OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 09:36:28 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: Did you know...  (Read 5451 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« on: December 22, 2003, 01:24:15 AM »

... that Metropolitan Anastassy, the second man to be the first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, once preached in St Paul's Cathedral in London? So I've been told.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2003, 02:36:23 AM »

... that Metropolitan Anastassy, the second man to be the first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, once preached in St Paul's Cathedral in London? So I've been told.

Interesting. Did he speak during the Anglican liturgy or was it some other kind of meeting?
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
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2003, 04:07:56 PM »

I may be wrong about this but in reading the parish history of one of the western rite Antiochian parishes in Denver they mentioned that St. Tikhon while vistiting the Denver area preached at the parished. This of coursed occured while the parish was still Anglican and before they converted to Orthodoxy.
Logged

Joseph
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2003, 04:44:13 AM »

I've always been rather bemused by the methods of evangelism used by some so-called traditionalists, since I belong myself to a very traditional Patriarchate which is very dynamic and imaginative. I don't see how evangelism is possible if we are constantly supposed to feel tainted by the mere presence of other folk who are heterodox in their belief but not, as far as I can see, wilfully heretical.

I'd not want my bishop preaching with Gene Robinsom of the Anglicans, unless it was clearly preaching against his opinions, but if a group of devout folk as an Orthodox to come talk to them about Orthodoxy or some aspect of Orthodox truth then it seems downright sinful not to take the opportunity.

I remember one off the wall so-called traditionalist Orthodox, because he wasn't really a traditionalist, who told me that he wouldn't discuss Orthodoxy with me until I confessed the 7 councils. I asked him what the councils taught and he just kept repeating that he wouldn't discuss anything with me till I accepted the 7 councils. Well he certainly lost the opportunity to win a friend and make a convert.

There's nothing wrong with tradition. I am a Traditionalist. But I get frustrated by people sniping from the side-lines about narrow interpretations of ortho-praxis and how our bishops and patriarchs are all heretics for doing this, that and the other, while heterodox and unbelievers just look at us aghast or don't even know we exist.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2003, 03:09:54 PM »

Oh, I wasn't sniping, Pete. I have no problem with an Orthodox hierarch preaching to Anglicans and in an Anglican cathedral. I just thought it curious - with all the stuff I've read by ROCA/ROCOR folks or pseudo-ROCA/ROCOR folks - that a ROCA hierarch would do that.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2003, 07:19:02 PM »

I think that there are many ROCOR folk, properly traditionalistic, who find the US convert population who hang around ROCOR to sometimes be an embarassment and sometimes to be downright disturbing. I'd always want to find out what long-term ROCOR folk thought about something rather than a zeal without wisdom convert from the US.

I didn't think YOU were sniping. Many questions are fairly asked, I just get disturbed hearing EO patriarchs condemned as heretics quite often on the net.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2003, 01:30:56 AM »

I think that there are many ROCOR folk, properly traditionalistic, who find the US convert population who hang around ROCOR to sometimes be an embarassment and sometimes to be downright disturbing. I'd always want to find out what long-term ROCOR folk thought about something rather than a zeal without wisdom convert from the US.

I didn't think YOU were sniping. Many questions are fairly asked, I just get disturbed hearing EO patriarchs condemned as heretics quite often on the net.

PT

Okay. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't mistaken me for one of those rabid, US convert types!  Wink

I'm a US convert type, but I've had my shots!  Cool
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2003, 08:49:38 AM »

I think that the canons against praying with heretics apply to those who try to be part of several communities at once as though there were no distinction. My own communion has such teaching also. Those who came over from the errors of our friends in the EO during the Christological controversies were to be received by confession, and clergy were to have a years period of penance after which they were to be received in their orders, as long as they didn't try to commune in both camps.

Nowadays, it seems to me, subject to my bishops guidance of course, that what is necessary when we are present with other Christians is that we are confident in our own faith and in our own Church. We witness as appropriate to our own faith and to the special claims of the Church, and we do not appear to be supporting the idea that all teachings and all communities are equal.

If we cannot even appreciate the devotion and faith which others do have then it seems we are missing something obviously Christian and deserve the castigation sometimes directed towards us. Appreciation doesn't mean that we need give up on Orthodoxy.

That is why my own communion participates in dialogue with Roman Catholics, Reformed Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, even Nestorians. There is nothing to fear from such participation if it is done honestly and from a stable foundation in the Orthodox faith. It need not, and will not if done properly, lead others to believe that they are the same as Orthodox, rather the differences will be made plain, but in a spirit of love and recognition of what is already held in common.

St Paul said even to heathens 'I see you are very devout', he didn't start his evangelism by saying 'You lot are all going to rot in hell'. He found that one thing he could appreciate and built on it.

