OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 09:42:46 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 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why didn't Luther become Orthodox?  (Read 5745 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« on: August 14, 2009, 02:49:07 PM »

Not only was the distances impossible to overcome, but had the Eastern Church showed up it would have been considered poaching. Even though the Eastern and Western Church are split, there is still a modicum of protocol observed. It would have been like the Vatican sending missionaries to Greece. 

Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.  The truth is that Luther did not think it necessary to contact the Orthodox, or perhaps just didn't get around to it, or was hostile to what he perceived (incorrectly) to be some Orthodox beliefs.  (I am not an expert on Lutheranism, so I cannot say exactly what is true here, perhaps someone else knows more.)  I do know that after Luther's death, there was quite an exchange of letters between prominent Lutherans and the see of Constantinople.  Distance was no barrier at all.  However, after a time the patriarchate refused to discuss matters of theology with the Lutheran party, because they were so intransigent in their Protestant beliefs.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 02:57:53 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2009, 02:54:40 PM »

Not only was the distances impossible to overcome, but had the Eastern Church showed up it would have been considered poaching. Even though the Eastern and Western Church are split, there is still a modicum of protocol observed. It would have been like the Vatican sending missionaries to Greece. 

Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy.  Now, unfortunately, this kind of thing still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.  The truth is that Luther did not think it necessary to contact the Orthodox, or perhaps just didn't get around to it, or was hostile to what he perceived (incorrectly) to be some Orthodox beliefs.  (I am not an expert on Lutheranism, so I cannot say exactly what is true here, perhaps someone else knows more.)  I do know that after Luther's death, there was quite an exchange of letters between prominent Lutherans and the see of Constantinople.  Distance was no barrier at all.  However, after a time the patriarchate refused to discuss matters of theology with the Lutheran party, because they were so intrangient in their Protestantism

So you think it would have been okay for Constantinople to have sent a Bishop to Germany had they been interested?
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2009, 03:02:52 PM »

Well, it would have probably really annoyed Rome a lot, that is for sure.  They might have started even earlier than they did to promote the concept of unia in the Ukraine and the Middle East.  Or even nastier things than that.  But who knows?  Maybe Orthodoxy in Germany would have suited Rome better than Protestantism, in a political sense.  From a purely theological perspective, there is no reason why Orthodoxy could not have gained a foothold in Germany in Luther's time. 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 03:44:32 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2009, 09:52:58 PM »

Luther never, ever would have agreed to Orthodoxy. Consider what he said at the 1521 Diet of Worms:

"I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils. My conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."

The italics are my own. The quote clearly shows that Luther felt his own conscience was above the authority of a church council. This puts him directly at odds with Orthodoxy.

As a former priest of mine put it, "Catholics believe everyone should submit to the pope. But in Protestantism, everyone gets to be a pope."
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2009, 12:10:43 PM »

Well, it would have probably really annoyed Rome a lot, that is for sure.  They might have started even earlier than they did to promote the concept of unia in the Ukraine and the Middle East.  Or even nastier things than that.  But who knows?  Maybe Orthodoxy in Germany would have suited Rome better than Protestantism, in a political sense.  From a purely theological perspective, there is no reason why Orthodoxy could not have gained a foothold in Germany in Luther's time. 

Cool..thanks
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2009, 01:01:01 PM »

No problem.  Smiley  These are just some very basic thoughts I had on the spur of the moment about "what might have been."  I'm sure that others with a much greater background in the geopolitical and theological picture of the time could give you a better idea of some possible scenarios.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pilgrim
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 304



« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2009, 08:09:10 PM »

I wonder how the Calvinists would have reacted to an Orthodox Germany...
Logged

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth help us to walk the way of Life, which is Christ Jesus.

St. Cyril, St. Leo, and St. Severus pray that the Church may be united and one, Eastern and Oriental.St. Issac the Syrian, pray that Assyria would return to the Holy Church. St. Gregory, pray for Rom
truthstalker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Evangelical Presbyterian
Posts: 166


« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2009, 11:09:27 PM »

This question is possibly unanswerable, but those are the fun ones.

I tend to think that Luther, heavily Augustinian and Latin-oriented, would have had a very difficult time converting to Orthodoxy due to the cultural and theological differences that had already risen between East and West. While they were not as wide as those of today, they were still very wide.  We see today Eastern Catholicism retaining much of its literature and language; perhaps a German Orthodoxy would have mirrored this.  Most of Luther's theological problems, arising as they did in a Catholic conceptual framework viewed as flawed by the Orthodox, were possibly answered by Orthodox doctrine.
Perhaps he could not conceive of becoming Orthodox - even if he had resolved his disdain of Councils. He was of the West, and his concerns were Western.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2009, 11:18:37 PM »

I think that we also have to remember that travel, especially for someone as important as a bishop, even of a so-called schismatic church, was severely restricted in the 16th century.  The church and state were very much intertwined and no ruling monarch or petty king would have welcomed a foreign, "schismatic" bishop into his holdings.  It's one thing if one of your own subjects is tossing about strange religious ideas, but quite another to let some foreigner do it in your own backyard.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,081



« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2009, 03:22:12 AM »

Jesuits were in Greece during the Ottoman occupation (I don't recall when exactly, 18th or 19th century) for an ostensibly positive reason, I can't recall what it was), but coverted some to Roman Catholicism.  I thought that is the derivation of the RC churches that are in Greece today.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2009, 04:15:19 AM »

Jesuits were in Greece during the Ottoman occupation (I don't recall when exactly, 18th or 19th century) for an ostensibly positive reason, I can't recall what it was), but coverted some to Roman Catholicism.  I thought that is the derivation of the RC churches that are in Greece today.

Let's not also forget the presence of the Venetians during the Ottoman period, and, prior to this, the Duchy of Athens, set up in the early 13th century, which lasted until the Ottoman conquest.
Logged
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2009, 11:04:42 PM »

For that matter, why didn't Henry VIII become Orthodox?

Surely the Orthodox prelates of the time wouldn't have had a problem with a monarch retaining de facto control of a national church.

Henry could have created a North Sea alliance and then really put the pressure on France.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2009, 11:18:43 PM »

As to the question why Luther did not become Orthodox, I think that the answer is obvious from his writings that he opposed the clear distinction between the clergy and the laity.  According to Luther: "Whoever comes out of the water of baptism can boast that he is already a consecrated priest, bishop, and pope..."
Such a teaching of Luther on the abolition of the priestly order, as we see it expressed here, is contrary to the teaching of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2009, 02:27:26 AM »

For that matter, why didn't Henry VIII become Orthodox?

Surely the Orthodox prelates of the time wouldn't have had a problem with a monarch retaining de facto control of a national church.

Henry could have created a North Sea alliance and then really put the pressure on France.

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2009, 01:58:27 AM »

I have come to view the "stand" that Luther took at the Diet of Worms more and more as a battle of egos. Luther's famous words: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by reason then I will not recant." Essentially, Luther was asserting his own autonomy in a spirit of arrogance similar to that of Pope Leo IX in 1054.

Those gathered against Luther at the Diet of Worms accusingly asked him, "Do you, Martin Luther, know more than the councils and Popes of the last 1500 years?" To which Luther should have responded, "No. In fact I stand on the historic teachings of apostolic Truth which you have forsaken. I dare not presume to know more than that which Our Lord has declared through His Church. But the teachings that you have introduced have deviated from the historic apostolic Church. It is not I who pretend to know more than the councils; it is you!" (Well, I can dream can't I. Wink)

But instead, Luther went his own way. He followed his own reasoning and developed a Christianity according to Luther rather than returning to the Christianity of Christ. Thus, he essentially replicated the error of arrogant autonomy that Pope Leo committed in 1054. And we see what subsequent havoc this has wrought in Christendom.

Selam

  
« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 01:59:45 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2009, 02:14:47 AM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2009, 12:23:02 PM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yes, Constantinope was as imperialistic liturgically as was Rome. I just think that some aspects of Celtic Christianity would have blended more seemlessly into Orthodoxy than into the beginings of what became the Medieval Roman Church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2010, 04:15:08 PM »

This question is possibly unanswerable, but those are the fun ones.

I tend to think that Luther, heavily Augustinian and Latin-oriented, would have had a very difficult time converting to Orthodoxy due to the cultural and theological differences that had already risen between East and West. While they were not as wide as those of today, they were still very wide.  We see today Eastern Catholicism retaining much of its literature and language; perhaps a German Orthodoxy would have mirrored this.  Most of Luther's theological problems, arising as they did in a Catholic conceptual framework viewed as flawed by the Orthodox, were possibly answered by Orthodox doctrine.
Perhaps he could not conceive of becoming Orthodox - even if he had resolved his disdain of Councils. He was of the West, and his concerns were Western.
To show the difficulty, the correspondence between the Lutherans at Tubingen and Constantinople spend a lot on the former defending the Filioque, something they should have taken the opportunity to jettison.
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
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2010, 07:11:42 PM »

Not only was the distances impossible to overcome, but had the Eastern Church showed up it would have been considered poaching. Even though the Eastern and Western Church are split, there is still a modicum of protocol observed. It would have been like the Vatican sending missionaries to Greece. 

Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.  The truth is that Luther did not think it necessary to contact the Orthodox, or perhaps just didn't get around to it, or was hostile to what he perceived (incorrectly) to be some Orthodox beliefs.  (I am not an expert on Lutheranism, so I cannot say exactly what is true here, perhaps someone else knows more.)  I do know that after Luther's death, there was quite an exchange of letters between prominent Lutherans and the see of Constantinople.  Distance was no barrier at all.  However, after a time the patriarchate refused to discuss matters of theology with the Lutheran party, because they were so intransigent in their Protestant beliefs.

It seems to me, that someone should of wispered in Luthers ear and ask him, if a church needs reformed is it the church?  Why don't you seek out the church?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2010, 09:18:27 PM »

Luther never, ever would have agreed to Orthodoxy. Consider what he said at the 1521 Diet of Worms:

"I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils. My conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."

The italics are my own. The quote clearly shows that Luther felt his own conscience was above the authority of a church council. This puts him directly at odds with Orthodoxy.

Good point. Lutherans accept many of the Councils or at least agree with them, but this is a big difference, perhaps the biggest. He would probably be scared he would have to subordinate himself to Russians or the EP administratively. Or maybe he really did have a philosophical counclusion.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2010, 09:20:40 PM »

For that matter, why didn't Henry VIII become Orthodox?

Because of the divorce thing, Yes?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2010, 11:23:47 PM »

What makes you think Henry VIII had any sort of theological outlook compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy?
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,697



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2010, 11:31:50 PM »

What makes you think Henry VIII had any sort of theological outlook compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy?

Like the Orthodox, St Thomas Moore rejected Papal infallbility. Henry VIII executed Moore. I suspect Henry VIII was not a deep theologian and if he could get away with the divorce without leaving Catholicism, he would have, at least for political reasons.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2010, 12:25:34 AM »

Not only was the distances impossible to overcome, but had the Eastern Church showed up it would have been considered poaching. Even though the Eastern and Western Church are split, there is still a modicum of protocol observed. It would have been like the Vatican sending missionaries to Greece. 

Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy.  Now, unfortunately, this kind of thing still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.  The truth is that Luther did not think it necessary to contact the Orthodox, or perhaps just didn't get around to it, or was hostile to what he perceived (incorrectly) to be some Orthodox beliefs.  (I am not an expert on Lutheranism, so I cannot say exactly what is true here, perhaps someone else knows more.)  I do know that after Luther's death, there was quite an exchange of letters between prominent Lutherans and the see of Constantinople.  Distance was no barrier at all.  However, after a time the patriarchate refused to discuss matters of theology with the Lutheran party, because they were so intrangient in their Protestantism

So you think it would have been okay for Constantinople to have sent a Bishop to Germany had they been interested?

YES!!!!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2010, 12:27:10 AM »

Luther never, ever would have agreed to Orthodoxy. Consider what he said at the 1521 Diet of Worms:

"I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils. My conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."

The italics are my own. The quote clearly shows that Luther felt his own conscience was above the authority of a church council. This puts him directly at odds with Orthodoxy.

As a former priest of mine put it, "Catholics believe everyone should submit to the pope. But in Protestantism, everyone gets to be a pope."

There is no church council that has absolute binding authority on the consciences of the faithful in and of itself, only those that have been received by the faithful as representing the Faith they have always held.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2010, 12:29:36 AM »

I think that we also have to remember that travel, especially for someone as important as a bishop, even of a so-called schismatic church, was severely restricted in the 16th century.  The church and state were very much intertwined and no ruling monarch or petty king would have welcomed a foreign, "schismatic" bishop into his holdings.  It's one thing if one of your own subjects is tossing about strange religious ideas, but quite another to let some foreigner do it in your own backyard.

Travel restricted by lack of speedy means of transportation, this I can see.

But were the borders actually that well protected?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2010, 11:21:59 AM »




The side discussion on the Celtic and British Church's relationship with Rome and Constantinople has been split and can be found here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28585.0.html

This is not an attempt to stop that discussion, (or the discussion about Luther) only to keep things neatly in their proper order. Please continue as you were.

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator



Logged
Amatorus
Lost Recluse
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 251



« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2014, 04:02:55 PM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.


But Celtic Christianity was a lot like Orthodoxy!
Logged

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." - 1 John 4:18
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2014, 04:12:53 PM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.


But Celtic Christianity was a lot like Orthodoxy!
In what way?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Inquirer
Antihyperaphthartodocetist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: filthy Uniate Papolatrist
Jurisdiction: Ruthenian
Posts: 326


« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2014, 04:15:40 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 04:16:14 PM by Inquirer » Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue
Minnesotan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Raised evangelical, inquiring into Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Interested in becoming Antiochian
Posts: 452


From the Land of 10,000 Lakes


« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2014, 06:52:01 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

What do you mean, "sacraments were heresy"? As far as the Eucharist was concerned, he was very strongly opposed to anyone who would downgrade the significance of the Eucharist, to the point that he labeled Zwingli's followers as being of the devil. He said "I would rather drink blood with the Papists than wine with the Zwinglians" meaning that on the issue of the Eucharist at least, he still sided with Rome against Zwingli. His views on Baptism were similar to Augustine's, too (he affirmed baptismal regeneration, unlike Calvin and Zwingli).

He did, however, deny that Confession/Absolution, Chrismation, Anointing of the Sick, etc., were sacraments. He insisted there were only two of them. Even though the Lutheran church did continue to practice auricular confession, they denied it was a sacrament. That is a major departure from Orthodoxy, which affirms that there are more sacraments than just two (without necessarily endorsing the RC claim that there are exactly seven).

Luther also preached against iconoclasm and denounced the Zwinglians for engaging in it. He opposed venerating images, but not the use of images themselves (he thought they should primarily be used for didactic purposes). Unlike Calvin, he didn't go whole-hog on rejecting everything the 7th council taught, although he certainly had mixed feelings about some of its teachings.
Logged
TheMathematician
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,541


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2014, 07:51:13 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

What do you mean, "sacraments were heresy"? As far as the Eucharist was concerned, he was very strongly opposed to anyone who would downgrade the significance of the Eucharist, to the point that he labeled Zwingli's followers as being of the devil. He said "I would rather drink blood with the Papists than wine with the Zwinglians" meaning that on the issue of the Eucharist at least, he still sided with Rome against Zwingli. His views on Baptism were similar to Augustine's, too (he affirmed baptismal regeneration, unlike Calvin and Zwingli).

