instead you have developed another tradition - a tradition that arose in the very recent past - stories invented to explain your version of what the scriptures tell us that fit a 20th or 21st century world view … one that says - of course Mary and Joseph are subject to the same carnality that dominates our cultural experience. You want this to be neat and tidy …

Here is fact for you … The Son is the third person of the Trinity - begotten of God the Father from the beginning - The Son needed no earthly Mother to be begotten of the Heavenly Father - God from God - Light from Light - True God from True God … eternally

Jesus the God Man - entered into time - through the womb of the Virgin Mary - Jesus received all His humanity from Mary - Jesus had no earthly father …

Mary is unique in all human existence - she carried the Word Made Flesh where the Ark of the old covenant carried Law written in stone; Mary carried the True Bread from Heaven - the Body and Blood - Jesus who gave Himself to us to eat and drink - the Ark of the old covenant carried the Manna - heavenly bread - that sustained the Israelites during their exile in the desert; Mary carried our True High Priest where the Ark of the old covenant carried Aaron’s rod/staff … Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant … she is human like us - just as God directed the construction of the Ark of the old covenant - and no one was allowed to touch it lest they be struck dead [even to touch it - innocently - to prevent it from falling - a protective act!] - Mary remained untouched …

Mary’s response to the Angel is informative … though betrothed - when told she would bare a son … she said* how can this be since I know not man*? …

Would not a young woman betrothed in marriage [which was more formal then an engagement] expect to have a child and would desire sons? -

So why would she have responded in that manner - confused to how having a child could happen to her? …

I ask you because - as you would agree - since it is much like your argument that of course a married couple would engage in sexual relations this should not have surprised her?

For me - Tradition is not the reason I believe that Mary remained a virgin - it is the totality of the scriptures - taken in context with the culture, the OT and the NT - written and understood by those first century Jews and Gentiles … the NT Scriptures were not written as a informative book for non believers - to give them a turn by turn road map of the Life and Times of Jesus … they were written to believers by believers and for believers - they are not separate from Tradition - but they flowed forth from the Traditions …

And for you sola-scriptura Christians - no where in the Bible do the scriptures make that claim - in fact the faithful are told to hold fast to the traditions they have been taught by word of mouth and by letter … its both and - not one or the other …
 
Oh I wish it were true that as the father and mother’s faith go , there go the children. I wish there were no prodigals, Absoloms, Cains etc etc. I wish Jesus did not foretell of division amongst brother and sister (cousins ?), mother father over Himself… And as for Elizabeth’s son, the greatest ever born of a woman per the words of Jesus, in a weak moment, even after baptizing and professing the Messiah correctly, had to ask, “Are you the one ?”… I love and am drawn to superior saints that were imperfect, like myself.
Since someone brought up the Gospel of Thomas earlier *

Jesus’ siblings would have learned early on not to mess with their elder brother - as he would have turned them into a pillar of salt like the other playmate he had who displeased him :rolleyes:

Even there - I don’t by the you can give birth to the Son of God - be visited by angels - flee to Egypt … and just become your average family …

Where are these siblings when Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem at the age of 12? - No mention of them - in fact not mention of close relatives at all - just generic kin folk … …*
 
Of course he waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus to have relations with her, it does not say he never did not have relations with his wife. So Matthew is stating that Joseph did come to know Mary later on,
You are correct that Matthew does not explicitly say that Mary and Joseph remained continent after the birth of Jesus. That is not what I was saying. My argument is that Matthew’s statement is hard to understand if it is held that Mary did not remain a virgin. Let me explain.

First, to say that something happened “till” some point in time in the Bible does not mean that it changed after that point. Even if “till” implied a necessary change, then it would logically indicate a change immediately after the terminal point in time, which is absurd. The reason that Matthew only writes of Mary’s virginity till the birth of Jesus is because his point is the birth of Jesus and his fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, so it is no problem for the Catholic interpreter if he fails to say explicitly that Mary always remained a virgin.