The idea that Orthodox people should make it plain to their family at a meal table that they are NOT joining in giving thanks for the food strikes me as a devilish perversion of canons. How can we win our families if we show that we despise the faith they have.

My own bishop has just arranged a collection to help an Antiochean family, converts from Islam, get to Canada. They are not in our communion. A Syrian bishop in the Middle East has been helping and says that it doesn't matter they are Roum Orthodox. They just need help. They are in Egypt at the moment being helped by the Coptic Orthodox. It's working with each other at this level, while also dealing with the theological matters honestly, that will bring about reconciliation at the right time. Not a diktat some time in the future.

That's why there are already lots of instances of inter-communion taking place as appropriate, and shared ministries, and talking and friendships and prayer. Because if these things don't happen then reconciliation is impossible. It would be like a couple being reconciled without ever having a heart to heart conversation and just by means of some legal document signed by a judge. It doesn't work that way.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2003, 05:27:29 PM »

I'd lost track of this thread but thanks for the replies!

Happy Christmas from A conservative blog for peace!

I don't know if Metropolitan Anastassy preached at a service at St Paul's or at another event.

But it's true that Bishop Tikhon, now a canonized saint of the Church of Russia (and on whose ukase [-â-¦-¦-+-è] as patriarch of Moscow hangs ROCOR's claimed right to exist!), preached at St Mark's Episcopal Church in Denver about 90 years before anybody there considered taking that church over to the Orthodox.

He also sat prominently in the sanctuary of the Episcopal cathedral in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin (I think for its consecration ceremony) - there exists a photo.

These weren't Gene Robinson types at all but rather the saintly Bishop Charles Grafton and other Anglo-Catholics.

Historically it seems the Church of Russia has acted in a balanced and reasonable way regarding these things.

And that in its roots, seeing itself as part of the Church of Russia, the Church Abroad reflects that, which is why Metropolitan Anastassy did what he did, no problem, and why his predecessor, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), its founding first hierarch, believed that if Anglicanism as a whole unprotestantized itself and then sought to join the Eastern Orthodox communion, its clergy could be accepted economically, that is, without reordination.

I've also heard, unconfirmed, that a ROCOR bishop, perhaps even the first hierarch at that time, was in the sanctuary of the cathedral either for the episcopal consecration or archiepiscopal installation of the last great archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey.

Quite different to what one reads online from people claiming to be zealots for ROCOR!

Quote
I think that there are many ROCOR folk, properly traditionalistic, who find the US convert population who hang around ROCOR to sometimes be an embarassment and sometimes to be downright disturbing. I'd always want to find out what long-term ROCOR folk thought about something rather than a zeal without wisdom convert from the US.

If we cannot even appreciate the devotion and faith which others do have then it seems we are missing something obviously Christian and deserve the castigation sometimes directed towards us.

Amen!

I too welcome the point of view of such people, longtime members of that part of Holy Church, such as this board's resident Russian-American girl from a priestly family, ania.

I can't speak for them but guess their view is that same moderation that characterizes the Russian Church historically in this matter (in spite of historic Russian xenophobia, which seems to be in the ascendancy in the Church of Russia today).

Quote
My own bishop has just arranged a collection to help an Antiochean family, converts from Islam, get to Canada. They are not in our communion. A Syrian bishop in the Middle East has been helping and says that it doesn't matter they are Roum Orthodox. They just need help. They are in Egypt at the moment being helped by the Coptic Orthodox. It's working with each other at this level, while also dealing with the theological matters honestly, that will bring about reconciliation at the right time. Not a diktat some time in the future.

That's why there are already lots of instances of inter-communion taking place as appropriate, and shared ministries, and talking and friendships and prayer. Because if these things don't happen then reconciliation is impossible. It would be like a couple being reconciled without ever having a heart to heart conversation and just by means of some legal document signed by a judge. It doesn't work that way.

Of course that's wonderful about helping the Arab Orthodox family move to Canada.

And coming from your church (the Coptic Church) re: the Antiochians it's not surprising as, it seems from my POV even though you disagree (duly noted), functionally your churches are in communion.

Quote
Those online screaming about why they should not be subject to anyone else's  "ecumenist" ruling have traditionally, if you look...been schismatic groups under a heretical bishop who is using this as a breakaway point to evade the discipline of the Church he is currently IN...I will choose as my example, HOCNA.  So...form yer own Synod: justify by saying everyone else is "ecumenist"...point to Canon AND INTERPRET IT FOR YOUR OWN FLOCK IN EXTREME WAY THAT HAS NO HISTORICAL SENSE, or very little.