He did, however, deny that Confession/Absolution, Chrismation, Anointing of the Sick, etc., were sacraments. He insisted there were only two of them. Even though the Lutheran church did continue to practice auricular confession, they denied it was a sacrament. That is a major departure from Orthodoxy, which affirms that there are more sacraments than just two (without necessarily endorsing the RC claim that there are exactly seven).

Luther also preached against iconoclasm and denounced the Zwinglians for engaging in it. He opposed venerating images, but not the use of images themselves (he thought they should primarily be used for didactic purposes). Unlike Calvin, he didn't go whole-hog on rejecting everything the 7th council taught, although he certainly had mixed feelings about some of its teachings.

To add to this, from The Small Catechism

Quote
In the first place, let the preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts and forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he inculcates all the time, year after year.
He also gives an entire secion, Section IV, to the Sacrament of Baptism, and some highlights

Quote
What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Quote
Thirdly.

How can water do such great things?--Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.


In regards to Communion,
Quote
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
and
Quote
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

And i Shall end with these two Q & As
Quote
13. Do you believe, then, that the true body and blood of Christ are in the Sacrament?
    Yes, I believe it.

14. What convinces you to believe this?
    The word of Christ: Take, eat, this is My body; drink of it, all of you, this is My blood.


With the emphasis and writings in The Small Catechism, i severly doubt Luther believed that Sacraments were hersey

http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#baptism (my Source)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 07:52:06 PM by TheMathematician » Logged
Amatorus
Lost Recluse
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 251



« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2014, 08:17:09 PM »

Someone should write a fantasy/alternative history about what this would have been like. Instead of a "reformation," it would have been an overturning of Whitby and a return to the Celtic/British origins of the Church in England.

Yes, that would be pure fantasy, since the Orthodox Church was busy suppressing other native rites around the time of the schism.  Do you think that the British Isles would have been spared Constantinople's penchant for uniformity?  It's also great fantasy to imagine that Celtic Christianity was much like Eastern Orthodoxy.


But Celtic Christianity was a lot like Orthodoxy!
In what way?

In Christ,
Andrew

They were said to be quite mystical and ascetic, and did not adhere to the Roman Rite. In fact, Harold II of Anglo-Saxon England is considered a passion-bearer (not a saint yet I believe?) for dying against William the Bastard in battle, who established strict Roman Rite over England in conspiracy with Pope Alexander II.

I got a lot of this info from orthodoxwiki. Although the Great Schism happened in 1054, the news didn't really spread so far to British Isles so they were still de facto Orthodox until the Norman Invasion.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 08:18:47 PM by Amatorus » Logged

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." - 1 John 4:18
jewish voice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 665



« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2014, 11:28:04 PM »

I know ppl have posted some of Luther's writing but as a hole Luther would never been orthodox for one reason Luther never wanted to start a new church. Luther only wanted Rome to correct it's wrongs or what Luther thought was wrong. Luther did talk with oorthodox bishops they had the subject on afr radio.
Logged
Inquirer
Antihyperaphthartodocetist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: filthy Uniate Papolatrist
Jurisdiction: Ruthenian
Posts: 326


« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2014, 09:39:30 AM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

What do you mean, "sacraments were heresy"? As far as the Eucharist was concerned, he was very strongly opposed to anyone who would downgrade the significance of the Eucharist, to the point that he labeled Zwingli's followers as being of the devil. He said "I would rather drink blood with the Papists than wine with the Zwinglians" meaning that on the issue of the Eucharist at least, he still sided with Rome against Zwingli. His views on Baptism were similar to Augustine's, too (he affirmed baptismal regeneration, unlike Calvin and Zwingli).

He did, however, deny that Confession/Absolution, Chrismation, Anointing of the Sick, etc., were sacraments. He insisted there were only two of them. Even though the Lutheran church did continue to practice auricular confession, they denied it was a sacrament. That is a major departure from Orthodoxy, which affirms that there are more sacraments than just two (without necessarily endorsing the RC claim that there are exactly seven).

Luther also preached against iconoclasm and denounced the Zwinglians for engaging in it. He opposed venerating images, but not the use of images themselves (he thought they should primarily be used for didactic purposes). Unlike Calvin, he didn't go whole-hog on rejecting everything the 7th council taught, although he certainly had mixed feelings about some of its teachings.

I should clarify. He thought Sacraments as the Catholic Church had were heretical, because he denied that sanctification ever happened, so he saw no point in signs that confer grace; he merely said that baptism and the eucharist were "means of grace". So Lutheranism has its own "sacraments" but they are similar in name and ritual only.

I'm pretty sure Luther would have been comfortable with the iconoclasts if he lived in the Byzantine Empire.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 09:42:05 AM by Inquirer » Logged

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,709



« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2014, 01:19:42 PM »

I know ppl have posted some of Luther's writing but as a hole Luther would never been orthodox for one reason Luther never wanted to start a new church. Luther only wanted Rome to correct it's wrongs or what Luther thought was wrong. Luther did talk with oorthodox bishops they had the subject on afr radio.

Luther was aware of the Orthodox Church, and even wrote that he considered the "Greek Catholics of the East" to have held to the teachings of the early Church more faithfully than the Pope. Melanchthion had a Serbian Orthodox deacon with him when he wrote the Greek version of the Augsburg Confession.  The problem was not Luther as much as it was that there really was not a Church under Luther.  Many of the factions that were later called "Lutheran" and some of which survive today have little to do with the teachings of Luther or Melanchthion.  A Church under Philip Melanchthion could also easily have become Orthodox becuase, unlike Luther, Melanchthion though a very large part of what the Protestants and the Latins were fighting over was not "hard doctrine" and that there was room for compromise.  Luther got onto him several times for this.  I believe that if Melanchthion would have gone to Constantinople and spoke with the Patriarch personally, there would have been a German Orthodox Church.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2014, 02:11:58 PM »

Well, it would have probably really annoyed Rome a lot, that is for sure.  They might have started even earlier than they did to promote the concept of unia in the Ukraine and the Middle East.  Or even nastier things than that.  But who knows?  Maybe Orthodoxy in Germany would have suited Rome better than Protestantism, in a political sense.  From a purely theological perspective, there is no reason why Orthodoxy could not have gained a foothold in Germany in Luther's time. 

If only Luther had.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2014, 02:14:00 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

Some might argue that Luther came to his beliefs because of his intense scrupulocity. Had Luther been exposed to Eastern Christian thought, he may have overcome his legalistic understanding of God, and may never have swung toward the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.

From a personal experience, Eastern Christianity has been a great refuge, as my struggles with scrupulocity greatly diminished.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Amatorus
Lost Recluse
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 251



« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2014, 06:43:58 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

Some might argue that Luther came to his beliefs because of his intense scrupulocity. Had Luther been exposed to Eastern Christian thought, he may have overcome his legalistic understanding of God, and may never have swung toward the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.

From a personal experience, Eastern Christianity has been a great refuge, as my struggles with scrupulocity greatly diminished.

I love thinking about alternate history, although keeping in mind the butterfly effects drives me insane. I wonder if it's desperate escapism?
Logged

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." - 1 John 4:18
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2014, 06:51:28 PM »

Luther thought Sacraments were heresy, images (icons) were idolatry, and the only authority was Scripture. Don't think he would've fit in well with the Orthodox.

Beside that point, Eastern Orthodoxy was extremely foreign to western Europe outside of Venice. (The Latin Crusaders didn't have a very high opinion of the Byzantines either.) May as well ask why he didn't convert to Confucianism.

