What does anathema mean? [moved]

dzheremi · Aug 19, 2019

Andrewn said:
This is interesting bec, a long time ago, I read a Catholic book saying that Eutyches was acquitted by the Second Council of Ephesus and Wikipedia says, "In 449, however, at the Second Council of Ephesus convened by Dioscorus of Alexandria who was under the impression that Eutyches had renounced Monophysitism, overawed by the presence of a large number of Egyptian monks, not only was Eutyches reinstated to his office, but Eusebius, Domnus and Flavian, his chief opponents, were deposed."

Eutyches was reinstated by the bishops present at Ephesus II upon their acceptance of the confession he gave there, which is preserved in various places, in which Eutyches correctly (albeit perhaps fraudulently, relative to his actual belief) stated that Christ is consubstantial with His mother. It was later, fairly soon after the council (if I recall correctly, Severus, referenced earlier, was born a few years before Eutyches died, so their lives actually technically overlap), that he was discovered to be preaching the same heresy which it was thought he had sufficiently renounced at Ephesus II. And so he was condemned in short order by the non-Chalcedonians. Ephesus III was held only 19 years after his death, so it must have been widely known in the intervening years that he had gone back to his heresy. The 500-700 bishops gathered there under the presiding bishop, HH Pope Timothy II of Alexandria (the immediate successor to the deposed and exiled Pope Dioscorus) did the right thing and condemned him by name, and all those who held to his confused and heretical teachings.

Yes, they got into anathematizing everyone alive and dead after Chalecedon and then started burning the condemned at the stake.

Hmm? When did the Chalcedonians start burning people? I didn't think that was a thing until the Protestant Reformation or thereabouts, with the Calvinists in Geneva. At any rate, that is horrifying, to put it relatively mildly. Lord have mercy.

Thank you very much the information.

You're welcome. I am interested to see more perspectives on this question, as things like this can shed a fair bit of light on how others view conciliar matters. Thanks for starting this very interesting thread, and getting it moved to a place where we can all share our views respectfully.

hedrick · Aug 19, 2019

I think we need to be careful in reading Gal 1:9. Paul was heated there. But I don't recall that he counseled churches to remove those people from membership, nor did he treat James or Peter as non-Christians.

He counseled toleration about differences in meat sacrificed to idols, and celebration of the Sabbath.

I think he really only asked for separation in serious moral offenses, and although he gave long lists of offenses, I'm not convinced he actually suggested separation or shunning except for violations of Jewish sexual ethics.

hedrick · Aug 19, 2019

dzheremi said:
Hmm? When did the Chalcedonians start burning people? I didn't think that was a thing until the Protestant Reformation or thereabouts, with the Calvinists in Geneva. At any rate, that is horrifying, to put it relatively mildly. Lord have mercy.

There's a brief summary here: Death by burning - Wikipedia. The earliest they mention is 7th Cent, among Orthodox. There aren't many Christian communities that are free from a history of abusing people they disagreed with.

Andrewn · Aug 19, 2019

dzheremi said:
he was discovered to be preaching the same heresy which it was thought he had sufficiently renounced at Ephesus II. And so he was condemned in short order by the non-Chalcedonians. Ephesus III was held only 19 years after his death, so it must have been widely known in the intervening years that he had gone back to his heresy. The 500-700 bishops gathered there under the presiding bishop, HH Pope Timothy II of Alexandria (the immediate successor to the deposed and exiled Pope Dioscorus) did the right thing and condemned him by name, and all those who held to his confused and heretical teachings.

So, this is the follow-up for the story.

dzheremi said:
Hmm? When did the Chalcedonians start burning people? I didn't think that was a thing until the Protestant Reformation or thereabouts, with the Calvinists in Geneva. At any rate, that is horrifying, to put it relatively mildly. Lord have mercy.

Burning those who were anathematized started much earlier, in the east. Wikipedia says, "Under 6th-century emperor Justinian I, the death penalty had been decreed for impenitent Manicheans, but a specific punishment was not made explicit. By the 7th century, however, those found guilty of "dualist heresy" could risk being burned at the stake. Those found guilty of performing magical rites, and corrupting sacred objects in the process, might face death by burning, as evidenced in a 7th-century case."