Spot on, but I don't know what you mean about HOCNA being heretical... are they Donatists? IMO those sects who deny grace in 'world Orthodoxy' (known to the sane simply as the Eastern Orthodox Church[es] or communion) are.

IMO, which mirrors Catholicism's teaching about orders, most of these bishops (the true-believer Greeks, ROAC) are bishops but are 'illicit'/'irregular', because they are not acting as bishops under the authority of their lawful churches (in these cases, the Churches of Greece and Russia including, by historical necessity, ROCOR).

Eastern Orthodoxy, IIRC, is even more severe in its judgement of such bishops - outside the communion of the church, which of course they define as themselves, functionally these bishops aren't bishops!

I would tend to agree regarding the Kiev Patriarchate. The bishops I described above weren't Orthodox bishops to begin with so AFAIK they never were deposed (laicized - but what if as priests they were laicized?), ergo sacramentally their acts (liturgizing, ordaining) could be seen as valid but illicit. Michael Denisenko, the former Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev who claims to be the Ukraine's patriarch, was laicized by his lawful church, the Church of Russia, so there is doubt, I think, if even western Catholicism, with its latitude about 'validity' of orders, can recognize any of his episcopal acts after being deposed by the Russian Church. (It would say that sacramentally he is still a bishop but that his acts are null and void, just as if he weren't a bishop!) But if the patriarch of Constantinople is in communion with KP churches, as I think Dustin has written here, then perhaps the KP are Orthodox by way of the back door as it were. (Rather like ROCOR thanks to the Church of Serbia.)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2003, 05:34:03 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2003, 05:45:56 PM »

And coming from your church (the Coptic Church) re: the Antiochians it's not surprising as, it seems from my POV even though you disagree (duly noted), functionally your churches are in communion.

Hiya Serge

I don't necessarily disagree, although I'd state that its not at an official level and it hasn't started with the BOC receiving Fr David.

I know of so many instances of inter-communion both ways, and the pastoral statements of the Antiochean/Syrians and both Alexandrian Churches show that there is a measure of official inter-communion. I can't mention many major instances in case it causes trouble.

It is sufficient to say that there are may serious Orthodox bishops of both sides who believe that there is no theological difference between the EO and OO and that in cases of need there is therefore no objection to offering communion in economia.

It should still not be a matter of promiscuity but since the traditional and historic means of receiving Chalcedonians was simply by anathematising error, and since it is clear that the EO of the 21st century do not confess error in their acceptance of the Tome and Chalcedon, it seems to me that my dearest and great patrons would be working for reconciliation today rather than joining ROAC and HOCNA.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2003, 11:56:06 PM »

If anyone happened to be watching WGN this morning at 0100 Eastern Time (Midnight Central Time), he caught the Midnight Mass in Chicago, celebrated by His Eminence Cardinal Francis George.

What was interesting about it in terms of this thread is that His Eminence the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop Vsevolod was also in attendance, accompanied by another Ukrainian Orthodox cleric (didn't catch the second man's name).
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
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2003, 11:11:49 AM »

Quote
What was interesting about it in terms of this thread is that His Eminence the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop Vsevolod was also in attendance, accompanied by another Ukrainian Orthodox cleric (didn't catch the second man's name).

Archbishop Vsevolod is a real Orthodox bishop, part of the South Bound Brook, New Jersey-based Ukrainian Orthodox Church that's under the patriarch of Constantinople. An ethnic-Ukrainian born Orthodox from Poland (with a rich, wonderful, accented bass voice), he is one of the most Catholic-friendly Orthodox prelates around. He has celebrated Liturgy in the crypt of St Peter's in Rome, right above the saint's tomb.

Even though AFAIK his church celebrates Christmas using the Gregorian reckoning, he was free that night as Christmas Midnight Mass isn't an Eastern Orthodox tradition, unlike Easter, which liturgically is more prominent in the Byzantine Rite.

And he looks just like Santa Claus.  Grin
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,528


« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2003, 01:59:19 PM »

I didn't know that, Serge. And I don't see that it's particularly ground-breaking Wink You know full well that the Orthodox were pretty close to the Anglicans in the first part of the 20th century..... until, like (Saint?) Bp. Raphael, they actually learnt what the Anglicans believe. That caused things like, oh I don't know, (Saint?) Bp. Raphael to resign from the commission/committee/whatever that was suppose to help promote the bettering of Anglican-Orthodox relations. Archbishop Averky once let monophysites use a ROCOR altar (though Met. Philaret blew his stack). Bishops at one point took it upon themselves (without Synodal permission) to start consecrating Greek Old Calendarist Archimandrites so that they could have bishops. Again there was a hubbub (though one bishop--I don't recall if it was Vitaly or Averky--said that, while he wouldn't have done such a thing himself, he couldn't help but admire the bishop's boldness and was happy that the Greek O.C.'s would now have bishops again). The funny thing about those Greek O.C.'s was that they believed that the usage of the new calendar in itself deprived a group of grace--something ROCOR did not affirm. ROCOR had even accepted, by economy, some new calendarist parishes at the time and allowed them to stay New Calendar for a while because of pastoral consideratons. So these Old Calendarists came to get consecrated, and guess who one of the bishops there was? Yep, the same bishop that had the ROCOR new calendar parishes under him. The ROCOR later recognized these consecrations (after a small hubbub, but that's another story), and so did the Old Calendarist Church getting the bishops. And the list goes on...

I already expect some traditionalists to flip out when such things happen, and perhaps rightly so. What does suprise me is that so many of the "moderates" think that such anecdotal phenomena could somehow prove one's ecclesiological views.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2003, 02:02:26 PM by Paradosis » Logged

Large Marge sent me...
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2003, 02:52:22 PM »

Paradosis,

Quote
I already expect some traditionalists to flip out when such things happen, and perhaps rightly so. What does suprise me is that so many of the "moderates" think that such anecdotal phenomena could somehow prove one's ecclesiological views.

Which is quite right, but you can just as easily swap traditionalist and moderate and it would be just as true.  Cheesy
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2003, 03:30:31 PM »

bettering of Anglican-Orthodox relations. Archbishop Averky once let monophysites use a ROCOR altar (though Met. Philaret blew his stack).

Is that Archbishop Averky who wrote the commentary on the Apocalypse with the foreword by Fr Seraphim Rose?

Which Oriental Orthodox community used the altar?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2003, 11:59:52 PM »

Quote
Serge: And he looks just like Santa Claus.

True! I noticed that, too.

This is not really on-topic, but how come clerics with beards look so much more impressive than clerics without beards?  Grin  
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2003, 05:49:22 AM »

My daughters distinguish the various clergy they know in the British Orthodox Church by which LOTR characters they most appear like. My own parish priest is Gimli. Smiley
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2003, 06:06:17 AM »

Quote
Which Oriental Orthodox community used the altar?

Yours - Copts.

Quote
This is not really on-topic, but how come clerics with beards look so much more impressive than clerics without beards?

I don't know but think it's true at least in the Eastern rites.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2003, 07:44:53 AM »

Quote
This is not really on-topic, but how come clerics with beards look so much more impressive than clerics without beards?

I don't know but think it's true at least in the Eastern rites.

The reason (partly) is vestments.  For example, a Latin-style mitre and a clean-shaven bishop seem aesthetically compatible, and from a cultural and social standpoint, Western Europe has stressed less on a preference for beards, moustaches (which some people still swear by), and facial hair than the East.  In contrast, the Byzantine mitre and all the heaviness and splendour of Byzantine vestments seem to cry out for a bearded owner.  The sight of a beardless metropolitan wearing a crown always seems to violate my sense of aesthetics.  Most importantly, I think, is that the East has an intense focus on the monastic, from amongst whom the bishops are chosen.  This can only cause one to perceive a serious dissonance when an individual who wears the monastic klobuk happens to sport no beard--he looks too...clean, and hardly like one with the demeanour of an ascetic.  In the case of beardless bishops, His Grace can sometimes become something of an Archbishop 'call-me-Jean-Claude' Turcotte (Montreal's Cardinal-archbishop), if you catch my meaning.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: December 27, 2003, 07:46:03 AM by SamB » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2003, 09:38:15 AM »

My daughters distinguish the various clergy they know in the British Orthodox Church by which LOTR characters they most appear like. My own parish priest is Gimli. Smiley

And as they get older, will there be clerics who are like Legolas?  Grin Grin

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2003, 09:39:39 AM »

Quote
Serge: And he looks just like Santa Claus.

True! I noticed that, too.

This is not really on-topic, but how come clerics with beards look so much more impressive than clerics without beards?  Grin  


De gustibus...  Some do and some are impressive clean shaven. Smiley

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2003, 01:39:15 PM »

I can think of some clean-shaven clerics who were or are impressive, but not in appearance.

The bearded cleric just looks more . . . well . . . biblical.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2003, 02:21:52 PM »

Biblical as in? You have a picture bible? Smiley

They certainly look more Middle Earthy, which might be a useful evangelistic tool.

"Come to my Church. My priest looks like Gimli and my bishop looks like Gandalf"
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2003, 02:58:25 PM »

oh boy - there is only one possible response to that  PT
 :cwm41:
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
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,441



« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2003, 03:26:36 PM »

Biblical as in? You have a picture bible? Smiley

They certainly look more Middle Earthy, which might be a useful evangelistic tool.

"Come to my Church. My priest looks like Gimli and my bishop looks like Gandalf"

Bishops carrying a staff and all that will help with the image....but I wonder how many axes the priest has.... Grin Smiley

Ebor (we dwarves are natural sprinters...very dangerous over short distances..)
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2003, 03:40:33 PM »

It is traditional in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate that the deacon carry the liturgical axe in procession behind the priest. Is this not so in the Eastern Orthodox? Can so much Tradition have been forgotten among you?

At the point in the liturgy when the catechumens are dismissed surely the deacon cries out "The Axe, the Axe!!".

Or have you changed that as well?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2003, 12:36:20 AM »

my bishop looks like Gandalf"

Quite right, quite right.  My bishop:

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2003, 12:58:29 AM »

Biblical as in? You have a picture bible? Smiley

They certainly look more Middle Earthy, which might be a useful evangelistic tool.

"Come to my Church. My priest looks like Gimli and my bishop looks like Gandalf"

Biblical, as in "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard" (Lev. 19:27).  Wink

I think Gandalf looks like a Russian Orthodox priest.

I do see pictures when I read the Bible, BTW.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2003, 05:44:20 AM »

Biblical, as in "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard" (Lev. 19:27).  Wink

I thought that only applied to women?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2003, 08:58:29 AM »

One more thing - I just remembered that Valentin was a ROCOR bishop before starting ROAC. If ROCOR reduced him in rank to a layman after he left, then IIRC Anatoly Rusantsov is in the same position I said Mr Denisenko probably is. Sacramentally he'd still be a bishop but functionally he'd be a layman, so in both Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic eyes most of his sacramental acts would be null and void. (The two sides would disagree about the Liturgy - Eastern Orthodoxy would be harsher and say it's a big unknown as a non-Orthodox service; Western Catholicism would say it's valid but illicit.) I might be wrong in that Western Catholicism might see the sacramental gifts of bishops as irrevocable, unlike priests, who must be under a bishop.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2003, 04:19:44 PM »

Rdr.Serge,

Quote
Sacramentally he'd still be a bishop but functionally he'd be a layman, so in both Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic eyes most of his sacramental acts would be null and void. (The two sides would disagree about the Liturgy - Eastern Orthodoxy would be harsher and say it's a big unknown as a non-Orthodox service; Western Catholicism would say it's valid but illicit.) I might be wrong in that Western Catholicism might see the sacramental gifts of bishops as irrevocable, unlike priests, who must be under a bishop.

If memory serves, Roman Catholic teaching ultimatly makes all major orders "irrevocable", including the presbyterate.  That is to say, the only distinction they make (in the case of otherwise "valid" ordinations, whether episcopal, priestly, or to the diaconate) is between "licit" or "illicit" ones.  In this sense, the sacraments in RC teaching have an independence from "the Church"; though I think recent elaborations by the RCC in the ecclessiology department (most conspicuously in the documents of Vatican II) "correct" this a bit, since they broaden the definition of "the Church".

The ecclessiology of Vatican II as far as I understand it, is that the Papacy is of divine origin (nothing new there), excercising power by Divine right; existing ultimatly as the holder of all spiritual authority/juristiction, and as a centerpiece/homing beacon for the unity of "the Church".  As such, schism and heresy (by RC standards) become less an issue of being severed from "the Church" as being varying degrees of alienation from the Church's only source of legitimization and unity - it becomes mainly a moral problem, which is precisely why modern RC's have no problem believing that not all technically "unlawful" sacramental acts (such as are performed by those in schism) are sacreligious, let alone invalid, at least when there is no culpability on the part of said schismatics for their alienation from the "Apostolic See."  This is why they talk now in terms of "varying degrees of communion", and you don't see any official portrays of the Orthodox, or even many Protestants, as absolute aliens to "the Church."  Though, I think such an ecclessiology would say, that without the "divinely appointed visible head" (the Pope), and his various charisms, it is likely that schisms will only multiply amongst those who are seperated, or their errors may only continue to multiply with time, to the point that they will in fact become aliens to the Church (basically, little different from the heathen - though Vatican II also says such persons also have a "relationship" to the Church.)

Getting back to your main point/query...I think the only acts which a priest (or bishop for that matter) which are dependent upon their relationship to Rome, would be those directly involving juristiction/authority - that is to say, confession and holy matrimony.  However, given what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says on the ability of RC's to receive confession from an Orthodox Priest, and it's positive appraisal of the acts of Orthodox Churches in general, I would deduce that what could be read between the lines is that the RCC has implicitly given "faculties" to the Orthodox Churches, even though they have not submitted to the authority of Rome (which is the only rationale I can see to explain why the RCC, in theory, does not seek to make converts from Orthodoxy and only wants to see corporate re-unions.)