I am puzzled by your statement, “Of course he waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus to have relations with her.” Of course? There is nothing “of course” about it. My question was then this, if Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ, why did they wait so long in the first place? Matthew indicates that Joseph took Mary as his wife immediately after his vision of the angel. Isn’t it normal for a husband to have sex with his wife? There is no Mosaic prohibition against having sex with a pregnant woman. Surely, if Mary and Joseph ever intended to have any sexual relations. Matthew would not have been able to say that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” If they intended to have sexual relations, he probably would have “known her” the very night he took her as his wife.
Right. James, the leader of the Church of Jerusalem, is a tricky one to pin down as to which James exactly he was. So many different opinions out there on which James is which.

🤷
Right. Let’s not get started on the issue of the Marys!
 
The problem of Perpetual virginity of Mary is an insult to the Jewish way of life. There are ways of remaining a virgin in Jewish life, but getting Married isn’t one of them. Since Mary got married, not having sex inside of marriage is a rather bizarre idea. If Mary was to be a virgin, then getting married is the furtherest thing to do and makes a mockery of marriage in Jewish culture. The only thing the Bible says is that while Jesus was in the womb, he refrained from having sex with Mary. You have to take a giant leap from that, when one isn’t there. In Jewish life, having children was considered a blessing and lack of Children was considered a curse. The fact the brothers were named and the sisters went is culturally accurate, so everything is lining up according to the cultural customs of Jewish practice.
 
Thanks. read psalm 69 ?
I hardly think we can draw conclusions about Mary’s virginity from Psalm 69. The Psalms do not always apply in the most literal sense to Christ. For instance, v. 5 says, “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.” Now, Christ had no foolishness as he is the very Wisdom of God, and he had no sin either. We can make up ways in which this applies to Christ, but it will not be very literal. V. 18 could also be potentially problematic, saying, “Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it.” Granted, we need not interpret this to be speaking of redemption from sin, but it certainly sounds like it and the phrasing could mislead us to believe so. The Psalm is not only about Christ, but all who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Only, it applies to Christ preeminently.

Verse 9, need not be understood to apply to Mary for it to apply to Christ. The mother in question can refer to Israel or the Church metaphorically, such as in John 16:21 or Isaiah 26:17. In this way, his mother’s children would be his sheep. Or it could refer to Mary without indicating that she had other children. For example, by Christ’s word, Mary became a mother of St. John. Mary was together with all the disciples in the Upper Room, so I think you can see how Mary’s motherhood would extend to them all. Whatever the most compelling interpretation might be, there is nothing in the Psalm which compels us to say that Mary had other biological children.
 
The problem of Perpetual virginity of Mary is an insult to the Jewish way of life. There are ways of remaining a virgin in Jewish life, but getting Married isn’t one of them. Since Mary got married, not having sex inside of marriage is a rather bizarre idea. If Mary was to be a virgin, then getting married is the furtherest thing to do and makes a mockery of marriage in Jewish culture.
There are some things we may never know, but I don’t think this ^^ argument works. If Mary was to be a virgin, that doesn’t mean that getting married was the furthest thing to do, because we also know that she was to give birth to Jesus.
 
The problem of Perpetual virginity of Mary is an insult to the Jewish way of life. There are ways of remaining a virgin in Jewish life, but getting Married isn’t one of them. Since Mary got married, not having sex inside of marriage is a rather bizarre idea. If Mary was to be a virgin, then getting married is the furtherest thing to do and makes a mockery of marriage in Jewish culture. The only thing the Bible says is that while Jesus was in the womb, he refrained from having sex with Mary. You have to take a giant leap from that, when one isn’t there. In Jewish life, having children was considered a blessing and lack of Children was considered a curse. The fact the brothers were named and the sisters went is culturally accurate, so everything is lining up according to the cultural customs of Jewish practice.
Do you have an explanation to my question earlier, why Joseph abstained from marital relations with his own wife for the entire duration of Mary’s pregnancy? What is the purpose of Matthew’s statement?

