Author Topic: The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects "Baptism of Desire"  (Read 2702 times)

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3592
  • Thanked: 3851 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

Quote
Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.

"Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life."

Quote
Quicumque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.

"Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church."

More on the video below:

The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects "Baptism of Desire"

DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys, Croix de Fer

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6946
  • Thanked: 3132 times
  • Religion: Catholic
It is the Dimond Bros, but those who ignore Ephesians iv, 5, 'One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism' could place the Salvation of some in grave danger in multiplying baptisms.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8009
  • Thanked: 6299 times
  • Religion: Catholic
V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, Aeternitus, St.Justin, Blue Violet, Kent

Offline mikemac

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8039
  • Thanked: 4178 times
  • Religion: Catholic
V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Yeah it was even part of the Council of Trent, wasn't it?
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is “despair, overcome.”
Source
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, Aeternitus, Michael Wilson, St.Justin, Kent

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3592
  • Thanked: 3851 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Since neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire, according to theologians such as St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Liguori, remit the temporal punishment due to sin, nor implement the sacramental character in the soul, they're not really baptism in any sense. I'll wait for a dogmatic decree that teaches these alternate forms of baptism.

St. Siricius flatly rejects it.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys

Offline truly-a-philosofan

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 49 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

Quote
Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.

"Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life."

Quote
Quicumque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.

"Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church."

More on the video below:

The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects "Baptism of Desire"


Baptism of Desire necessarily includes perfect contrition. St. Siricius, one of the great men to sit upon the Apostolic Chair, was wise enough to not presume this to be the case in all the unbaptized who desire baptism.

The existence of this letter also confirms to us that St. Augustine did not invent the doctrine Original Sin, since this letter had been written before his conversion.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 04:30:34 AM by truly-a-philosofan »
For the evil of the soul, its own will takes the initiative; but for its good, the will of its Creator makes the first move; whether to make the soul which did not yet exist, or to recreate it when it had perished through its fall.

St. Augustine, City of God XIII:15
 

Offline Non Nobis

  • Why are you fearful?
  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4937
  • Thanked: 3622 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Since neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire, according to theologians such as St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Liguori, remit the temporal punishment due to sin, nor implement the sacramental character in the soul, they're not really baptism in any sense. I'll wait for a dogmatic decree that teaches these alternate forms of baptism.

St. Siricius flatly rejects it.

"They're not really baptism in any sense" presumes that the only sense of baptism is the sacrament of baptism. If God gives salvific grace in giving them, how are they unlike baptism as far as eternal salvation goes? They don't help on man on this earth (they don't make a man a member of the Church on earth) and perhaps don't remit temporal punishment, but salvific grace (including forgiveness of sins) at the point of death is reasonably considered baptism, even if not the sacrament.

St. Siricius flatly rejects any priest presuming upon it as an option a priest or any man can choose for himself.   Baptism of desire is God's prerogative - perfect contrition (sufficient desire) comes by the grace of God, not by having the vague "anonymous christian" desire to "be good" and get baptized "someday".

St. Thomas said that God is not bound by the Sacraments - He doesn't allow man to carelessly omit them but allows it to be impossible to receive them but get grace directly from God.  God can save a man directly - e.g. not only for Baptism, but for Penance.

Trent says "this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."

Yet it also says "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein".

A man is commanded to receive the actual Sacraments as soon as he can, regardless of his contrition. But the "necessity" (and "unless" in Scripture) binds man, not God, in the case when a man is about to die.

Of course God can miraculously bring water for the Sacrament of Baptism in any case; He could also miraculously bring a priest and give the Sacrament of Penance.  But God's being BOUND to these miracles is not something I've heard of before the Fr. Feeney arguments. (Not sure I've heard of the necessity of the miracle of priests, but it seems to follow)

St. Alphonsus and the Catechism of the Council of Trent interpret Trent (dogma) differently than you Vetus Ordo.  Various people over the years (The Dimond Brothers, Kreutzritter (sp?), others) try to interpret Trent to deny Baptism of Desire.   They are more knowledgeable and clever than I, but when I try to think through their arguments I find them convoluted and unnatural.