Seraphim
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2003, 10:21:41 AM »

Quote
If memory serves, Roman Catholic teaching ultimatly makes all major orders "irrevocable", including the presbyterate.  That is to say, the only distinction they make (in the case of otherwise "valid" ordinations, whether episcopal, priestly, or to the diaconate) is between "licit" or "illicit" ones.  In this sense, the sacraments in RC teaching have an independence from "the Church"; though I think recent elaborations by the RCC in the ecclessiology department (most conspicuously in the documents of Vatican II) "correct" this a bit, since they broaden the definition of "the Church".

The ecclessiology of Vatican II as far as I understand it, is that the Papacy is of divine origin (nothing new there), excercising power by Divine right; existing ultimatly as the holder of all spiritual authority/juristiction, and as a centerpiece/homing beacon for the unity of "the Church".  As such, schism and heresy (by RC standards) become less an issue of being severed from "the Church" as being varying degrees of alienation from the Church's only source of legitimization and unity - it becomes mainly a moral problem, which is precisely why modern RC's have no problem believing that not all technically "unlawful" sacramental acts (such as are performed by those in schism) are sacreligious, let alone invalid, at least when there is no culpability on the part of said schismatics for their alienation from the "Apostolic See."  This is why they talk now in terms of "varying degrees of communion", and you don't see any official portrayals of the Orthodox, or even many Protestants, as absolute aliens to "the Church."
 

Right, and this benevolence* is extended to both the Orthodox (of course) and to former Orthodox splinter churches not recognized by the Orthodox.

Quote
Though, I think such an ecclessiology would say, that without the "divinely appointed visible head" (the Pope), and his various charisms, it is likely that schisms will only multiply amongst those who are seperated, or their errors may only continue to multiply with time, to the point that they will in fact become aliens to the Church (basically, little different from the heathen - though Vatican II also says such persons also have a "relationship" to the Church.)

History seems to reinforce this - certainly with Protestantism but also with the fissiparosity of the (ex-)Orthodox fringe.

Quote
Getting back to your main point/query...I think the only acts which a priest (or bishop for that matter) which are dependent upon their relationship to Rome, would be those directly involving juristiction/authority - that is to say, confession and holy matrimony.  However, given what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says on the ability of RC's to receive confession from an Orthodox Priest, and it's positive appraisal of the acts of Orthodox Churches in general, I would deduce that what could be read between the lines is that the RCC has implicitly given "faculties" to the Orthodox Churches, even though they have not submitted to the authority of Rome (which is the only rationale I can see to explain why the RCC, in theory, does not seek to make converts from Orthodoxy and only wants to see corporate re-unions.)

The main question here, I think, is if Western Catholicism sees bishops as 'un-laicizable', to coin a word. Sacramentally they're bishops for ever, as are priests and deacons, but if deposed by their proper church authority - as Metropolitan Filaret was and possibly Bishop Valentin as well - are any of their acts seen as 'valid'?

One could argue that the permission for RCs to receive Orthodox sacraments (this is not OK'd by the Orthodox), which is only in emergencies, doesn't mean a de facto recognition of faculties, because in such situations an RC can approach even a suspended or laicized priest for Confession (a sacrament that usually requires jurisdiction as you say) and Anointing.

But I think the Western Catholic communion might agree (especially since 'the good parts' of Vatican II explicitly recognized the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches) that among themselves, among people not personally guilty of schism, yes, the Orthodox do have faculties. Fr Aidan Nichols basically says this in article linked on this page - that in their eyes, Orthodox bishops aren't just isolated cases of 'valid' orders but have apostolic authority over their flocks.

Now, because of that recognition, we go back to the main question: if they recognize the authority of the Orthodox in internal church matters, and the Orthodox laicize a bishop, as the Church of Russia did to Metropolitan Filaret/Michael Denisenko, then do they recognize that laicization?

I couldn't find the answer to the main question on Google last night.

So I kick the ball to this board's experts who happen to be under Pope John Paul II, Fr Deacon Lance and carpo-rusyn.

Eastern Orthodoxy (so-called 'world Orthodoxy') is much more clear-cut on this: if a bishop has been deposed by his proper church, functionally he's not a bishop anymore. If he leaves the Eastern Orthodox communion, ditto. In practice such men and the men they ordain probably would be received back economically, without reordination, if they did go back to their proper church, but while they are apart, they are seen by the Orthodox as non-Orthodox.

