OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 04:08:54 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy, Tradition and Critiques of Heterodoxy  (Read 2486 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« on: January 18, 2010, 08:52:12 AM »

I was thinking about something to day that kind of troubled me.

I've often heard both Catholicism and Protestantism criticized by Orthodox Christians on the basis of how they've played fast and loose with Christian tradition and changed.  Yet, it seems that in many ways Orthodox Christianity has changed as well.

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

There was a lot of legitimate diversity that was smoothed out.

Liturgical vestments have changed and development.

Fasting schedules and rules have changed and development.

Church discipline has changed.

The liturgical calendar development and changed.

Songs and prayers have been added to the liturgy.

Catechumens are no longer dismissed during the liturgy.

Confession takes place in front of a priest and not the whole congregation.

Iconographic styles have changed and developed.

When comparing Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it's beyond clear that Orthodoxy is more traditional.  This is less obvious but still the case with Catholicism.  But is a more sophisticated critique necessary than just, "Protestantism has changed too much over the years"?  What qualifies change that's ok and change that isn't? 
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,882


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2010, 09:47:45 AM »

I am going to guess that the apostolic faith that existed that was implicitly kept as stated in the Nicene Creed before the creed was compiled, expressed & implicit as the creed evolved, and preserved in its totality within the full creed. This of course is the necessary theology to be observed according to the Lord's 2 great commands, the 10 commandments, the Beatitudes, the sacraments, prayer, alms giving, & fasting (the Gospel). To change & alter these faith basics has resulted in schism(s). My 2 cents.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 09:48:59 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ironsiderodger
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Interesting question...
Jurisdiction: n/a
Posts: 109


St Eudocia- still in progress.


« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2010, 10:06:37 AM »

I've wondered about that too, but I think what I've seen in Orthodoxy is not so much that it represents a static fixed precise copy that hasn't changed since Pentacost; but more that the Church established by Christ has grown where it needed to grow- not because of definciency. When a farmer plants his field with seed, the seed is what it is- and yet looks different in some ways at its harvest. Still that seed, while growing, is still what it is, having grown up within the confines of that which the farmer marked out. I think that while Apostalic Tradition and the Scriptures marked out the boundaries of the Church, that wasn't to say that she needed to remain in static form, so long as she stayed within those perameters- interestingly enough, seed that lands oustide of those areas doesn't seem to tend as well, could that also apply here?

In any case, I submit the changes are both growth and weeding, in a sense. These things you bring up don't put the Church outside of Apostolic Tradition, but allow for the growth that I think Christ, and the Apostles wanted to allow for. Why do protestant/other traditions get pegged as outside? Well, in a highly generalized view, many don't seem to agree with that Tradition. Celebrating or not celebrating a holiday, changing clothes, adding songs- none of these things seems to contradict and Apostalic Tradition and may be viewed as a logical conclusion; but what of the Zwingli tradition of the Eucharist being merely symbolic? What of the Sacrament of Baptism being viewed as merely symbolic and almost trivial obedience? They seem starkly opposed to Holy Tradition. These are just examples, and it may not always be so cut and dry, but just my thoughts on the matter.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,493


A metal babble! Kill it quick!


« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2010, 10:18:10 AM »

Some utilize the idea of "Big T vs. little t traditions" to help explain things. Using this view, big T Tradition doesn't change, while little t tradition can change (though usually slowly, and guided by God). The concept was briefly discussed here. Honestly, I'm still not sure what to think. What is essential? If we use distinctions like T/t, how do we know where the line is drawn? Do we know, or are we just winging it in some cases? Take divorce, for example. That would seem to be a pretty significant issue, yet the Church has softened her view slightly on that over the years. Is that really little t?
Logged

That is not the teaching of Fr. Seraphim Rose.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,882


« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2010, 10:34:23 AM »

Sometimes observance of faith was affected by social circumstances. For ex., frequent Holy Communion varied from almost weekly to perhaps only annual observance for the laity at various times & places. Exhortations from St. John of Kronstadt helped restore frequent communion for the laity. So while confession, fasting, & repentace may have been required before the Eucharist, since it was reduced in its frequency (at times) such conditions were not as demanding as they may seem. OTH, with the restoration of frequent communion (in most areas I presume), the requirements the precede it are not uniformly observed but remain as faith basics.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,390



« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2010, 10:43:57 AM »

I was thinking about something to day that kind of troubled me.

I've often heard both Catholicism and Protestantism criticized by Orthodox Christians on the basis of how they've played fast and loose with Christian tradition and changed.  Yet, it seems that in many ways Orthodox Christianity has changed as well.

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

What gives you that impression?


Quote
There was a lot of legitimate diversity that was smoothed out.

Liturgical vestments have changed and development.

Fasting schedules and rules have changed and development.

Church discipline has changed.

The liturgical calendar development and changed.

Songs and prayers have been added to the liturgy.

Catechumens are no longer dismissed during the liturgy.

Confession takes place in front of a priest and not the whole congregation.

Iconographic styles have changed and developed.

When comparing Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it's beyond clear that Orthodoxy is more traditional.  This is less obvious but still the case with Catholicism.  But is a more sophisticated critique necessary than just, "Protestantism has changed too much over the years"?  What qualifies change that's ok and change that isn't? 
The Church changes to remain the same. Do you look like your baby picture?  Do you act like you did then?  Neither does the Church, yet both you and the Church are the same person and institution.  The Orthodox Church is not the 1st century Church in the 1st century (though she was). She is the 1st century Church in the 21st century.

The level we are talking about not changing is dogma.  In the case of the Vatican, the dogma of the papacy (supremacy, infallibility) is demonstrably a change: the first millenium Church didn't operate that way.  So too the Protestants: the 5 solas of Protestantism didn't exist until 5 centuries ago.  Sola scriptura in not in the scriptura.

There are innovations like for instance unleavened bread in the Eucharist which,yes are an innovation, but no, are not as important as are often made out to be.
Just to take two of your points: individual confession developed because the experience of finding out that in an average congregation not everyone is at the same level of forgiveness towards the sinner. As for icons, the Protestants used to say that they came in during Constantine's time, until archaelogists started unearthing them in the catacombs and the Middle East (e.g. Dura Europas), painted at a time long before Constantine.
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
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2010, 06:04:20 PM »

The Church changes to remain the same. Do you look like your baby picture?  Do you act like you did then?  Neither does the Church, yet both you and the Church are the same person and institution.  The Orthodox Church is not the 1st century Church in the 1st century (though she was). She is the 1st century Church in the 21st century.

The level we are talking about not changing is dogma.  In the case of the Vatican, the dogma of the papacy (supremacy, infallibility) is demonstrably a change: the first millenium Church didn't operate that way.  So too the Protestants: the 5 solas of Protestantism didn't exist until 5 centuries ago.  Sola scriptura in not in the scriptura.

There are innovations like for instance unleavened bread in the Eucharist which,yes are an innovation, but no, are not as important as are often made out to be.
Just to take two of your points: individual confession developed because the experience of finding out that in an average congregation not everyone is at the same level of forgiveness towards the sinner. As for icons, the Protestants used to say that they came in during Constantine's time, until archaelogists started unearthing them in the catacombs and the Middle East (e.g. Dura Europas), painted at a time long before Constantine.

Good response.  Certain disciplines and small 't' traditions have changed with time.  So have applications and formulations of the one big 'T' Tradition (ie the specific technical language of Nicea-Constantinople and Chalcedon), but these have been consistent/continuous with the 'T' that came before it as discerned by Vincent's criteria of "universality, antiquity, and consent".

However, a core has remained from the beginning:
GOD--one God who is somehow THREE (to the exclusion of modalisitic and tritheistic errors)
CHRIST--fully God and fully Man (to the exclusion of docetism and adoptionism)
MAN--fallen and in need of salvation
ATONEMENT--Christ as the perfect sacrifice for sins, fulfilling the Law, and defeating devil/death on the Cross
RESURRECTION--Christ physically rose from the dead (and ASCENDED into Heaven)
SALVATION--save by grace (start-to-finish), but we must cooperate with it (start-to-finish)...ie synergism
BAPTISM/COMMUNION--sacramentally efficacious; not just mere pictures of realities disconnected in time
CHURCH--Christ's Body, the ground pillar of faith, built on foundation of apostles/prophets, and visibly recognized by the three fold male order (bishop/priest/deacons) with clergy/laity holding to the faith once delievered
FINAL THINGS--Christ will literally come back and judge the world and there will be a general resurrection. (etc)
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2010, 06:34:24 PM »

What is essential? If we use distinctions like T/t, how do we know where the line is drawn? Do we know, or are we just winging it in some cases?

This is a question I often raise too. Certainly, there is a distinction between the unchangeable faith of the Church, and other forms of tradition where development and variety is acceptable. But I feel people often don't realise the fact that the "little t" traditions are there to express and to preserve the "big T" Traditions, and dismiss legitimate concerns about questionable innovations as fundamentalism and "clinging to little t traditions." These changes and variations should be "guided by God" as you said, but it seems any innovation is okay as long as it concerns "little t" traditions.
Logged
mountainman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox
Jurisdiction: oca
Posts: 65


« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2010, 06:58:55 PM »

I think it was fr. alexandar schmemann who said "the church must change to stay the same."  What is of importance is that the ethos or spirit of the Tradition remain, while certain aspects of church life should change, adapt, and develop to meet the time.   In the early church we see the apostolic faith in simplicity, as a child sees the world, but later, through the prompting of heresy, aspects of the faith were defined in greater detail (Christology, etc.) in order to preserve it.   Nothing of importance has in fact changed in the Holy Tradition, but the experience of the saints has "fleshed out" the Faith down through the centuries.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 06:59:39 PM by mountainman » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2010, 07:17:10 PM »

I was thinking about something to day that kind of troubled me.

