OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 04:10:31 PM *
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 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which obstacles?  (Read 10558 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #90 on: July 04, 2007, 11:23:23 AM »

Aristibule,

Concerning the various canons you mention from Lateran II and Lateran IV, it seems clear to me that not all of those things are still in force (which is a relief to me, since I have many times attended a liturgy celebrated by a married Melkite priest). Hence your complaints are reasonable, but just a couple centuries late. Cool

as well as restoring paedocommunion (condemned by Trent.) Restore confirmation by chrismation at baptism.

Well, I absolutely agree with you that, if that condemnation is still in place (I'm pretty sure it isn't seeing as the Melkite routinely practice paedocommunion), then it should be overturned. However, I don't see any need for the west to practice paedocommunion or paedoconfirmation, seeing as it isn't their tradition. If anything, Orthodox and ECs should instead be complaining about the fact the Latin Church currently gives communion to children who have not yet been chrismated/confirmed -- contrary to the traditional order, baptism-confirmation-eucharist.

Tenth: anathematization of Calvinist ideas on Original Sin, Justification, Predestination, etc. while returning the Roman church to the norm still expressed by the Eastern churches.

I'm surprised to hear you say that -- I should have thought it was abundantly clear that Catholics don't accept Calvinist doctrine.

Happy Independence Day and God bless,
PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #91 on: July 04, 2007, 11:39:16 AM »

Quote
paedocommunion (condemned by Trent.)


Trent did not condemn paedocommunion.
Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #92 on: July 04, 2007, 01:12:04 PM »

What is paedocommunion?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 04, 2007, 01:14:23 PM »

What is paedocommunion?
Communion of baptised infants and small children.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: July 04, 2007, 02:01:31 PM »

Communion of baptised infants and small children.
So I guess the root paedo is the same as what we find in the term pediatrician (physician to children).
Logged
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #95 on: July 04, 2007, 02:21:09 PM »

Thanks PJ, that's the kind of discussion I was going for. I'm not anti-Roman (no more than I am anti-Eastern or Orientalist ... though I admit to being a former Orientophile, or maybe Reformed Orientophile? Wink .) I do have a broad view towards reunion of the churches, and as to the origins of us Western Orthodox tend to feel very close to both the Old Catholic and Anglo-Catholic traditions (which is why I am protective of the Anglican Use against those who don't understand, though Anglican Use Catholic liturgy isn't quite my 'cup of tea'.)

Can you provide a link or elaborate concerning the "original Greek text of the Athanasian Creed"?

Yes - the Athanasian creed exists in many Greek and Slavonic manuscripts, though it eventually fell out of use - the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed replacing it in liturgical use due to application of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. The original version found in the Greek and Russian Horologion is that found in The "Saint Dunstan's Plainsong Psalter" of Lancelot Andrewes Press (co-developed by Western rite Orthodox and Continuing Anglicans.) In that version of the Quicunque vult the original phrasing is translated into English as "The Holy Ghost is of the Father: neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding." The surviving Latin texts (which are all later) have the filioque inserted before "neither made nor created." Which is why I don't agree with those who consider the Athanasian creed as 'local', it is in fact universal in the Church - and is a Greek creed originally (and it was a source, I believe, for the development of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.) Now - I'll agree that the Apostle's Creed is a local creed (Roman), as is the Patrician creed (Irish) as well as other local creeds.

Quote
As for the other two things, I would say the Catholic Church is considering doing precisely what you are suggesting -- see the recommendations of the NA joint consultation. (BTW, I don't think "the Holy Spirit proceeding from two sources" is a fair description of Catholic theology in any case.)

Yes. However, I'm unsure how the USCCB's statement on the filioque from the joint consultation is being taken worldwide in the Catholic Church. I do agree that "procession from two sources" is not the Catholic theology: though, education being what it is in the modern Roman Catholic Church, there are plenty of clergy and laity who still hold to that idea. (Same way I agree that most Oriental Non-Chalcedonians are absolutely not Monophysites - but I've come across clergy and laity specifically in the Ethiopian church who will insist that they are.) I think the Orthodox do need to understand this difficulty in educating people.

Quote
...then I wouldn't see any need to condemn Patriarch Photius. (Although I wouldn't mind being educated a little more about the specific anathema you're referring to -- what did it say, and when?)

The condemnation is in the RCC's 8th Council which reads in part: "... as well as for the expulsion and condemnation of Photius, the upstart and usurper, should be maintained and observed together with the canons there set forth, unchanged and unaltered, and no bishop, priest or deacon or anyone from the ranks of the clergy should dare to overturn or reject any of these things." (From the Legion of Mary website.)

That I would hope to be officially overturned (as was the excommunication of Constantinople back in the 1960s), and St. Photius added to the universal calendar (to share in common with Eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox.) I don't believe St. Photius is just some 'local Eastern hero', but a universal Saint.

Quote
Concerning the various canons you mention from Lateran II and Lateran IV, it seems clear to me that not all of those things are still in force (which is a relief to me, since I have many times attended a liturgy celebrated by a married Melkite priest). Hence your complaints are reasonable, but just a couple centuries late.

Yes - but I'm looking for canons to be ratified which officially overturn those canons. Smiley Merely allowing it to Byzantine Catholics or Anglican Use convert clergy by Indult isn't enough of a guarantee. (And, for the Melkites - they only have it again because the recent trend has been to encourage them to follow the Pedalion and Byzantine typikon.) The Lateran canons are still in full force as regards the clergy of the West - again, which us Western Orthodox, Old Catholics, and many Anglo-Catholics disagree with (and agree with the East rather.)

Quote
However, I don't see any need for the west to practice paedocommunion or paedoconfirmation, seeing as it isn't their tradition. If anything, Orthodox and ECs should instead be complaining about the fact the Latin Church currently gives communion to children who have not yet been chrismated/confirmed -- contrary to the traditional order, baptism-confirmation-eucharist.

Well, it is our Western tradition - but it was supressed (though part of it was also because at one point in history our response to having few bishops with large territories was different than the East's response to the same issue - the East allows priest's to confirm by anointing with the chrism and laying on of hands as the Bishop's vicar.) The end of paedocommunion in the Roman church was cointerminus with the communing of the laity with only one of the species (the Body of Christ, and not the Blood of Christ.) The disingenous answer to the latter was to condemn them for the supposed 'implication' that they were only getting 'part of Christ' (which wasn't the point.) Communing in one kind was the departure from tradition, and the return to communing in both kinds a return to tradition (which I must applaud.)

As regards paedocommunion - the Twent-First session of the Council of Trent in Canon IV says : "-If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema." That 'years of discretion' item is a bit odd - allowing adults to deny children the sacrament of communion arbitrarily (for their age? for their lack of reason? I know plenty of unreasonable or unintelligent folk - some adults worse than my own children, who still commune of necessity.) That is exactly what I refer to.

I do agree that the abuse of giving communion to children who have not been confirmed/chrismated should be addressed: but I firmly believe the best step is to institute what we Western Orthodox do... chrismation given at the baptism, as it was anciently in the West, and where the bishop is not available the priest to do so as the vicar of the Bishop. (Which I think is another think that Rome needs to discuss further in council, Vatican II partly doing that work - more discussion on what is the ministry of the bishop.) If the local bishop commands it, or allows it of his clergy, and it is not contrary to the Apostolic tradition - I don't see why it should present a problem.

My words about Calvinism - I was probably unclear on that point. There does need to be a more strenuous condemnation on certain heresies of the Protestants, and from my perspective the canons of Trent on those same issues approach Jansenism or Calvinism to a certain degree. (Of course, much of it might not be in the texts of Trent itself, but in how I read it - as there is much in the ethos of American and Irish Catholicism - and English Catholicism, which seems to still reflect Jansenism. Things might be, and are probably different among Hispanic, Italian, French, Spanish or other Catholics.) In that way, I believe that the Orthodox churches preserved the Apostolic tradition concerning such things as Justification, Original Sin, and Predestination. I'm not suggesting the extreme of the 'Orthodox is totally different' crowd that tries to make an exotic quasi-Buddhist counter-cultural religion out of Orthodoxy - I am suggesting that in the Counter-Reformation, the attempt to separate from the Protestants unintentionally tainted Roman theology as expressed in the council (ie, becoming the enemy.) Again - I don't say that as an attack, but as a fellow Westerner who am just as concerned about the damage done by the Reformation - and would undo it as much as possible, while also repenting of the errors of the Medieval church (nominalism, collaboration with the State in oppression, over-definition of the Faith to the point of error, etc.)
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #96 on: July 06, 2007, 10:16:53 AM »

Yes. However, I'm unsure how the USCCB's statement on the filioque from the joint consultation is being taken worldwide in the Catholic Church.

Quite right. In particular, I expect that many Catholics (at least at first) will be opposed to or even offended by the recommendation "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use" and the recommendation "that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those 'who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son' is no longer applicable." (In much the same way that many Orthodox will oppose the recommendation that they not label the Catholic position as heretical.)

I'm even more worried that many Catholics will look at the document and say "Ah, it's not a church-dividing issue anymore. That means the Orthodox are admitting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son", hence harding their attitude even more.

I do agree that "procession from two sources" is not the Catholic theology: though, education being what it is in the modern Roman Catholic Church, there are plenty of clergy and laity who still hold to that idea. (Same way I agree that most Oriental Non-Chalcedonians are absolutely not Monophysites - but I've come across clergy and laity specifically in the Ethiopian church who will insist that they are.) I think the Orthodox do need to understand this difficulty in educating people.

Good point.

The condemnation is in the RCC's 8th Council ...

Well that really makes a big difference. You're citing the 869-870 condemnation of Photios during the reign of Pope Nicholas I; but Photios was reconciled with Pope John VIII in 877. So I think the question is, has there been any condemnation of Photios after 877? (There is, of course, the general condemnation of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"; but we've discussed that.)

That I would hope to be officially overturned (as was the excommunication of Constantinople back in the 1960s),

...

Yes - but I'm looking for canons to be ratified which officially overturn those canons. Smiley Merely allowing it to Byzantine Catholics or Anglican Use convert clergy by Indult isn't enough of a guarantee.

I'll have to agree with you there. It would be best if there were an official statement, especially since the Catholic websites which have the condemnation of Photios and other conciliar texts don't include a footnote about the later reconciliation of Photios with John VIII.

and St. Photius added to the universal calendar (to share in common with Eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox.) I don't believe St. Photius is just some 'local Eastern hero', but a universal Saint.

Well ... put it this way: I, a Catholic, would very much like to see the Orthodox recognize that Thomas Aquinas was a saint; but for now I'd be happy if they would just recognize him as a good man not deserving condemnation.

The end of paedocommunion in the Roman church was cointerminus with the communing of the laity with only one of the species (the Body of Christ, and not the Blood of Christ.)

Really? I was under the impression that the former was much earlier than the latter?

As regards paedocommunion - the Twent-First session of the Council of Trent in Canon IV says : "-If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema." That 'years of discretion' item is a bit odd - allowing adults to deny children the sacrament of communion arbitrarily (for their age? for their lack of reason? I know plenty of unreasonable or unintelligent folk - some adults worse than my own children, who still commune of necessity.) That is exactly what I refer to.

The passage you quoted doesn't condemn paedocommunion, but only those who saith that paedocommunion is necessary.

God bless,
Peter (J)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #97 on: July 07, 2007, 01:16:00 PM »

Regarding Aquinas - the local priests here do say that he was not a 'Thomist', nor is he responsible for much he is accused of. Aquinas himself, as I like to point out, was a Christian Neo-Platonist and followed the Fathers more than Aristotle - he is less a 'Thomist', ironically, than is Albertus Magnus, Robert Bellarmine, or Karl Rahner. Either way, he was canonised by Rome for his saintly life, and not for his writings (the same can be said of many others.)

Regarding St. Photius - if you say so, however all the literature I've read in English (Catholic or Protestant) written in the past 200 years still tend to be condemnatory towards St. Photius - which I truly believe to be unfair.

I don't have all my materials on paedocommunion here, but I do recall that it continued in some areas until quite late - as did communion under both species. The memory of both is what led to some demands by 'proto-Reformers' such as the Bohemians. Trent discussed both in the same session accordingly. However, I do believe Trent is in error - it is a necessity for a Christian to commune, and children should be communed. The error, I think, is with the 'age of accountability' reasoning. We're taught as Orthodox (Eastern or Western) the necessity of communing, and children are communed accordingly. It is only confession that waits until they are old enough - similar to the Roman canonical age of 7. So, again - I believe that paedocommunion should be restored for the spiritual health of Christian children - the chalice should only be kept back from those excommunicant (and being young should not be cause enough to ecommunicate).
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #98 on: July 07, 2007, 03:22:45 PM »

Regarding St. Photius - if you say so, however all the literature I've read in English (Catholic or Protestant) written in the past 200 years still tend to be condemnatory towards St. Photius

You're telling me! Like have you ever read Adrian Fortescue's article on the subject? Here are the first several sentences:

Quote
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate . He further relates that a holy bishop , Michael of Synnada , before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what God has ordained . Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon . When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther , "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously.

But the real kicker is that this article, including what I just quoted, was published as part of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia!

(Not to change the subject, but I strongly suspect that if I had lived 100 years ago, I would have left the RCC and become Orthodox. Then again, you never really know -- perhaps I would have been so brainwashed that I would have considered every word of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia to be written by God's own hand.)

- which I truly believe to be unfair.

With that statement I find myself in complete agreement, Aristibule.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #99 on: July 07, 2007, 04:28:21 PM »

Quote
But the real kicker is that this article, including what I just quoted, was published as part of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia!

Well, to be fair - the Catholic Encyclopedia was put together by mostly recent converts from Anglicanism, and for the most part those who were most strident against the Anglicans they left behind (including the Philorthodox.) I wonder if the Encyclopedia would have read different on some articles if it had been put together by English old Catholics (which, given, by that time had had almost everything they had taken away - I think only the Old Chapter survived by that time, as today.) Much of the attitude in the articles, I believe, was traceable to the great tension between the recent converts (who became much enamored of the Irish immigrant Catholicism) and the English old Catholics, who found the new converts both excessive and disrespectful of their traditions. Or - maybe if such a project had first been attempted in Maryland or Kentucky. But - we can't really go back.

Also - there are many who depend on the Catholic Encyclopedia (even recent converts) without understanding that much in it has been superceded by more solid information during the past century. Some things they wrote off, Catholic scholars have rather reaffirmed since.

My favorite articles, of course, are those touching on Celtic subjects (I get a real giggle out of them sometimes.) Though the articles on Quietism are just sad (wherein they condemn Hesychasm as Quietist heresy and 'the only spiritual movement the Orthodox ever produced' or something along that line.)

That's not to say I don't like the Catholic Encyclopedia - there is much of worth in it, if one can read past the late 19th c. English convert Ultramontanist bias. Grin
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #100 on: July 09, 2007, 09:00:39 AM »

The end of paedocommunion in the Roman church was cointerminus with the communing of the laity with only one of the species (the Body of Christ, and not the Blood of Christ.)

Really? I was under the impression that the former was much earlier than the latter?

Sorry, I guess I misspoke a little. What I should have said is that the practice of having confirmation on separate occasion than baptism goes back to the early centuries in the west. From that, I seem to have jumped to the conclusion that there wasn't paedocommunion.

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the ancient western practice was to confirm and commune children at an early age, but just not quite so early as their baptism. (Since, of course, in the west it was usually the bishop who performed the confirmations.)

When did paedocommunion end in the west? The (old) Catholic Encyclopedia saith:

Quote
In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris , renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day.

Hugh of St. Victor and Martène are, respectively, 11th- and 17th- century figures.

-Peter.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 09:11:25 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #101 on: July 09, 2007, 10:15:15 AM »

Yes - and I think communion in one kind has the same sort of 'gradual' history (as one can also find with mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, use of azymes, loss of epiclesis) - and other uses that all used to hold in common. In fact, I believe that the triumph of one tradition over others was part of the environment that lead to the various Reformations (along with widespread corruption in the Roman church, and a resurgence of pagan thought - which lead to the theological errors of the Protestants.) The point being, that besides the theological errors, the Reformers had some very legitimate complaints as to the behavior of clergy and involvement in the State, as well as liturgical practices (ie, married clergy, communion in both kinds, etc.) And of course - it only being fair to discuss the various Protestants if one means by the 'East' both Eastern Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, Nestorians, Old Believers and other groups.

The issue of confirmation, though, is different. I think what changed there was the Barbarian invasions. It was a simple thing to confirm (chrismate) when one had a bishop within a day's travel. (I can't remember off the top of my head, but originally in Britain dioceses were no more than about 3,000 square miles - an area that from the center one may reach the fringe in a day's travel.) When bishops became rarer, covering much larger territories - then confirmation became delayed. A child could be baptized, but the bishop was not there to confirm (which again, is the chrismation.) Later, abuses developed with 'absentee clergy' - so, it became a custom to schedule at a later date. Deprivation trauma becomes liturgical culture - like folks of an older generation who 'like' to eat cowpeas, black toast, or collect cardboard boxes (the impact of the Great Depression, or Reconstruction, or some other period of extreme hardship.) In comparison, I think the maintenance of a late confirmation is similar to those who really, really prefer the 'Irish Low Mass' - they only did it that way so as to lessen the chances of getting caught, it had nothing to do with being the 'right way' or 'ideal way' to worship, far less to do with being 'Irish' - it had everything to do with a necessity of the times (not dying for celebrating Mass with a Romish priest.) Things change, but still some folk want to live like Cromwell is hunting them... or like their bishop is off on permanent vacation in Avignon. Wink

However, as universal Christian witness goes, I believe it would be wise for the West to allow its priests to act as the vicars of their Bishop. They do in other things, why not confirmation?
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #102 on: July 10, 2007, 12:41:44 AM »

They do in many cases. I was confirmed by the bishop (having been confirmed in a diocese of only 160,000 Catholics), but many friends of mine were confirmed by a priest acting in the bishop's stead. It's quite common today, along with Confirmation and First Communion being administered at the same time.
Logged
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.087 seconds with 40 queries.