Jesus’ “brothers” are not his mother’s children any more than Lot is Abraham’s mother’s son. For example, James and Joses are his “brothers,” but they are the children of a different woman (Mt. 27:65).

Mary and Joseph did not need to have additional biological children to fulfill their marriage. They had Christ for their child and through him, they became the parents of all Christians, as St. Paul says that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. As for you, isn’t it presumptuous for you to dictate what would have made a mockery of marriage in Jewish culture? Honestly, how much does a Twentieth-Century Westerner know about Jewish culture?
 
Here’s the argument…

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html

The problem emerges in understanding the meaning of the word adelphos, brother. In the original text of the Gospel, we find the Greek word adelphos meaning brother, used. However, does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc.
For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word adelphos was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an adelphos to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American translation, “kinsman” or “relative” will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.) The same is true for the word sister.

Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, “the son of the brother of my father.” When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.

Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38). Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God’s plan, she responded, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do not give us many details of His childhood, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the “sons of Mary” or “a son of Mary,” but only the son of Mary.

This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, “Woman, there is your son,” and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, “There is your mother.”

According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple. Interestingly, the Orthodox Churches solve this problem over brothers and sisters by speculating that St. Joseph was a widower who had other children before he married Mary. These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters. Perhaps this notion is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings. Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On th e Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers, like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius. Later, the First Lateran Council (649) definitively declared that Mary was “ever virgin and immaculate.”

Therefore, as Catholics, based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we do not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children and consequently that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters.
 
Including the ancient belief that Mary had no other children.

But, hey, maybe all those saints who read the same verses you are reading were simply wrong. :rolleyes:
Morning Randy,

Would love to get your thoughts on a subject. Many use the Proto of James as evidence that Mary had no other children and was a ever virgin.

When some use the Gospel of Thomas as evidence of James being the leader of the Church, it is frowned upon and stated…that is not in the canon.

Here is the The Gospel of Thomas:

The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

Now not wanting to debate about the leadership of James, but simply using this as an example of should one really use the Proto of James as evidence?
 
I had actually logged off, but a thought occurred to me, so I came back to post it, I then I saw your comment above. What perfect timing. What I had planned to say is this:

This is a Catholic forum, and all Catholic theology is assumed to be correct by default. If you disagree with something (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary), then your contrary position becomes the resolution to be argued and defended, and the burden of proof is upon you. Of course, if I were on a non-Catholic board, the roles would be reversed, and I would be asked to prove that Mary did remain perpetually virgin, agreed?

With that said, I believe you, pocohombre, et al. have failed to make your case beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary had other children, and if this were a court of law, the jury would not find in your favor. For every argument or verse that you have presented, Catholics have a reasonable explanation; in fact, the scriptural and historical evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the Catholic position. You’ll disagree, naturally, but I have countered each of your attempts to prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters with an equally impressive explanation, and reasonable doubt that Mary was the mother of many has been created. You have even conceded that Tradition holds this doctrine as true.

Consequently, because you have failed to “prove” your case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary will remain accepted by Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants alike.

Case dismissed.
Randy, you are not judge, jury and executioner. This is the non-Catholic forum and this thread was addressed to those that don’t hold to the PV of Mary in large part. The Burden of proof lies on those making the positive assertion; Mary was Virgin all of her days. The ones that will cling the most tightly to the view are indeed those that place a higher value on tradition. That’s not all bad, but in this case where it could go either way, it can actually get in the way of digging into scripture.

Further, the NT that we have the most manuscripts are in Greek, regardless of the “original language” spoken. There is a reason for that, and God knows exactly what He’s doing. The Greek word for cousin is used elsewhere in scripture, the writers did not choose to use that for Jesus’ brothers.