In the west, death by burning for heretics was made positive law by Pedro II of Aragon in 1197. It became common during the Inquisition. Joan of Arc, was condemned and burned in 1431 in Rouen, France. Being anathematized was serious business.

Andrewn · Aug 19, 2019

hedrick said:
I think we need to be careful in reading Gal 1:9. Paul was heated there. But I don't recall that he counseled churches to remove those people from membership, nor did he treat James or Peter as non-Christians. He counseled toleration about differences in meat sacrificed to idols, and celebration of the Sabbath.

Neither James nor Peter went to Galatia. Paul's anger was directed to Judaizers who promoted keeping the Torah (esp circumcision) as a way of salvation, which is quite unacceptable for Paul. Shunning them was an essential preventative measure, IMO.

hedrick said:
As used in Paul, that's a bit too specific. Handed over to God for judgement or destruction. The lexicon doesn't say anything about hell, although that would certainly be a form of divine destruction.

This is probably how advocates of capital punishment understood the word "anathema" with disastrous consequences.

hedrick · Aug 19, 2019

Andrewn said:
Neither James nor Peter went to Galatia. Paul's anger was directed to Judaizers who promoted keeping the Torah (esp circumcision) as a way of salvation, which is quite unacceptable for Paul. Shunning them was an essential preventative measure, IMO.

Paul was fairly explicit about treatment of sexual offenses. This passage doesn't look like that kind of instruction. I think it's a condemnation, but not instructions to split the church. Note Gal 5:12. I'm pretty sure he didn't intend that literally. I think this topic made him angry.

Later, anathema was a legal thing, separating you from the church. I don’t have any reason to think that was true for Paul. For him it was a strong condemnation.

SkyWriting · Aug 20, 2019

Andrewn said:
The Apostle Paul wrote:

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to you any gospel other than the one you received, let him be anathema!

The word anathema is usually translated as "accursed" or "under a curse" and has been used extensively by ancient Church Councils to describe "heretics" both who were alive at that time and those who had already passed away as Christians. But this word could not mean "cursed" bec Apostle Paul also wrote:

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless, and do not curse.

So, the following 3 questions need to be answered:

1. What exactly does "anathema" indicate in the context of Gal 1:8-9?

2. For a person to be anathematized, they should be preaching a different gospel. So,
a) What is considered a different gospel?
b) What is considered preaching (does sharing an opinion in a thread or in a small group constitute preaching)?

These questions came to my mind as a followed a thread in this Subform about "The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen."

P.S. As I usually do with difficult concepts, I checked thought-for-thought translations. There are 2 renderings that do not include cursing:

1) Condemned to hell (GNT & GWT); and
2) Judged guilty (NCV).

Jesus never blinded anyone.

Andrewn · Aug 20, 2019

hedrick said:
I think he really only asked for separation in serious moral offenses, and although he gave long lists of offenses, I'm not convinced he actually suggested separation or shunning except for violations of Jewish sexual ethics.

It looks like being shunned / cut off / separated from the community was advised in several cases in the NT:

Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And, if he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as an unbeliever or a tax collector.

Rom 16:17 But I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the teaching that you learned, and keep away from them.

1Co 5:5 hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Co 5:11 But in this situation, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother if he is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.

2Co 11:4 In fact, if someone comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you accept a different spirit, which you did not accept before, or a different “gospel,” which you did not welcome before, you put up with it all too well.

2Th 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this letter, take note of him so that you do not associate with him, in order that he may be put to shame.

1Ti 1:20 including Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan so that they might be taught not to blaspheme.

Some of the cases mentioned above were related to sexual offenses, others were not. Some cases are clearly related to teaching false doctrine. To avoid circular logic, I didn't include verses where the word "anathema" was used (some of these verses have been previously mentioned in the thread). The goal in all cases was treatment and restoration, not eternal destruction either physical or spiritual.

hedrick said:
I don’t have any reason to think that was true for Paul. For him it was a strong condemnation.