Of course getting  further clarification from the Church of today would not be likely in its current state.

I know you don't think much of theologians, "even" the pre-Vatican II ones Fr. Cekada (RIP) would admire, but here is his paper arguing that they are important, and their position on Baptism of Desire   http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

www.baptismofdesire.com
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 04:34:18 AM by Non Nobis »
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Michael Wilson, St.Justin, truly-a-philosofan

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8009
  • Thanked: 6299 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Mike,
yes, it is as N.N. Posted above.
V.O.
We have had enough discussions on the magisterium of the Church, so I don't have to remind you that Catholics are not only bound to give assent to the solemn magisterium of the Church but also to her ordinary magisterium. Here is the C.C.C.
Quote


1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
The Church's teaching on B.O.B. And B.O.D. Also means that the contrary opinion which denies this is condemned.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Non Nobis, Wenceslav

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3592
  • Thanked: 3851 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Since neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire, according to theologians such as St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Liguori, remit the temporal punishment due to sin, nor implement the sacramental character in the soul, they're not really baptism in any sense. I'll wait for a dogmatic decree that teaches these alternate forms of baptism.

St. Siricius flatly rejects it.

"They're not really baptism in any sense" presumes that the only sense of baptism is the sacrament of baptism. If God gives salvific grace in giving them, how are they unlike baptism as far as eternal salvation goes? They don't help on man on this earth (they don't make a man a member of the Church on earth) and perhaps don't remit temporal punishment, but salvific grace (including forgiveness of sins) at the point of death is reasonably considered baptism, even if not the sacrament.

There is only one baptism: confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. This is the sacrament of faith without which, according to the Church and Christ in John 3:5, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

If baptism of desire does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin, unlike baptism, does not imprint the sacramental character, unlike baptism, and does make one a member of the Church, unlike baptism, then it is not baptism. It is something else. A second baptism, along with baptism of blood, a third baptism. Yet we confess only one which is a sacrament of pure and natural water.

This theological construct conflicts with a few things, chief of which perhaps is the the fact that those who die without being members of the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff (as per the infallible teaching of Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino) are lost, even if they had shed their blood in the name of Christ. Catechumens aren't members of the Church or subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Quote
St. Siricius flatly rejects any priest presuming upon it as an option a priest or any man can choose for himself.   Baptism of desire is God's prerogative - perfect contrition (sufficient desire) comes by the grace of God, not by having the vague "anonymous christian" desire to "be good" and get baptized "someday".

St. Siricius clearly teaches that those desiring baptism, desiderantibus, will perish if they don't actually receive the sacrament. It couldn't be any more explicit.

Quote
I know you don't think much of theologians, "even" the pre-Vatican II ones Fr. Cekada (RIP) would admire, but here is his paper arguing that they are important, and their position on Baptism of Desire   http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

The pre-Vatican II Church already exhibited a lot of the problems that came into full display at Vatican II. Abp. Lefebvre, for instance, believed that Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and even Animists could be saved through "baptism of desire" without professing the true faith. "They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."

This sort of nonsense was already widespread way before there was any Vatican II in the making.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Prayerful, Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6946
  • Thanked: 3132 times
  • Religion: Catholic
V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Yeah it was even part of the Council of Trent, wasn't it?

No. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has a paragraph or so suggesting how hypothetically BoD might be possible, but not the Council proper. The Council itself is infallible, but mainly refers back to Exultate Deo, 1439, Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV. It states that the matter of the sacrament is water. The Catechism was an interpretive primer for parish priests. Where it repeats infallible teaching, it cannot be disregarded, where it does not, it has to be ignored. This interpretative paragraph was not itself part of the core doctrine meant for the parish priest to note and follow. It would have an imprimatur, but that is not mark that everything is correct. St Thomas Aquinas erred on the later define doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but I don't believe there was an editing or glossing of it.