I've often heard both Catholicism and Protestantism criticized by Orthodox Christians on the basis of how they've played fast and loose with Christian tradition and changed.  Yet, it seems that in many ways Orthodox Christianity has changed as well.

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

There was a lot of legitimate diversity that was smoothed out.

Liturgical vestments have changed and development.

Fasting schedules and rules have changed and development.

Church discipline has changed.

The liturgical calendar development and changed.

Songs and prayers have been added to the liturgy.

Catechumens are no longer dismissed during the liturgy.

Confession takes place in front of a priest and not the whole congregation.

Iconographic styles have changed and developed.

When comparing Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it's beyond clear that Orthodoxy is more traditional.  This is less obvious but still the case with Catholicism.  But is a more sophisticated critique necessary than just, "Protestantism has changed too much over the years"?  What qualifies change that's ok and change that isn't? 

I would say the difference is probably that none of those properties are fundamental to right belief/worship.
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
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2010, 06:54:47 AM »

I don't mean this in any accusatory way, but I really am wondering... if it can and must be admitted that Orthodox worship and practice has changed over the years, can Orthodoxy legitimately criticize other faith traditions on the grounds of their liturgies?  How can Protestant groups and the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms be criticized without being hypocritical? 

Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2010, 06:56:55 AM »

I was thinking about something to day that kind of troubled me.

I've often heard both Catholicism and Protestantism criticized by Orthodox Christians on the basis of how they've played fast and loose with Christian tradition and changed.  Yet, it seems that in many ways Orthodox Christianity has changed as well.

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

What gives you that impression?

I read this in Henry Chadwick's The Early Church.  I'll have to go back and look it up.  One thing I don't like about that book is he doesn't site any sources unlike both Kelly's and Pelikan's similar works.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,882


« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2010, 07:48:03 AM »

I don't mean this in any accusatory way, but I really am wondering... if it can and must be admitted that Orthodox worship and practice has changed over the years, can Orthodoxy legitimately criticize other faith traditions on the grounds of their liturgies?  How can Protestant groups and the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms be criticized without being hypocritical? 


I would think if these reflect change in theology then a problem comes in. There can be a solid liturgy but the filioque is said & it becomes distorted. When the Eucharist is reduced to a symbolic gesture, there is a problem. Whereas in Orthodoxy the Old Testament was read regularly alongside the episltes & Gospels until the 8th c (noted by Fr Lawrence Farley in his 2007 book: Let Us Attend). I consider the loss of the OT reading regrettable but theology does not suffer.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2010, 07:54:12 AM »

I don't mean this in any accusatory way, but I really am wondering... if it can and must be admitted that Orthodox worship and practice has changed over the years, can Orthodoxy legitimately criticize other faith traditions on the grounds of their liturgies?  How can Protestant groups and the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms be criticized without being hypocritical? 


I would think if these reflect change in theology then a problem comes in. There can be a solid liturgy but the filioque is said & it becomes distorted. When the Eucharist is reduced to a symbolic gesture, there is a problem. Whereas in Orthodoxy the Old Testament was read regularly alongside the episltes & Gospels until the 8th c (noted by Fr Lawrence Farley in his 2007 book: Let Us Attend). I consider the loss of the OT reading regrettable but theology does not suffer.

I agree with those examples completely.  I suppose what I have in mind is things like the priest facing the audience, the use of instruments and lack of liturgical vestments among most "low church" protestants.  At least the first two are sometimes sited as liturgical aberrations, are they really that bad?
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,882


« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2010, 08:15:01 AM »

I don't mean this in any accusatory way, but I really am wondering... if it can and must be admitted that Orthodox worship and practice has changed over the years, can Orthodoxy legitimately criticize other faith traditions on the grounds of their liturgies?  How can Protestant groups and the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms be criticized without being hypocritical? 


I would think if these reflect change in theology then a problem comes in. There can be a solid liturgy but the filioque is said & it becomes distorted. When the Eucharist is reduced to a symbolic gesture, there is a problem. Whereas in Orthodoxy the Old Testament was read regularly alongside the episltes & Gospels until the 8th c (noted by Fr Lawrence Farley in his 2007 book: Let Us Attend). I consider the loss of the OT reading regrettable but theology does not suffer.