I'm reading the verses differently and see them as recommending shunning. It's interesting that NCV translates "anathema" as "judged guilty" in Gal 1:9 but in 1Co 16:22 it translates the same word into "separated from God—lost forever!" Crazy, eh?

hedrick said:
Note Gal 5:12. I'm pretty sure he didn't intend that literally. I think this topic made him angry.

I agree.

hedrick said:
Later, anathema was a legal thing, separating you from the church.

And it looks like the means of accomplishing this became more severe with time.

Catharism - Wikipedia

Andrewn · Aug 20, 2019

SkyWriting said:
Jesus never blinded anyone.

No, He didn't, of course. But blinding was a common punishment in the East Roman / Byzantine / Christian Empire. Emperor Basil II the Bulgar-slayer and the Blinding of 15,000 Bulgarians in 1014.

Sometimes the Body is completely disconnected from the Head.

hedrick · Aug 20, 2019

Andrewn said:
It looks like being shunned / cut off / separated from the community was advised in several cases in the NT:

My main concern is use in doctrinal disputes. I think that has been the bane of the Church from very early. So let's classify the passages you listed:

Rom 16:17 - see discussion
1 Cor 5:5 - sexual offense
1 Cor 5:11 - moral offenses
2 Cor 11:4 - no instructions to isolate anyone

Somehow Rom 16:17 gets interpreted as 180 degrees opposite from what it says. It's about people who cause division. There's a tradition of using it to justify division, using the excuse that they're being forced into division by the people they disagree with. riiiiiiight .....

The whole history of the period when the ecumenical councils were held is one long violation of Rom 16:17.

2 Thes 3:14 - moral offense; if you take this one verse out of context it looks like it's about doctrinal disagreement, but it talks about "obey". There's not much in the letter that you'd obey except the section immediately preceding this verse, perhaps starting 2:15. So it seems to be about people working.
1 Tim 1:20 - a bit unclear, but this appears to involve blasphemy, which would be a moral offense
Mat 18:17 - refusal to submit to mediation on personal disagreement; this is almost certainly not about doctrine

Andrewn · Aug 20, 2019

hedrick said:
My main concern is use in doctrinal disputes. I think that has been the bane of the Church from very early.

The problem is not "believing" wrong doctrines but rather "teaching" wrong doctrine and hence Jam 3:1 and a multitude of warnings throughout the NT.

I do agree with your analysis except for 1Ti 1:20 (and the anathema verses in Gal 1 & 1Co 16). Hymenaeus & Alexander apparently taught several incorrect doctrines: 1Ti 1:3-4, 7; 2Ti 2:17-18; 4:14. I think 2Co 11:4 is an exhortation to not put up with false teachers. But, yes, the judgment is unclear.

The verses I quoted prove that shunning was used in NT times. But they do not prove that it was specifically used with false teachers. Other than shunning false teachers, what do you think the NT way to avoid them was? What does "anathema" mean in the NT?

I appreciate your analysis.

hedrick · Aug 20, 2019

Andrewn said:
Other than shunning false teachers, what do you think the NT way to avoid them was? What does "anathema" mean in the NT?

I appreciate your analysis.

Paul certainly condemns people, and warns his readers about them.

It's not so clear that he faced any situations quite like the later centuries. After all, disciplining one or two rogue teachers wasn't really the issue. The councils were about people with substantial followings.

I think there should be several things. The first is to really understand what's being said. Theodore, for example, seems to have intended to be orthodox. He wrote before terminology was standardized, and Syriac thought used different categories anyway. Of course we have highly imperfect data about the early centuries. But I see too little evidence of careful attempts to find common ground. I think of the Catholic Church's work with other denominations in the last few decades, e.g. their joint statement with the Lutherans, and work with other traditions.

One often gets the impression from church historians that disagreements were used as excuses to condemn people in order to raise your own prestige.

Consider Nicea. It condemned Arians. But the politics changed shortly, and the Arians ended up in control. Nicea won in the end because people slowly came to accept it.