Catholics owe a lot to +Lefebvre, but his thinking did show where 'baptism of desire' leads, and it wasn't a properly Catholic one. Consider too how Fr Feeney suffered after offending the young Bobby Kennedy resulting from which the Kennedy court Cardinal Cushing (almost unique this illiterate in Latin to pay to translation services at V2) obtained a spurious excommunication for teaching what the Church always did on EENS. Speaking of V2 a great body of learned men in holy orders approved a series of dubious documents. If you read an old missal on the 'dialogue' or 'community' Mass, you see a complete failure to understand the reason for silence in the Mass. We must hold to what was taught, even when seeming authorities (authorities for what is orthodox not what is erroneous) like the Catechism of the Council of Trent can be cited in favour of condemned innovations. John 3:5 utterly trumps any interpretative writings. St Siricius and other Popes upheld the words of Our Lord against cunning thinkers.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 03:20:06 PM by Prayerful »
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3011
  • Thanked: 771 times
V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

No, because the Church cannot change her teachings. If the Church once taught that water baptism was necessary, then not only are Catholics not bound to accept the later contradictory teaching, but the later "teaching" isn't so much a Church teaching as it is an innovation that Catholics are bound to reject despite the fact that the infallible magisterium has (fallibly) taught it publicly.

That said, I have not yet investigated what the Church has historically said about baptism of blood/desire, so I'm not going to claim to know baptism of blood/desire to be or not to be an innovation. (Though my guess is yes, it's an innovation. In the gospel Jesus seems pretty explicit in teaching the necessity of being baptised by water and the Holy Ghost.)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 03:35:01 PM by Daniel »
 
The following users thanked this post: Prayerful

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6946
  • Thanked: 3132 times
  • Religion: Catholic
V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

No, because the Church cannot change her teachings. If the Church once taught that water baptism was necessary, then not only are Catholics not bound to accept the later contradictory teaching, but the later "teaching" isn't so much a Church teaching as it is an innovation that Catholics are bound to reject despite the fact that the infallible magisterium has (fallibly) taught it publicly.

That said, I have not yet investigated what the Church has historically said about baptism of blood/desire, so I'm not going to claim to know baptism of blood/desire to be or not to be an innovation. (Though my guess is yes, it's an innovation. In the gospel Jesus seems pretty explicit in teaching the necessity of being baptised by water and the Holy Ghost.)

Yes, John iii, 5 is plain enough. The plain words of our Saviour are enough.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vetus Ordo

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Gentile
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 461 times
  • An Excommunicant
  • Religion: Doubting Roman Catholic
Gee, a 4th century out of context papal / patristic snippet or the Council of Trent...which will Catholics choose...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 08:13:31 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson, St.Justin

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8009
  • Thanked: 6299 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Quote
No, because the Church cannot change her teachings. If the Church once taught that water baptism was necessary, then not only are Catholics not bound to accept the later contradictory teaching, but the later "teaching" isn't so much a Church teaching as it is an innovation that Catholics are bound to reject despite the fact that the infallible magisterium has (fallibly) taught it publicly.
The Church always taught that "water baptism was necessary"; but that doesn't mean that she excluded salvation if one was legitimately prevented from receiving Baptism. 
Quote

That said, I have not yet investigated what the Church has historically said about baptism of blood/desire, so I'm not going to claim to know baptism of blood/desire to be or not to be an innovation. (Though my guess is yes, it's an innovation. In the gospel Jesus seems pretty explicit in teaching the necessity of being baptised by water and the Holy Ghost.)
Your "Guess" should be that "No" the Church does not allow heretical teaching to become the norm for the whole Church since the time of the Fathers of the Church as BOB and BOD have been; in fact "Big Bad Trad" had a post on a thread where he challenged anyone on the forum to come up with a quote from an official pre-VII manual denying BOB or BOD: No takers; of course.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, St.Justin

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8009
  • Thanked: 6299 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Quote
Yes, John iii, 5 is plain enough. The plain words of our Saviour are enough.
Yes, Baptism is necessary for salvation; however, it does not prevent God from saving those who do not to be Baptized deliberately and knowingly; as the Fathers of the Church and the Church has taught.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav