OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 04:53:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Latin Heresy  (Read 5537 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« on: January 05, 2003, 10:47:07 PM »

Does anybody know of an authorative (like pan-Orthodox council) source that explicity states the Latins are in heresy...thanks in advance.

Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2003, 10:55:42 PM »

None that I know of.
Logged

Mudriy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


Token Ukrainian Nationalist


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2003, 12:15:52 AM »

First off what heresy? Huh

Second, if there was (is) one, they proabably wouldn't publish anything because pan groups i.e. SCOBA are pretty eccumenical, as with most mainline Orthodox Churches.
Logged

"Tranquil Light of the Holy Glory, of the Immortal, Heavenly Holy, Blessed Father.... As we come upn the Sunset, as we see the Evening Light, we sing to God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. At all times you are worthy...."
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2003, 01:02:01 AM »

Quote
First off what heresy?

Papal Infallibility

Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome

Filioque

Purgatory

Legalisms

Created grace

Branch Theory (wich seems to be emerging as Latin thought now)

Any or all of the above?

Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2003, 01:11:26 AM »

[Does anybody know of an authorative (like pan-Orthodox council) source that explicity states the Latins are in heresy...thanks in advance.]  

How about Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus A.D. 431 which deals with the Nicean Creed and any one who tries to make changes to it (like the insertion of the Filioque).

-----

The Decree of the same holy Synod, pronounced after hearing the Exposition of Faith (The Nicean Creed) in its original form by three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers in the city of Nice, and the impious formula composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and given to the same holy Synod by the Presbyter Charisius, of Philadelphia:

Canon VII:  When these things had been read, the Holy Synod decreed that IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MAN TO BRING FORWARD, OR TO WRITE, OR TO COMPOSE A DIFFERENT FAITH AS A RIVAL TO THAT ESTABLISHED BY THE HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST  IN NICEA.

BUT THOSE WHO SHALL DARE TO COMPOSE A DIFFERENT FAITH, OR TO INTRODUCE OR OFFER IT TO PERSONS DESIRING TO TURN TO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  OF TRUTH, WHETHER FROM HEATHENISM OR FROM JUDAISM, OR FROM ANY HERESY WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE DEPOSED, IF THEY ARE BISHOPS OR CLERGYMAN; BISHOPS FROM THE EPISCOPATE AND CLERGYMAN FROM THE CLERGY; AND IF THEY BE LAYMEN, THEY SHALL BE ANATHEMATIZED.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VII.

Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of  Nice shall be an alien from the Church:  if a layman do so let him be cast out.

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2003, 02:19:15 AM »

There are some teaschings of the Latin Church that could be seen as heretical (those that were listed before). The Council of Trullo was also very clear in irts definitions against the Latin Church. But the Orthodox Church has always been very careful in their treatment of the Latin Church, and that the condemnations of some doctrines does not call the whole Latin Church as heretical. It is also important to be careful with that word, which is often used to offend, even to offend brothers (specially those new neo-donatist groups that have appeared recently, that claim to possess the fulness of the truth themselves only)
Logged
Mudriy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


Token Ukrainian Nationalist


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2003, 02:33:05 AM »

Ok so the Latin Church has things that are (can be) considered heretical BUT why are we wasting our time discussing their problems.

WE ARE ORTHODOX. Yes they are Apostolic so I suppose some how it may remotely pertain to us, but WE ARE ORTHODOX.

I come to this forum to read, post, and grow in my Orthodox faith. I don't come here to read about another church's issues.

Maybe we should discuss things that plague OUR church.

Logged

"Tranquil Light of the Holy Glory, of the Immortal, Heavenly Holy, Blessed Father.... As we come upn the Sunset, as we see the Evening Light, we sing to God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. At all times you are worthy...."
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2003, 10:06:19 AM »

Ok so the Latin Church has things that are (can be) considered heretical BUT why are we wasting our time discussing their problems.

WE ARE ORTHODOX. Yes they are Apostolic so I suppose some how it may remotely pertain to us, but WE ARE ORTHODOX.

I come to this forum to read, post, and grow in my Orthodox faith. I don't come here to read about another church's issues.

Maybe we should discuss things that plague OUR church.



Isn't this section of our forum the place where we charitably discuss the things that unite and divide Orthodoxy and RCism?
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2003, 10:44:13 AM »

Quote
Isn't this section of our forum the place where we charitably discuss the things that unite and divide Orthodoxy and RCism?

Yes, this is the appropriate folder for that.

Quote
Maybe we should discuss things that plague OUR church.

Yes, we should discuss such things, which include redundant jurisdictions in America, jurisdictional wars, breaking communion over nonessentials like a calendar, massive attrition among second-, third- and fourth-generation ethnic members*, why most people in the world's only official Orthodox country, Greece, don't go to church, the modern sellout on contraception (an incredible cavein to the secular world from members of a Church that otherwise heroically resists modernity and heterodoxy) and the deafening indifference to prolife/abortion**, except among converts and those churches that generations ago were Catholic. Also, differences of Orthodox opinion over rapprochement with the Oriental Churches, reunion with which seems more doable than with the Catholic Church.

*In the future Orthodoxy in the West will be a small minority of people who are Orthodox by choice, as I think Bishop Kallistos has observed.

**Numerically Greeks may be the biggest Orthodox church in the US, but Greek-American politicians vote proabortion.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2003, 10:45:02 AM by Serge » Logged

the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2003, 10:54:42 AM »

Thank you Hypo Ortho

Over the last few days, I have been made acutely aware of how few RCs there are here - not surprisingly as it is basically an Orthodox Board. Despite that I have usually felt welcome here and have been 'listened to' with courtesy. Yes I can , and do comment about what can be perceived as abuses in my Church - and I do normally agree that there are plenty but the situation has to be changed from within.

I have always thought that here I would be able to learn more about my Eastern Brethren [ and Sisters, Brigid Wink] but I find it difficult to be in a frame of mind in which I can learn when I see comments about heresy being bandied about.

Am I too sensitive - I don't think so - I think what I have been seeing on 2 of the Fora are discourtesies.

Having said that I feel that members who arrive here deliberately to stir up trouble ,  can be a problem --  fortunately they don't seem to stay long. Please could I suggest that we ignore them - instead of getting me, and those who may feel like me ,to have to wonder about the wisdom of staying here ?

I enjoy my links with the East - I can't get them where I live Sad but I do appreciate what I have learned - and I hope to learn far more - I cannot see me coming to the end of this phase of my education during this earthly life.

This is one time when I am glad that I do not use my own name Wink  Anonymity has it's uses Cheesy
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2003, 11:29:42 AM »

It's been a long time since I logged in here.

I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year.

Anyway,

This thread is giving me the "going to get out of hand quickly" vibe, so I ask that it be curtailed.

If doctrinal issues with the RCC want to be discussed, that is permitted, but attacks against individual roman catholics, or their church as a whole are prohibited. Charity is the key issue here. It is important to discuss things that divide us, but pot-stirring isn't constructive. I'm not sure of Nektarios previous religious affiliation, but I warn him to stay away from convert 'excess baggage' furvor.

Bobby
Logged
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2003, 02:49:02 PM »

Yes, we should discuss such things, which include redundant jurisdictions in America, jurisdictional wars, breaking communion over nonessentials like a calendar, massive attrition among second-, third- and fourth-generation ethnic members*, why most people in the world's only official Orthodox country, Greece, don't go to church, the modern sellout on contraception (an incredible cavein to the secular world from members of a Church that otherwise heroically resists modernity and heterodoxy) and the deafening indifference to prolife/abortion**, except among converts and those churches that generations ago were Catholic. Also, differences of Orthodox opinion over rapprochement with the Oriental Churches, reunion with which seems more doable than with the Catholic Church.

*In the future Orthodoxy in the West will be a small minority of people who are Orthodox by choice, as I think Bishop Kallistos has observed.