*Which they don't see as separating the sacraments from the Church but rather balancing the necessary one-true-church claim with evidence of apostolicity and grace juridically outside it. However, this theology has been abused like hell, as the proliferation of wacko 'independent Catholic' churches (vagantes) shows - their entire ecclesiology and sacramentology hang on the abuse of this.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2003, 11:25:51 AM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2003, 11:34:04 PM »

Biblical, as in "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard" (Lev. 19:27).  Wink

I thought that only applied to women?

PT

Ooh . . . not a nice picture!

It would explain the Israelite propensity for taking Canaanite wives, however!
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
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2003, 04:21:01 PM »

[However, given what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says on the ability of RC's to receive confession from an Orthodox Priest, and it's positive appraisal of the acts of Orthodox Churches in general, I would deduce that what could be read between the lines is that the RCC has implicitly given "faculties" to the Orthodox Churches, even though they have not submitted to the authority of Rome (which is the only rationale I can see to explain why the RCC, in theory, does not seek to make converts from Orthodoxy and only wants to see corporate re-unions.)]

I disagree  that the RCC implicitly "gives" faculties to EO clergy.  I think a better reading between the lines would be that the RCC recognizes that the EOx possess faculties already in and of themselves.  A very RC triumphalist would be to see the RCC as bestowing faculties on EO clerics.  

How very ultramontane of you Seraphim!  Grin

[The main question here, I think, is if Western Catholicism sees bishops as 'un-laicizable', to coin a word. Sacramentally they're bishops for ever, as are priests and deacons, but if deposed by their proper church authority - as Metropolitan Filaret was and possibly Bishop Valentin as well - are any of their acts seen as 'valid'?]

In the RCC when someone is ordained to the priesthood there is an ontological change.  They are a "priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek", this can never be taken away.

A priest needs to be given faculties by the local ordinary which (I'm pretty sure) govern that priest's ability to celebrate the sacraments, Eucharist, baptism, etc.  Some priests (such a religious order and missionaries) have universal faculties which means they can celebrate the sacraments no matter what diocese they find themselves in.  These faculties can be revoked by the ordinary or suspended.  There is a priest in Phila who was found to be guilty of molesting a minor.  That priest had his faculties suspended which means he couldn't celebrate any sacraments, though this priest did still say mass privately.  The priest's case has been referred to Rome and they will decide if he should be laicized.  This process doesn't remove the ontological change that took place at ordination but prevents the priest in question from celebrating the sacraments except of course the ability to baptize in extremis which every baptized Christian can do. The laicized cleric can kit himself out in alb, stole and chausable and celebrate mass but this would be illicit and outside the communion of the Church.  

I defer to Deacon Lance's judgement here.  I think the same is the case with bishops.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2003, 06:43:22 PM »

Thanks, carpo, but the question here isn't the ontological change in the ordained (I already covered that) but if the Roman communion recognizes it when an Orthodox church demotes a bishop to the lay state. IOW, are his ordinations of clergy done after the demotion seen as valid but illicit even though functionally the Orthodox see them as null and void? How does its position square with its recognition of authority of the Orthodox among themselves (which you described very well)?
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2003, 08:04:26 PM »

Serge

Oh sorry.  I would think that if the EO "demote" a bishop then the RCC would view it in a similar way, that is the person is no longer a bishop.  

[are his ordinations of clergy done after the demotion seen as valid but illicit even though functionally the Orthodox see them as null and void?]

If EO canon law sees any ordinations done by this demoted bishop as null and void then the RCC would follow suit.  Though I would add that this is just my opinion.  I'm trying to remember if there is any historical examples for this?

CR
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 #36 on: December 31, 2003, 09:33:24 PM »

[Oh sorry.  I would think that if the EO "demote" a bishop then the RCC would view it in a similar way, that is the person is no longer a bishop. ]

Didn't the Pope meet with the excommunicated Bishop Denisenko during his trip to Ukraine?  In fact,  Mr Denisenko has cordial relatinships with both the RC an UC churches in Ukraine in spite of the fact he was defrocked!

Orthodoc

 
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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2003, 11:42:19 PM »

[Didn't the Pope meet with the excommunicated Bishop Denisenko during his trip to Ukraine]

Sorry don't know who this fellow is.  Someone will enlighten me I'm sure.

CR
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 #38 on: January 01, 2004, 12:34:20 AM »

[Sorry don't know who this fellow is.  Someone will enlighten me I'm sure.]

The self proclaimed Patriarchate of the noncannonical UOC-KP.  

Orthodoc
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.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2004, 01:10:51 AM »

Quote
Oh sorry.  I would think that if the EO "demote" a bishop then the RCC would view it in a similar way, that is the person is no longer a bishop.  

