OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 11:06:14 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  
Poll
Question: What would need to happen for the two branches of Orthodoxy to fully reunite?
Nothing - 7 (7.8%)
The EOs would need to become OOs in all doctrinal points - 2 (2.2%)
The OOs would need to become EOs in all doctrinal points - 12 (13.3%)
Only issues regarding doctrine would need to be reconciled - 9 (10%)
Issues regarding saints recognition & condemnation as well as doctrinal problems would need to be reconciled - 16 (17.8%)
Several other issues not listed above need to be resolved - 2 (2.2%)
A council of all Orthodox bishops would need to be called to resolve all issues due to their complex nature & how many there are - 37 (41.1%)
They should not unite - 5 (5.6%)
Total Voters: 90

Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Oriental Orthodox & Eastern Orthodox Unity  (Read 29206 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 28, 2010, 08:58:47 AM »

What do you mean by 'accept' and what do you mean by 'the Sixth Ecumenical Council'.

I mean what is the substance of what you expect to be accepted and what do you mean by accepted?

Clearly Leo of Rome did not accept everything that took place at Chalcedon. And a great many bishops after Chalcedon took a flexible view about what 'accepting' Chalcedon meant. So what does 'accept' mean to you?

Father Peter
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #136 on: May 28, 2010, 09:46:28 AM »

I think St. Dioscoros was anathematized by subsequent councils of the Chalcedonians.
The Preamble of the Definition of the Sixth Council:

Quote
Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods...and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian)...
The problem is that Chalcedon was convened against Eutyches, whom it condemned, but not Pope Dioscoros, who was being questioned about the exoneration of Eutyches at Ephesus II, which Council condemned the writings of Theodore, of Theodoret against the XII Chapters of St. Cyril, and the Epistle attributed to Ibas. How closely did they follow the straight path of the Holy and approved Fathers of Chalcedon, doing what Chalcedon did not do, and doing what Ephesus II did?

It followed it just fine. Chalcedon was convened against Dioscoros, hated of God, insofar as it rebuked his robbers' council and reversed his illegitimate judgments.

like his condemnations of the Three Chapters. Roll Eyes


Quote
Do you refuse to accept the Sixth Ecumenical Council?
I accept the Preamble of the Sixth Council, but not where it contradicts the Acts and Definition of the Fourth Council. In particular, given the issues of the Fifth Council, closer in time (and yet still a century afterwards), did not see fit to do what the Fathers of Chalcedon did not do.

Quote
Have you made your priest aware of this position?
Not sure it differs very much from his.  In Antioch And Egypt, we tend to have a different view on this matter, as our situation does not restrict the Non-Chalcedons to polemic constructs, but actual Chrisitans we live with.  So we have to actually deal with what they believe, rather than content ourselves with what prejudices would find convenient.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 09:47:46 AM by ialmisry » 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #137 on: May 28, 2010, 09:54:41 AM »

What do you mean by 'accept' and what do you mean by 'the Sixth Ecumenical Council'.

I mean what is the substance of what you expect to be accepted and what do you mean by accepted?

Clearly Leo of Rome did not accept everything that took place at Chalcedon. And a great many bishops after Chalcedon took a flexible view about what 'accepting' Chalcedon meant. So what does 'accept' mean to you?

Father Peter

For my part, the Definition of the Sixth Council I accept as infallible:
Quote
The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith.  But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.  Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this 345our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” the present holy and Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops.  Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers.  And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will.  For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius.  For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says:  “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own.  For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus:  “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows:  “For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says.  Preserving therefore the inconfused346ness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly.  Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

These things, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith.  Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen:  let them be anathematized.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.x.html
I accept the Acts, canons etc., but not as infallible.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 09:55:21 AM by ialmisry » 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 28, 2010, 10:00:18 AM »

Do you therefore consider the condemnation of St Severus to be of the infallible substance? In which case I see no possibility of reconciliation even though I accept as orthodox enough (not meant deprecatory) the dotrinal content you posted.

Father Peter
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #139 on: May 28, 2010, 10:09:20 AM »

Do you therefore consider the condemnation of St Severus to be of the infallible substance? In which case I see no possibility of reconciliation even though I accept as orthodox enough (not meant deprecatory) the dotrinal content you posted.

Father Peter

Fr. Peter- aren't the following words the exact phrase that you consider most heretical/ "Theodorean" in the Tome of Leo? : "For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #140 on: May 28, 2010, 10:16:17 AM »


like his condemnations of the Three Chapters. Roll Eyes

The persons of Ibas and Theodoret were rehabilitated, after condemning Nestorius. Nothing was done about Theodore.

Quote
Not sure it differs very much from his.  In Antioch And Egypt, we tend to have a different view on this matter, as our situation does not restrict the Non-Chalcedons to polemic constructs, but actual Chrisitans we live with.  So we have to actually deal with what they believe, rather than content ourselves with what prejudices would find convenient.

Or more likely the coziness stems from common oppression and isolation, the same reason why one occasionally hears of Melkite Catholics communing at EO parishes and vice versa. 
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 28, 2010, 10:20:57 AM »

Yes, but it is always a mistake to view documents as if they were all neutrally comparable. The 6th council must be viewed in relation to the 5th. Leo is in relation to the 3rd. The same words can and often do have different meanings.

But do you consider St Severus infallibly condemned?

Father Peter
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #142 on: May 28, 2010, 10:26:09 AM »


like his condemnations of the Three Chapters. Roll Eyes

The persons of Ibas and Theodoret were rehabilitated, after condemning Nestorius. Nothing was done about Theodore.