Some might argue that Luther came to his beliefs because of his intense scrupulocity. Had Luther been exposed to Eastern Christian thought, he may have overcome his legalistic understanding of God, and may never have swung toward the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.

From a personal experience, Eastern Christianity has been a great refuge, as my struggles with scrupulocity greatly diminished.

I love thinking about alternate history, although keeping in mind the butterfly effects drives me insane. I wonder if it's desperate escapism?
Perhaps
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ays
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 24


Слава Богу! Praise be God!


« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2014, 07:11:44 PM »


Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican. 

Regarding the way of Vatican towards Orthodox Church, let me give you one undisputed example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
and the guy that gave blessings was this cardinal that they are now considering making a "saint"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0C0G-fzug
Logged

Hа муци се познају јунаци. (In trouble, heroes emerges) | Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 696


« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2014, 09:40:23 PM »


Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.

Regarding the way of Vatican towards Orthodox Church, let me give you one undisputed example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
and the guy that gave blessings was this cardinal that they are now considering making a "saint"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0C0G-fzug

Thanks for this information.  I have actually never heard of this before.  It's shocking and unbelievable.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,709



« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2014, 10:19:57 AM »


Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.

Regarding the way of Vatican towards Orthodox Church, let me give you one undisputed example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
and the guy that gave blessings was this cardinal that they are now considering making a "saint"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0C0G-fzug

Thanks for this information.  I have actually never heard of this before.  It's shocking and unbelievable.

It is not in the best interests of the Roman church to widely publish their real views on Orthodoxy. If cameras would have been available in Ukraine under the Polish, of in Constantinople during the crusades, you may have seen worse.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Amatorus
Lost Recluse
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 251



« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2014, 01:38:27 PM »


Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.

Regarding the way of Vatican towards Orthodox Church, let me give you one undisputed example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
and the guy that gave blessings was this cardinal that they are now considering making a "saint"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0C0G-fzug

Thanks for this information.  I have actually never heard of this before.  It's shocking and unbelievable.

It is not in the best interests of the Roman church to widely publish their real views on Orthodoxy. If cameras would have been available in Ukraine under the Polish, of in Constantinople during the crusades, you may have seen worse.

There's a fine line between exposé and propaganda. Orthodox priests have called Pope Francis some nasty things, and we must not forget the Massacre of the Latins. (Are either justified? I won't say. Smiley)
Logged

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." - 1 John 4:18
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,709



« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2014, 02:07:35 PM »


Not true at all, on several counts.  Where did you get this idea?  At the time, the Latin Church considered the Orthodox to be out-and-out schismatics.  The East, of course felt the same way.  The Latin Church was using any means at its disposal to get the Orthodox Church, little by little, or all at once if possible, to submit to Rome.  Until very recently, this was pretty much official Latin policy: the initiative to promote raprochement with Orthodoxy is new.  Despite this, unfortunately, Latin poaching of the Orthodox still goes on, though not with the direct approval of the Vatican.

Regarding the way of Vatican towards Orthodox Church, let me give you one undisputed example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
and the guy that gave blessings was this cardinal that they are now considering making a "saint"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

If you have a strong stomach, I suggest watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0C0G-fzug

Thanks for this information.  I have actually never heard of this before.  It's shocking and unbelievable.

It is not in the best interests of the Roman church to widely publish their real views on Orthodoxy. If cameras would have been available in Ukraine under the Polish, of in Constantinople during the crusades, you may have seen worse.

There's a fine line between exposé and propaganda. Orthodox priests have called Pope Francis some nasty things, and we must not forget the Massacre of the Latins. (Are either justified? I won't say. Smiley)

Saying nasty things is hardly the same as what was done to the Orthodox.  And I do not recall Andronikos Komnenos being glorified as a Saint.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Tags: Luther Lutheranism Protestantism 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   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 0.171 seconds with 72 queries.