**Numerically Greeks may be the biggest Orthodox church in the US, but Greek-American politicians vote proabortion.

So far as I know ROCOR has not sold out on contraception.  Perhaps that is one of the reasons why they are attracting members.  I would like to see laymen be more vocal to their priests and bishops about this.  I would also like to see evidence from a bishop selling out on this.

 As for people in Greece not going to church, that has to do with a lot of things.  First of all I have spoken to people who live in Greece and have told me that the problem is in Greece they are people becoming priests who have no discerned spiritual calling...in other words people are becoming priests who should not be priest.  Also, the priests over there seem to have a love for money...despite receiving funding from the state the priests are always interested in receiving payment for services then for offering spiritual advice to people.  This is why a lot of people in Greece are so cynical and pessimistic about the church.  The church over there has problems just like us.

As for Greek-American politicians voting pro-abortion..since when are they beacons of Orthodoxy? Forgive my language, but the hell with them.  Perhaps the GOA should put more leverage on them but I don't think that is going to change them.  They care more about getting votes and going with what the masses want..they will be judged for it.  The hell with him they are not beacons of Orthodoxy and should be looked upon as Americans.  Yes I mean Americans..I mean at some point they are more American than Greek.  Can they speak Greek and were they born in Greece..then call them Greek-Americans but don't call someone who is born here Greek-American when they are American.   Being a Christian and a politician is an oxymoron these days....they all sellout to what the people want.  I mean look at the Republican party going away from its conservative roots to a Third Way philosophy.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
varangia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2003, 08:36:19 PM »

By way of introduction, I'm a convert member of the OCA .  I've long resisted the temptation to join, but let me say that the fraternal dialogue on this forum is a model of charity and sober moderation, and I can no longer resist putting in my two cents worth.

I think we need to clarify exactly what sense it is in which the Orthodox Church has definitively stated that Latins are in heresy.  The nature of concilliar and synodal pronouncements is not to categorically say "the Latins are in heresy", but rather to anathematize certain Latin beliefs/positions as heretical.  To anathematize persons who hold particular propositions is to "cast away" or "banish from the flock of the Church of God."  Tough Stuff.

AFAIK, the Orthodox Church has never pronounced to the effect that Roman Catholics lack the internal grace of the Holy Spirit, as much as many "super-Orthodox" would like to infer from these synodal and concilliar documents.  

On the other hand, there is a paper trail that makes it abundantly clear that the Orthodox Church considers the Roman Catholic Church to be in heresy, starting with the Tomos of Gregory of Cyprus of 1285, which rejected the "council of Lyons" and the filioque.  (Anastasios initiated a spirited dialogue on this document over at the Byzantine Catholic forum last month.)  Other documents would include:

--the previous Synodikon of the Holy Spirit, composed during the middle 13th century during the Latin occupation of C'ople.  This condemnation of classic "Frankish" triadology is to be chanted at Pentecost, although I am not aware of its use outside Greek-speaking Orthodoxy.

--the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarch's pronouncement of 1484, which rejected the Council of Florence and stated that Latins should be received by chrismation.

--the Encyclical Letter of 1848 in response to Pope Pius IX, states the historic consciousness of the Orthodox Church and was issued over the names of the four patriarchs with the endorsement of Met. St. Philaret of Moscow.  This is as close to a coordinated conciliar decree of "ecumenical" status within world Orthodoxy as one will encounter in "modern times."

Of the foregoing list, the Tomos of 1285 and the Encyclical Letter of 1848 come closest to having definitive, "ecumenical" status, although this characterization is perhaps fraught with qualifications.

An unbiased construction of these documents makes it clear that Orthodoxy has traditionally regarded the filioque and universal papal jurisdiction/supremacy as heresies, and has not hesitated to "cast away" those who hold such views.

Of course, there is a corresponding paper trail on the RC side, from Lyons II through the Council of Florence, through Trent, etc.   (Pope Paul IV went so far as to unofficially downgrade Lyons II to a "local" council of the West that mishandled the affairs of the East).

 Any honest Orthodox/Catholic dialogue, before speaking of a new "consciousness" in typical post-modern fashion, must simply come to grips in a straightforward fashion with this paper trail.  I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible.  (it's probably the case, as someone hinted on another thread started today, that the liturgical legacy of Vatican II may actually now be the most insurmountable obstacle between Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the point being that the noetic divide and ethos are as wide or wider than anything on paper).
Logged

NULL
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2003, 10:33:52 PM »

A thoughtful, reasoned post, Varangia.  I hope you post more frequently and more often!

S'praznidkom!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2003, 11:05:58 PM »

Sorry, I didn't intend to stir up any trouble; I was looking for as one poster described "the paper trail" of Orthodox documents stating the Latins are in heresy.  I do find it odd though how ecumenists can get offended by this: stating differences is essential to any sort of dialouge.  It is also important to distinguish what differences are heretical and which are merely a different expression of the same thing.  Thank you everybody who responded with a "paper trail" you gave me some reading material I needed.  

One last question though that really puzzles me, why is this label apostalic thrown around to just about everybody - even if they are in heresy...the two are mutually exclusive, aren't they?  If the only distintion attempting to be made is the degree one sect differs from Orthodoxy (like far out there protestants are much further than conservitive RCism) isn't a better adjective out there?
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2003, 12:05:55 AM »

You noticed that word "apostolic" being thrown around rather loosely too, eh, Nektarios?  I've often wondered the same thing.  It seems to be a most popular expression with the more ecumenistically-minded.  I've read in many places that, from the Orthodox perspective (I'm not trying to be difficult here when I say this, just relaying with I've read over the years), when one is outside the Church one loses "apostolicity" in the Orthodox understanding of the term as one no longer possesses the fulness of the Apostolic Faith.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2003, 06:42:17 PM »

Hypo-Ortho wrote:

>>>You noticed that word "apostolic" being thrown around rather loosely too, eh, Nektarios?  I've often wondered the same thing.  It seems to be a most popular expression with the more ecumenistically-minded.  I've read in many places that, from the Orthodox perspective (I'm not trying to be difficult here when I say this, just relaying with I've read over the years), when one is outside the Church one loses "apostolicity" in the Orthodox understanding of the term as one no longer possesses the fulness of the Apostolic Faith.<<<


Good point.  What does "apostolic" actually mean in reference to communities that are not members of the Orthodox Church?  I add my own request among others' requests for more clarification on this term by those who use it in reference to non-Orthodox.

Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Catholicious
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2003, 05:51:58 PM »

Quote
First off what heresy?

Papal Infallibility

Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome

Filioque

Purgatory

Legalisms

Created grace

Branch Theory (wich seems to be emerging as Latin thought now)

Any or all of the above?


Nektarios,

I understand that the Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory, is it just the name or entire concept?  Don't you
believe that there is the need for a cleansing or santification of the soul before entering heaven [... nothing
unclean shall enter heaven & and if your works burn up you will be saved but as through fire]?  Thanks.

Peace and God Bless!
Catholicious   :'
Logged

Matthew 5:11 (KJV)
5  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

John Henry Cardinal Newman
"To go deep into history, is to cease to be Protestant
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2003, 06:21:51 PM »

There are two main takes on that Pauline passage. The first one says that the passage deals with trials and tribulations in this life. This would match up well with other biblical passages, such as James 1:2-4 and Wisdom 3:1-8. This is the position I would take. Another take on this passage was given by Saint John Chrysostom, and later used by Saint Mark of Ephesus at the false reunion council of Florence. This take on the passage says that by "saved" the passage means that while the "works" would be obliterated, the people would be "saved" from being totally wiped out of existence. In other words, they would be saved for hell. The term saved does not mean the same thing in every passage in which it is used, and a number of saints argued that saved here does not deal with our going to heaven, but only our being saved from non-existence.