Further, as others have pointed out, to be fruitful and multiply is the basic commandment and applies to married couples. Either Mary and Joseph were married or not. To fulfill certain prophecies they had to be well and truly married, and Joseph had to be Jesus’ legal father for those prophecies/promises to be true. Why would God not want to bless Mary and Joseph both with children? They are faithful Jews living in a Jewish culture. What better sign to all around them that their marriage is blessed and they are favored than to have more healthy children?

I would also add that His brothers thinking Him crazy lends a lot of apologetic weight when presenting the gospel to non-believers. It shows exactly what He was claiming, and then shows their conversion after the resurrection, and fulfills a Messianic Psalm.
 
Would love to get your thoughts on a subject. Many use the Proto of James as evidence that Mary had no other children and was a ever virgin.
Tradition of the early church, in particular the east as is Acts of Andrew. The Coptic sights will give insight into this with James and the EO with Acts of Andrew.

Gospel of Thomas is condemned and by Athanasius “Faith of the Early Fathers” True it was -rediscovered in 1945, but the saint indeed read it and knew of it among many others he mentions.

Maximus the Confessor covers the work of the Proto of James in his work “Life of the Virgin”. Its an interesting read. We don’t argue this point with the East, in fact I agree with them. And so did Saint Maximus, Saint Athanasius and a long list of other remarkable Saints.
 
Tradition of the early church, in particular the east as is Acts of Andrew. The Coptic sights will give insight into this with James and the EO with Acts of Andrew.

Gospel of Thomas is condemned and by Athanasius “Faith of the Early Fathers” True it was -rediscovered in 1945, but the saint indeed read it and knew of it among many others he mentions.

Maximus the Confessor covers the work of the Proto of James in his work “Life of the Virgin”. Its an interesting read. We don’t argue this point with the East, in fact I agree with them. And so did Saint Maximus, Saint Athanasius and a long list of other remarkable Saints.
My point is this…should people, Catholic or non, reference the Proto when it is not in the canon?
 
Quite subjective, this “standard family”.
That’s exactly my point. People are projecting onto the Holy Family what they think is standard and normal for a family.
The latter point , "God made flesh " is everyone’s starting point, a glorious, biblical one. That she or Joseph be anything than what is stated in scripture is all that is necessary. PV might seem fitting to some but not “essential,necessary”. His grace abounds either way doesn’t it ?
I would counter that those who do not view it as essential and necessary are in fact diminishing what it means for Mary to have given birth to the Son of God, and therefore diminishing Jesus himself.
I got it .I got it. That is, your point of view .Please wrap your head around the other view and the beauty and majesty that can be found in that.
Sorry, there can’t be any real beauty and majesty in an objective falsehood.
 
My point is this…should people, Catholic or non, reference the Proto when it is not in the canon?
My point is that it has indeed been done and by the Saints and Apostolic Church’s its part of “tradition”.

The same condemned the others. So no I don’t see relativism in thinking as you speak of as valid. I do see the 2000 year history.

I agree with you that outside the apostolic church’s its a fated argument since they don’t believe in anything but the Bible. Thus relativism in this realm.

BTW that’s same Bible which doesn’t elaborate on Jesus having biological brothers or Mary having other children. So who do we believe?
 
The brothers listed in Scripture with names, we know who their mothers and fathers are, and they are not children of the BVM. Why is this ignored?

And does anyone really believe that Joseph, as a pious and righteous Jew, would DARE to have sexual relations with the Ark of the New Covenant???!?!?!
God’s peace. I think this is an interesting insight into the mind of a devout Jew. Even to touch the Ark of the Old Covenant incurred the wrath of God and death (cf I Chr 13: 9-14). The event was so frightening that even David was afraid to bring the ark into his own house. This in turn adds something new (at least, I had never thought of it before) to the NT story of Joseph’s dream in Mt. 1: 20-24–in particular, when you remember Joseph’s being called the “son of David” by the angel. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top