Chalcedon was a disaster. It actually wasn’t a bad compromise. But it alienated significant groups. In some areas, leaders ended up on the opposite side from most people. There’s one theory that that was why the Muslims managed to get control of some areas.

Honestly, Christology hadn’t even converged by the time of Chalcedon. Which is why it was followed by three councils that tried to deal with remaining issues, and reconcile people.

It would have been better to have taken longer, and spent more time trying to build consensus. In the last 50 years or so there have been discussions with some of the groups that were separated during that time period. Many people think their ideas aren’t so different, although they’re expressed differently.

But that wasn’t the way church leaders thought. You can tell it from the terminology. There weren’t people who misunderstood. There were damnable heretics who set out to destroy the church. Leaders who think in those terms can’t be expected to produce a Christian result.

This attitude is already present in some of the passages in 1 and 2 Timothy. Look at 2 Tim 4:14-15 “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message.” This is language of personal affront. In the undisputed letters, Paul says some strong things, but they don’t have quite this tone.

In the end, one church can’t always accommodate all disagreements. Sometimes you may need to split. But there was far too little attempt at sympathetic hearing. Once the Church lost the ability to kill off dissenters, the Protestant Church inherited the same problems, but without the ability to enforce its decisions. The Catholic Church and moderate Protestants are currently exploring more Christian approaches, but it’s going to take centuries to build the kind of trust that was lost in the early years.

Andrewn · Aug 21, 2019

hedrick said:
Theodore, for example, seems to have intended to be orthodox. He wrote before terminology was standardized, and Syriac thought used different categories anyway. Of course we have highly imperfect data about the early centuries. But I see too little evidence of careful attempts to find common ground.

I agree. It looks like rather than trying to find common ground, the attitude was, "I gotcha." One exception being the restoration of relations between Alexandria and Antioch after the 1st Council of Ephesus. Although followers of Nestorius had to go to Persian Empire territories.

hedrick said:
One often gets the impression from church historians that disagreements were used as excuses to condemn people in order to raise your own prestige.

The way I understand history is that , in the beginning, there were 3 important churches: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome.

The see of Byzantium gained importance when Emperor Constantine elevated Byzantium to a second capital alongside Rome and named it Constantinople. Due to proximity, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was originally under control of Antioch. In the 1st Council of Ephesus in 431, Alexandria won control of Constantinople. But this winning was short-lived. In the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Rome won control of Constantinople and even anathematized the Pope of Alexandria himself.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople gained independence from the Pope of Rome after 1054. Still, the Byzantine emperor was the actual supreme governor / head of the church. After fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453, 2 main branches developed: the patriarchates of Athens and Moscow (3d Rome). Other autocephalous branches also developed.

hedrick said:
Chalcedon was a disaster. It actually wasn’t a bad compromise. But it alienated significant groups. In some areas, leaders ended up on the opposite side from most people. There’s one theory that that was why the Muslims managed to get control of some areas.

I have no doubt that this is indeed the case.

hedrick said:
Honestly, Christology hadn’t even converged by the time of Chalcedon. Which is why it was followed by three councils that tried to deal with remaining issues, and reconcile people.

I see these as "robber councils" to use Pope Leo's description of the 2nd Council of Ephesus

. Do Presbyterians subscribe to these councils?

hedrick said:
Many people think their ideas aren’t so different, although they’re expressed differently. But that wasn’t the way church leaders thought. You can tell it from the terminology. There weren’t people who misunderstood. There were damnable heretics who set out to destroy the church. Leaders who think in those terms can’t be expected to produce a Christian result.

Unfortunately, this is true. And Pope Cyril of Alexandria had voluminous and contradictory writings to the extent that various warring churches consider him a saint and consider themselves his true followers!

hedrick said:
In the end, one church can’t always accommodate all disagreements. Sometimes you may need to split. But there was far too little attempt at sympathetic hearing. Once the Church lost the ability to kill off dissenters, the Protestant Church inherited the same problems, but without the ability to enforce its decisions.

Thank God for the divisions and for the separation of Church and State. I prefer a multi-party system any time to dictatorship. Church dictatorship can be just as bad as State dictatorship.

hedrick said:
The Catholic Church and moderate Protestants are currently exploring more Christian approaches, but it’s going to take centuries to build the kind of trust that was lost in the early years.

I hope the Lord returns before this happens. Only then fighting about doctrine will become meaningless.

dzheremi · Aug 21, 2019

Andrewn said:
Unfortunately, this is true. And Pope Cyril of Alexandria had voluminous and contradictory writings to the extent that various warring churches consider him a saint and consider themselves his true followers!

As common as this sentiment may seem, since we're in Traditional Theology, it might be a good idea to review some medieval OO theologians before making a statement about "warring churches (considering) themselves his true followers". Particularly among the Syriac Orthodox, people like Abu Ra'ita Al-Takriti (9th century), 'Ali Bin Dawud Al-Arfadi (11th-12th century) and many others would be against this sort of idea. Not everyone is Bar Salibi (though even his own incredibly acerbic polemics can be read in a different way, as some are directed against fellow Syriac Orthodox for not sharing his view; see here Teule "It is not right to call ourselves Orthodox and others Heretics: Ecumenical Attitudes in the Jacobite Church in the Time of the Crusades" in Ciggaar and Teule, 1999). Even later texts by the admittedly generally less-conciliatory Copts, like Ibn Kabar's 14th century The Lamp That Lights the Darkness in Clarifying the Service, tend to spend an rather large portion of their critiques of the 'Melkites' (as all the Eastern Chalcedonians used to be called, following the Syriac) stating "And the Melkites agree with us in...", the thinking being among these more rigid writers that the acceptance of the Tome was a break with everyone's previously held faith, so it would be very easy to receive them back into Orthodoxy (...again, from these peoples' view; I'm not intending to start anything with regard to Chacledon or Chalcedonians here) precisely because we are both following the same fathers.

And as usual, the Armenians might have come closest in that period to actually uniting with the Chalcedonians. I think it was HH St. Nerses the Gracious (Shnorhali) in the 12th century who actually re-read the Tome and said he found no reason why it should be have been rejected in the first place. (No wonder he was recently added as a saint in the RCC!) Alas, when he met with Byzantine Church leaders he found their terms for reunion unacceptable, so that unity never came to fruition, but still...the point is, it's hard to maintain the characterization of "We, and only we, are following this particular saint!" in the face of a reality that has always been much more nuanced than modern polemics would make it seem, accommodating people ranging from Al-Arfadi and HH St. Nerses on the more 'open' side, to HH Mor Severus of Antioch and HG Dionysius Bar Salibi on the more 'closed' side.

Andrewn · Aug 21, 2019

dzheremi said:
the acceptance of the Tome was a break with everyone's previously held faith, so it would be very easy to receive them back into Orthodoxy (...again, from these peoples' view; I'm not intending to start anything with regard to Chacledon or Chalcedonians here) precisely because we are both following the same fathers.

Sure there were wars between the brothers. When the Muslims invaded Egypt, the Pope of Alexandria was hiding from the Byzantine prefect.

"Under Byzantine rule, the monophysite strand of Christianity was also subject to persecution, as the imperial authorities struggled to impose orthodoxy from Constantinople. The division between monophysite and orthodox Christianity has been seen as a major factor contributing to the defeat of Byzantine forces in Egypt and Syria in the mid-seventh century, at the Arab conquest of Egypt in AD 639-642."

Coptic Egypt: background
Egypt - Egypt under Rome and Byzantium, 30 B.C.-A.D. 640
https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/12581/3923
CNEWA - The Syrian Orthodox Church

dzheremi · Aug 21, 2019

I don't disagree with that. My point was that the thinking was not necessarily "We are following the fathers/this particular father; those people over there are not." Sometimes it was, but there was a much wider range of opinions among Oriental Orthodox over the centuries than such a simplistic understanding would imply.

hedrick · Aug 21, 2019

Andrewn said:
Do Presbyterians subscribe to these councils?