If EO canon law sees any ordinations done by this demoted bishop as null and void then the RCC would follow suit.  Though I would add that this is just my opinion.

Thanks, carpo. That's what I thought.

Quote
Didn't the Pope meet with the excommunicated Bishop Denisenko during his trip to Ukraine?


I think so but it was rather the other way round - Michael Denisenko saw a PR golden opportunity and went out of his way to welcome the Pope. It both made him look good (friendly, charitable) and put him in the media spotlight as if he were the leader of the Orthodox in the Ukraine. (I understand the actual Orthodox head, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev, assumed the political posture of his church, the Church of Russia, and didn't meet the Pope during his trip.)

Quote
In fact,  Mr Denisenko has cordial relationships with both the RC and UC churches in Ukraine in spite of the fact he was defrocked!

That was my impression too - don't know about the RCs there but my understanding is he is allying with the UCs, playing the same Ukrainian nationalism card.

Quote
[Sorry don't know who this fellow is.  Someone will enlighten me I'm sure.]

The self proclaimed Patriarch of the noncannonical UOC-KP.

Quite right. Michael Denisenko, doing business as Patriarch Filaret, was once Metropolitan Filaret and actually was 1) an Orthodox bishop and 2) the head of the Church of Russia in the Ukraine (still the Ukraine's No. 1 denomination numerically) - the metropolitan of Kiev. I think he saw Ukrainian independence as an opportunity for career advancement - play the nationalism card and be a patriarch!
« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 01:15:49 AM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
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 #40 on: January 01, 2004, 12:20:17 PM »


Mr. Denisenko -


Filaret's story is quite typical for the stormly post-soviet period. This prominent church leader, after the election of Alexis II instead of him as patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus by the local council of 1990 contrary to all expectations, began a harsh opposition against his former colleagues in the Holy Synod. Originally repenting and swearing on the Gospel not to conduct schismatic activity he almost immediately upon his return from Moscow organized, with the support of the former president and father of Ukrainian independence, Leonid Kravchuk (some reports indicated they had nieghboring dachas), an independent church structure, the Ukrainian Orthodox church (Kiev patriarchate). At this time all the financial means of the Kievan metropolia, the richest in the RPTs, was transferred to his hands. Filaret was immediately recognized at the legal head of the Orthodox of Ukraine by the Kievan leaders, who announced a new course in the "emancipation from the vestiges of the soviet empire."

The paradox in this is that of all church leaders of the soviet era, really it was Filaret who most actively cooperated with the old authorities. Nowhere was the least church activity so suppressed "from above" as in Ukraine. Numerous cases are known when by Filaret's will priests were forbidden to minister because of church restoration work that was not sanctioned by the metropolitan.

Orthodoc
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.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2004, 01:27:08 PM »

A lot of people meet the Pope on his visits to various countries that doesn't necessarily imply that the Pope recognizes them.  The Pope met the Ukranian govt leaders but that doesn't mean he was endorsing them in anyway or their policies.

CR
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2004, 12:51:18 AM »


Mr. Denisenko -


Filaret's story is quite typical for the stormly post-soviet period. This prominent church leader, after the election of Alexis II instead of him as patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus by the local council of 1990 contrary to all expectations, began a harsh opposition against his former colleagues in the Holy Synod. Originally repenting and swearing on the Gospel not to conduct schismatic activity he almost immediately upon his return from Moscow organized, with the support of the former president and father of Ukrainian independence, Leonid Kravchuk (some reports indicated they had nieghboring dachas), an independent church structure, the Ukrainian Orthodox church (Kiev patriarchate). At this time all the financial means of the Kievan metropolia, the richest in the RPTs, was transferred to his hands. Filaret was immediately recognized at the legal head of the Orthodox of Ukraine by the Kievan leaders, who announced a new course in the "emancipation from the vestiges of the soviet empire."

The paradox in this is that of all church leaders of the soviet era, really it was Filaret who most actively cooperated with the old authorities. Nowhere was the least church activity so suppressed "from above" as in Ukraine. Numerous cases are known when by Filaret's will priests were forbidden to minister because of church restoration work that was not sanctioned by the metropolitan.

Orthodoc

This is interesting. My wife and I have some Ukrainian Orthodox friends. I will have to ask them what they know about Denisenko and what their opinions are.

Is it possible, however, that he was gambling on historical precedent? Haven't other autocephalous national churches seized their own autocephaly from their mother churches and even been excommunicated for a time?

Of course, I assume in those cases the whole church in the particular country went along with the program, rather than it becoming a national schism, as is apparently the case in Ukraine.
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
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 0.161 seconds with 71 queries.