I agree with those examples completely.  I suppose what I have in mind is things like the priest facing the audience, the use of instruments and lack of liturgical vestments among most "low church" protestants.  At least the first two are sometimes sited as liturgical aberrations, are they really that bad?
The priest is supposed to be the front person of the congregation as we worship God. As far as instruments & vestments, I do not think any criticism of these things should reflect condemnation but within our Orthodox communion we have to beleive the Holy Spirit is also guiding us as we worship according going back to what God has revealed to us & in a proper pattern according to holy tradition. Hope this makes sense.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,882


« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2010, 08:27:21 AM »

I would also like to add that it is probably worthy to ponder the circumstance in which Aaron's sons offered strange fire to God (Leviticus 10) to know the fear of God & maintain proper worship in the liturgy. Again I am not rendering a negative view towards other Christian groups per se (one has to discern case by case) but our own house of worship must be in order. I admit I have read certain criticisms of other Christian churches worship that seem over the top but others from our clergy that remind us to be vigilant & hold to the Lord's command to worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,390



« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2010, 09:18:50 AM »

I don't mean this in any accusatory way, but I really am wondering... if it can and must be admitted that Orthodox worship and practice has changed over the years, can Orthodoxy legitimately criticize other faith traditions on the grounds of their liturgies?  How can Protestant groups and the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms be criticized without being hypocritical? 



Depends on the change, its introduction and agenda.
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
Elpidophoros
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: OX
Posts: 292



« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2010, 11:18:31 AM »

Quote
Confession takes place in front of a priest and not the whole congregation.
What made you think that priest hear confession during other service(vigils,even during DL)"in front of the whole congregation" is a kind of tradition? No,it's a kind of oikonomia.In fact priest could not do this without a urgent need.If they do(hear confession in the same space when other divine service be conducted,without need),it's nothing than a bad habit。
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2010, 01:09:37 PM »

I was thinking about something to day that kind of troubled me.

I've often heard both Catholicism and Protestantism criticized by Orthodox Christians on the basis of how they've played fast and loose with Christian tradition and changed.  Yet, it seems that in many ways Orthodox Christianity has changed as well.

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

There was a lot of legitimate diversity that was smoothed out.

Liturgical vestments have changed and development.

Fasting schedules and rules have changed and development.

Church discipline has changed.

The liturgical calendar development and changed.

Songs and prayers have been added to the liturgy.

Catechumens are no longer dismissed during the liturgy.

Confession takes place in front of a priest and not the whole congregation.

Iconographic styles have changed and developed.

When comparing Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it's beyond clear that Orthodoxy is more traditional.  This is less obvious but still the case with Catholicism.  But is a more sophisticated critique necessary than just, "Protestantism has changed too much over the years"?  What qualifies change that's ok and change that isn't?  

You have to make a distinction between change that is a logical conclusion to what the faith always taught vs change that overturns that which is essential to the faith or a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught free will, then a change to determinism is one that overturns a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught that the second advent of Christ was future, then saying that the 2nd advent was 70A.D. overturns a dogma of the faith.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 01:12:16 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2010, 03:02:31 PM »

You have to make a distinction between change that is a logical conclusion to what the faith always taught vs change that overturns that which is essential to the faith or a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught free will, then a change to determinism is one that overturns a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught that the second advent of Christ was future, then saying that the 2nd advent was 70A.D. overturns a dogma of the faith.


Good points.  To that we can add:

If the Church always taught that baptism and holy communion are sacramentally efficacious, then to change them to mere visual aids and ordinances overturns a basic deposit of the faith and universal belief of the ancient Church.

If the Church always taught that the one Lord Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, to deny either would be to overthrow a dogma of faith.

Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2010, 12:38:44 PM »

You have to make a distinction between change that is a logical conclusion to what the faith always taught vs change that overturns that which is essential to the faith or a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught free will, then a change to determinism is one that overturns a basic deposit of the faith.

If the Church always taught that the second advent of Christ was future, then saying that the 2nd advent was 70A.D. overturns a dogma of the faith.


Good points.  To that we can add:

If the Church always taught that baptism and holy communion are sacramentally efficacious, then to change them to mere visual aids and ordinances overturns a basic deposit of the faith and universal belief of the ancient Church.

If the Church always taught that the one Lord Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, to deny either would be to overthrow a dogma of faith


Correct!


Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2010, 08:36:26 PM »

Pascha doesn't seem to have been celebrated annually in Rome at first.

Nor was it really originally celebrated under the same date calculation anywhere, from what I can tell.
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
Tags: Tradition 
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 0.097 seconds with 48 queries.