Quote
Not sure it differs very much from his.  In Antioch And Egypt, we tend to have a different view on this matter, as our situation does not restrict the Non-Chalcedons to polemic constructs, but actual Chrisitans we live with.  So we have to actually deal with what they believe, rather than content ourselves with what prejudices would find convenient.

Or more likely the coziness stems from common oppression and isolation, the same reason why one occasionally hears of Melkite Catholics communing at EO parishes and vice versa. 
That happens a lot because for a lot of us the attitude is a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome. If the Vatican and the Phanar want to engage in &#**ing contests, leave us out of it.  There is some sense that the Great Schism didn't solidify in Antioch until 1727.  And even then, there is some question of how signed on are the Melkites.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #143 on: May 28, 2010, 10:36:59 AM »

Do you therefore consider the condemnation of St Severus to be of the infallible substance? In which case I see no possibility of reconciliation even though I accept as orthodox enough (not meant deprecatory) the dotrinal content you posted.

Father Peter
Did Severus "blasphemously represent His [Christ's] flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation?"
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #144 on: May 28, 2010, 10:41:24 AM »

Of course not.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #145 on: May 28, 2010, 10:41:49 AM »

Yes, but it is always a mistake to view documents as if they were all neutrally comparable. The 6th council must be viewed in relation to the 5th. Leo is in relation to the 3rd. The same words can and often do have different meanings.

If the words from Leo's Tome are excused in light of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, why not likewise interpret Chalcedon (and St. Leo) in light of the Third (as the Council of Ephesus was explicitly upheld in the definition of Chalcedon)?

Quote
But do you consider St Severus infallibly condemned?

I consider Severus of Antioch infallibly condemned. His condemnation is proclaimed not only by councils but by Holy Fathers, hagiographies, and, perhaps most importantly, hymns of the Church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #146 on: May 28, 2010, 10:43:26 AM »

That happens a lot because for a lot of us the attitude is a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome. If the Vatican and the Phanar want to engage in &#**ing contests, leave us out of it.  There is some sense that the Great Schism didn't solidify in Antioch until 1727.  And even then, there is some question of how signed on are the Melkites.

Their perfidy notwithstanding, they definitely signed on.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,654



WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 28, 2010, 10:56:14 AM »

Then it seems to me that union is impossible.
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
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #148 on: May 28, 2010, 11:00:07 AM »

Then it seems to me that union is impossible.

Agreed. Saint Severus' Sainthood is proclaimed not only by councils, but by Holy Fathers, hagiographies, and, perhaps most importantly, hymns of the Church.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,723


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #149 on: May 28, 2010, 11:13:30 AM »

OK everyone, I'm locking the topic pursuant to forum rules which restrict polemical discussion about Chalcedon to the private forum.

Iconodule,

You started the polemics with reply #134, which called St. Dioscoros "hated of God."  Please read the rules of this section, written by Fr. Anastasios.  You have violated the rules, and this is not the first time you have violated forum rules.  You could have made your point without being nasty.  You've made it clear elsewhere that you consider us OO's to not be Orthodox.  If you want to dialogue with us, you need to be polite when it is in the public forums.  You can save the nastiness for the private forum.

John Morcos and Coptic Geek,

The topic of Chalcedon and possible unity have been explored here at OCnet a great deal.  You may want to read past threads on this.  As you can see, these discussions often end up polemical.  There is a private forum here at OCnet for polemical discussions, and if you want to read those, or participate, you can pm Fr. Chris and tell him you are interested in being admitted there.  Neither of you did anything wrong.  It's just that you are new here and you didn't see it coming.
  Smiley 
Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,723


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #150 on: May 29, 2010, 11:25:23 AM »

I awoke this morning to find that as I was sleeping, a member of our forum started more than one thread calling me a heretic and questioning my decision to lock this topic.  I thank Fr. Chris and Fr. George for moving those threads to the private forum.

I advise anyone who has a problem with any decision made by myself or another moderator to make a complaint using the report function, or they may pm Fr. George.

In the present case, I locked the thread because it was getting polemical.  Polemical discussions about Chalcedon are allowed, but they must go in the private forum.  The private forum was specifically set up to take such discussions, because they have a history of getting rather nasty.

The rule against polemical discussions about Chalcedon in the public forum was not promulgated by myself or by any other Oriental Orthodox.  It was set by Fr. Anastasios, who is Eastern Orthodox. 

Regarding Iconodule calling St. Dioscoros "hated of God," he is perfectly allowed to do so in the private forum, just as I or any other OO may call Leo of Rome "hated of God" in the private forum.  (Thankfully, neither I nor any other OO have resorted to using that sort of language when describing an EO saint, either in the private or public fora.)  No one, however, may use that language to describe each other's saints in any of the public fora.  Quoting that language from a council for academic purposes may be allowed, but Iconodule was using the phrase as his own words.

Likewise, I and other Oriental Orthodox may refer to St. Dioscoros with the title "St." just as Eastern Orthodox may refer to Leo of Rome with the same title. 

In other words, here in the public Oriental Orthodox section, I may refer to Dioscoros of Alexandria with the title "St." but Iconodule cannot call him "hated of God."  Similarly, Iconodule may refer to Flavian of Constantinople with the title "St." but I cannot call him "hated of God."  (Not that I would want to use that language.  Goodness gracious.)  In the private forum we can call each other's saints anything we want.

Again, I am not the one who made these rules.  Anyone who has a problem with them can take it up with those who are above me.  As stated above, the rules were put into place to deal with some very nasty behavior, which we would like to keep out of the public fora. 

I appreciate everyone's anticipated courtesy and cooperation.

Logged

Tags: Orthodox Unity unity Chalcedon 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  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 0.095 seconds with 46 queries.