As to purgation/purification itself, Orthodox are not bound by any one view on the subject. When one considers the Orthodox position that we (and even Saints) will be growing closer to God for all eternity, the need to be "purified" is put in perspective.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2003, 06:46:31 PM »

Wasn't the addition of the filioque is a more a matter of serious disobedience to an Ecumenical Councils and to the Bishops, than a "heresy"?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2003, 09:33:38 PM »

This is as official a statement on "apostolicity" as Anglicanism is likely to ever give:

Q. Why is the church described as apostolic?
A. The church is Apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

(1979 BCP, p. 854)

It should be noted that the catechism from which this is taken doesn't define who it considers apostles or what exactly constitutes their teaching.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2003, 09:41:25 PM »

[Does anybody know of an authorative (like pan-Orthodox council) source that explicity states the Latins are in heresy...thanks in advance.]  

How about Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus A.D. 431 which deals with the Nicean Creed and any one who tries to make changes to it (like the insertion of the Filioque).


I suppose it might be argued that this passage does not prevent further refinement of statements of the faith (as indeed it must not-- otherwise Chalcedon for instance could be rejected on that very basis). Even though I doubt the merits of the Filioque, it seems to me that the interpretation of the Creed as stating "who proceeds from the Father, not the Son" is questionable.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2003, 09:48:50 PM »

Wasn't the addition of the filioque is a more a matter of serious disobedience to an Ecumenical Councils and to the Bishops, than a "heresy"?

I think that if an ecumenical council had been held on the matter, this would be a valid point. There was no such council (I've previously addressed the matter of whether Nicea could be considered to be that council), so it is a moot point. An exceptionally cranky Anglican might hold that the mutual excommunications in the lack of such a council are technically invalid and that the matter is technically unresolved. (I am not that cranky Anglican, so don't ask me to argue that point.)
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2003, 12:55:49 PM »

I think that when the term apostolic is used of both the RC and Orthodox communions, it is the historic foundation of the churches by the Apostles that is in view, as well as the Apostolic Succession, and not so much the debate about who is or is not following the Apostles' doctrine.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2003, 03:44:30 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Azarus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


Joke of the day??


« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2003, 06:04:50 PM »

From my studies, which are not as extensive as I'd like, the term "Apostolic" means that the leadership of the church can be traced back to the Apostles.

This is why the Catholic Church (ie. those churches in union with Rome) is really a collection of churches (11 or 21, my memory is failing me at this moment).

It further means that the teachings of the church can be traced back to the, and are in union with, the teachings of the apostles, and thus Christ.

Azarus
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2003, 06:27:09 PM »

Nektarios

Quote
Does anybody know of an authorative (like pan-Orthodox council) source that explicity states the Latins are in heresy...thanks in advance.

That depends on what you mean by authoritative. Orthodox Councils have spoken of Rome as holding to heretical beliefs (e.g., Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848; this is a document, btw, which Bishop Kallistos, in his book The Orthodox Church, lists as one of "the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787"). Saints of the Church have certainly said rather strongly that Rome holds to heretical beliefs (e.g., Mark of Ephesus, Justin Popovich). On the other hand, I'm unaware of any Orthodox council or saint who has said that Roman Catholicism does not affirm heresy. I, for my part, do not believe that you can be a knowledgable Orthodox Christian and also believe that the Latins do not hold to heretical beliefs.

There are clearly examples in Orthodox history of recognizing something as heresy even before it is officially condemned as a heresy. This gets to the heart of the matter regarding councils. Are councils for deciding what the Church believes, and telling the faithful? Or are councils held to explain what the Church has always believed, articulating it in perhaps a new way, but nonetheless only restating what the mind of the Church had believed all along? Put bluntly, the Latin Church holds to heretical beliefs, an "authoritative council" wouldn't prove this, it would merely witness to what Orthodox Christians already know.


PS. In case there's still some hesitation, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs from 1848 is about as Pan-Orthodox a pronouncement as I would think any normal Orthodox would need. Check out who signed it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2003, 07:08:50 PM by Paradosis » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.101 seconds with 54 queries.