Presbyterians certainly quote from Nicea and Chalcedon (1st and 4th).

Technically, the only authoritative confession for traditional Presbyterians is Westminster. Others would be "to the extent that they're consistent with Scripture."
I think most conservative Presbyterians would accept Nicea and Chalcedon fairly literally, but wouldn't look at those councils outside the creeds associated with them.

The PCUSA includes the Nicene Creed and Apostles' Creeds among our standards, though our commitment those standards is fairly loose. I don't think there's a commitment to the councils beyond those creeds, though Chalcedon is quoted a lot. While we honor the intent of Nicea and Chalcedon, we couldn't use either as actual legal standards, because modern theology doesn't tend to use substance-based concepts (and Nicea mandates the Virgin Birth, which hasn't been required since the early 20th Cent).

Calvin rejected the 7th Council, but still had sympathy with some use of images. For review from the PCUSA point of view see Art | Presbyterian Mission Agency. To my knowledge, this hasn't been a controversy, so there aren't really debates or decisions you could refer to.

We would certainly reject the monothelite position, but I think you'd find substantial concern with how Theodore was treated in the 5th council.

Andrewn · Aug 21, 2019

dzheremi said:
I don't disagree with that. My point was that the thinking was not necessarily "We are following the fathers/this particular father; those people over there are not." Sometimes it was, but there was a much wider range of opinions among Oriental Orthodox over the centuries than such a simplistic understanding would imply.

I notice more openness toward Rome after the Crusades and St Francis of Assisi's visit to Egypt in 1219. I don't notice openness with Constantinople, not even after 1453, until the 19th century. Do you see the same pattern?

dzheremi · Aug 21, 2019

Andrewn said:
I notice more openness toward Rome after the Crusades and St Francis of Assisi's visit to Egypt in 1219. I don't notice openness with Constantinople, not even after 1453, until the 19th century. Do you see the same pattern?

Openness towards Rome by whom? My communion?

I think we've kept the same sort of range that I have already written about up until the modern day, with the notable change that there are now millions of OO people living in Western countries, as there have been since the 1960s or so. (It's probably not a coincidence that the informal OO-EO talks began at that time.) So you see more openness now since we're simply more free to meet each other than we were before. The result is not always good, but it is advancement in the sense of "more things are possible" (both good and bad).

I don't know that any openness towards Rome on the part of my Church has anything to do with Francis of Assisi coming to Egypt. The Egyptians are used to foreigners, and probably thought of him as a kind of curiosity, but given that Rome did not endeavor to formally start its Coptic Catholic Church until many centuries later (c. 1600s, if I recall), and then once it did it had trouble keeping people to run it (its 'founder', one Anba Athanasius, eventually returned to Orthodoxy fairly soon after being placed in that position), it is difficult to see how that could be any kind of direct line of influence, and if it was I'd think the failure of the attempted reunion council of Florence in the 15th century would show that it wasn't really a lasting impact or influence.

Rather, I think the reason is very obvious from reading the Syriac and Armenian chroniclers of the time, who are very open in stating that they prefer the Franks to the Greeks because the Franks recognize them as fellow Christians without trying to force them to change their Christological confession, while the Greeks do not. It wouldn't stay that way forever, but that was the initial impression of the Franks in, say, Michael the Syrian's Chronicle (which would have been written before Francis of Assisi went to Egypt, as Michael died in 1199): "In Palestine, as in Syria, they never raised any difficulty on account of their faith, nor insisted on a single formula for all the peoples and all the languages of the Christians. But they considered as Christian everyone who venerated the cross without enquiry or cross-examination."

Andrewn · Aug 21, 2019

dzheremi said:
Rather, I think the reason is very obvious from reading the Syriac and Armenian chroniclers of the time, who are very open in stating that they prefer the Franks to the Greeks because the Franks recognize them as fellow Christians without trying to force them to change their Christological confession, while the Greeks do not.

Very interesting, considering what they did to the heretics in Europe and what they did in Constantinople.

Do you know when the OO started sending their priests to Rome for seminary education?

What does anathema mean? [moved]

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads